Saturday, May 31, 2008
Cryptic Crossword Solution for May 25
Here is my solution to this past Sunday’s cryptic crossword puzzle from the London Times:
When part of the body suffers… (2)
Over the course of the summer, there will be four more important events that may prove crucial for the future of the Anglican Communion. The first of them will be the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCon) in Jerusalem, June 22-28. Called at the initiative of the Primates of the Global South, the conference will draw together a thousand or more bishops, clergy, and lay people from around the world, to seek the renewal of the Holy Spirit for themselves and for the whole Communion, and to “prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority”.
The Lambeth Conference is the every-ten-year gathering of bishops from across the Anglican Communion. It will take place in Canterbury, England, July 16 – August 3. This is the first time ever that not all serving diocesan bishops have been invited; and of the 800 or so who have received invitations, approximately 200 have indicated that they are choosing not to attend—largely out of frustration that their calls for a return to biblical orthodoxy have gone unheard for more than a decade. Clearly the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is widening. Yet in spite of the threatened non-attendance of so many, Lambeth remains a most significant event for the life of our Communion.
On September 17-19, the US Episcopal House of Bishops will meet. One of the items on its agenda will likely be the deposition of the Rt Rev. Robert Duncan as Bishop of Pittsburgh. Bishop Duncan is also the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), a loose association of “conservative” parishes and dioceses who wish to remain in full communion with provinces of the Anglican Communion that have declared themselves either “out of communion” or in “impaired communion” with the Episcopal Church. Messiah has been a member of the ACN since 2006. This move is part of a concerted effort in recent years, through a very selective use of Canon Law, to silence conservative voices within the Episcopal Church. If it succeeds, it will only further divide an already divided body.
Later that same month bishops who have identified themselves as part of the Common Cause Partnership will also be meeting. This group includes not only bishops of the Episcopal Church and of the American branches of various African provinces, but also of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Network in Canada. It is possible that this historic meeting may set into motion the founding of a new province in North America.
Will the gangrene in the Anglican Communion be stopped? The next four months could prove crucial in that process. I hope that as events unfold, you will both watch and pray—that, though there may be pain, to the point of anguish, in the process, we may see a renewed and vital Anglicanism emerge.
The Lambeth Conference is the every-ten-year gathering of bishops from across the Anglican Communion. It will take place in Canterbury, England, July 16 – August 3. This is the first time ever that not all serving diocesan bishops have been invited; and of the 800 or so who have received invitations, approximately 200 have indicated that they are choosing not to attend—largely out of frustration that their calls for a return to biblical orthodoxy have gone unheard for more than a decade. Clearly the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is widening. Yet in spite of the threatened non-attendance of so many, Lambeth remains a most significant event for the life of our Communion.
On September 17-19, the US Episcopal House of Bishops will meet. One of the items on its agenda will likely be the deposition of the Rt Rev. Robert Duncan as Bishop of Pittsburgh. Bishop Duncan is also the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), a loose association of “conservative” parishes and dioceses who wish to remain in full communion with provinces of the Anglican Communion that have declared themselves either “out of communion” or in “impaired communion” with the Episcopal Church. Messiah has been a member of the ACN since 2006. This move is part of a concerted effort in recent years, through a very selective use of Canon Law, to silence conservative voices within the Episcopal Church. If it succeeds, it will only further divide an already divided body.
Later that same month bishops who have identified themselves as part of the Common Cause Partnership will also be meeting. This group includes not only bishops of the Episcopal Church and of the American branches of various African provinces, but also of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Network in Canada. It is possible that this historic meeting may set into motion the founding of a new province in North America.
Will the gangrene in the Anglican Communion be stopped? The next four months could prove crucial in that process. I hope that as events unfold, you will both watch and pray—that, though there may be pain, to the point of anguish, in the process, we may see a renewed and vital Anglicanism emerge.
Friday, May 30, 2008
New Study Shows Trends in Tithing and Donating
Some interesting, and possibly salutary, recent research findings from the Barna Group:
While theologians debate whether or not the practice of tithing—donating ten percent (or more) of one’s income to churches and charitable groups—is a biblical responsibility of Christians, Americans have pretty much made up their minds on the subject. Their views are discernible through their behavior. The giving patterns of Americans are described in new research released by The Barna Group, based on an annual tracking survey conducted by the firm regarding religious behaviors and beliefs. The results of the new research can be compared with outcomes from prior years to follow the trend line.
Whether they believe in the principle of tithing or not, few Americans give away that much money. In 2007, the research revealed that just 5% of adults tithed. Not surprisingly, some population groups were more likely than others to have given away at least ten percent of their income. Among the most generous segments were evangelicals (24% of whom tithed); conservatives (12%); people who had prayed, read the Bible and attended a church service during the past week (12%); charismatic or Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered Republicans (10%).
Several groups also stood out as highly unlikely to tithe: people under the age of 25, atheists and agnostics, single adults who have never been married, liberals, and downscale adults. One percent or less of the people in each of those segments tithed in 2007. Among all born again adults, 9% contributed one-tenth or more of their income. The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively)…
Christians tend to be the most generous group of donors. An examination of the three dominant subgroups within the Christian community showed that evangelicals, the 7% of the population who are most committed to the Christian faith, donated a mean of $4260 to all non-profit entities in 2007. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who represent another 37% of the public, donated a mean of $1581. The other 42% of the Christian population, who are aligned with a Christian church but are not born again, donated a mean of $865. Overall, the three segments of the Christian community averaged donations of $1426.
The Christian giving was divided between Protestants (mean of $1705) and Catholics ($984). In contrast, Americans associated with non-Christian faiths gave away a mean of $905 during 2007. Atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467 to all non-profit organizations.
The aggregate born again community (i.e., evangelicals as well as non-evangelical born again adults) donated a mean of $1971 to all non-profits and churches. That is the highest level reached by the born again population this decade. However, several giving patterns raised red flags for churches.
The percentage of born again adults who gave any money to churches dropped to its lowest level this decade (76%). In addition, the money donated by born agains to churches as a proportion of all of the money born agains gave away has also dropped precipitously. During the first five years of the decade, an average of 84 cents out of every dollar donated by born again adults went to churches. In the past three years, though, the proportion has declined to just 76 cents out of every donated dollar.
