http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090603/u-s-evangelicals-pessimistic-about-christianity-in-america/index.html
[The Christian Post] 9 June 2009--A survey of some of the top evangelical leaders in the nation found that while there is overwhelming optimism on the growth of Christianity in the world, there is mostly pessimism when it comes to the future of the faith in America.
“Evangelical leaders are very bullish on the future growth of Christianity, except in America,” said Leith Anderson, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
In the latest Evangelical Leaders Survey, released Tuesday, respondents said they overwhelmingly (94 percent) believe the number of Christians worldwide will increase in the next ten years. A mere four percent of respondents said the number of Christians will stay the same, while two percent said they are unsure.
No one predicted the number of Christians will decrease.
The expectations for Christianity’s growth, however, focused on the global south where the religion is currently blossoming.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Fitting sendoff for ACK prelate
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/607976/-/ujs349/-/
[Daily Nation] 9 June 2009--I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith,” was how Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi summed up his 31 years in the pulpit.
The quote from Second Timothy 4:7 was the theme of the retirement service of the fourth archbishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya on Sunday.
Pomp and colour marked the celebrations to honour the service of Dr Nzimbi at the All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi. And gifts flowed, including a brand new car to symbolically give the archbishop a smooth ride into retirement.
As the service committee had anticipated, hundreds of faithful gathered at the cathedral, and many followed the farewell service on screens from tents outside the church.
[Daily Nation] 9 June 2009--I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith,” was how Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi summed up his 31 years in the pulpit.
The quote from Second Timothy 4:7 was the theme of the retirement service of the fourth archbishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya on Sunday.
Pomp and colour marked the celebrations to honour the service of Dr Nzimbi at the All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi. And gifts flowed, including a brand new car to symbolically give the archbishop a smooth ride into retirement.
As the service committee had anticipated, hundreds of faithful gathered at the cathedral, and many followed the farewell service on screens from tents outside the church.
Stop the body count
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/evangelism/ministry_casualties_of_body_counts/
[sydneyanglicans.net] 9 June 2009--In Vietnam, the US army used body counts to show it was winning the war. Measuring progress was difficult but the body count made it simple. The public quickly doubted the veracity and usefulness of these figures.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US General Tommy Franks famously said, ‘We don’t do body counts.’ Maybe they were worried about bad publicity, maybe they had learned lessons about how to assess progress.
Churches do body counts. The most common description of a church is its size. How else could you measure progress? The body count is simple. More people are coming last year than this year - that’s got to be a win doesn’t it?
Here are some of the problems about measuring success by attendance
[sydneyanglicans.net] 9 June 2009--In Vietnam, the US army used body counts to show it was winning the war. Measuring progress was difficult but the body count made it simple. The public quickly doubted the veracity and usefulness of these figures.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US General Tommy Franks famously said, ‘We don’t do body counts.’ Maybe they were worried about bad publicity, maybe they had learned lessons about how to assess progress.
Churches do body counts. The most common description of a church is its size. How else could you measure progress? The body count is simple. More people are coming last year than this year - that’s got to be a win doesn’t it?
Here are some of the problems about measuring success by attendance
An Introduction to the Constitution and Canons - By Bishop Robert Duncan
http://www.united-anglicans.org/stream/2009/06/introduction-constitution-and-canons-bishop-robert.html
[The Common Cause Partnership] 9 June 2009--Editor's Note:Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Common Cause Partnership gives his view on the proposed Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America
How do we renew what was best about the tradition that produced us? How do we not repeat the patterns that subverted our life as a biblical and missionary province? How do we adapt learnings from the vibrant newer branches of the Anglican Communion? How do we restore our role as the bridge among and between the various denominational expressions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? How do we have both freedom and accountability? How can we be truly catholic, truly evangelical, truly charismatic and truly conciliar in a 21st century context – both North American and global? These are all questions that shaped the deliberations of the Governance Task Force, and the wider consultations the Governance Task Force undertook, and that resulted in the Constitution and Canons proposed for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America.
[The Common Cause Partnership] 9 June 2009--Editor's Note:Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Common Cause Partnership gives his view on the proposed Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America
How do we renew what was best about the tradition that produced us? How do we not repeat the patterns that subverted our life as a biblical and missionary province? How do we adapt learnings from the vibrant newer branches of the Anglican Communion? How do we restore our role as the bridge among and between the various denominational expressions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? How do we have both freedom and accountability? How can we be truly catholic, truly evangelical, truly charismatic and truly conciliar in a 21st century context – both North American and global? These are all questions that shaped the deliberations of the Governance Task Force, and the wider consultations the Governance Task Force undertook, and that resulted in the Constitution and Canons proposed for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America.
Bishop Gulick Extends Term in Forth Worth
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/6/8/bishop-gulick-extends-term-in-forth-worth
[The Living Church] 9 June 2009--The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., has agreed to extend a six-month term as provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth in The Episcopal Church until at least the conclusion of the annual convention scheduled for mid-November, according to a statement from the diocese.
The original agreement called for Bishop Gulick to remain as provisional bishop until the conclusion of General Convention in mid-July. In addition to serving as provisional Bishop of Fort Worth, Bishop Gulick also continues as Bishop of Kentucky, a position he has held since 1994. He has been dividing his time between the two dioceses.
[The Living Church] 9 June 2009--The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., has agreed to extend a six-month term as provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth in The Episcopal Church until at least the conclusion of the annual convention scheduled for mid-November, according to a statement from the diocese.
The original agreement called for Bishop Gulick to remain as provisional bishop until the conclusion of General Convention in mid-July. In addition to serving as provisional Bishop of Fort Worth, Bishop Gulick also continues as Bishop of Kentucky, a position he has held since 1994. He has been dividing his time between the two dioceses.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
A Plea for a Moratorium on the Ratification of the ACNA Constitution and Canons
By Robin G. Jordan
Readers of Anglicans Ablaze may have been following the discussion on Stand Firm in connection with the thread titled “Can Evangelicals Accept the Historic Episcopate?” In a number of posts Matt Kennedy argues that evangelicals can accept the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America without compromising their “evangelical principles.” This argument, while it may convince some evangelicals, does not convince others or even Anglicans who do not identify themselves as evangelicals.
The language of Article I, Section 3 is decidedly partisan. Both Bishop John Rodgers and Stephen Noll in their own way have acknowledged this. Bishop Rodgers has stated that the concern regarding the language of the section is "significant" and needs "to be resolved." Dr. Noll has described the language of the section as "prescriptive-normative" rather than "descriptive normative,"noting, "...maybe the Anglo-Catholic influence in America was more strongly felt in framing the Constitution." Philip Ashey has linked the section to the decidedly partisan Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution of the 1886 Episcopal House of Bishops. The arguments of a number of posters in support of the retention of the section point to its partisanship. Kennedy’s own suggestion that Anglo-Catholics might take offense at its removal from the Fundamental Declarations does the same.
Several posters have built the case that the doctrine articulated in the section is one over which Anglicans have historically been divided. Two traditions exist in Anglicanism. In the view of one tradition the episcopacy is seen as being of the essence of the Church. The most extreme proponents of this view have argued that the Church cannot exist without it. In the nineteenth century they unchurched a number of denominations solely on the basis that they did not have an episcopal form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the Church of Rome, the seventeenth century Catholic Reaction, the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, and Anglo-Catholicism.
In the view of the other tradition the episcopacy, while it is a very ancient and commendable form of church government, is not a divine institution. The Scriptures do not prescribe any particular form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the English Reformers, the Elizabethan Settlement, the Evangelical Revival, and classical evangelical Anglicanism.
Both traditions have historically been represented in North American Anglicanism, the first notably by Bishop Samuel Seabury and the second notably by Bishop William White. Both views have their contemporary proponents in and outside of North America.
The question has been raised whether such partisan statements of doctrine rightfully belong in the constitution and code of canons of a church that is comprised of not one but three orthodox theological streams—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical—and is supposed to embody Anglican comprehensiveness. Posters who embrace a vision of the Anglican Church in North America in which all three streams are given ample room to flourish have argued that they do not. On the other hand, posters who have been for a large part Anglo-Catholic in theological outlook have opposed their removal.
While the inclusion of partisan doctrinal statements in the ACNA constitution and code of canons is a serious problem, it represents the tip of the iceberg. It is one of a number of problems that are manifesting themselves in the ACNA. Some of these problems are connected to the provisions of the constitution and canons; others are not. These problems include but are not limited to:
· The abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in church government and the election of bishops, including the primate.
· The centralization of power in the national church, in the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, the College of Bishops, and the Archbishop.
· A revival of prelacy and authoritarian forms of church government.
· The revival of an episcopal patronage system and the problems and abuses inherent in such a system.
· A resurgence of clericism and the unbiblical subordination of the laity to the bishops and clergy.
· A lack of any safeguards against episcopal and clerical power and their abuse.
· The inadequate treatment of the laity as full partners and stakeholders in the church.
· A significant reduction in the autonomy of the diocese, primarily manifest in the College of Bishops’ election of diocesan and auxiliary bishops and the canons’ arrogation to the national church powers and functions that the diocese has historically exercised and which the constitution does not delegate to the national church or prohibit to the diocese.
· The canons’ arrogation to a titular archbishop of powers and functions, including metropolitan authority, which the constitution does not give him.
· A weak commitment to the local congregation’s ownership of local church property evident in constitutional and canonical provisions permitting a diocese to hold property in trust.
The large role that the ACNA constitution and code of canons gives to bishops is surprising since serious theological disputes between congregations and clergy and their bishops and the abuse of episcopal power were high on the lists of reasons that congregations and clergy left The Episcopal Church, establishing the need for a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. The growing centralization of power and the encroachment of the national church upon the autonomy of the diocese are major causes for concern of orthodox Anglicans remaining in The Episcopal Church. So is the Presiding Bishop’s arrogation of powers and functions that the church’s constitution and canons does not give her. With TEC suing bishops, clergy, and other church leaders and even members of the congregations that have left TEC and in some cases pursuing criminal charges against them, one would have expected a stronger commitment to a local congregation’s ownership of property.
Checks and balances and other safeguards are noticeably missing from the ACNA constitution and code of canons. The lessons that the leaders of the ACNA have learned from the events of the past forty years are not what we might have hoped that they would learn. For example, the ACNA canons contain a provision that enables a bishop to request the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate suspected rumors in respect to his character. This provision has a high potential for abuse. It could be used to suppress legitimate dissent. The argument that one hears from the more enthusiastic supporters of the ACNA that the ACNA has godly bishops while TEC does not, is rather thin, and offers little comfort.
Both the ACNA constitution and code of canons need a complete overhaul and a major revision. Refusing to ratify the two documents until they are overhauled and revised is the only way to ensure that they are changed. Dioceses that want to see changes in the documents but choose to ratify them are going to discover that the changes they desire will not be forthcoming. Only a small number of changes were made in the documents at the April meeting of the Provincial Council. The paucity of these changes suggests that the ACNA leadership has an investment in keeping the documents as they are. If the ACNA leadership is not inclined to change them before ratification, they are certainly not likely to become more inclined to change them once they are ratified. Hence, the need for a moratorium on their ratification until they can be examined thoroughly and needed alterations and additions made.
Readers of Anglicans Ablaze may have been following the discussion on Stand Firm in connection with the thread titled “Can Evangelicals Accept the Historic Episcopate?” In a number of posts Matt Kennedy argues that evangelicals can accept the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America without compromising their “evangelical principles.” This argument, while it may convince some evangelicals, does not convince others or even Anglicans who do not identify themselves as evangelicals.
The language of Article I, Section 3 is decidedly partisan. Both Bishop John Rodgers and Stephen Noll in their own way have acknowledged this. Bishop Rodgers has stated that the concern regarding the language of the section is "significant" and needs "to be resolved." Dr. Noll has described the language of the section as "prescriptive-normative" rather than "descriptive normative,"noting, "...maybe the Anglo-Catholic influence in America was more strongly felt in framing the Constitution." Philip Ashey has linked the section to the decidedly partisan Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution of the 1886 Episcopal House of Bishops. The arguments of a number of posters in support of the retention of the section point to its partisanship. Kennedy’s own suggestion that Anglo-Catholics might take offense at its removal from the Fundamental Declarations does the same.
Several posters have built the case that the doctrine articulated in the section is one over which Anglicans have historically been divided. Two traditions exist in Anglicanism. In the view of one tradition the episcopacy is seen as being of the essence of the Church. The most extreme proponents of this view have argued that the Church cannot exist without it. In the nineteenth century they unchurched a number of denominations solely on the basis that they did not have an episcopal form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the Church of Rome, the seventeenth century Catholic Reaction, the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, and Anglo-Catholicism.
In the view of the other tradition the episcopacy, while it is a very ancient and commendable form of church government, is not a divine institution. The Scriptures do not prescribe any particular form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the English Reformers, the Elizabethan Settlement, the Evangelical Revival, and classical evangelical Anglicanism.
Both traditions have historically been represented in North American Anglicanism, the first notably by Bishop Samuel Seabury and the second notably by Bishop William White. Both views have their contemporary proponents in and outside of North America.
The question has been raised whether such partisan statements of doctrine rightfully belong in the constitution and code of canons of a church that is comprised of not one but three orthodox theological streams—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical—and is supposed to embody Anglican comprehensiveness. Posters who embrace a vision of the Anglican Church in North America in which all three streams are given ample room to flourish have argued that they do not. On the other hand, posters who have been for a large part Anglo-Catholic in theological outlook have opposed their removal.
While the inclusion of partisan doctrinal statements in the ACNA constitution and code of canons is a serious problem, it represents the tip of the iceberg. It is one of a number of problems that are manifesting themselves in the ACNA. Some of these problems are connected to the provisions of the constitution and canons; others are not. These problems include but are not limited to:
· The abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in church government and the election of bishops, including the primate.
· The centralization of power in the national church, in the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, the College of Bishops, and the Archbishop.
· A revival of prelacy and authoritarian forms of church government.
· The revival of an episcopal patronage system and the problems and abuses inherent in such a system.
· A resurgence of clericism and the unbiblical subordination of the laity to the bishops and clergy.
· A lack of any safeguards against episcopal and clerical power and their abuse.
· The inadequate treatment of the laity as full partners and stakeholders in the church.
· A significant reduction in the autonomy of the diocese, primarily manifest in the College of Bishops’ election of diocesan and auxiliary bishops and the canons’ arrogation to the national church powers and functions that the diocese has historically exercised and which the constitution does not delegate to the national church or prohibit to the diocese.
· The canons’ arrogation to a titular archbishop of powers and functions, including metropolitan authority, which the constitution does not give him.
· A weak commitment to the local congregation’s ownership of local church property evident in constitutional and canonical provisions permitting a diocese to hold property in trust.