George Barna put the shift in born again giving into perspective. “Born again adults remain the most generous givers in a country acknowledged to be the most generous on the planet,” said the veteran researcher. “But their donation decisions must be seen in the larger context of the changes occurring in a wide range of religious behaviors. With millions of people shifting their allegiance to different forms of church experience, and a more participatory society altering how people interact and serve others, many Christians are now giving their money to different types of organizations instead of a church. They attend conventional churches less often. They are expanding their circle of Christian relationships beyond local church boundaries. And they are investing greater amounts of their time and money in service organizations that are not connected with a conventional church. That doesn’t make such giving inappropriate or less significant, it’s just a different way of addressing social needs.”
“The choices being made by born again donors have huge implications for the non-profit sector. Realize that a majority of the money donated by individuals in the U.S. comes from the born again constituency,” Barna pointed out. “If this transition in the perceptions and giving behavior of born again adults continues to accelerate, the service functions of conventional churches will be redefined within the next eight to ten years, and conventional churches will have to adopt new ways of assisting people in need.”
You can find the whole report here.
While theologians debate whether or not the practice of tithing—donating ten percent (or more) of one’s income to churches and charitable groups—is a biblical responsibility of Christians, Americans have pretty much made up their minds on the subject. Their views are discernible through their behavior. The giving patterns of Americans are described in new research released by The Barna Group, based on an annual tracking survey conducted by the firm regarding religious behaviors and beliefs. The results of the new research can be compared with outcomes from prior years to follow the trend line.
Whether they believe in the principle of tithing or not, few Americans give away that much money. In 2007, the research revealed that just 5% of adults tithed. Not surprisingly, some population groups were more likely than others to have given away at least ten percent of their income. Among the most generous segments were evangelicals (24% of whom tithed); conservatives (12%); people who had prayed, read the Bible and attended a church service during the past week (12%); charismatic or Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered Republicans (10%).
Several groups also stood out as highly unlikely to tithe: people under the age of 25, atheists and agnostics, single adults who have never been married, liberals, and downscale adults. One percent or less of the people in each of those segments tithed in 2007. Among all born again adults, 9% contributed one-tenth or more of their income. The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively)…
Christians tend to be the most generous group of donors. An examination of the three dominant subgroups within the Christian community showed that evangelicals, the 7% of the population who are most committed to the Christian faith, donated a mean of $4260 to all non-profit entities in 2007. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who represent another 37% of the public, donated a mean of $1581. The other 42% of the Christian population, who are aligned with a Christian church but are not born again, donated a mean of $865. Overall, the three segments of the Christian community averaged donations of $1426.
The Christian giving was divided between Protestants (mean of $1705) and Catholics ($984). In contrast, Americans associated with non-Christian faiths gave away a mean of $905 during 2007. Atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467 to all non-profit organizations.
The aggregate born again community (i.e., evangelicals as well as non-evangelical born again adults) donated a mean of $1971 to all non-profits and churches. That is the highest level reached by the born again population this decade. However, several giving patterns raised red flags for churches.
The percentage of born again adults who gave any money to churches dropped to its lowest level this decade (76%). In addition, the money donated by born agains to churches as a proportion of all of the money born agains gave away has also dropped precipitously. During the first five years of the decade, an average of 84 cents out of every dollar donated by born again adults went to churches. In the past three years, though, the proportion has declined to just 76 cents out of every donated dollar.
George Barna put the shift in born again giving into perspective. “Born again adults remain the most generous givers in a country acknowledged to be the most generous on the planet,” said the veteran researcher. “But their donation decisions must be seen in the larger context of the changes occurring in a wide range of religious behaviors. With millions of people shifting their allegiance to different forms of church experience, and a more participatory society altering how people interact and serve others, many Christians are now giving their money to different types of organizations instead of a church. They attend conventional churches less often. They are expanding their circle of Christian relationships beyond local church boundaries. And they are investing greater amounts of their time and money in service organizations that are not connected with a conventional church. That doesn’t make such giving inappropriate or less significant, it’s just a different way of addressing social needs.”
“The choices being made by born again donors have huge implications for the non-profit sector. Realize that a majority of the money donated by individuals in the U.S. comes from the born again constituency,” Barna pointed out. “If this transition in the perceptions and giving behavior of born again adults continues to accelerate, the service functions of conventional churches will be redefined within the next eight to ten years, and conventional churches will have to adopt new ways of assisting people in need.”
You can find the whole report here.
A Statement from the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana
Northern Indiana is now the fifth diocese to post an official protest against the recent actions of the Episcopal Church House of Bishops:
We, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana strongly protest the failure of the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori and Chancellor David Booth Beers to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the depositions of Bishops John Schofield and William Cox. Deposition is the harshest punishment that can be handed a bishop. It is essential that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed since, in this case, the rights of the accused are protected, in part, by the extraordinarily high level of involvement and concord called for within the House of Bishops by Canon IV.9.2. As others have pointed out, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church at various times distinguishes between a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, from a vote by a majority of the whole. Mr. Beers was incorrect in his assertion, reaffirmed by the Presiding Bishop in a letter to the House of Bishops (April 30, 2008), that the Canonical language of “the whole number of bishops entitled to vote” can be taken to mean only “those in attendance at a particular meeting.” This makes deposition an action with no higher standard than any matter of routine business. We agree with the analysis provided by the Bishops and Standing Committees of the Dioceses of South Carolina and Central Florida that the Canons plainly require a majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, not just those in attendance at a particular meeting.
We call upon the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to revisit those decisions and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in this and all future House of Bishops decisions.
We note with alarm that the Presiding Bishop has publically stated her intent to begin, at the September meeting of the House of Bishops, deposition proceedings against Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for abandoning the communion before the diocese votes to do so in November. We plead for calm and prayer in the face of temptations to escalate abuses of power in this way. We agree with the Standing Committee of Central Florida and others who insist that depositions are an unnecessary and unfortunate way to deal with disagreement, dissension, and even division within our Church. We believe it also borders on unchristian.
This statement was written shortly after Trinity Sunday. The Trinitarian faith we profess in our worship is no mere exercise in divine arithmetic. The Trinity helps us know God’s true character within whose being exists a community of divine self-abasement. Thus understood, the Trinity is the foundation upon which truly human relationships are built. Everything the New Testament has to say about Christian relationships flows from this essential understanding of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nowhere is this clearer than in Philippians 2:1-11.
We believe that when we let the same mind be in us that was in Jesus, other ways of responding to division come into view. Those Bishops (or other clergy) who, for sake of conscience, can no longer minister as part of The Episcopal Church can be transferred at their request, or permitted to renounce their vows and join with other Anglican Provinces without vindictiveness or punitive measures. Confrontation in the Church is an opportunity to show the world how Christians conduct themselves in the midst of serious disagreements. It is an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel.