The large role that the ACNA constitution and code of canons gives to bishops is surprising since serious theological disputes between congregations and clergy and their bishops and the abuse of episcopal power were high on the lists of reasons that congregations and clergy left The Episcopal Church, establishing the need for a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. The growing centralization of power and the encroachment of the national church upon the autonomy of the diocese are major causes for concern of orthodox Anglicans remaining in The Episcopal Church. So is the Presiding Bishop’s arrogation of powers and functions that the church’s constitution and canons does not give her. With TEC suing bishops, clergy, and other church leaders and even members of the congregations that have left TEC and in some cases pursuing criminal charges against them, one would have expected a stronger commitment to a local congregation’s ownership of property.
Checks and balances and other safeguards are noticeably missing from the ACNA constitution and code of canons. The lessons that the leaders of the ACNA have learned from the events of the past forty years are not what we might have hoped that they would learn. For example, the ACNA canons contain a provision that enables a bishop to request the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate suspected rumors in respect to his character. This provision has a high potential for abuse. It could be used to suppress legitimate dissent. The argument that one hears from the more enthusiastic supporters of the ACNA that the ACNA has godly bishops while TEC does not, is rather thin, and offers little comfort.
Both the ACNA constitution and code of canons need a complete overhaul and a major revision. Refusing to ratify the two documents until they are overhauled and revised is the only way to ensure that they are changed. Dioceses that want to see changes in the documents but choose to ratify them are going to discover that the changes they desire will not be forthcoming. Only a small number of changes were made in the documents at the April meeting of the Provincial Council. The paucity of these changes suggests that the ACNA leadership has an investment in keeping the documents as they are. If the ACNA leadership is not inclined to change them before ratification, they are certainly not likely to become more inclined to change them once they are ratified. Hence, the need for a moratorium on their ratification until they can be examined thoroughly and needed alterations and additions made.
Basic etiquette for cross-cultural ministry
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/marketing/basic_etiquette_for_cross_cultural_ministry/
[sydneyanglicans.net] 6 Jun 2009-- have been surprised to discover that many Sydney Anglicans are not aware of the basic rules when relating to people of other languages and cultures. Our best attempts to reach out cross-culturally can be undermined by not appreciating and understanding these.
1. “They” are not deaf.
When someone from a non-English-speaking background is trying to understand what you are saying, raising the volume of your voice does not help. People of cultures other than your’s are not cursed with deaf ears. You may just need to be aware that the Aussie accent can make it challenging to understand your English. Even friends who have studied English overseas before coming to Australia can struggle, as they may have learned English taught in an American or British or other accent.
Even Christian ministers can be guilty of this. I was shocked to observe a fellow minister attempt to engage a Thai university student in conversation, and after repeating himself twice (the second time at higher volume), roll his eyes, huff and walk off in disgust when the young man failed to fully comprehend him.
[sydneyanglicans.net] 6 Jun 2009-- have been surprised to discover that many Sydney Anglicans are not aware of the basic rules when relating to people of other languages and cultures. Our best attempts to reach out cross-culturally can be undermined by not appreciating and understanding these.
1. “They” are not deaf.
When someone from a non-English-speaking background is trying to understand what you are saying, raising the volume of your voice does not help. People of cultures other than your’s are not cursed with deaf ears. You may just need to be aware that the Aussie accent can make it challenging to understand your English. Even friends who have studied English overseas before coming to Australia can struggle, as they may have learned English taught in an American or British or other accent.
Even Christian ministers can be guilty of this. I was shocked to observe a fellow minister attempt to engage a Thai university student in conversation, and after repeating himself twice (the second time at higher volume), roll his eyes, huff and walk off in disgust when the young man failed to fully comprehend him.
Building Healthy Churches
http://acl.asn.au/building-healthy-churches/
[Anglican Church League] 6 Jun 2009--The audio files from the just-concluded Toronto Pastors Fellowship conference are now available. The theme?’Building Healthy Churches’.
Mark Dever and Matt Schmucker were the main speakers. (h/t Tim Challies.)
[Anglican Church League] 6 Jun 2009--The audio files from the just-concluded Toronto Pastors Fellowship conference are now available. The theme?’Building Healthy Churches’.
Mark Dever and Matt Schmucker were the main speakers. (h/t Tim Challies.)
The marks of a true church are seen in ACNA - Bishop John Ellison
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11536#more-11536
[Anglican Mainstream] 6 Jun 2009--As I have been thinking about the first Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) I have wondered how leaders, especially those bishops in the Church of England who have been invited, will in fact respond. Will we as a church make sure we are represented? My firm conviction is that the ACNA shows the marks of the true church as affirmed by the Nicene and the Niceno Constantinoplan Creeds, that it to say apostolicity, catholicity, holiness and unity.
1. The mark of apostolicity. Then as now apostolicity links the contemporary church with the Apostles of the New Testament and ensures that the church is both earthed historically as well as establishing the vital link of continuity. To speak of apostolicity is to affirm that there is a clearly definable content to the Bible which is not ours to tamper with. The ACNA in its commitment to Scripture and apostolic teaching is clearly worthy of our encouragement and support.
2. The mark of catholicity. Catholicity speaks to us of the church worldwide across national and international boundaries, as well as temporally across the centuries. “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church”, famously wrote Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. Here is the vital safeguard against parochialism, being concerned only with the local and negligent of the wider church catholic. “Those to whom God is Father, the church may also be Mother”, wrote John Calvin (Institutes 4.1.1) He added “One may not put asunder what God has joined together”. As English Christians we should rejoice in the coming together of so many different expressions of North American Anglicanism embracing the vision of both Ignatius and John Calvin. At a time when TEC is sadly but relentlessly turning its back on the wider Anglican Communion, we should be glad to know of the continuing witness to the church both catholic and reformed that is represented within the ACNA and give it our support.
Bishop John Ellison is the former Bishop of the Iglesia Anglicana Paraguaya, a diocese of the Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.
[Anglican Mainstream] 6 Jun 2009--As I have been thinking about the first Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) I have wondered how leaders, especially those bishops in the Church of England who have been invited, will in fact respond. Will we as a church make sure we are represented? My firm conviction is that the ACNA shows the marks of the true church as affirmed by the Nicene and the Niceno Constantinoplan Creeds, that it to say apostolicity, catholicity, holiness and unity.
1. The mark of apostolicity. Then as now apostolicity links the contemporary church with the Apostles of the New Testament and ensures that the church is both earthed historically as well as establishing the vital link of continuity. To speak of apostolicity is to affirm that there is a clearly definable content to the Bible which is not ours to tamper with. The ACNA in its commitment to Scripture and apostolic teaching is clearly worthy of our encouragement and support.
2. The mark of catholicity. Catholicity speaks to us of the church worldwide across national and international boundaries, as well as temporally across the centuries. “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church”, famously wrote Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. Here is the vital safeguard against parochialism, being concerned only with the local and negligent of the wider church catholic. “Those to whom God is Father, the church may also be Mother”, wrote John Calvin (Institutes 4.1.1) He added “One may not put asunder what God has joined together”. As English Christians we should rejoice in the coming together of so many different expressions of North American Anglicanism embracing the vision of both Ignatius and John Calvin. At a time when TEC is sadly but relentlessly turning its back on the wider Anglican Communion, we should be glad to know of the continuing witness to the church both catholic and reformed that is represented within the ACNA and give it our support.
Bishop John Ellison is the former Bishop of the Iglesia Anglicana Paraguaya, a diocese of the Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.
New Westminster – New Gospel; the ANiC trial
http://www.anglicanspread.org/?p=203
[SPREAD] 6 Jun 2009--Court cases between orthodox parishes and revisionist dioceses have, sadly, become something of a commonplace in North America, but the current court battle in the Supreme Court of British Columbia between four Anglican Network in Canada parishes, including St John’s Shaughnessy, and the Anglican Church of Canada’s Diocese of New Westminster led by Bishop Michael Ingham is proving to be very revealing.
This is the first time a Canadian court has been asked to rule on the question of overall control of Anglican church property. The trial itself began on 25th May and has some time to go, with judgement not expected until late summer, but whether they win or lose, the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) has already done orthodox Anglicans – if they take notice - a great service by this bold decision to take a legal stand.
The ANiC parishes’ case is essentially very simple; that the Diocese of New Westminster under Bishop Michael Ingham no longer holds to the central doctrines of the Christian faith; it has reinvented the gospel and the presenting issue, the blessing of same sex unions, is simply a symptom of this deeper malaise. In evidence at the trial on day three , a member of one of the ANiC congregations spoke of her shock as far back as 1994 when Bishop Michael Ingham denied the uniqueness of Jesus as the only saviour and in 1997 he subsequently enlarged on this theme in his book ‘Mansions of the Spirit’. As members of the ANiC, they are aligned with the orthodox majority in the Anglican Communion through the GAFCON movement and see that they have a duty to ensure that historic assets are protected and held in trust for orthodox Anglican ministry. In essence, their argument turns on a confessional understanding of the church – that a valid Anglican Church is one which is faithful to historic and orthodox Anglican doctrine and practice.
[SPREAD] 6 Jun 2009--Court cases between orthodox parishes and revisionist dioceses have, sadly, become something of a commonplace in North America, but the current court battle in the Supreme Court of British Columbia between four Anglican Network in Canada parishes, including St John’s Shaughnessy, and the Anglican Church of Canada’s Diocese of New Westminster led by Bishop Michael Ingham is proving to be very revealing.
This is the first time a Canadian court has been asked to rule on the question of overall control of Anglican church property. The trial itself began on 25th May and has some time to go, with judgement not expected until late summer, but whether they win or lose, the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) has already done orthodox Anglicans – if they take notice - a great service by this bold decision to take a legal stand.
The ANiC parishes’ case is essentially very simple; that the Diocese of New Westminster under Bishop Michael Ingham no longer holds to the central doctrines of the Christian faith; it has reinvented the gospel and the presenting issue, the blessing of same sex unions, is simply a symptom of this deeper malaise. In evidence at the trial on day three , a member of one of the ANiC congregations spoke of her shock as far back as 1994 when Bishop Michael Ingham denied the uniqueness of Jesus as the only saviour and in 1997 he subsequently enlarged on this theme in his book ‘Mansions of the Spirit’. As members of the ANiC, they are aligned with the orthodox majority in the Anglican Communion through the GAFCON movement and see that they have a duty to ensure that historic assets are protected and held in trust for orthodox Anglican ministry. In essence, their argument turns on a confessional understanding of the church – that a valid Anglican Church is one which is faithful to historic and orthodox Anglican doctrine and practice.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
An ACNA Constitution – An Evangelical View: A Reply to Bishop John Rodgers
By Robin G. Jordan
As much as I respect Bishop John Rodgers, I must strongly disagree with the position he has taken on the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA. Here is why.
The Provincial Assembly is a titular body. Beyond ratification of the legislative acts of the Council the Assembly has no real powers: It can discuss matters of faith and mission and make recommendations. The limitation of its powers to the ratification of constitutional changes and canons does not eliminate any susceptibility to political maneuvering and manipulation. Lobbying and pressure groups can persuade the delegates of diocese to vote against the interests of the diocese just as easily in the Assembly as they did in the General Convention. The Provincial Council is also susceptible to such maneuvering and manipulation. The form of ecclesiastical governance and modes of ecclesiastical and primatial election that the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA establish in actuality make it easier for one faction to dominate the ACNA and to establish its hegemony over the church. Abolishing the Assembly, transforming the Council into a Provincial Synod and the Executive Committee into a Provincial Executive Council, increasing the size of the delegation of each diocese to the Synod in proportion to the total ASA of the diocese, capping the size of the diocesan delegations to keep the Synod from becoming too large and unwieldy a body, and transferring the ratification of constitution changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses would create important safeguards that are missing from the proposed constitution and code of canons. They would be a major step toward the avoidance of the replication in the ACNA of conditions that exist in TEC. All of these recommended changes to the proposed constitution and code of canons were submitted to the ACNA Governance Task Force but none of them were incorporated in the few amendments that the Governance Task Force did recommend to the Council in April.
If the groups of congregations that are meeting in Bedford, Texas this month do not sign the proposed constitution and code of canons, it does not mean as Bishop Rodgers suggests that there will be no church. Instead of these two highly flawed documents they can adopt resolutions establishing a new Governance Task Force to prepare a new draft constitution and code of canons for the ACNA and an Interim Instrument of Governance to provide temporary structure and governance for the ACNA until such constitution and code of canons have been drafted, studied, revised, adopted, and ratified.
Anyone who has worked with people in crisis knows that the crisis gives to the people it is affecting incentive or motivation to change. Remove the crisis and those affected by the crisis loose their incentive or motivation to change. Crises put people in a state of disequilibria and they will seek to regain their equilibrium. Once they have regained their equilibrium either by the removal of the crisis or by adjustment to the crisis, their incentive or motivation for change evaporates. Ratification of the proposed constitution and code of canons would remove the crisis that some people are experiencing over the prospect of these two documents not being ratified. Whatever incentive or motivation they may have to support any changes in the two documents would disappear.
From their actions the ACNA Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council give no indication of any real desire upon their part to make any substantive changes in the proposed constitution and code of canons related doctrinal, governance, and other concerns. While individual members of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have shown themselves open to listening to concerns, the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have collectively shown themselves unwilling to countenance substantive changes in these two documents in connection with these concerns. Ratifying the proposed constitution and code of canons is highly unlikely to make the two bodies more amenable to substantive changes in the two documents in respect to such concerns. The notion that these concerns can be addressed and the provisions of the constitution and code of canons amended after the proposed constitution and code of canons are ratified ring hollow. The window of opportunity for revising these two documents is now. That window of opportunity will slam shut as soon as they are ratified.
Having secured the ratification of the existing documents what incentive or motivation does the Governance Task Force or the Provincial Council have to revise them? Once they are ratified, the task of making much needed revisions will be much more difficult and much more divisive. I can hear the arguments already. “If you were willing to ratify them, why aren’t you willing to accept them as they are?” “You signed them so why are you wanting to change them so soon?” And so forth. As I have noted, a segment of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council is resistant to any major changes in the substance of the constitution and the code of canons and they appear to have the ear of the other members of these bodies. Their resistance is not likely to disappear. Instead it is likely to grow. This resistance to any change in the two documents is not confined to these bodies. The result will be increasing tension between proponents of revision of the documents and opponents to any change in documents and may eventually lead to a major split in the ACNA. It is better to deal with the concerns related to the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons now than put them off to later.
Is it really too late to make changes at this point? The language of the Fundamental Declarations may be the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement but that does not make it representative of all orthodox North American Anglicans, only those who were represented on the drafting group that drew up the statement and those represented in the Common Cause Leadership Council that adopted the statement. What it does suggest that at least one orthodox Anglican theological stream was not adequately represented on that drafting group or in the adopting Common Cause Leadership Council. If one carefully examines the language of the Fundamental Declarations, one thing is apparent. They were written to accommodate the Anglo-Catholic position on a number of matters—the Councils of the Church, the Anglican formularies–the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer, and the historic episcopate. They do not display the same sensitivity toward the Evangelical position upon these matters. As Ephraim Radner has pointed to our attention, they make room for other sources of authority beside the Articles and the Prayer Book.
Bishop Rodgers claims that the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the ACNA proposed constitution was not intended to set forth the “esse” position on the historic episcopate. Whatever the intentions of the drafters of the Common Cause Theological Statement from which the Fundamental Declarations were taken, this section is open to the interpretation as representing that position: “…a godly historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic doctrine and practice….” “Inherent” means “essential” and “essential” means “of, constituting of a thing’s essence” and “an indispensable element.” In other words, “a godly historic episcopate” constitutes a part of the essence of the apostolic doctrine and practice; it is an indispensable element of that doctrine and practice. This is certainly open to interpretation as expressive of the “esse” position, a doctrinal position over which orthodox Anglicans have historically divided and over which they continue to be divided to this day. In a church that is supposed to be committed to providing a home for all three orthodox Anglican theological streams such a doctrinal position is out of place. In response to the assertion that reading Article I, Section 3 of the ACNA constitution as a statement of the “esse” position on the historic episcopate is a misinterpretation of that section, it must also be noted that any provision of a constitution or canon that is open to two or more interpretations is in need of revision: its language is not clear or specific enough to prevent it from being susceptible to more than one interpretation.
It must also be noted that two changes have already been made in the Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations now refer to the 1571 Articles instead of the 1562 Articles. The affirmation of the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were dropped from the Fundamental Declarations and placed in the Preface where they are not as binding upon the ACNA as they would be in the Fundamental Declarations. The explanation that was offered Stephen Noll for this change was that the Fundamental Declarations were more ancient than the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, an apparent reference to the positions that the Fundamental Declarations take on the Councils of the Church, the historic episcopate, and the like. More plainly put, the ACNA has chosen to adopt the Catholic position on these matters over the Evangelical position due to the supposed antiquity of that position even though the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism--the Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Settlement—rejected the Catholic position as not only contrary to the word of God but also to the writings of the Church Fathers, and conservative Evangelicals reject this position to this day.
It must be further noted that Evangelicals have not being calling for the adoption of Evangelical positions on such matters but positions on which Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are not historically divided and upon which both theological streams agree. If the ACNA is to be truly a comprehensive church for all three orthodox theological streams in North American Anglicanism, then the language of the Fundamental Declarations needs to be much more comprehensive. For example, one suggestion for an alternative version of Article I, Section 3 of the proposed constitution is as follows. It is a restatement of parts of the Preface to the 1550 Ordinal and Resolution 11 of the third Lambeth Conference, staying fairly close to the original wording. It is one of several similar proposals, the major difference being that it is wordier than these proposals:
“We take our place with generations of Anglicans in recognizing that ‘from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” which “Offices” are always to be held in ‘reverent estimation’; and join with the 1888 Lambeth Conference in expressing the opinion that “the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church” supplies an important part of the basis on which approach may be made toward the reunification of the Church.
The concerns that have been presented to the Governance Task Force do not represent those of isolated individuals but of groups in and outside of the ACNA. Some of these groups identify themselves as Evangelical in their theological orientation and others do not but nonetheless share the concerns of their Evangelical brothers and sisters. Their concerns go beyond the language of the Fundamental Declarations. They ask why have the drafters of the proposed constitution and code of canons abandoned a two hundred and twenty-five odd year tradition in North American Anglicanism of a diocese electing its own bishops, a practice that not only has its roots in the practice of the early Church but is also a fundamental component of diocesan autonomy at a time when conservative bishops in the Episcopal Church are fighting to preserve the autonomy of the diocese in that church? . Why have they turned their backs on the centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church and the episcopal and primatial nomination and election process at a time when Roman Catholics are calling for lay involvement in the very same areas of their church due to recent disclosures in that church? Why do the proposed code of canons give all kinds of powers and functions to the Archbishop of the ACNA, treat him as a metropolitan, and require canonical obedience to the Archbishop from the other bishops of the church when the proposed constitution gives very limited powers and functions to the Archbishop and does not give him metropolitan authority over the other bishops of the church? These questions represent just a few of the concerns that they have been voicing. Space prevents me from listing all of them.
To those like myself who have examined similar ecclesiastical structures and ways of operating to the ones that the proposed constitution and code of canons would impose upon the ACNA, evaluated their merits, and weighed their short-term and long-term ramifications, these so-called “new ways” do not “bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise.” They suffer from their own particular set of problems as well as are susceptible to problems that beset more familiar patterns of structure and governance. There is an old proverbial saying: “It is better to deal with the devil you do know than the one you don’t know.” The more familiar patterns of structure and governance do have their share of problems but they are problems that are understood and can be readily dealt with.
The so-called “new ways” bring with them a host of problems that are not yet fully understood and may not prove as easy to deal with. They not only substantially restrict the autonomy of the diocese but they also greatly reduce the role of the laity in church government and number of other areas. While the proposed constitution reserves to the dioceses the powers that the constitution does not delegate to the province church or prohibit to the dioceses, the proposed code of canons takes powers that dioceses normally exercise and which the constitution does not delegate to the province and arrogates them to the province. The centralization of authority is a pattern that runs throughout the canons. Despite constitutional and canonical provisions that appear at first glance to preserve the autonomy of the diocese, so is the restriction of diocesan autonomy. A number of provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons reveal a decided bias against lay participation in such major decisions as the choice of a bishop or a primate. While bishops and clergy have largely been responsible for the drift of the Episcopal Church away from orthodoxy, the proposed constitution and code of canons treat the laity as the weak link in the chain.
The question has been raised as to why those who are expressing their reservations about the proposed constitution and code of canons and calling for substantive changes in these documents have not said anything before now. The reality is that they did draw the attention of the Governance Task Force to troublesome provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons within the extremely limited time that was permitted for public comment. Interested parties were given no opportunity to study the draft of the provisional constitution and canons that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted in December 2008. They were not released for public comment until after they were adopted. Interested parties were given seventeen days to study the documents that the Common Cause Leadership Council, acting as the provisional Provincial Council, adopted with some amendments as the finalized draft of the proposed constitution and code canons to be presented for ratification at the Inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas this month. At the time that the documents were released for public comment, Bishop Bob Duncan said pretty much what Bishop Rodgers has said. The documents were not perfect. They could be fixed later. Indeed, this has become a favorite talking point of leaders and proponents of the ACNA. They keep promising a better constitution and code of canons will be adopted at a later date if people accept the existing documents. Bishop Rodgers is really not saying anything new.
It may be helpful to read what was the experience of one individual who shared his concerns with his bishop and posted an account of what happened on the Internet. He was told that the way that North American Anglicans have historically choosing their bishops was “an innovation” and not the practice that the canons were imposing upon new dioceses and commending to founding entities that elect their bishops. The practice of the College of Bishop’s choosing the primate of the province, as well as the bishops of the dioceses, he was told would bring the ACNA in line with the rest of the Anglican Communion. The bishop in question failed to mention that the practice that he dismissed as an “innovation” had its roots in the practice of the early Church and had been preserved in the English practice of the canons of the cathedral chapter electing the bishop of the vacant see. The Anglican Communion has as many ways of choosing bishops and primates as it has provinces, and in the case of bishops, even dioceses. This anecdote suggests that at least one bishop has sought to put a lid on any dissent from the provisions of the existing documents and further suggests a vested interest in these documents.
Another anecdote also points to why some people have not taken issue with the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons. Another individual shared the view on the Internet that he saw no point in reading the two documents because if he drew attention of his bishop to their troublesome provisions, he did not expect his bishop to pay him any heed. If his bishop did listen to his concerns, took them to heart, and shared them as his own with the other bishops of the ACNA, they would nod their heads and smile and then ignore his concerns, doing things just as they had been doing. This particular individual felt so powerless that he did not even bother to read the documents.
Both anecdotes point to the existence of conditions in the ACNA not unlike those in the Episcopal Church. The proposed constitution and code of canons as they are presently written will, once they are ratified, contribute to the further development of such conditions. This is one of the concerns that is being expressed in respect to a number of provisions of these documents, for example the canonical provision that permits the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate rumors circulating relating to the character of a bishop and to bring charges against whoever is circulating the rumors. This provision is not found in the canons of any Anglican province that I have reviewed. It has a high potential for abuse.
I do not believe that Bishop Rodgers would sign a contract without closely reading the fine print and then after finding a number of troublesome provisions, sign it on the assurances of the person trying to get him to sign the contract that the terms of the contract with which he had trouble would be modified later. I do not believe that any good lawyer would counsel him to sign the contract. Rather he would insist upon the signature, witnessing, and attachment of the necessary legal documents modifying these terms before signing it. The proposed constitution and code of canons are contracts. Before signing them, the groups of congregations that are being asked to ratify them should study them carefully and insist upon the much needed modifications and not let themselves be rushed into signing the documents on the promise that the troublesome provisions will be “fixed” at some vague future date.
As much as I respect Bishop John Rodgers, I must strongly disagree with the position he has taken on the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA. Here is why.
The Provincial Assembly is a titular body. Beyond ratification of the legislative acts of the Council the Assembly has no real powers: It can discuss matters of faith and mission and make recommendations. The limitation of its powers to the ratification of constitutional changes and canons does not eliminate any susceptibility to political maneuvering and manipulation. Lobbying and pressure groups can persuade the delegates of diocese to vote against the interests of the diocese just as easily in the Assembly as they did in the General Convention. The Provincial Council is also susceptible to such maneuvering and manipulation. The form of ecclesiastical governance and modes of ecclesiastical and primatial election that the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA establish in actuality make it easier for one faction to dominate the ACNA and to establish its hegemony over the church. Abolishing the Assembly, transforming the Council into a Provincial Synod and the Executive Committee into a Provincial Executive Council, increasing the size of the delegation of each diocese to the Synod in proportion to the total ASA of the diocese, capping the size of the diocesan delegations to keep the Synod from becoming too large and unwieldy a body, and transferring the ratification of constitution changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses would create important safeguards that are missing from the proposed constitution and code of canons. They would be a major step toward the avoidance of the replication in the ACNA of conditions that exist in TEC. All of these recommended changes to the proposed constitution and code of canons were submitted to the ACNA Governance Task Force but none of them were incorporated in the few amendments that the Governance Task Force did recommend to the Council in April.
If the groups of congregations that are meeting in Bedford, Texas this month do not sign the proposed constitution and code of canons, it does not mean as Bishop Rodgers suggests that there will be no church. Instead of these two highly flawed documents they can adopt resolutions establishing a new Governance Task Force to prepare a new draft constitution and code of canons for the ACNA and an Interim Instrument of Governance to provide temporary structure and governance for the ACNA until such constitution and code of canons have been drafted, studied, revised, adopted, and ratified.
Anyone who has worked with people in crisis knows that the crisis gives to the people it is affecting incentive or motivation to change. Remove the crisis and those affected by the crisis loose their incentive or motivation to change. Crises put people in a state of disequilibria and they will seek to regain their equilibrium. Once they have regained their equilibrium either by the removal of the crisis or by adjustment to the crisis, their incentive or motivation for change evaporates. Ratification of the proposed constitution and code of canons would remove the crisis that some people are experiencing over the prospect of these two documents not being ratified. Whatever incentive or motivation they may have to support any changes in the two documents would disappear.
From their actions the ACNA Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council give no indication of any real desire upon their part to make any substantive changes in the proposed constitution and code of canons related doctrinal, governance, and other concerns. While individual members of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have shown themselves open to listening to concerns, the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have collectively shown themselves unwilling to countenance substantive changes in these two documents in connection with these concerns. Ratifying the proposed constitution and code of canons is highly unlikely to make the two bodies more amenable to substantive changes in the two documents in respect to such concerns. The notion that these concerns can be addressed and the provisions of the constitution and code of canons amended after the proposed constitution and code of canons are ratified ring hollow. The window of opportunity for revising these two documents is now. That window of opportunity will slam shut as soon as they are ratified.
Having secured the ratification of the existing documents what incentive or motivation does the Governance Task Force or the Provincial Council have to revise them? Once they are ratified, the task of making much needed revisions will be much more difficult and much more divisive. I can hear the arguments already. “If you were willing to ratify them, why aren’t you willing to accept them as they are?” “You signed them so why are you wanting to change them so soon?” And so forth. As I have noted, a segment of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council is resistant to any major changes in the substance of the constitution and the code of canons and they appear to have the ear of the other members of these bodies. Their resistance is not likely to disappear. Instead it is likely to grow. This resistance to any change in the two documents is not confined to these bodies. The result will be increasing tension between proponents of revision of the documents and opponents to any change in documents and may eventually lead to a major split in the ACNA. It is better to deal with the concerns related to the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons now than put them off to later.
Is it really too late to make changes at this point? The language of the Fundamental Declarations may be the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement but that does not make it representative of all orthodox North American Anglicans, only those who were represented on the drafting group that drew up the statement and those represented in the Common Cause Leadership Council that adopted the statement. What it does suggest that at least one orthodox Anglican theological stream was not adequately represented on that drafting group or in the adopting Common Cause Leadership Council. If one carefully examines the language of the Fundamental Declarations, one thing is apparent. They were written to accommodate the Anglo-Catholic position on a number of matters—the Councils of the Church, the Anglican formularies–the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer, and the historic episcopate. They do not display the same sensitivity toward the Evangelical position upon these matters. As Ephraim Radner has pointed to our attention, they make room for other sources of authority beside the Articles and the Prayer Book.
Bishop Rodgers claims that the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the ACNA proposed constitution was not intended to set forth the “esse” position on the historic episcopate. Whatever the intentions of the drafters of the Common Cause Theological Statement from which the Fundamental Declarations were taken, this section is open to the interpretation as representing that position: “…a godly historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic doctrine and practice….” “Inherent” means “essential” and “essential” means “of, constituting of a thing’s essence” and “an indispensable element.” In other words, “a godly historic episcopate” constitutes a part of the essence of the apostolic doctrine and practice; it is an indispensable element of that doctrine and practice. This is certainly open to interpretation as expressive of the “esse” position, a doctrinal position over which orthodox Anglicans have historically divided and over which they continue to be divided to this day. In a church that is supposed to be committed to providing a home for all three orthodox Anglican theological streams such a doctrinal position is out of place. In response to the assertion that reading Article I, Section 3 of the ACNA constitution as a statement of the “esse” position on the historic episcopate is a misinterpretation of that section, it must also be noted that any provision of a constitution or canon that is open to two or more interpretations is in need of revision: its language is not clear or specific enough to prevent it from being susceptible to more than one interpretation.
It must also be noted that two changes have already been made in the Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations now refer to the 1571 Articles instead of the 1562 Articles. The affirmation of the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were dropped from the Fundamental Declarations and placed in the Preface where they are not as binding upon the ACNA as they would be in the Fundamental Declarations. The explanation that was offered Stephen Noll for this change was that the Fundamental Declarations were more ancient than the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, an apparent reference to the positions that the Fundamental Declarations take on the Councils of the Church, the historic episcopate, and the like. More plainly put, the ACNA has chosen to adopt the Catholic position on these matters over the Evangelical position due to the supposed antiquity of that position even though the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism--the Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Settlement—rejected the Catholic position as not only contrary to the word of God but also to the writings of the Church Fathers, and conservative Evangelicals reject this position to this day.