We urge the House of Bishops to give attention to these matters in the name of mutuality, humility and concord.
We insist that when it becomes necessary to invoke the Canons, that both the letter and the spirit of the law be dutifully followed.
We encourage the Standing Committees of the various dioceses within The Episcopal Church to investigate these matters for themselves and prayerfully consider an appropriate response.
Peace be to the Church, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who have an undying love our Lord Jesus Christ.
This statement, together with a list of its signatories, may be found here.
We, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana strongly protest the failure of the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori and Chancellor David Booth Beers to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the depositions of Bishops John Schofield and William Cox. Deposition is the harshest punishment that can be handed a bishop. It is essential that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed since, in this case, the rights of the accused are protected, in part, by the extraordinarily high level of involvement and concord called for within the House of Bishops by Canon IV.9.2. As others have pointed out, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church at various times distinguishes between a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, from a vote by a majority of the whole. Mr. Beers was incorrect in his assertion, reaffirmed by the Presiding Bishop in a letter to the House of Bishops (April 30, 2008), that the Canonical language of “the whole number of bishops entitled to vote” can be taken to mean only “those in attendance at a particular meeting.” This makes deposition an action with no higher standard than any matter of routine business. We agree with the analysis provided by the Bishops and Standing Committees of the Dioceses of South Carolina and Central Florida that the Canons plainly require a majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, not just those in attendance at a particular meeting.
We call upon the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to revisit those decisions and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in this and all future House of Bishops decisions.
We note with alarm that the Presiding Bishop has publically stated her intent to begin, at the September meeting of the House of Bishops, deposition proceedings against Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for abandoning the communion before the diocese votes to do so in November. We plead for calm and prayer in the face of temptations to escalate abuses of power in this way. We agree with the Standing Committee of Central Florida and others who insist that depositions are an unnecessary and unfortunate way to deal with disagreement, dissension, and even division within our Church. We believe it also borders on unchristian.
This statement was written shortly after Trinity Sunday. The Trinitarian faith we profess in our worship is no mere exercise in divine arithmetic. The Trinity helps us know God’s true character within whose being exists a community of divine self-abasement. Thus understood, the Trinity is the foundation upon which truly human relationships are built. Everything the New Testament has to say about Christian relationships flows from this essential understanding of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nowhere is this clearer than in Philippians 2:1-11.
We believe that when we let the same mind be in us that was in Jesus, other ways of responding to division come into view. Those Bishops (or other clergy) who, for sake of conscience, can no longer minister as part of The Episcopal Church can be transferred at their request, or permitted to renounce their vows and join with other Anglican Provinces without vindictiveness or punitive measures. Confrontation in the Church is an opportunity to show the world how Christians conduct themselves in the midst of serious disagreements. It is an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel.
We urge the House of Bishops to give attention to these matters in the name of mutuality, humility and concord.
We insist that when it becomes necessary to invoke the Canons, that both the letter and the spirit of the law be dutifully followed.
We encourage the Standing Committees of the various dioceses within The Episcopal Church to investigate these matters for themselves and prayerfully consider an appropriate response.
Peace be to the Church, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who have an undying love our Lord Jesus Christ.
This statement, together with a list of its signatories, may be found here.
When part of the body suffers… (1)
This is the first half of an article I have written in our church newsletter:
I once had a parishioner whose leg had become infected with gangrene. Doctors had tried to treat it by various means, but the infection was persistent and threatening to spread. It became clear that the only way to stop it would be to amputate her leg.
It was a heart-wrenching decision. We had hoped prayed for some time that it would not come to this, and the evening before her surgery a group of us gathered in her hospital room to pray over her and anoint her with oil, hoping that the amputation might still prove to be unnecessary.
A day or two after her surgery I was in to see her again. Sitting in her wheelchair, it was clear that a transformation had taken place. Gone were the worry and the pain of the gangrene. Though she lacked a leg, she was free to get on with life again—and very quickly she did.
“When one part of the body suffers, every part suffers with it.” So wrote to the apostle Paul to his Christian friends in Corinth. He was not offering medical advice, but stating a spiritual principle. Their church was amazingly alive in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet Paul was also able to recognize some serious issues that, like gangrene, threatened to compromise all that God was doing among them.
Nearly twenty centuries later we in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion find ourselves in the same predicament. For more than a decade there have been attempts to address the apostasy and outright heresy that have been taking hold of the church for more than forty years: brazen and consistent denials of the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, the sacrificial nature of his death, his bodily resurrection, the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, and the authority of Scripture.
The 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Windsor Report, the drafting of an Anglican Covenant, and the two most recent meetings of the Primates of the Communion, in Northern Ireland in 2005 and in Tanzania in 2007, have all been attempts to arrest the spiritual disease that threatens the life of the church. Yet thus far it appears to have been resistant to all forms of intervention.
I once had a parishioner whose leg had become infected with gangrene. Doctors had tried to treat it by various means, but the infection was persistent and threatening to spread. It became clear that the only way to stop it would be to amputate her leg.
It was a heart-wrenching decision. We had hoped prayed for some time that it would not come to this, and the evening before her surgery a group of us gathered in her hospital room to pray over her and anoint her with oil, hoping that the amputation might still prove to be unnecessary.
A day or two after her surgery I was in to see her again. Sitting in her wheelchair, it was clear that a transformation had taken place. Gone were the worry and the pain of the gangrene. Though she lacked a leg, she was free to get on with life again—and very quickly she did.
“When one part of the body suffers, every part suffers with it.” So wrote to the apostle Paul to his Christian friends in Corinth. He was not offering medical advice, but stating a spiritual principle. Their church was amazingly alive in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet Paul was also able to recognize some serious issues that, like gangrene, threatened to compromise all that God was doing among them.
Nearly twenty centuries later we in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion find ourselves in the same predicament. For more than a decade there have been attempts to address the apostasy and outright heresy that have been taking hold of the church for more than forty years: brazen and consistent denials of the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, the sacrificial nature of his death, his bodily resurrection, the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, and the authority of Scripture.