It must be further noted that Evangelicals have not being calling for the adoption of Evangelical positions on such matters but positions on which Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are not historically divided and upon which both theological streams agree. If the ACNA is to be truly a comprehensive church for all three orthodox theological streams in North American Anglicanism, then the language of the Fundamental Declarations needs to be much more comprehensive. For example, one suggestion for an alternative version of Article I, Section 3 of the proposed constitution is as follows. It is a restatement of parts of the Preface to the 1550 Ordinal and Resolution 11 of the third Lambeth Conference, staying fairly close to the original wording. It is one of several similar proposals, the major difference being that it is wordier than these proposals:
“We take our place with generations of Anglicans in recognizing that ‘from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” which “Offices” are always to be held in ‘reverent estimation’; and join with the 1888 Lambeth Conference in expressing the opinion that “the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church” supplies an important part of the basis on which approach may be made toward the reunification of the Church.
The concerns that have been presented to the Governance Task Force do not represent those of isolated individuals but of groups in and outside of the ACNA. Some of these groups identify themselves as Evangelical in their theological orientation and others do not but nonetheless share the concerns of their Evangelical brothers and sisters. Their concerns go beyond the language of the Fundamental Declarations. They ask why have the drafters of the proposed constitution and code of canons abandoned a two hundred and twenty-five odd year tradition in North American Anglicanism of a diocese electing its own bishops, a practice that not only has its roots in the practice of the early Church but is also a fundamental component of diocesan autonomy at a time when conservative bishops in the Episcopal Church are fighting to preserve the autonomy of the diocese in that church? . Why have they turned their backs on the centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church and the episcopal and primatial nomination and election process at a time when Roman Catholics are calling for lay involvement in the very same areas of their church due to recent disclosures in that church? Why do the proposed code of canons give all kinds of powers and functions to the Archbishop of the ACNA, treat him as a metropolitan, and require canonical obedience to the Archbishop from the other bishops of the church when the proposed constitution gives very limited powers and functions to the Archbishop and does not give him metropolitan authority over the other bishops of the church? These questions represent just a few of the concerns that they have been voicing. Space prevents me from listing all of them.
To those like myself who have examined similar ecclesiastical structures and ways of operating to the ones that the proposed constitution and code of canons would impose upon the ACNA, evaluated their merits, and weighed their short-term and long-term ramifications, these so-called “new ways” do not “bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise.” They suffer from their own particular set of problems as well as are susceptible to problems that beset more familiar patterns of structure and governance. There is an old proverbial saying: “It is better to deal with the devil you do know than the one you don’t know.” The more familiar patterns of structure and governance do have their share of problems but they are problems that are understood and can be readily dealt with.
The so-called “new ways” bring with them a host of problems that are not yet fully understood and may not prove as easy to deal with. They not only substantially restrict the autonomy of the diocese but they also greatly reduce the role of the laity in church government and number of other areas. While the proposed constitution reserves to the dioceses the powers that the constitution does not delegate to the province church or prohibit to the dioceses, the proposed code of canons takes powers that dioceses normally exercise and which the constitution does not delegate to the province and arrogates them to the province. The centralization of authority is a pattern that runs throughout the canons. Despite constitutional and canonical provisions that appear at first glance to preserve the autonomy of the diocese, so is the restriction of diocesan autonomy. A number of provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons reveal a decided bias against lay participation in such major decisions as the choice of a bishop or a primate. While bishops and clergy have largely been responsible for the drift of the Episcopal Church away from orthodoxy, the proposed constitution and code of canons treat the laity as the weak link in the chain.
The question has been raised as to why those who are expressing their reservations about the proposed constitution and code of canons and calling for substantive changes in these documents have not said anything before now. The reality is that they did draw the attention of the Governance Task Force to troublesome provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons within the extremely limited time that was permitted for public comment. Interested parties were given no opportunity to study the draft of the provisional constitution and canons that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted in December 2008. They were not released for public comment until after they were adopted. Interested parties were given seventeen days to study the documents that the Common Cause Leadership Council, acting as the provisional Provincial Council, adopted with some amendments as the finalized draft of the proposed constitution and code canons to be presented for ratification at the Inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas this month. At the time that the documents were released for public comment, Bishop Bob Duncan said pretty much what Bishop Rodgers has said. The documents were not perfect. They could be fixed later. Indeed, this has become a favorite talking point of leaders and proponents of the ACNA. They keep promising a better constitution and code of canons will be adopted at a later date if people accept the existing documents. Bishop Rodgers is really not saying anything new.
It may be helpful to read what was the experience of one individual who shared his concerns with his bishop and posted an account of what happened on the Internet. He was told that the way that North American Anglicans have historically choosing their bishops was “an innovation” and not the practice that the canons were imposing upon new dioceses and commending to founding entities that elect their bishops. The practice of the College of Bishop’s choosing the primate of the province, as well as the bishops of the dioceses, he was told would bring the ACNA in line with the rest of the Anglican Communion. The bishop in question failed to mention that the practice that he dismissed as an “innovation” had its roots in the practice of the early Church and had been preserved in the English practice of the canons of the cathedral chapter electing the bishop of the vacant see. The Anglican Communion has as many ways of choosing bishops and primates as it has provinces, and in the case of bishops, even dioceses. This anecdote suggests that at least one bishop has sought to put a lid on any dissent from the provisions of the existing documents and further suggests a vested interest in these documents.
Another anecdote also points to why some people have not taken issue with the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons. Another individual shared the view on the Internet that he saw no point in reading the two documents because if he drew attention of his bishop to their troublesome provisions, he did not expect his bishop to pay him any heed. If his bishop did listen to his concerns, took them to heart, and shared them as his own with the other bishops of the ACNA, they would nod their heads and smile and then ignore his concerns, doing things just as they had been doing. This particular individual felt so powerless that he did not even bother to read the documents.
Both anecdotes point to the existence of conditions in the ACNA not unlike those in the Episcopal Church. The proposed constitution and code of canons as they are presently written will, once they are ratified, contribute to the further development of such conditions. This is one of the concerns that is being expressed in respect to a number of provisions of these documents, for example the canonical provision that permits the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate rumors circulating relating to the character of a bishop and to bring charges against whoever is circulating the rumors. This provision is not found in the canons of any Anglican province that I have reviewed. It has a high potential for abuse.
I do not believe that Bishop Rodgers would sign a contract without closely reading the fine print and then after finding a number of troublesome provisions, sign it on the assurances of the person trying to get him to sign the contract that the terms of the contract with which he had trouble would be modified later. I do not believe that any good lawyer would counsel him to sign the contract. Rather he would insist upon the signature, witnessing, and attachment of the necessary legal documents modifying these terms before signing it. The proposed constitution and code of canons are contracts. Before signing them, the groups of congregations that are being asked to ratify them should study them carefully and insist upon the much needed modifications and not let themselves be rushed into signing the documents on the promise that the troublesome provisions will be “fixed” at some vague future date.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Overcoming schism - the nettle Protestantism must grasp
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/06/overcoming-schism-nettle-protestantism.html
[The Ugley Vicar] 1 June 2009--These three suggestions —that bishops should call their clergy and people back to the Anglican heritage, that ministerial candidates should have engaged with the theology of the Articles, and that those candidates should also be made practically familiar with the Prayer Book —would go some considerable way to establishing that Anglicanism is a confessional faith. The denial of this is surely one of the great myths of our time. Indeed, the suggestion that Anglicanism is not a confessional faith, and specifically a Protestant confession, would have come as a surprise to the compilers of the Articles and the Prayer Book, the Marian martyrs and, not least, to John Henry Newman, who once wrote,
... it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants and intended for the establishment of Protestantism ...
This is why the establishment of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is so important. It is not just about ‘politics’, it is about theology —or rather two theologies, one that sees the individual as the final judge in matters of faith and doctrine, to be decided privately between himself and God, the other that sees the individual as the recipient of both faith and doctrine through means instituted by Christ, but reliant on others.
[The Ugley Vicar] 1 June 2009--These three suggestions —that bishops should call their clergy and people back to the Anglican heritage, that ministerial candidates should have engaged with the theology of the Articles, and that those candidates should also be made practically familiar with the Prayer Book —would go some considerable way to establishing that Anglicanism is a confessional faith. The denial of this is surely one of the great myths of our time. Indeed, the suggestion that Anglicanism is not a confessional faith, and specifically a Protestant confession, would have come as a surprise to the compilers of the Articles and the Prayer Book, the Marian martyrs and, not least, to John Henry Newman, who once wrote,
... it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants and intended for the establishment of Protestantism ...
This is why the establishment of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is so important. It is not just about ‘politics’, it is about theology —or rather two theologies, one that sees the individual as the final judge in matters of faith and doctrine, to be decided privately between himself and God, the other that sees the individual as the recipient of both faith and doctrine through means instituted by Christ, but reliant on others.
Bishop Frederic Barker on leaving the Church
http://acl.asn.au/bishop-barker-on-leaving-the-church/
[Anglican Church League] 1 June 2009--Frederic Barker, second bishop in Sydney, addressed the Diocesan Synod in 1877 in words which are strikingly relevant today in many parts of the Anglican Communion.
‘It is quite true that an occasion may arise for the exercise of our liberty of action. If it should, I trust not to be found backward in asserting our independence of a Church which had fallen from the faith, but so long as the Church of England remains what she is, I know no reason why we should not act otherwise than as dutiful and loving members of a true branch of the one Catholic Church.
If she, like the Churches of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria should apostatise from the true faith, she would leave us. If the Ritualism which infects a portion of the Church of England became its normal condition, and that which some are striving after, to substitute the mass for the communion, was effected, and formularies and articles were so interpreted and used as to legalise false doctrine it would be time to assert our independence and to allow a body deeply tainted with Romish heresy to exclude us from its communion.’
[Anglican Church League] 1 June 2009--Frederic Barker, second bishop in Sydney, addressed the Diocesan Synod in 1877 in words which are strikingly relevant today in many parts of the Anglican Communion.
‘It is quite true that an occasion may arise for the exercise of our liberty of action. If it should, I trust not to be found backward in asserting our independence of a Church which had fallen from the faith, but so long as the Church of England remains what she is, I know no reason why we should not act otherwise than as dutiful and loving members of a true branch of the one Catholic Church.
If she, like the Churches of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria should apostatise from the true faith, she would leave us. If the Ritualism which infects a portion of the Church of England became its normal condition, and that which some are striving after, to substitute the mass for the communion, was effected, and formularies and articles were so interpreted and used as to legalise false doctrine it would be time to assert our independence and to allow a body deeply tainted with Romish heresy to exclude us from its communion.’
ACC-14: Did the Members Know What They Were Voting On?
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/05/acc-14-did-the-members-know-what-they-were-voting-on/
[Anglican Communion Institute] 1 June 2009--A transcript of the proceedings at ACC-14 on May 8, 2009, when the Council voted in conflicting ways on key votes, raises the important question of how many of its members, including officers and proponents of key amendments, understood what they were actually voting on when they narrowly passed an amendment intended to open Section 4 of the Anglican Communion Covenant to “possible revision.”
The source of the confusion arose from multiple attempts by a minority of members generally opposed to the covenant to derail Section 4, a key section. Their first attempt was a resolution, Resolution A, that would have removed Section 4 and sent the Covenant to the provinces without that section. Resolution A had been debated and was pending before the Council when it broke for lunch. Even supporters of the efforts of The Episcopal Church to remove this section acknowledged at the lunch break that the tide was against The Episcopal Church. (The post acknowledging this has since been removed from the website where it was posted.)
Following lunch, a new tactic was unveiled. Duplicative resolutions and amendments were presented to the members, at first simultaneously and later sequentially, to defeat or delay Section 4. But Resolution A had already been introduced by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee as the proposed vehicle for making the key decision on whether or not Section 4 should be included in the text that would go to the provinces. And when Resolution A was finally put to a vote, it was voted down overwhelmingly. Indeed, after that vote, the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee noted that despite confusion on the multiple other amendments and resolutions, Resolution A was understood....
[Anglican Communion Institute] 1 June 2009--A transcript of the proceedings at ACC-14 on May 8, 2009, when the Council voted in conflicting ways on key votes, raises the important question of how many of its members, including officers and proponents of key amendments, understood what they were actually voting on when they narrowly passed an amendment intended to open Section 4 of the Anglican Communion Covenant to “possible revision.”
The source of the confusion arose from multiple attempts by a minority of members generally opposed to the covenant to derail Section 4, a key section. Their first attempt was a resolution, Resolution A, that would have removed Section 4 and sent the Covenant to the provinces without that section. Resolution A had been debated and was pending before the Council when it broke for lunch. Even supporters of the efforts of The Episcopal Church to remove this section acknowledged at the lunch break that the tide was against The Episcopal Church. (The post acknowledging this has since been removed from the website where it was posted.)
Following lunch, a new tactic was unveiled. Duplicative resolutions and amendments were presented to the members, at first simultaneously and later sequentially, to defeat or delay Section 4. But Resolution A had already been introduced by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee as the proposed vehicle for making the key decision on whether or not Section 4 should be included in the text that would go to the provinces. And when Resolution A was finally put to a vote, it was voted down overwhelmingly. Indeed, after that vote, the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee noted that despite confusion on the multiple other amendments and resolutions, Resolution A was understood....
How many in mainline? Categories vary in surveys
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=7152
[The Christian Century] 1 June 2009--Americans who identify with mainline churches make up either 18 percent of the U.S. population or 13 percent, according to two large-scale surveys taken within recent years. Which is right?
Both are, say some researchers. The statistical variations typically depend on what questions are asked and how the mainline is defined.
Few doubt that the graying of members, low birth rates and various controversies have contributed to the diminishing numbers of mainline Protestants found in the United Methodist Church, the Evan gelical Luth eran Church in America, the Pres byterian Church (U.S.A.), the Epis copal Church, the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ.
But has the slippage become precipitous, threatening to reduce mainline Protestants ever closer to remnant status? "A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States," said Mark Silk, who helped design the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS).
That survey, which polled more than 54,000 adults, reported in March that the number of mainline Christians had slipped to 12.9 percent of adult Americans—down from 17.2 percent in 2001 and 18.7 percent in 1990—as evangelical numbers grew.
By contrast, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study, after polling 35,000 adults in 2007, reported last year that 18.1 percent of adults said they were affiliated with "mainline Protestant" churches.
Asked about this 5 percent difference, senior fellow John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life said, "It isn't that our numbers are more right than [ARIS's] numbers . . . but how one conceptualizes the group."
[The Christian Century] 1 June 2009--Americans who identify with mainline churches make up either 18 percent of the U.S. population or 13 percent, according to two large-scale surveys taken within recent years. Which is right?
Both are, say some researchers. The statistical variations typically depend on what questions are asked and how the mainline is defined.
Few doubt that the graying of members, low birth rates and various controversies have contributed to the diminishing numbers of mainline Protestants found in the United Methodist Church, the Evan gelical Luth eran Church in America, the Pres byterian Church (U.S.A.), the Epis copal Church, the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ.