The 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Windsor Report, the drafting of an Anglican Covenant, and the two most recent meetings of the Primates of the Communion, in Northern Ireland in 2005 and in Tanzania in 2007, have all been attempts to arrest the spiritual disease that threatens the life of the church. Yet thus far it appears to have been resistant to all forms of intervention.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The ‘Sauls Memorandum’ Refuted
Bishop Stacy Sauls has written to defend the House of Bishops’ disregard for Canon Law in their recent depositions of conservative bishops. “Anglican Curmudgeon” demonstrates the gaping inconsistencies in Sauls’ arguments:
The lengthy Memorandum to the House of Bishops authored by the Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls of the Diocese of Lexington is, as many bloggers have already spotted, full of inconsistencies and erroneous analysis. In considering how best to demonstrate this point, I have decided to use a “Fisking” format for its first five pages, where the errors accumulate until the conclusions can no longer be validly drawn. I am putting this part of my response up now, and will require some more time to decide how best to format the second part. Suffice it to say that everyone who takes the trouble to follow along and see what is being claimed in light of what is actually the case should have no difficulty in seeing, without any help from me, how these errors permeate the rest of the Memorandum. The original is in black text, and my fisks are in purple…
MEMORANDUM
May 27, 2008
To: House of Bishops
From: Task Force on Property Disputes
Re: Proper Use of Abandonment Procedures for Bishops
Subsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal Church and some commentators have suggested that we may have failed to follow our own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law, however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.
A “careful analysis and examination of the canon law”? We shall see.
This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any additional such actions in the future.
Actually, this memorandum is intended to arrive at a foregone conclusion (that the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor committed no error), and would serve as a very poor guide to any such additional actions in the future.
Conclusion
The House of Bishops followed the proper canonical procedure for consenting to the depositions of John-David Schofield and William J. Cox from the Ministry of The Episcopal Church as provided in Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) for the following reasons:
A. The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the deposition of a Bishop.
B. Precedent establishes that the House of Bishops acted appropriately in considering and acting upon the Presiding Bishop’s referral to it of the abandonment of communion certified to her by the Review Committee.
C. Procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of Bishops accused of having abandoned the Communion of this Church.
All right, so we know what your conclusions are before we start (and so, most likely, did you). Now let’s look at the analysis…
Praise God for people like our friend “Anglican curmudgeon”, who are prepared to take the effort to expose the holes in the spurious and self-serving arguments coming from the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church! Read the rest of his refutation here.
The lengthy Memorandum to the House of Bishops authored by the Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls of the Diocese of Lexington is, as many bloggers have already spotted, full of inconsistencies and erroneous analysis. In considering how best to demonstrate this point, I have decided to use a “Fisking” format for its first five pages, where the errors accumulate until the conclusions can no longer be validly drawn. I am putting this part of my response up now, and will require some more time to decide how best to format the second part. Suffice it to say that everyone who takes the trouble to follow along and see what is being claimed in light of what is actually the case should have no difficulty in seeing, without any help from me, how these errors permeate the rest of the Memorandum. The original is in black text, and my fisks are in purple…
MEMORANDUM
May 27, 2008
To: House of Bishops
From: Task Force on Property Disputes
Re: Proper Use of Abandonment Procedures for Bishops
Subsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal Church and some commentators have suggested that we may have failed to follow our own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law, however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.
A “careful analysis and examination of the canon law”? We shall see.
This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any additional such actions in the future.
Actually, this memorandum is intended to arrive at a foregone conclusion (that the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor committed no error), and would serve as a very poor guide to any such additional actions in the future.
Conclusion
The House of Bishops followed the proper canonical procedure for consenting to the depositions of John-David Schofield and William J. Cox from the Ministry of The Episcopal Church as provided in Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) for the following reasons:
A. The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the deposition of a Bishop.
B. Precedent establishes that the House of Bishops acted appropriately in considering and acting upon the Presiding Bishop’s referral to it of the abandonment of communion certified to her by the Review Committee.
C. Procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of Bishops accused of having abandoned the Communion of this Church.
All right, so we know what your conclusions are before we start (and so, most likely, did you). Now let’s look at the analysis…
Praise God for people like our friend “Anglican curmudgeon”, who are prepared to take the effort to expose the holes in the spurious and self-serving arguments coming from the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church! Read the rest of his refutation here.
Pittsburgh Standing Committee Responds to Threatened Deposition
From the Diocese of Pittsburgh web site:
The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has released the following statement regarding the threatened deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan at the September 2008 meeting of The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops. Their statement has been faxed and mailed to the office of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.
The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is saddened to learn the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor will continue to press for the deposition of our Diocesan Bishop, Robert W. Duncan, Jr. for the Abandonment of Communion at the September 2008 House of Bishops Meeting. Although we recognize the authority of the Episcopal Church to discipline and remove its ministers for violations of its canons, we believe Canon IV.9, Sec.1 has been misapplied and Canon IV.9, Sec.2 has been misinterpreted in this instance.
Should our Diocesan Bishop be validly deposed pursuant to the requirements set forth in the canons, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is prepared to exercise its role as the Ecclesiastical Authority of this diocese.
Unanimously affirmed by the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, May 27, 2008.
The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has released the following statement regarding the threatened deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan at the September 2008 meeting of The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops. Their statement has been faxed and mailed to the office of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.
The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is saddened to learn the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor will continue to press for the deposition of our Diocesan Bishop, Robert W. Duncan, Jr. for the Abandonment of Communion at the September 2008 House of Bishops Meeting. Although we recognize the authority of the Episcopal Church to discipline and remove its ministers for violations of its canons, we believe Canon IV.9, Sec.1 has been misapplied and Canon IV.9, Sec.2 has been misinterpreted in this instance.
Should our Diocesan Bishop be validly deposed pursuant to the requirements set forth in the canons, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is prepared to exercise its role as the Ecclesiastical Authority of this diocese.
Unanimously affirmed by the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, May 27, 2008.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
London Times Cryptic Crossword for May 25
Here is the London Times cryptic crossword from last Sunday (a couple of days late thanks to my being away for Memorial Day). Just click on it to get the full-sized version.
Conforming to the spirit of the age?
Here is an op-ed piece that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last Friday:
As a lifelong Anglican who has traveled extensively on business during my adult years, I have been a member of congregations in Australia, Canada, Sweden, Florida and Fort Worth. I also have attended worship services in a number of other countries I visited, but in each case I found a common thread of liturgy and theology that could be traced back well beyond my ancestors William Connor Magee (bishop of Peterborough, 1868-1891, and archbishop of York, 1891) and his grandfather William Magee (archbishop of Dublin, 1822-1831). I have felt that sense of consistency begin to wane during the past few years as the teachings of the Episcopal Church have drifted away from the traditions of the past centuries.
The American church has de-emphasized the role of Jesus as the Savior who offers the faithful the only path to salvation and eternal life, relegating him instead to the role of a bit player who is but one of the means employed by God (according to U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in a CNN interview). Meanwhile, the issue of homosexuality—debated for some time within the Anglican Communion—was brought to the fore in 2003, when an openly gay and noncelibate priest was made bishop of New Hampshire.
These and other matters too many to mention have caused numerous parishes and several dioceses (including Fort Worth) during the past few years to seek to separate from the Episcopal Church and realign their organizational reporting structure with other provinces of the communion.
In Fort Worth’s case, association has been sought with the Province of the Southern Cone, which covers most of South America. It is led by Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables, who preached in Fort Worth a few weeks ago, saying in part: “Make no mistake—the battle going on amongst Anglicans is not about gay bishops or homosexuals getting married, but rather it’s about the fundamental truths written in the Bible that [the Episcopal Church] is trying water down and revise.”
Schori is quoted as saying: “Our heritage and context shape our theology. The ways in which we understand Scripture and appropriate gospel response to social realities are shaped both by our roots and our current circumstances.” This is in direct contrast to the warning from William Connor Magee, who said to his assembled clergy in 1872: “Once let [the church] regard it as her main duty to ‘conform herself to the spirit of the age’ and the prophetic spirit will have died out of her. She will no longer ‘cry aloud and spare not’, she will no longer dare to speak the word of the Lord, 'whether men will hear or whether they will forbear.’”
Rather than addressing the theological issues that threaten to divide the church, the denomination has tried to maintain order through intimidation: filing lawsuits against parishes that would seek realignment; attempting to depose bishops who hold to the traditional views of the church; and issuing a series of strongly worded letters from Schori to bishops across the country. It seems increasingly evident that the only sensible outcome should be the eventual creation of a second Anglican province within the United States comprising those parishes and dioceses that have chosen to “walk apart” from the Episcopal Church.
Petty disputes about property should be put aside, as is the stated intention of the Fort Worth Diocese, which would allow each of its 55 congregations to vote on whether or not to separate from the national church. Parishes that choose to remain would retain their church property, as would the parishes that choose to realign. Surely this is the Christian path to follow.
The author, Steve Banner, is expressing the increasing frustration of many within the Episcopal Church. You can read the entire article here.
As a lifelong Anglican who has traveled extensively on business during my adult years, I have been a member of congregations in Australia, Canada, Sweden, Florida and Fort Worth. I also have attended worship services in a number of other countries I visited, but in each case I found a common thread of liturgy and theology that could be traced back well beyond my ancestors William Connor Magee (bishop of Peterborough, 1868-1891, and archbishop of York, 1891) and his grandfather William Magee (archbishop of Dublin, 1822-1831). I have felt that sense of consistency begin to wane during the past few years as the teachings of the Episcopal Church have drifted away from the traditions of the past centuries.
The American church has de-emphasized the role of Jesus as the Savior who offers the faithful the only path to salvation and eternal life, relegating him instead to the role of a bit player who is but one of the means employed by God (according to U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in a CNN interview). Meanwhile, the issue of homosexuality—debated for some time within the Anglican Communion—was brought to the fore in 2003, when an openly gay and noncelibate priest was made bishop of New Hampshire.
These and other matters too many to mention have caused numerous parishes and several dioceses (including Fort Worth) during the past few years to seek to separate from the Episcopal Church and realign their organizational reporting structure with other provinces of the communion.
In Fort Worth’s case, association has been sought with the Province of the Southern Cone, which covers most of South America. It is led by Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables, who preached in Fort Worth a few weeks ago, saying in part: “Make no mistake—the battle going on amongst Anglicans is not about gay bishops or homosexuals getting married, but rather it’s about the fundamental truths written in the Bible that [the Episcopal Church] is trying water down and revise.”
Schori is quoted as saying: “Our heritage and context shape our theology. The ways in which we understand Scripture and appropriate gospel response to social realities are shaped both by our roots and our current circumstances.” This is in direct contrast to the warning from William Connor Magee, who said to his assembled clergy in 1872: “Once let [the church] regard it as her main duty to ‘conform herself to the spirit of the age’ and the prophetic spirit will have died out of her. She will no longer ‘cry aloud and spare not’, she will no longer dare to speak the word of the Lord, 'whether men will hear or whether they will forbear.’”
Rather than addressing the theological issues that threaten to divide the church, the denomination has tried to maintain order through intimidation: filing lawsuits against parishes that would seek realignment; attempting to depose bishops who hold to the traditional views of the church; and issuing a series of strongly worded letters from Schori to bishops across the country. It seems increasingly evident that the only sensible outcome should be the eventual creation of a second Anglican province within the United States comprising those parishes and dioceses that have chosen to “walk apart” from the Episcopal Church.
Petty disputes about property should be put aside, as is the stated intention of the Fort Worth Diocese, which would allow each of its 55 congregations to vote on whether or not to separate from the national church. Parishes that choose to remain would retain their church property, as would the parishes that choose to realign. Surely this is the Christian path to follow.
The author, Steve Banner, is expressing the increasing frustration of many within the Episcopal Church. You can read the entire article here.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Anne Coletta interviews the Archbishop of Uganda
This interview is well worth the 30 minutes. (I put it in the background and just listened to it.) From AnglicanTV:
Letter from Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis on GAFCon and Global South
This letter was written on May 8. I presume it was addressed to the bishops of the Global South, but am not certain.
I appreciate the fact that GAFCON provides an important meeting place for leaders from the South and from the North. I very much understand the frustrations as well as the hopes that led to the organisation of this conference. I do share your frustration in regard to what is going on in our Communion, as well as your hopes for strong and faithful Anglican church.
I am very disappointed with the direction taken by the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church in Canada. This direction is not only about sexual ethics, which are contrary to Scripture, but also in regard to the fundamentals of the Apostolic Faith as we received it, like the Nature of Christ, the authority of scripture and God’s Salvation through Jesus Christ.
In addition they use very ambiguous language and contradictory phrases in their responses to the clear Windsor recommendation as well as the Dar es Salaam ones. It was shocking for me to hear that some now ask for the definition of ‘moratorium’ after four years of issuing The Windsor Report!
I am deeply concerned that The Windsor Report and Dar es Salaam recommendations were not followed through and now the very people who caused the Communion’s crisis are invited to the most important Anglican council which is the Lambeth Conference. It is wrong to sweep all these problems under the carpet!