But has the slippage become precipitous, threatening to reduce mainline Protestants ever closer to remnant status? "A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States," said Mark Silk, who helped design the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS).
That survey, which polled more than 54,000 adults, reported in March that the number of mainline Christians had slipped to 12.9 percent of adult Americans—down from 17.2 percent in 2001 and 18.7 percent in 1990—as evangelical numbers grew.
By contrast, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study, after polling 35,000 adults in 2007, reported last year that 18.1 percent of adults said they were affiliated with "mainline Protestant" churches.
Asked about this 5 percent difference, senior fellow John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life said, "It isn't that our numbers are more right than [ARIS's] numbers . . . but how one conceptualizes the group."
Christians risk rejection and discrimination for their faith, a study claims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5413311/Christians-risk-rejection-and-discrimination-for-their-faith-a-study-claims.html
[Telegraph] 1 June 2009--The first poll of Britain's churchgoers, carried out for The Sunday Telegraph, found that thousands of them believe they are being turned down for promotion because of their faith.
One in five said that they had faced opposition at work because of their beliefs.
More than half of them revealed that they had suffered some form of persecution for being a Christian.
The findings suggest a growing hostility towards religion in this country, which has been highlighted by a series of clashes between churchgoers and their employers.
[Telegraph] 1 June 2009--The first poll of Britain's churchgoers, carried out for The Sunday Telegraph, found that thousands of them believe they are being turned down for promotion because of their faith.
One in five said that they had faced opposition at work because of their beliefs.
More than half of them revealed that they had suffered some form of persecution for being a Christian.
The findings suggest a growing hostility towards religion in this country, which has been highlighted by a series of clashes between churchgoers and their employers.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
San Joaquin Bishops Reflect on Depositions
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/5/28/san-joaquin-bishops-reflect-on-depositions
[The Living Church] 30 May 2009--The 36 priests and 16 deacons deposed by Bishop Lamb on May 22 and May 26 were not inhibited until October and November 2008, meaning that as of the special reorganizing convention at which Bishop Lamb was elected in March 2008, there was an insufficient number of clergy present to hold a convention. According to report published shortly after the reorganizing convention by Episcopal News Service, there were 21 clergy present. According to canon 3.01 of the Episcopal diocese, “A quorum shall consist of one-third of all the clergy entitled to seats and votes...If a quorum be not present at any convention, no business shall be transacted except that of adjournment from time to time until a quorum shall be present.”
Additionally, the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, canon to the ordinary for the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, told The Living Church that several of the clergy certified to vote at the special reorganizing convention did not meet the canonical requirement of having been resident in the diocese for at least 90 days prior to the start of that convention.
[The Living Church] 30 May 2009--The 36 priests and 16 deacons deposed by Bishop Lamb on May 22 and May 26 were not inhibited until October and November 2008, meaning that as of the special reorganizing convention at which Bishop Lamb was elected in March 2008, there was an insufficient number of clergy present to hold a convention. According to report published shortly after the reorganizing convention by Episcopal News Service, there were 21 clergy present. According to canon 3.01 of the Episcopal diocese, “A quorum shall consist of one-third of all the clergy entitled to seats and votes...If a quorum be not present at any convention, no business shall be transacted except that of adjournment from time to time until a quorum shall be present.”
Additionally, the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, canon to the ordinary for the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, told The Living Church that several of the clergy certified to vote at the special reorganizing convention did not meet the canonical requirement of having been resident in the diocese for at least 90 days prior to the start of that convention.
Anglican Catholic Church Primate Declines Invitation to attend ACNA Provincial Assembly
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11215#more-11215
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--I thank you for your invitation to attend as an observer the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is to gather in Bedford, Texas, from June 22nd to 25th. I congratulate those who will assemble on their movement out of the Episcopal Church. Whatever else we agree or disagree about, we believe that that movement is correct.
Those of us who left the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion a generation ago believe that the ordination of women was then the central problem in the Canterbury Communion. The notion that women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim: a claim false in itself; a claim destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence. That worse consequence is the claim that Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of faith and order against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom. Once such a claim is made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals. The revolution devours its children. Many of the clergy represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality. This position seems to us to be internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time.
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--I thank you for your invitation to attend as an observer the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is to gather in Bedford, Texas, from June 22nd to 25th. I congratulate those who will assemble on their movement out of the Episcopal Church. Whatever else we agree or disagree about, we believe that that movement is correct.
Those of us who left the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion a generation ago believe that the ordination of women was then the central problem in the Canterbury Communion. The notion that women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim: a claim false in itself; a claim destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence. That worse consequence is the claim that Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of faith and order against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom. Once such a claim is made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals. The revolution devours its children. Many of the clergy represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality. This position seems to us to be internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time.
Greetings to the Anglican Church in North America from the Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11252
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--The Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship includes in its membership lay people, clergy and bishops in the Church of Ireland. Our committee, meeting on 28th May 2009, unanimously resolved that we should write to encourage you in the formation of the Anglican Church in North America.
We have followed with sadness the unfolding developments in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. We know that many of you have suffered great loss (personal, parochial and diocesan) for upholding the orthodox faith in the face of radical innovation, and we want you to know that you have our full support.
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--The Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship includes in its membership lay people, clergy and bishops in the Church of Ireland. Our committee, meeting on 28th May 2009, unanimously resolved that we should write to encourage you in the formation of the Anglican Church in North America.
We have followed with sadness the unfolding developments in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. We know that many of you have suffered great loss (personal, parochial and diocesan) for upholding the orthodox faith in the face of radical innovation, and we want you to know that you have our full support.
The water of death
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/theology/the_symbolism_of_baptism/
[sydneyanglicans.net] 30 May 2009--Water is the symbol of life and death.
Some symbols are hard to understand, some are arbitrary but this symbol has immediate and obvious impact - especially to a dry continent like Australia. It works as a symbol because it creates the reality that it symbolises.
Without water our country slowly dies in drought. And yet when the rains come, the rivers swell and the lakes turn from saltpans into inland seas. In next to no time the desert springs to life with luscious green vegetation, the lakes team with fish and the birds come from seemingly nowhere to nest in huge numbers.
But it is more than the countryside that needs water. We humans depend upon it for our very lives. We drink it to live. It is a constituent of all that we drink. Without it our thirst is painful and killing. With it we slake our thirst and revive our body.
Water is the symbol not only of life but also of cleanliness. For it is in water that we wash the grime of life off our bodies. So when we need to purify the defilement of our lives - water is again an obvious symbol to turn to. Just as it removes dirt from the body so it also symbolises washing dirt from our lives.
[sydneyanglicans.net] 30 May 2009--Water is the symbol of life and death.
Some symbols are hard to understand, some are arbitrary but this symbol has immediate and obvious impact - especially to a dry continent like Australia. It works as a symbol because it creates the reality that it symbolises.
Without water our country slowly dies in drought. And yet when the rains come, the rivers swell and the lakes turn from saltpans into inland seas. In next to no time the desert springs to life with luscious green vegetation, the lakes team with fish and the birds come from seemingly nowhere to nest in huge numbers.
But it is more than the countryside that needs water. We humans depend upon it for our very lives. We drink it to live. It is a constituent of all that we drink. Without it our thirst is painful and killing. With it we slake our thirst and revive our body.
Water is the symbol not only of life but also of cleanliness. For it is in water that we wash the grime of life off our bodies. So when we need to purify the defilement of our lives - water is again an obvious symbol to turn to. Just as it removes dirt from the body so it also symbolises washing dirt from our lives.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Financial probe baffles rector of local church
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20090525/NEWS01/905250356/Financial+probe+baffles+rector+of+local+church
[pressconnects.com] 26 May 2009--The rector of an Anglican church is "surprised and baffled" by a judge's decision that a regional diocese investigate whether a local parish mishandled money after it withdrew from the Episcopal denomination.
"The judge's statement is absolutely not true," said the Rev. Matthew Kennedy, pastor of Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton. "We have nothing to hide. I want to answer their questions."
Supreme Court Judge Ferris D. Lebous, who earlier this year ruled the central New York diocese was entitled to Good Shepherd's property, said diocesan allegations the parish misused an endowment should be investigated.
[pressconnects.com] 26 May 2009--The rector of an Anglican church is "surprised and baffled" by a judge's decision that a regional diocese investigate whether a local parish mishandled money after it withdrew from the Episcopal denomination.
"The judge's statement is absolutely not true," said the Rev. Matthew Kennedy, pastor of Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton. "We have nothing to hide. I want to answer their questions."
Supreme Court Judge Ferris D. Lebous, who earlier this year ruled the central New York diocese was entitled to Good Shepherd's property, said diocesan allegations the parish misused an endowment should be investigated.
Home: No place for Bible study
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=98895
[World Net Daily] 26 May 2009--A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.
The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.
"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"
The pastor's wife answered yes.
She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."
[World Net Daily] 26 May 2009--A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.
The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.
"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"
The pastor's wife answered yes.
She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
A New Blue Print for the ACNA
By Robin G. Jordan
The changes to the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) envisioned in the following proposals would “broaden” the provisions of these two documents. They would remove a number of major obstacles to the membership of conservative evangelical Anglicans and conservative evangelical Anglican congregations; the formation of conservative evangelical Anglican dioceses, the ordination and licensing of conservative evangelical Anglican clergy; the teaching of the doctrine, ecclesiology, and liturgical usages of the English Reformers and classical evangelical Anglicanism; and the nomination, election, and consecration of conservative evangelical Anglican bishops in the ACNA. They would also eliminate serious barriers to the participation in the ACNA of orthodox Anglicans who value the North American Anglican heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province; who see no justifiable reason for the ACNA’s abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in diocesan and provincial governance and the episcopal and archiepiscopal nomination and election process; and who greatly feel the loss of this involvement.
The Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations would omit the decidedly partisan doctrinal position that “a godly historical episcopate is an integral part of the apostolic faith and practice…,” a position over which Anglicans have historically been divided. They would commit the ACNA to the preservation of the orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, a position on which Anglicans are in agreement.
Holy Orders. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 1, Section 1:
“The Anglican Church in North America holds and teaches that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders in Christ’s Church: bishops, priests, and deacons; and no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said offices, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to an authorized ordinal of this Church or has had consecration or ordination in some Church whose orders are recognized and accepted by this Church.”
Bishops. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 8, Section 2:
“Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God; it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions; and, himself an example of righteous and godly living, it is his duty to set forward and maintain quietness, love, and peace among all people.”
The constitution would require that the bishops of a judicatory (diocese, cluster, or network) should be elected by one of the following methods, all of which preserve the ancient custom of a diocese choosing its own bishop:
1. By the representative governing body of the judicatory by whatever name it is designated (e.g., Conference, Convention, Council, House of Delegates, Synod, etc.). A description of two local adaptations of this method of election, that of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America and the Reformed Episcopal Church are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
What follows are several additional examples of local adaptations of that method. They are taken from my research notes for that article. The first example is a description of how the Archbishop of Sidney, a diocese and metropolitan see of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Archbishop of Sydney Appointment Ordinance 1982:
As soon as possible after the date a vacancy occurs in the see of Sydney, the standing committee passes a resolution that the vacancy should be filled. The person who on the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of Sydney is entitled to exercising the powers vested in the archbishop summons the members of the synod to a meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy. Any two or more members of the Synod may in advance of this meeting nominate a candidate for the archbishop of the see. To be regarded as a nominee for archbishop of the see a candidate must have one or more nominations signed by at least 20 members of the Synod, have been notified in writing, and has agreed to be a nominee for archbishop of the see. A list of nominations must be sent to all the members of the synod within ten days of the meeting of the synod for the purpose of filling the vacancy. This list of nominations must contain the names of the nominees in alphabetic order with the names of all the members of Synod who have nominated each nominee. At the meeting of the Synod after the nominations have been formally proposed and seconded each member of the Synod is given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee in respect whether his name should be placed on a select list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the synod present, the lay members of the synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the select list. After the select list is compiled, each nominee whose name appears on the select list is formally proposed and seconded. The members of the Synod are given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee on each nominee in respect whether his name should be put on final list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the final list. A series of votes are then taken to reduce the name of nominees on the final list with the nominees in excess of a specific number determined by the canon delineating the election procedure receiving the lowest number of votes after the votes of both orders of the members of the synod being excluded after each vote. The same canon provides for preferential voting when the final list is reduced to two or three. When the final list is reduced to one, a motion is put to the synod that the nominee remain on the final list should be invited to be the archbishop of the see. A vote on the motion by show of hands is then taken in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of both orders of the members of the Synod then present and voting vote in favour of the motion, the nominee is declared duly elected to the office of Archbishop of Sydney.
The next step is confirmation of the election under the provisions of the Provincial Synod Ordinance for the Confirmation of Bishops’ Elections (N.S.W.) Assenting Ordinance 1965. If the election of the nominee is not confirmed and certified under the provisions of that Ordinance, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the see had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
The second example describes how the Bishop of Willochra, a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Regulation Two of the Diocese of Willochra, adopted in 1994.
When the see becomes vacant, or three months before the date of the retirement of the bishop, the administrator calls together the bishopric nomination committee which is required to nominate not less than three and not more than four persons to a special session of the diocesan synod to be called within three months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. The bishopric nomination committee consists of the administrator of the diocese together with five clerical and five lay members of the diocesan synod who are elected at the first session of each diocesan synod. There is also be elected three clergy and three lay persons as reserves in the event of any member of the committee being unavailable to serve. Any clergy member whose name is considered for nomination as bishop ceases to be a member of the committee. In the event of the administrator being nominated, the committee elects one of its members to chair the committee. The administrator circularizes all members of the diocesan synod inviting them to make submissions to the nomination committee. A name is not included for nomination to the diocesan synod unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members agree to the nomination. The nomination committee presents to the diocesan synod a statement about each nominee.
The administrator must cause a call of the diocesan synod to be made within three calendar months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. During the deliberations of the Election Synod only members and officers are allowed to be present except by special leave of the Synod. Members are prohibited at all times from disclosing any information concerning the proceedings of the Election Synod or the names of the candidates or the details of any ballot. The Synod by a vote of the majority of members present may at any stage in the proceedings under this regulation resolve itself into a committee of the whole and report back to Synod or may from time to time adjourn to a time to be fixed. When the Synod has assembled the administrator announces that a vacancy of the see has occurred. The administrator states the cause of the vacancy and explains the procedure to be followed in filling the vacancy, namely: that Synod is to receive the names submitted to it by the Nomination Committee together with not more than one name submitted by the House of Clergy and not more than one name submitted by the House of Laity. The administrator then informs members of Synod of the nominations being submitted to the Synod by the Nomination Committee. Each House of Synod then meets separately. The House of Clergy is chaired by the administrator and the House of Laity by a lay member of the Synod appointed by the administrator. The business of each House meeting separately is to consider the question "Do we wish to add the name of one person to the list of nominees?" If a majority in either House agree on the name of a person to be added then that name is added to the list of nominees. When both the House of Clergy and the House of Laity have completed the business before them the administrator shall call the Synod together again. The Synod then resolves itself into a committee of the whole for the purpose of discussing the candidature of those who have been nominated. After the discussion Synod resumes and each name is be balloted for individually by the House of Clergy and the House of Laity voting by orders. Every name which fails to obtain one third of the vote of each order is removed from the list. The names remaining on the list are then balloted for each voter recording a vote for one person only. The candidate obtaining two-thirds of the votes of each order is the bishop elect.