I also share your hopes that we can go forward to advance the mission of the Gospel and be instruments in building the Church of Christ, founded on the Biblical truth.
Having said all this I am sorry that I will not be able to be with you at your Conference but I assure you that you will be in my prayers. Please accept my apologies. I also look forward to receiving your recommendations before going to Lambeth. My brothers I want to draw your attention to the following: 1) The unity of the Global South (GS) is our great concern…
I believe that the best strategy for safeguarding orthodox faith and unhindered mission is to have parallel processes for building unity among those loyal to the biblical historic faith and ethics in both the South and the North. Orthodox leaders in the South and in the North need to continue to work together and support each other.
I would respectfully add that the Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in ’09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time…
If there is no prospect of a Covenant that safeguards orthodoxy and unhindered mission within a reasonable timescale, then the possibility of adopting a “holding covenant” may need to be considered. I urge you all to consider participating in the Lambeth Conference.
The absence of any of your voices will be a great loss. God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah. So I decided not to withdraw but to go and speak the truth, and leave the rest to God. Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. They need to be alerted. Your presence would be a help, as indeed it was in 1998.
I originally found this letter on the Global South Anglican website, but it since appears to have been pulled. You can now read it at Anglican Mainstream here.
I appreciate the fact that GAFCON provides an important meeting place for leaders from the South and from the North. I very much understand the frustrations as well as the hopes that led to the organisation of this conference. I do share your frustration in regard to what is going on in our Communion, as well as your hopes for strong and faithful Anglican church.
I am very disappointed with the direction taken by the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church in Canada. This direction is not only about sexual ethics, which are contrary to Scripture, but also in regard to the fundamentals of the Apostolic Faith as we received it, like the Nature of Christ, the authority of scripture and God’s Salvation through Jesus Christ.
In addition they use very ambiguous language and contradictory phrases in their responses to the clear Windsor recommendation as well as the Dar es Salaam ones. It was shocking for me to hear that some now ask for the definition of ‘moratorium’ after four years of issuing The Windsor Report!
I am deeply concerned that The Windsor Report and Dar es Salaam recommendations were not followed through and now the very people who caused the Communion’s crisis are invited to the most important Anglican council which is the Lambeth Conference. It is wrong to sweep all these problems under the carpet!
I also share your hopes that we can go forward to advance the mission of the Gospel and be instruments in building the Church of Christ, founded on the Biblical truth.
Having said all this I am sorry that I will not be able to be with you at your Conference but I assure you that you will be in my prayers. Please accept my apologies. I also look forward to receiving your recommendations before going to Lambeth. My brothers I want to draw your attention to the following: 1) The unity of the Global South (GS) is our great concern…
I believe that the best strategy for safeguarding orthodox faith and unhindered mission is to have parallel processes for building unity among those loyal to the biblical historic faith and ethics in both the South and the North. Orthodox leaders in the South and in the North need to continue to work together and support each other.
I would respectfully add that the Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in ’09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time…
If there is no prospect of a Covenant that safeguards orthodoxy and unhindered mission within a reasonable timescale, then the possibility of adopting a “holding covenant” may need to be considered. I urge you all to consider participating in the Lambeth Conference.
The absence of any of your voices will be a great loss. God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah. So I decided not to withdraw but to go and speak the truth, and leave the rest to God. Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. They need to be alerted. Your presence would be a help, as indeed it was in 1998.
I originally found this letter on the Global South Anglican website, but it since appears to have been pulled. You can now read it at Anglican Mainstream here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Vanessa Bradby Gives New Meaning to International Student
Here’s a little article about Vanessa Bradby, a Messiah parishioner serving in Pakistan, from the Luther Seminary publication, The Story:
When she began at Luther in 2006, Bradby lived in the Twin Cities. But in March 2007, her husband, Mark, received a job offer in Pakistan. Mark, born in India to missionary parents, and Vanessa, who shared his calling to serve overseas, had planned on moving abroad at some point, but Vanessa wasn’t even halfway through seminary.
Yet faculty at Luther said they could make it work. “I’m kind of a high-maintenance distance-learning person,” said Bradby. “They’ve been working very hard to make sure the program works out for me. I just finished my first semester from Pakistan.”
Now a Master of Divinity middler, Bradby moved to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad in July and finished her summer Hebrew course by recording lectures using an Internet calling program. Last fall, she took three online courses and “attended” one course via Internet phone.
Bradby has always been a bit unique—her background is especially ecumenical. She is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, was called to ministry while working at an American Baptist youth camp, attended a Nazarene college, and worked for Episcopal and Methodist churches. She and Mark now attend the Church of Pakistan, which she has found to be an especially challenging context for the contextual education involvement required by her program.
Amid her new life, Bradby has pondered how to piece together her call to ministry with her passion for overseas service and experience with youth. She aims to complete seminary in 2009 and expects that she and Mark will be in Pakistan at least that long.
It’s lonely to be a long-distance student, but Bradby has found community with other seminarians. “There are people who felt connected to me who I had never seen because they sat next to my Internet speaker,” said Bradby, noting the attention she received while on campus for January classes. “When I said what I was doing, about six people turned around and said, ‘Ahhhh! I know you!’”
When she began at Luther in 2006, Bradby lived in the Twin Cities. But in March 2007, her husband, Mark, received a job offer in Pakistan. Mark, born in India to missionary parents, and Vanessa, who shared his calling to serve overseas, had planned on moving abroad at some point, but Vanessa wasn’t even halfway through seminary.
Yet faculty at Luther said they could make it work. “I’m kind of a high-maintenance distance-learning person,” said Bradby. “They’ve been working very hard to make sure the program works out for me. I just finished my first semester from Pakistan.”
Now a Master of Divinity middler, Bradby moved to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad in July and finished her summer Hebrew course by recording lectures using an Internet calling program. Last fall, she took three online courses and “attended” one course via Internet phone.
Bradby has always been a bit unique—her background is especially ecumenical. She is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, was called to ministry while working at an American Baptist youth camp, attended a Nazarene college, and worked for Episcopal and Methodist churches. She and Mark now attend the Church of Pakistan, which she has found to be an especially challenging context for the contextual education involvement required by her program.
Amid her new life, Bradby has pondered how to piece together her call to ministry with her passion for overseas service and experience with youth. She aims to complete seminary in 2009 and expects that she and Mark will be in Pakistan at least that long.
It’s lonely to be a long-distance student, but Bradby has found community with other seminarians. “There are people who felt connected to me who I had never seen because they sat next to my Internet speaker,” said Bradby, noting the attention she received while on campus for January classes. “When I said what I was doing, about six people turned around and said, ‘Ahhhh! I know you!’”
Cyclone
Another perspective on the growing tragedy in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, from the 19 May issue of The New Yorker:
The Burmese military government, which hides from its people in the splendid isolation of a jungle capital newly manufactured in the center of the country, told the public, on April 29th, to expect widespread rain and forty-five-mile-an-hour winds on the southern coast. Cyclone Nargis arrived, on the afternoon of May 2nd, with the murderous fury of winds three times as hard. A friend who lives in the former capital, Rangoon, wrote, “I was old enough not to believe stupid government’s weather reports and moved my family to safer place several hours before the storm. It was the longest night. Thunderous wind and rains destroyed the whole city and I was seeing the roofs flying across the sky. My son didn’t cry. Poor boy bit his lips and tried to put his face in the pillow. Building was shaking and I thought our building could be swept away at any time. The next morning, we saw a city which was totally different from ours in the past. We lost most of the big trees in our city. . . . I lost many of my relatives who lived in two twin villages in Daydaye Township.”
Four days after the cyclone made landfall, with whole districts of lower Burma under water, tens of thousands of people dead, and a growing danger of mass disease and starvation, government officials announced that the situation was returning to normal and that voting on a proposed constitution would take place on May 10th as scheduled in most districts. Little in the way of international relief was making it into the country. French and British ships were floating offshore, foreign aid workers were in Bangkok waiting for visas, but the Burmese regime was caught between the undeniable need for help and an acute sense that its survival depends on keeping the truth from its people and from the world.
Last Wednesday, an expatriate living in Rangoon made a tour of the city, beginning at a Hindu temple, and wrote, “There are eight hundred people camped out with less than satisfactory sanitation, diminishing clean-water supply, and very little else than rice porridge in the last two days. We headed over to Hlaing Thaya and before we even got to the monastery stopped in an elementary school that had around three hundred homeless people with a broken water pump. Across the way, in another temple, another two hundred and fifty or so from the same village, where thatch houses had been totally smashed. We then went to the opposite side of the city—Shwebaukan—to the 11th and 12th Quarters. Up to five hundred people in one school—being threatened by the local Army guy that they could not stay there for long, and further a village of people with NO building for shelter, no clean water, and a foot of flood water beneath/in each more or less roofless house. . . . The regime is busy chopping up fallen trees on roads—mostly in rich areas in town—and is beginning to work on electric poles, in rich areas of town. Survival for the poor or communication with citizenry is not their forte. They even neglect their own. . . . As I passed some soldiers cutting trees yesterday, I asked if they’d eaten breakfast. Of course not! So I went back home to get them some bread.”
In the absence of serious international or government assistance, Burmese have had to fall back on the self-help of small groups of civilians—monks, artists, students. On a visit to Burma in February, I learned that civil society is all that stands between millions of Burmese and starvation; the possibility of mass death is now all the greater. By Thursday, Burmese were rioting over food at shops in the Irrawaddy River delta, the country’s rice bowl, which had been devastated by the storm and remained cut off from the rest of the country. Last September, when monks and ordinary Burmese took to the streets of Rangoon to call for change, the regime, preparing to crush the peaceful demonstrations, tried to cut off phone and Internet access to the outside world. It succeeded only partly then; the cyclone had more luck, and Burma is now almost entirely blacked out. Nonetheless, a resident of the city was able to communicate by instant message and sent these observations:
“People are feeling very bad about govt decision on international support. . . . It looks like a battlefield. There are a lot of dead trees and plants. It looks like deep jungle. Even in downtown, electricity and telecommunication lines are broken down. They will not be up again in next week. In my home, no electricity, water, or clean environment. Some children have infected diseases. In the last two days, bus-fare prices and fuel charges are up. Normal life is stopped. We ate some instant food, like noodles. We have a backup water tank. In our office, we got clean water and right now we took clean water in a huge bottle. Poor people are getting water from too far place or paying double price. My backup battery is minimum level. Bye.”
The Burmese military government, which hides from its people in the splendid isolation of a jungle capital newly manufactured in the center of the country, told the public, on April 29th, to expect widespread rain and forty-five-mile-an-hour winds on the southern coast. Cyclone Nargis arrived, on the afternoon of May 2nd, with the murderous fury of winds three times as hard. A friend who lives in the former capital, Rangoon, wrote, “I was old enough not to believe stupid government’s weather reports and moved my family to safer place several hours before the storm. It was the longest night. Thunderous wind and rains destroyed the whole city and I was seeing the roofs flying across the sky. My son didn’t cry. Poor boy bit his lips and tried to put his face in the pillow. Building was shaking and I thought our building could be swept away at any time. The next morning, we saw a city which was totally different from ours in the past. We lost most of the big trees in our city. . . . I lost many of my relatives who lived in two twin villages in Daydaye Township.”
Four days after the cyclone made landfall, with whole districts of lower Burma under water, tens of thousands of people dead, and a growing danger of mass disease and starvation, government officials announced that the situation was returning to normal and that voting on a proposed constitution would take place on May 10th as scheduled in most districts. Little in the way of international relief was making it into the country. French and British ships were floating offshore, foreign aid workers were in Bangkok waiting for visas, but the Burmese regime was caught between the undeniable need for help and an acute sense that its survival depends on keeping the truth from its people and from the world.
Last Wednesday, an expatriate living in Rangoon made a tour of the city, beginning at a Hindu temple, and wrote, “There are eight hundred people camped out with less than satisfactory sanitation, diminishing clean-water supply, and very little else than rice porridge in the last two days. We headed over to Hlaing Thaya and before we even got to the monastery stopped in an elementary school that had around three hundred homeless people with a broken water pump. Across the way, in another temple, another two hundred and fifty or so from the same village, where thatch houses had been totally smashed. We then went to the opposite side of the city—Shwebaukan—to the 11th and 12th Quarters. Up to five hundred people in one school—being threatened by the local Army guy that they could not stay there for long, and further a village of people with NO building for shelter, no clean water, and a foot of flood water beneath/in each more or less roofless house. . . . The regime is busy chopping up fallen trees on roads—mostly in rich areas in town—and is beginning to work on electric poles, in rich areas of town. Survival for the poor or communication with citizenry is not their forte. They even neglect their own. . . . As I passed some soldiers cutting trees yesterday, I asked if they’d eaten breakfast. Of course not! So I went back home to get them some bread.”