If after three ballots as in the preceding paragraph no candidate receives the requisite majority and if one of the candidates has obtained a majority of votes in each house and if the Synod decide in the affirmative it is permissible to move that such candidate be elected Bishop. If this motion is carried by a two thirds majority in each house voting by secret ballot then that person is the bishop elect. If no such motion is agreed to or if no candidate receives the requisite majority then the Synod is adjourned until such time as the Nomination Committee has prepared a further set of nominations for Synod.
If the person elected in accordance with this procedure declines to accept the see the Synod proceeds again under the Regulation.
If the Synod fails on two successive occasions to elect a Bishop it is competent for the Synod either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose to delegate its power and authority to elect a bishop to the primate, conjointly with some other bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia to be named by the Synod. If no such election of a bishop as provided for by the provisions of the Regulation or no appointment of a bishop under any delegated power and authority referred to above is made within a period of twelve months from the date of the vacancy of the see then the appointment of a bishop for this occasion passes to the primate conjointly with the bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia and is made by them.
The administrator reports to the metropolitan the result of any election or appointment in order to obtain the confirmation required by the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia or by any canon of the General Synod that may at that time be in force and binding on the diocese.
The election or appointment having been made and confirmed the person elected or appointed is, if not already consecrated, consecrated as provided in the canons of General Synod. In every case the bishop must take the oath of canonical obedience to the metropolitan and must make a declaration to be subject to the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and the canons and determinations of the General Synod at that time in force and binding on the diocese and the constitution and regulations of the Synod. Any bishop elected must either before consecration or if already consecrated before exercising any episcopal function in the Diocese sign and subscribe to the following declaration:
I, A.B., Bishop elect of the Diocese of Willochra do promise that I will maintain and teach the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Australia and I consent to be bound by all the Constitution and Regulations of Synod now or hereafter in force and I hereby undertake immediately to resign the said Bishopric and all rights and emoluments appertaining thereto if sentence requiring such resignation shall at any time be passed upon me after due examination had by the Tribunal acknowledged by the said Synod for the trial of a Bishop in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia. Given under my hand this.......................day of......................19...
2. By an Electoral College that may consist of all or part of the representative governing body of the judicatory. This example of a local adaptation of Electoral College method of the election of a bishop comes from the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia.
Under the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia the basic procedure for providing a diocesan bishop is that the primate convenes and presides over an electoral college or appoints a commissary to do so. The Electoral College consists of any bishop licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and those persons entitled to clergy votes and lay votes in the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod of the diocese concerned. The Electoral College by a majority of clergy votes and a majority of lay votes nominates (elects) a candidate to become the bishop. The primate submits the nomination to each of the bishops in full-time active episcopal ministry in the province and each such bishop informs the primate in writing whether or not that bishop has reason to disapprove the nomination on the ground of doctrine, or of character and manner of life, or of health, or of physical inability to undertake the episcopal ministry for which the nomination has been made. If all the bishops to whom the nomination is submitted inform the primate that they do not disapprove, the primate then proceeds to submit the nomination for the sanction of the General Synod.
If any bishop informs the primate in writing of disapproval, the bishops then consult either by meeting or other means. The bishops may decide by a majority of the bishops that the nomination should be submitted for the sanction of the General Synod or that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination. If the bishops decide that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination, they prepare in writing a statement of the reasons for their decision. The primate reconvenes, or instructs his commissary to reconvene, the Electoral College in order that it may reconsider its nomination. The statement prepared by the bishops is laid before the Electoral College, and the College then proceeds as if no nomination had been made. The candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination, and if that candidate is nominated the primate must submit the nomination for the sanction (confirmation) of the General Synod together with the statement prepared by the bishops and any memorial prepared by or with the authority of the Electoral College. If some other candidate is nominated, the nomination is submitted to the bishops of the province as the previous nomination was.
When the primate submits a nomination for the sanction of the General Synod, he submits it to the General Synod, if in session, or otherwise to every voting member of the General Synod. If the General Synod, if in session, or the members of the General Synod, when not in session, sanction (confirm) the nomination, the primate takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination once the nominee has declared in writing both assent to the Constitution and adherence and submission to the authority of the General Synod and has accepted the nomination.
If a nomination is not sanctioned, or if the nominee does not accept the nomination, that fact is communicated to the commissary presiding over the Electoral College that made the nomination and to the vicar-general (or equivalent) of the diocese concerned. After consultation with the legal counselor or chancellor and standing committee of the diocese, the commissary reconvenes the Electoral College for the purpose of making another nomination, or delegating the nomination. The constitution permits the delegation of the nomination to “a person or persons.” Any candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination unless such previous nomination has not been sanctioned by the General Synod (or by its members when not in session).
In the case of the nomination of the first bishop in a new diocese the Electoral College consists of the clergy licensed to any parish or any other ecclesiastical office within the boundaries of the new diocese, and not less than one lay representative for each parish or ministry or mission unit within the same boundaries elected in such manner as the primate or the commissary appointed by the primate directs.
An Electoral College sitting for the purpose of nominating a bishop to exercise an episcopal ministry within a diocese other than as diocesan bishop consist of the diocesan bishop and any other persons licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and the clerical and lay members of the standing committee of that diocese (by whatever name that standing committee is called) and such other persons being members of the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod as that body has previously chosen or determined from time to time.
3. By a Board of Electors elected by the representative governing body of the judicatory. The Board of Electors method of election of a bishop is a variation of the Electoral College method of election. The following description of a local adaptation of this method comes from the Wangaratta Bishopric Act 1904-1997. Wangaratta is a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia.
In the first session of every diocesan synod a six clergy duly licensed within the diocese and six laypersons being laypersons eligible to be members of the diocesan synod are chosen by ballot by the members of the diocesan synod to be a Board of Electors for the purpose of electing in the event of a vacancy in the see of the diocese the bishop of the diocese. Casual vacancies in the Board are filled in the same manner in the next session of the diocesan synod but if a voidance of the see occurs before the next session of the diocesan synod the remaining members of the Board may fill the vacancy. When the administrator of the diocese receives notification from the bishop of his intention to resign or retire, he may convene the Board. The administrator is the person appointed under the provisions of the Act to administer the diocese the affairs of the diocese during a vacancy in the see of the diocese. The Board does not proceed to the election of a bishop until the see becomes vacant. When a vacancy in the see has occurred, the administrator must convene the Board of Electors if he has not already done so and the Board must with all convenient speed proceed to the election of a bishop of the diocese and on such election having been made must report the result of the election to the administrator.
When an election has been made if effect cannot be given to the election the administrator notifies the Board of Electors and upon being so notified the Board proceeds as in the case of an original election and so on "toties quoties" until a bishop has been elected and installed. The members of the Board have power to decide as to all matters connected with the election but no election is valid unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members of the Board certify in writing to the administrator their assent to the election. In case of a vacancy in the see if any Board of Electors for a period of twelve months fails to elect a bishop and to notify the election to the administrator the Board is "ipso facto" dissolved and a new Board of Electors is constituted in following manner: The administrator with all convenient speed for the purpose of electing another Board of Electors calls a meeting (of which at least one month's notice specifying the objects of the meeting is given) of the persons who at the time of that failure were members of an existing diocesan synod or who if no diocesan synod is then in existence have been members of the last preceding diocesan synod at the time of its dissolution and the administrator is the president of this meeting the business of which is conducted according to the standing orders of the diocesan synod so far as they may be applicable. The administrator in the notice calling the meeting fixes a day for proceeding to the election of a new Board of Electors which election takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the persons elected take the place of the last preceding Board and have and exercise all the powers conferred upon that Board.
Upon an election having been made the administrator takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the election in accordance with the rules for the confirmation and consecration of bishops made by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia and adopted by the diocesan synod.
The code of canons would be amended to conform to the changes in the constitution. The constitution would require that the primate of the ACNA should be elected by the Provincial General Synod, by a Board of Electors elected by the Provincial General Synod, or an Electoral College consisting of the bishops of the ACNA and clergy and lay electors from each ACNA judicatory. Descriptions of local adaptations of all three methods are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
The procedure for the election of the primate would be delineated in the canons.
These methods of episcopal and primatial election give non-episcopal clergy and laity a substantial role in the election process and preserve basic elements of the synodical form of church government.
Judicatories. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term “judicatory,” it refers to the basic organizational unit of a denomination such as a diocese, conference, or association consisting of a group of churches. No ACNA judicatory would have exclusive jurisdiction over any geographic region of the United States or Canada. Other judicatories would be free to organize within such a region on the basis of territory or theological affinity (that is, shared doctrinal positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues).
The code of canons would clearly delineate the affiliation procedures by which groups of churches are recognized as judicatories of the ACNA. There would be two procedures. The first procedure would be for groups of churches that are already incorporated, have established an organizational structure, have adopted bylaws for the government of their members and the management of their affairs, and meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations, and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches would be required only to make a formal application, submit any necessary documentation, and agree to accede to the constitution and canons of the ACNA in order to be recognized as an autonomous ACNA judicatory. With their recognition the office of bishop of the judicatory would be automatically created and the judicatory would then elect its bishop, using one of three procedures that I have described.
The second procedure would be for groups of churches that are not incorporated, have not established an organizational structure or adopted bylaws, or meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches could apply for recognition as ACNA judicatories in formation. With the approval of their application the office of auxiliary bishop would be created. This auxiliary bishop would be appointed by the archbishop of the ACNA with the approval of the Provincial Executive Council and would oversee a specific group of churches. His role would be similar to that of a missionary bishop except unlike a missionary bishop he would not be responsible for a specific territory. If the specific group of churches was organized on the basis of theological affinity or theological affinity and territory, the auxiliary bishop appointed would be required to be a member of the same theological affinity group as the churches. If the specific group of churches were organized on the basis of territory, the canons would require that the auxiliary bishop be carefully matched with the group of churches that he is overseeing. If a judicatory in formation did, after a reasonable period of time, not met with all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance and a study of local conditions and other factors affecting the growth of the judicatory in formation suggested that it would not be able to meet these requirements if the period of formation was extended, the requirements could be waived and the judicatory in formation recognized as a autonomous judicatory, in which case it would elect its own bishop.
Applicants for recognition as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation and judicatories in formation would have the right to appeal any decisions of the Provincial Executive Council affecting them to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial General Synod would also have power to recognize a group of churches as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation on its own initiation as well as to overrule the decisions of the Provincial Executive Council.
The constitution would require the establishment of a representative governing body for each judicatory of the ACNA. This body by whatever name it is designated would consist of the bishops and licensed clergy of the diocese and elected lay members from each congregation of the diocese and would elect a standing committee from its clerical and lay members to serve as its executive body.
The Provincial General Synod. The constitution would establish as the governing body of the ACNA a Provincial General Synod consisting of a House of Bishops, a House of Clergy, and a House of Laity. The House of Bishops would consist of all the bishops of the ACNA. The House of Clergy would consist of clergy delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would consist of lay delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would have twice as many members as the combined membership of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. When the Provincial General Synod was in session, all three houses would sit together and vote together except where otherwise provided in the canons. All three houses would elect their own officers except that the primate would be the president of the House of Bishops by the virtue of his office.
The Provisional General Synod would have power to make canons and regulations for the ACNA, to amend the constitution of the ACNA, to adopt the budget of the ACNA, to elect the members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and give directives to that body, to appoint committees, boards, and commissions, to conduct hearings and inquiries, to summon witnesses and to require testimony, to censure, suspend, and remove members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and other officials of the ACNA,
The Provincial Executive Council. The Provincial Executive Council would be elected by the Provincial General Synod and would be accountable to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would act as the executive body of the Provincial General Synod and would carryout the work of the Provincial General Synod and the Province between sessions of the Provincial General Synod, subject to the constitution and canons of the ACNA and the regulations and directives of the Provisional General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would exercise such powers and perform such functions as provided by the constitution or determined by the Provincial General Synod by canon.
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments and Canons. For constitutional amendments member judicatories would send a proposed change to the Provincial Executive Council which would circulate the proposal within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial General Synod. If the proposed change were adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General Synod, the proposal would be sent to the governing body of each judicatory for its approval. The governing bodies of the judicatories would send written notice of their approval to the Archbishop who would then inform them of the results. If approved unanimously by the member judicatories, the approved proposed amendment would be put into force. For canons the proposed canon would also be circulated within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial General Synod. If the proposed canon were adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General Synod, it would be submitted to each member judicatory for approval. Each member judicatory would send its decision in writing to the Archbishop who would inform the same of the results and, if approved by two-thirds vote of the member judicatories, it would take effect immediately. If the proposed canon is not approved, the judicatory or judicatories that submitted the proposed canon would be free to submit it again at the next Provincial General Synod.
In a future article I hope to examine the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans' Theological Committee's Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration which is due for release this spring and compare its clarification of the meaning of that theological statement with the doctrine formerly stated and otherwise expressed in the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
The changes to the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) envisioned in the following proposals would “broaden” the provisions of these two documents. They would remove a number of major obstacles to the membership of conservative evangelical Anglicans and conservative evangelical Anglican congregations; the formation of conservative evangelical Anglican dioceses, the ordination and licensing of conservative evangelical Anglican clergy; the teaching of the doctrine, ecclesiology, and liturgical usages of the English Reformers and classical evangelical Anglicanism; and the nomination, election, and consecration of conservative evangelical Anglican bishops in the ACNA. They would also eliminate serious barriers to the participation in the ACNA of orthodox Anglicans who value the North American Anglican heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province; who see no justifiable reason for the ACNA’s abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in diocesan and provincial governance and the episcopal and archiepiscopal nomination and election process; and who greatly feel the loss of this involvement.
The Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations would omit the decidedly partisan doctrinal position that “a godly historical episcopate is an integral part of the apostolic faith and practice…,” a position over which Anglicans have historically been divided. They would commit the ACNA to the preservation of the orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, a position on which Anglicans are in agreement.
Holy Orders. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 1, Section 1:
“The Anglican Church in North America holds and teaches that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders in Christ’s Church: bishops, priests, and deacons; and no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said offices, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to an authorized ordinal of this Church or has had consecration or ordination in some Church whose orders are recognized and accepted by this Church.”
Bishops. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 8, Section 2:
“Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God; it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions; and, himself an example of righteous and godly living, it is his duty to set forward and maintain quietness, love, and peace among all people.”
The constitution would require that the bishops of a judicatory (diocese, cluster, or network) should be elected by one of the following methods, all of which preserve the ancient custom of a diocese choosing its own bishop:
1. By the representative governing body of the judicatory by whatever name it is designated (e.g., Conference, Convention, Council, House of Delegates, Synod, etc.). A description of two local adaptations of this method of election, that of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America and the Reformed Episcopal Church are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
What follows are several additional examples of local adaptations of that method. They are taken from my research notes for that article. The first example is a description of how the Archbishop of Sidney, a diocese and metropolitan see of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Archbishop of Sydney Appointment Ordinance 1982:
As soon as possible after the date a vacancy occurs in the see of Sydney, the standing committee passes a resolution that the vacancy should be filled. The person who on the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of Sydney is entitled to exercising the powers vested in the archbishop summons the members of the synod to a meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy. Any two or more members of the Synod may in advance of this meeting nominate a candidate for the archbishop of the see. To be regarded as a nominee for archbishop of the see a candidate must have one or more nominations signed by at least 20 members of the Synod, have been notified in writing, and has agreed to be a nominee for archbishop of the see. A list of nominations must be sent to all the members of the synod within ten days of the meeting of the synod for the purpose of filling the vacancy. This list of nominations must contain the names of the nominees in alphabetic order with the names of all the members of Synod who have nominated each nominee. At the meeting of the Synod after the nominations have been formally proposed and seconded each member of the Synod is given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee in respect whether his name should be placed on a select list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the synod present, the lay members of the synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the select list. After the select list is compiled, each nominee whose name appears on the select list is formally proposed and seconded. The members of the Synod are given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee on each nominee in respect whether his name should be put on final list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the final list. A series of votes are then taken to reduce the name of nominees on the final list with the nominees in excess of a specific number determined by the canon delineating the election procedure receiving the lowest number of votes after the votes of both orders of the members of the synod being excluded after each vote. The same canon provides for preferential voting when the final list is reduced to two or three. When the final list is reduced to one, a motion is put to the synod that the nominee remain on the final list should be invited to be the archbishop of the see. A vote on the motion by show of hands is then taken in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of both orders of the members of the Synod then present and voting vote in favour of the motion, the nominee is declared duly elected to the office of Archbishop of Sydney.
The next step is confirmation of the election under the provisions of the Provincial Synod Ordinance for the Confirmation of Bishops’ Elections (N.S.W.) Assenting Ordinance 1965. If the election of the nominee is not confirmed and certified under the provisions of that Ordinance, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the see had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
The second example describes how the Bishop of Willochra, a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Regulation Two of the Diocese of Willochra, adopted in 1994.
When the see becomes vacant, or three months before the date of the retirement of the bishop, the administrator calls together the bishopric nomination committee which is required to nominate not less than three and not more than four persons to a special session of the diocesan synod to be called within three months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. The bishopric nomination committee consists of the administrator of the diocese together with five clerical and five lay members of the diocesan synod who are elected at the first session of each diocesan synod. There is also be elected three clergy and three lay persons as reserves in the event of any member of the committee being unavailable to serve. Any clergy member whose name is considered for nomination as bishop ceases to be a member of the committee. In the event of the administrator being nominated, the committee elects one of its members to chair the committee. The administrator circularizes all members of the diocesan synod inviting them to make submissions to the nomination committee. A name is not included for nomination to the diocesan synod unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members agree to the nomination. The nomination committee presents to the diocesan synod a statement about each nominee.
The administrator must cause a call of the diocesan synod to be made within three calendar months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. During the deliberations of the Election Synod only members and officers are allowed to be present except by special leave of the Synod. Members are prohibited at all times from disclosing any information concerning the proceedings of the Election Synod or the names of the candidates or the details of any ballot. The Synod by a vote of the majority of members present may at any stage in the proceedings under this regulation resolve itself into a committee of the whole and report back to Synod or may from time to time adjourn to a time to be fixed. When the Synod has assembled the administrator announces that a vacancy of the see has occurred. The administrator states the cause of the vacancy and explains the procedure to be followed in filling the vacancy, namely: that Synod is to receive the names submitted to it by the Nomination Committee together with not more than one name submitted by the House of Clergy and not more than one name submitted by the House of Laity. The administrator then informs members of Synod of the nominations being submitted to the Synod by the Nomination Committee. Each House of Synod then meets separately. The House of Clergy is chaired by the administrator and the House of Laity by a lay member of the Synod appointed by the administrator. The business of each House meeting separately is to consider the question "Do we wish to add the name of one person to the list of nominees?" If a majority in either House agree on the name of a person to be added then that name is added to the list of nominees. When both the House of Clergy and the House of Laity have completed the business before them the administrator shall call the Synod together again. The Synod then resolves itself into a committee of the whole for the purpose of discussing the candidature of those who have been nominated. After the discussion Synod resumes and each name is be balloted for individually by the House of Clergy and the House of Laity voting by orders. Every name which fails to obtain one third of the vote of each order is removed from the list. The names remaining on the list are then balloted for each voter recording a vote for one person only. The candidate obtaining two-thirds of the votes of each order is the bishop elect.
If after three ballots as in the preceding paragraph no candidate receives the requisite majority and if one of the candidates has obtained a majority of votes in each house and if the Synod decide in the affirmative it is permissible to move that such candidate be elected Bishop. If this motion is carried by a two thirds majority in each house voting by secret ballot then that person is the bishop elect. If no such motion is agreed to or if no candidate receives the requisite majority then the Synod is adjourned until such time as the Nomination Committee has prepared a further set of nominations for Synod.
If the person elected in accordance with this procedure declines to accept the see the Synod proceeds again under the Regulation.
If the Synod fails on two successive occasions to elect a Bishop it is competent for the Synod either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose to delegate its power and authority to elect a bishop to the primate, conjointly with some other bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia to be named by the Synod. If no such election of a bishop as provided for by the provisions of the Regulation or no appointment of a bishop under any delegated power and authority referred to above is made within a period of twelve months from the date of the vacancy of the see then the appointment of a bishop for this occasion passes to the primate conjointly with the bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia and is made by them.
The administrator reports to the metropolitan the result of any election or appointment in order to obtain the confirmation required by the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia or by any canon of the General Synod that may at that time be in force and binding on the diocese.
The election or appointment having been made and confirmed the person elected or appointed is, if not already consecrated, consecrated as provided in the canons of General Synod. In every case the bishop must take the oath of canonical obedience to the metropolitan and must make a declaration to be subject to the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and the canons and determinations of the General Synod at that time in force and binding on the diocese and the constitution and regulations of the Synod. Any bishop elected must either before consecration or if already consecrated before exercising any episcopal function in the Diocese sign and subscribe to the following declaration:
I, A.B., Bishop elect of the Diocese of Willochra do promise that I will maintain and teach the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Australia and I consent to be bound by all the Constitution and Regulations of Synod now or hereafter in force and I hereby undertake immediately to resign the said Bishopric and all rights and emoluments appertaining thereto if sentence requiring such resignation shall at any time be passed upon me after due examination had by the Tribunal acknowledged by the said Synod for the trial of a Bishop in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia. Given under my hand this.......................day of......................19...
2. By an Electoral College that may consist of all or part of the representative governing body of the judicatory. This example of a local adaptation of Electoral College method of the election of a bishop comes from the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia.
Under the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia the basic procedure for providing a diocesan bishop is that the primate convenes and presides over an electoral college or appoints a commissary to do so. The Electoral College consists of any bishop licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and those persons entitled to clergy votes and lay votes in the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod of the diocese concerned. The Electoral College by a majority of clergy votes and a majority of lay votes nominates (elects) a candidate to become the bishop. The primate submits the nomination to each of the bishops in full-time active episcopal ministry in the province and each such bishop informs the primate in writing whether or not that bishop has reason to disapprove the nomination on the ground of doctrine, or of character and manner of life, or of health, or of physical inability to undertake the episcopal ministry for which the nomination has been made. If all the bishops to whom the nomination is submitted inform the primate that they do not disapprove, the primate then proceeds to submit the nomination for the sanction of the General Synod.
If any bishop informs the primate in writing of disapproval, the bishops then consult either by meeting or other means. The bishops may decide by a majority of the bishops that the nomination should be submitted for the sanction of the General Synod or that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination. If the bishops decide that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination, they prepare in writing a statement of the reasons for their decision. The primate reconvenes, or instructs his commissary to reconvene, the Electoral College in order that it may reconsider its nomination. The statement prepared by the bishops is laid before the Electoral College, and the College then proceeds as if no nomination had been made. The candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination, and if that candidate is nominated the primate must submit the nomination for the sanction (confirmation) of the General Synod together with the statement prepared by the bishops and any memorial prepared by or with the authority of the Electoral College. If some other candidate is nominated, the nomination is submitted to the bishops of the province as the previous nomination was.
When the primate submits a nomination for the sanction of the General Synod, he submits it to the General Synod, if in session, or otherwise to every voting member of the General Synod. If the General Synod, if in session, or the members of the General Synod, when not in session, sanction (confirm) the nomination, the primate takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination once the nominee has declared in writing both assent to the Constitution and adherence and submission to the authority of the General Synod and has accepted the nomination.
If a nomination is not sanctioned, or if the nominee does not accept the nomination, that fact is communicated to the commissary presiding over the Electoral College that made the nomination and to the vicar-general (or equivalent) of the diocese concerned. After consultation with the legal counselor or chancellor and standing committee of the diocese, the commissary reconvenes the Electoral College for the purpose of making another nomination, or delegating the nomination. The constitution permits the delegation of the nomination to “a person or persons.” Any candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination unless such previous nomination has not been sanctioned by the General Synod (or by its members when not in session).
In the case of the nomination of the first bishop in a new diocese the Electoral College consists of the clergy licensed to any parish or any other ecclesiastical office within the boundaries of the new diocese, and not less than one lay representative for each parish or ministry or mission unit within the same boundaries elected in such manner as the primate or the commissary appointed by the primate directs.
An Electoral College sitting for the purpose of nominating a bishop to exercise an episcopal ministry within a diocese other than as diocesan bishop consist of the diocesan bishop and any other persons licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and the clerical and lay members of the standing committee of that diocese (by whatever name that standing committee is called) and such other persons being members of the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod as that body has previously chosen or determined from time to time.
3. By a Board of Electors elected by the representative governing body of the judicatory. The Board of Electors method of election of a bishop is a variation of the Electoral College method of election. The following description of a local adaptation of this method comes from the Wangaratta Bishopric Act 1904-1997. Wangaratta is a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia.
In the first session of every diocesan synod a six clergy duly licensed within the diocese and six laypersons being laypersons eligible to be members of the diocesan synod are chosen by ballot by the members of the diocesan synod to be a Board of Electors for the purpose of electing in the event of a vacancy in the see of the diocese the bishop of the diocese. Casual vacancies in the Board are filled in the same manner in the next session of the diocesan synod but if a voidance of the see occurs before the next session of the diocesan synod the remaining members of the Board may fill the vacancy. When the administrator of the diocese receives notification from the bishop of his intention to resign or retire, he may convene the Board. The administrator is the person appointed under the provisions of the Act to administer the diocese the affairs of the diocese during a vacancy in the see of the diocese. The Board does not proceed to the election of a bishop until the see becomes vacant. When a vacancy in the see has occurred, the administrator must convene the Board of Electors if he has not already done so and the Board must with all convenient speed proceed to the election of a bishop of the diocese and on such election having been made must report the result of the election to the administrator.
When an election has been made if effect cannot be given to the election the administrator notifies the Board of Electors and upon being so notified the Board proceeds as in the case of an original election and so on "toties quoties" until a bishop has been elected and installed. The members of the Board have power to decide as to all matters connected with the election but no election is valid unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members of the Board certify in writing to the administrator their assent to the election. In case of a vacancy in the see if any Board of Electors for a period of twelve months fails to elect a bishop and to notify the election to the administrator the Board is "ipso facto" dissolved and a new Board of Electors is constituted in following manner: The administrator with all convenient speed for the purpose of electing another Board of Electors calls a meeting (of which at least one month's notice specifying the objects of the meeting is given) of the persons who at the time of that failure were members of an existing diocesan synod or who if no diocesan synod is then in existence have been members of the last preceding diocesan synod at the time of its dissolution and the administrator is the president of this meeting the business of which is conducted according to the standing orders of the diocesan synod so far as they may be applicable. The administrator in the notice calling the meeting fixes a day for proceeding to the election of a new Board of Electors which election takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the persons elected take the place of the last preceding Board and have and exercise all the powers conferred upon that Board.
Upon an election having been made the administrator takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the election in accordance with the rules for the confirmation and consecration of bishops made by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia and adopted by the diocesan synod.
The code of canons would be amended to conform to the changes in the constitution. The constitution would require that the primate of the ACNA should be elected by the Provincial General Synod, by a Board of Electors elected by the Provincial General Synod, or an Electoral College consisting of the bishops of the ACNA and clergy and lay electors from each ACNA judicatory. Descriptions of local adaptations of all three methods are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
The procedure for the election of the primate would be delineated in the canons.
These methods of episcopal and primatial election give non-episcopal clergy and laity a substantial role in the election process and preserve basic elements of the synodical form of church government.
Judicatories. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term “judicatory,” it refers to the basic organizational unit of a denomination such as a diocese, conference, or association consisting of a group of churches. No ACNA judicatory would have exclusive jurisdiction over any geographic region of the United States or Canada. Other judicatories would be free to organize within such a region on the basis of territory or theological affinity (that is, shared doctrinal positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues).
The code of canons would clearly delineate the affiliation procedures by which groups of churches are recognized as judicatories of the ACNA. There would be two procedures. The first procedure would be for groups of churches that are already incorporated, have established an organizational structure, have adopted bylaws for the government of their members and the management of their affairs, and meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations, and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches would be required only to make a formal application, submit any necessary documentation, and agree to accede to the constitution and canons of the ACNA in order to be recognized as an autonomous ACNA judicatory. With their recognition the office of bishop of the judicatory would be automatically created and the judicatory would then elect its bishop, using one of three procedures that I have described.
The second procedure would be for groups of churches that are not incorporated, have not established an organizational structure or adopted bylaws, or meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches could apply for recognition as ACNA judicatories in formation. With the approval of their application the office of auxiliary bishop would be created. This auxiliary bishop would be appointed by the archbishop of the ACNA with the approval of the Provincial Executive Council and would oversee a specific group of churches. His role would be similar to that of a missionary bishop except unlike a missionary bishop he would not be responsible for a specific territory. If the specific group of churches was organized on the basis of theological affinity or theological affinity and territory, the auxiliary bishop appointed would be required to be a member of the same theological affinity group as the churches. If the specific group of churches were organized on the basis of territory, the canons would require that the auxiliary bishop be carefully matched with the group of churches that he is overseeing. If a judicatory in formation did, after a reasonable period of time, not met with all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance and a study of local conditions and other factors affecting the growth of the judicatory in formation suggested that it would not be able to meet these requirements if the period of formation was extended, the requirements could be waived and the judicatory in formation recognized as a autonomous judicatory, in which case it would elect its own bishop.
Applicants for recognition as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation and judicatories in formation would have the right to appeal any decisions of the Provincial Executive Council affecting them to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial General Synod would also have power to recognize a group of churches as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation on its own initiation as well as to overrule the decisions of the Provincial Executive Council.
The constitution would require the establishment of a representative governing body for each judicatory of the ACNA. This body by whatever name it is designated would consist of the bishops and licensed clergy of the diocese and elected lay members from each congregation of the diocese and would elect a standing committee from its clerical and lay members to serve as its executive body.
The Provincial General Synod. The constitution would establish as the governing body of the ACNA a Provincial General Synod consisting of a House of Bishops, a House of Clergy, and a House of Laity. The House of Bishops would consist of all the bishops of the ACNA. The House of Clergy would consist of clergy delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would consist of lay delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would have twice as many members as the combined membership of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. When the Provincial General Synod was in session, all three houses would sit together and vote together except where otherwise provided in the canons. All three houses would elect their own officers except that the primate would be the president of the House of Bishops by the virtue of his office.
The Provisional General Synod would have power to make canons and regulations for the ACNA, to amend the constitution of the ACNA, to adopt the budget of the ACNA, to elect the members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and give directives to that body, to appoint committees, boards, and commissions, to conduct hearings and inquiries, to summon witnesses and to require testimony, to censure, suspend, and remove members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and other officials of the ACNA,
The Provincial Executive Council. The Provincial Executive Council would be elected by the Provincial General Synod and would be accountable to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would act as the executive body of the Provincial General Synod and would carryout the work of the Provincial General Synod and the Province between sessions of the Provincial General Synod, subject to the constitution and canons of the ACNA and the regulations and directives of the Provisional General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would exercise such powers and perform such functions as provided by the constitution or determined by the Provincial General Synod by canon.
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments and Canons. For constitutional amendments member judicatories would send a proposed change to the Provincial Executive Council which would circulate the proposal within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial General Synod. If the proposed change were adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General Synod, the proposal would be sent to the governing body of each judicatory for its approval. The governing bodies of the judicatories would send written notice of their approval to the Archbishop who would then inform them of the results. If approved unanimously by the member judicatories, the approved proposed amendment would be put into force. For canons the proposed canon would also be circulated within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial General Synod. If the proposed canon were adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General Synod, it would be submitted to each member judicatory for approval. Each member judicatory would send its decision in writing to the Archbishop who would inform the same of the results and, if approved by two-thirds vote of the member judicatories, it would take effect immediately. If the proposed canon is not approved, the judicatory or judicatories that submitted the proposed canon would be free to submit it again at the next Provincial General Synod.
In a future article I hope to examine the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans' Theological Committee's Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration which is due for release this spring and compare its clarification of the meaning of that theological statement with the doctrine formerly stated and otherwise expressed in the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
Film Warns of Rising 'Homegrown Jihad' Threat in U.S.
http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/General/2009/05/film-warns-of-rising-homegrown-jihad-threat-in-u-s-15/index.html
[The Christian Post] 16 May 2009--The face of radical Islam is no longer limited to gun-toting, bomb-strapping, plane-hijacking terrorists. Now it takes on more subtle forms.
It infiltrates the highest echelon of American education; recruits the social rejects in U.S. prisons; and teaches American Muslim children to hate infidels, warns a new documentary that features a devout Muslim American, a former terrorist, and some of the nation’s top national security experts.
“This is not a film about Islam,” clarifies the documentary "The Third Jihad" at the onset of the film. “It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals. This film is about them.”
Over the course of 72-minutes, the film pulls together TV footage aired on Islamic broadcasting stations, secret documents that shows U.S. Muslim groups’ connection to terror organizations, and interviews with former CIA, FBI analysts and radical Islam experts to introduce the concept of “cultural jihad” – a new jihad method that uses the laws and rights of a society to undermine the freedoms it offers and to overthrow its social system.
[The Christian Post] 16 May 2009--The face of radical Islam is no longer limited to gun-toting, bomb-strapping, plane-hijacking terrorists. Now it takes on more subtle forms.
It infiltrates the highest echelon of American education; recruits the social rejects in U.S. prisons; and teaches American Muslim children to hate infidels, warns a new documentary that features a devout Muslim American, a former terrorist, and some of the nation’s top national security experts.
“This is not a film about Islam,” clarifies the documentary "The Third Jihad" at the onset of the film. “It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals. This film is about them.”
Over the course of 72-minutes, the film pulls together TV footage aired on Islamic broadcasting stations, secret documents that shows U.S. Muslim groups’ connection to terror organizations, and interviews with former CIA, FBI analysts and radical Islam experts to introduce the concept of “cultural jihad” – a new jihad method that uses the laws and rights of a society to undermine the freedoms it offers and to overthrow its social system.
Parishes and New Westminster mediation unsuccessful
[Anglican Network in Canada] 16 May 2009--After one and a half days of mediation with Chief Justice Donald Brenner acting as the mediator,the Diocese of New Westminster and four Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) parishes – St. John’s (Shaughnessy), St. Matthias and St. Luke, and Church of the Good Shepherd in Vancouver, and St. Matthews in Abbotsford – failed to reach an agreement. The dispute over church properties will now proceed to trial in the BC Supreme Court commencing May 25.
On January 6, 2009, the parties appeared before Chief Justice Brenner requesting an expedited
trial process and permission was granted. To reduce the time for trial and pre-trial procedures,
they agreed to exchange most of their evidence by affidavits and cross-examine a number of
witnesses before the trial. The trial begins May 25 and is set for three weeks.
Earlier this year, the ANiC parishes served a “Notice to Mediate” on the Diocese of New
Westminster. The mediation was scheduled for two full days (May 14 and 15) but by noon today,
an impasse was reached.
“We are very disappointed a settlement could not be reached”, said Cheryl Chang, Chancellor of
ANiC. “We were really hoping we could achieve a peaceful, mutually beneficial resolution of the
matters in dispute.”
This dispute arises from the current divide in the global Anglican Communion over profound
theological differences. The Anglican Church of Canada’s (ACoC) Primates’ Theological
Commission, in its recent “Galilee Report” acknowledged the division among the ACoC’s own
theologians, reflecting the division in the broader Anglican Church. The report said, “We are not of one mind among ourselves”. Similarly, the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council – one of the “Instruments of Unity” in the global Anglican Communion – demonstrated the depth of the division.
In light of this division in Anglicanism, the court will determine who the proper beneficiaries are of the trust over the church property of these four parishes – the diocese or the congregations which bought, paid for, renovated and maintained their church buildings, and who wish to continue upholding established Anglican teaching along with the majority of global Anglicans.
Additional background information is available here.
Today, ANiC numbers 29 parishes, three bishops, 73 priests and deacons and 3500 Canadians in
church on an average Sunday. Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are committed to
remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that
orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their Anglican brothers
and sisters around the world.
On January 6, 2009, the parties appeared before Chief Justice Brenner requesting an expedited
trial process and permission was granted. To reduce the time for trial and pre-trial procedures,
they agreed to exchange most of their evidence by affidavits and cross-examine a number of
witnesses before the trial. The trial begins May 25 and is set for three weeks.
Earlier this year, the ANiC parishes served a “Notice to Mediate” on the Diocese of New
Westminster. The mediation was scheduled for two full days (May 14 and 15) but by noon today,
an impasse was reached.
“We are very disappointed a settlement could not be reached”, said Cheryl Chang, Chancellor of
ANiC. “We were really hoping we could achieve a peaceful, mutually beneficial resolution of the
matters in dispute.”
This dispute arises from the current divide in the global Anglican Communion over profound
theological differences. The Anglican Church of Canada’s (ACoC) Primates’ Theological
Commission, in its recent “Galilee Report” acknowledged the division among the ACoC’s own
theologians, reflecting the division in the broader Anglican Church. The report said, “We are not of one mind among ourselves”. Similarly, the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council – one of the “Instruments of Unity” in the global Anglican Communion – demonstrated the depth of the division.
In light of this division in Anglicanism, the court will determine who the proper beneficiaries are of the trust over the church property of these four parishes – the diocese or the congregations which bought, paid for, renovated and maintained their church buildings, and who wish to continue upholding established Anglican teaching along with the majority of global Anglicans.
Additional background information is available here.
Today, ANiC numbers 29 parishes, three bishops, 73 priests and deacons and 3500 Canadians in
church on an average Sunday. Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are committed to
remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that
orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their Anglican brothers
and sisters around the world.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Chaos as ACC battle on Covenant Plan
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10667#more-10667
[Anglican Mainstream] 15 May 2009--The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will not endorse the Anglican Covenant and has voted to send it back to committee for further review. The vote comes as a major defeat for the Archbishop of Canterbury who had championed the Covenant as the one way to keep the Anglican Communion from splitting.
However the defeat appears self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams’ ambiguous intervention in the closing moments of the Covenant debate confused some delegates, and resulted in the adoption of a compromise resolution that holds off acceptance of the Covenant until a new committee reviews and revises the disciplinary provisions in section 4 of the agreement —- a process ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon said could take up to a year.
Questions of perfidy and incompetence were lodged against Dr Williams by conservative members of the ACC in inter views with The Church of England Newspaper immediately following the vote. But the anger with Dr Williams’ performance softened to exasperation by the following day for some conservative delegates to the May 2-12 meeting.
Delegates from the Church of Nigeria stated they were perplexed by Dr Williams having endorsed the Covenant at the start of the debate, and then apparently reversing himself and backing the call for delay by the end of the session.
Originally published in The Church of England Newspaper.
[Anglican Mainstream] 15 May 2009--The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will not endorse the Anglican Covenant and has voted to send it back to committee for further review. The vote comes as a major defeat for the Archbishop of Canterbury who had championed the Covenant as the one way to keep the Anglican Communion from splitting.
However the defeat appears self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams’ ambiguous intervention in the closing moments of the Covenant debate confused some delegates, and resulted in the adoption of a compromise resolution that holds off acceptance of the Covenant until a new committee reviews and revises the disciplinary provisions in section 4 of the agreement —- a process ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon said could take up to a year.
Questions of perfidy and incompetence were lodged against Dr Williams by conservative members of the ACC in inter views with The Church of England Newspaper immediately following the vote. But the anger with Dr Williams’ performance softened to exasperation by the following day for some conservative delegates to the May 2-12 meeting.
Delegates from the Church of Nigeria stated they were perplexed by Dr Williams having endorsed the Covenant at the start of the debate, and then apparently reversing himself and backing the call for delay by the end of the session.
Originally published in The Church of England Newspaper.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Wisdom of the Cross: Some reflections on ACC-14 and the Anglican Covenant
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=422
[Anglican Communion Institute] 14 May 2009--A number of persons from around the Communion have asked me for my perspective on the recent ACC meeting’s treatment of the proposed Anglican Covenant. There are at least two reasons, I suppose, why my opinion might be solicited. First, I have been a member of the Covenant Design Group that, over the past two and half years has worked at the drafting of this document. Obviously, I have a particular stake in what happens to the work we have spent over 30 full days in prayer, study, and labor producing. But second, I have long argued that doctrinally traditional Anglicans like myself should both be engaged in the Covenant’s promise and articulation but also willing to maintain that engagement from a posture of continued communion within and among our divided member churches. There are many who now wonder whether the outcome to the ACC meeting undercuts that argument.
[Anglican Communion Institute] 14 May 2009--A number of persons from around the Communion have asked me for my perspective on the recent ACC meeting’s treatment of the proposed Anglican Covenant. There are at least two reasons, I suppose, why my opinion might be solicited. First, I have been a member of the Covenant Design Group that, over the past two and half years has worked at the drafting of this document. Obviously, I have a particular stake in what happens to the work we have spent over 30 full days in prayer, study, and labor producing. But second, I have long argued that doctrinally traditional Anglicans like myself should both be engaged in the Covenant’s promise and articulation but also willing to maintain that engagement from a posture of continued communion within and among our divided member churches. There are many who now wonder whether the outcome to the ACC meeting undercuts that argument.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Report from ACC-14 Day Seven: No Fourth Moratorium and No Covenant
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10307
[Anglican Mainstream] 9 May 2009--What happened today with the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Continuation Group(WCG) Report?
I have just spent all day observing ACC-14’s decisionmaking plenary sessions here in Kingston, Jamaica. I would like to offer several observations:
The failure to pass a "fourth moratorium" on litigation
As we reported two days ago, the Anglican Communion Office, speaking through Bishop Gregory Cameron, could not explain why the moritorium on litigtion, unanimously voiced by the Primates at the Dar es Salaam meeting, was not included among the Communion Moratoria in the WCG draft resolution. In fact, the WCG report to the Archbishop of Canterbury included the fourth moratorium in paragraph 4, and noted that the current failure to observe this moratorium was exacerbating the "interventions" in North America.
When a resolution to add this fourth moratorium was moved today, the Presiding Bishop of TEC rose to complain, among other things, that such a moratorium would enable congregations leaving TEC to "alienate their property."
As usual, nothing could be further from the truth. The key principles set out in the appendix to the Dar es Salaam Statement required both parties "to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from the Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny use of that property to those congregations." (WCG Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury at paragraph 34, footnote 11, page 7). It is exactly the kind of "standstill" begged for by +Rowan Williams in his presentation of the WCG Recommendations, where he called all parties to take a step back from what they are doing - that we owe it to the Lord of our Church to do so.
Dr Williams has read the report. He presented its recommendations to the ACC-14. He was present at DES and read that Statement too. Yet he allowed the misrepresentation of the Presiding Bishop to stand, without comment.
[Anglican Mainstream] 9 May 2009--What happened today with the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Continuation Group(WCG) Report?
I have just spent all day observing ACC-14’s decisionmaking plenary sessions here in Kingston, Jamaica. I would like to offer several observations:
The failure to pass a "fourth moratorium" on litigation
As we reported two days ago, the Anglican Communion Office, speaking through Bishop Gregory Cameron, could not explain why the moritorium on litigtion, unanimously voiced by the Primates at the Dar es Salaam meeting, was not included among the Communion Moratoria in the WCG draft resolution. In fact, the WCG report to the Archbishop of Canterbury included the fourth moratorium in paragraph 4, and noted that the current failure to observe this moratorium was exacerbating the "interventions" in North America.
When a resolution to add this fourth moratorium was moved today, the Presiding Bishop of TEC rose to complain, among other things, that such a moratorium would enable congregations leaving TEC to "alienate their property."
As usual, nothing could be further from the truth. The key principles set out in the appendix to the Dar es Salaam Statement required both parties "to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from the Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny use of that property to those congregations." (WCG Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury at paragraph 34, footnote 11, page 7). It is exactly the kind of "standstill" begged for by +Rowan Williams in his presentation of the WCG Recommendations, where he called all parties to take a step back from what they are doing - that we owe it to the Lord of our Church to do so.
Dr Williams has read the report. He presented its recommendations to the ACC-14. He was present at DES and read that Statement too. Yet he allowed the misrepresentation of the Presiding Bishop to stand, without comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)