In the absence of serious international or government assistance, Burmese have had to fall back on the self-help of small groups of civilians—monks, artists, students. On a visit to Burma in February, I learned that civil society is all that stands between millions of Burmese and starvation; the possibility of mass death is now all the greater. By Thursday, Burmese were rioting over food at shops in the Irrawaddy River delta, the country’s rice bowl, which had been devastated by the storm and remained cut off from the rest of the country. Last September, when monks and ordinary Burmese took to the streets of Rangoon to call for change, the regime, preparing to crush the peaceful demonstrations, tried to cut off phone and Internet access to the outside world. It succeeded only partly then; the cyclone had more luck, and Burma is now almost entirely blacked out. Nonetheless, a resident of the city was able to communicate by instant message and sent these observations:
“People are feeling very bad about govt decision on international support. . . . It looks like a battlefield. There are a lot of dead trees and plants. It looks like deep jungle. Even in downtown, electricity and telecommunication lines are broken down. They will not be up again in next week. In my home, no electricity, water, or clean environment. Some children have infected diseases. In the last two days, bus-fare prices and fuel charges are up. Normal life is stopped. We ate some instant food, like noodles. We have a backup water tank. In our office, we got clean water and right now we took clean water in a huge bottle. Poor people are getting water from too far place or paying double price. My backup battery is minimum level. Bye.”
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
For Everything there is a Season, Reprise
Here is an excerpt from a letter that Bishop John Howe wrote to his diocese on Sunday:
Exactly seven months ago today nine of our clergy and their wardens came to see me and announce they were planning to “disaffiliate” from The Episcopal Church and therefore from the Diocese of Central Florida.
I wrote you in November that a “season of separations” had come upon us. And I have tried to keep you apprized of the way events have unfolded since then.
Today I write you with the greatest thanksgiving. This terrible time of separations is coming to an end. Two weeks ago all of the parties concerned agreed to a Mediation Settlement at Trinity, Vero Beach, which was the last of the nine congregations involved.
To recap, very quickly: the two tiny church “plants” (neither of which had yet become an organized mission) have left The Episcopal Church. One Rector changed his mind, entirely, and he and his congregation remain very much part of the Diocese. One parish has become an independent community church, and they are renting the facilities from the Diocese. And the other five congregations have seen their clergy, and a portion of their membership leave, but there remains a continuing congregation in each of those five places.
By the grace of God we have been able to navigate these very troubled waters in a way that is different from what has happened anywhere else in this country. We have had NO litigation, there has been NO inhibition or deposition of clergy, and there has been NO transfer of real estate.
Perhaps even more importantly, we have been able to continue seeing and treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Those who are staying have been able to say to those who are leaving, “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.”
The way Bishop Howe and his diocese have handled these potentially bitter disputes has been exemplary. You can find the whole letter here.
Exactly seven months ago today nine of our clergy and their wardens came to see me and announce they were planning to “disaffiliate” from The Episcopal Church and therefore from the Diocese of Central Florida.
I wrote you in November that a “season of separations” had come upon us. And I have tried to keep you apprized of the way events have unfolded since then.
Today I write you with the greatest thanksgiving. This terrible time of separations is coming to an end. Two weeks ago all of the parties concerned agreed to a Mediation Settlement at Trinity, Vero Beach, which was the last of the nine congregations involved.
To recap, very quickly: the two tiny church “plants” (neither of which had yet become an organized mission) have left The Episcopal Church. One Rector changed his mind, entirely, and he and his congregation remain very much part of the Diocese. One parish has become an independent community church, and they are renting the facilities from the Diocese. And the other five congregations have seen their clergy, and a portion of their membership leave, but there remains a continuing congregation in each of those five places.
By the grace of God we have been able to navigate these very troubled waters in a way that is different from what has happened anywhere else in this country. We have had NO litigation, there has been NO inhibition or deposition of clergy, and there has been NO transfer of real estate.
Perhaps even more importantly, we have been able to continue seeing and treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Those who are staying have been able to say to those who are leaving, “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.”
The way Bishop Howe and his diocese have handled these potentially bitter disputes has been exemplary. You can find the whole letter here.
Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in legal moves to admit others
A story from George Conger, in Religious Intelligence:
The Province of the Southern Cone has begun work to amend its Constitution and Canons to permit parishes and dioceses outside of South America to affiliate with the church. In an address to the Diocese of Fort Worth on May 3, Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina said his province had agreed to accept the diocese of San Joaquin into the South American church as a “pastoral” and interim response to the divisions within the US Episcopal Church. Work was now underway to alter the church’s constitution, removing language that limited membership to dioceses located in South America.
The “Anglican Communion in the United States has been hijacked,” Bishop Venables said, by a liberal clique that is less concerned with theological integrity than with power. They do not “mind what happens as long as they control it,” he said according to a report prepared by the diocese’s communications officer. Bishop Venables told Fort Worth that the question before them was “whether or not you can stand with a group of people who have denied that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God.”
He conceded that the invitation to the Diocese of San Joaquin made following its December decision to quit the Church and affiliate with the Southern Cone was irregular. However, “if we don’t do something,” he said, we would be “complicit” in their oppression.
The Province of the Southern Cone has begun work to amend its Constitution and Canons to permit parishes and dioceses outside of South America to affiliate with the church. In an address to the Diocese of Fort Worth on May 3, Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina said his province had agreed to accept the diocese of San Joaquin into the South American church as a “pastoral” and interim response to the divisions within the US Episcopal Church. Work was now underway to alter the church’s constitution, removing language that limited membership to dioceses located in South America.
The “Anglican Communion in the United States has been hijacked,” Bishop Venables said, by a liberal clique that is less concerned with theological integrity than with power. They do not “mind what happens as long as they control it,” he said according to a report prepared by the diocese’s communications officer. Bishop Venables told Fort Worth that the question before them was “whether or not you can stand with a group of people who have denied that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God.”
He conceded that the invitation to the Diocese of San Joaquin made following its December decision to quit the Church and affiliate with the Southern Cone was irregular. However, “if we don’t do something,” he said, we would be “complicit” in their oppression.
Splitting up: Anglican Angst
Here is an article from The Christian Century about the recent divisions within the Episcopal Church, with a focus on churches on the Chicago area affiliated with the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA).
Last year the Church of the Resurrection in suburban West Chicago closed its doors and put its building up for sale. The Episcopal congregation had suffered membership losses 14 years earlier when some conservative members left to start their own church, also called the Church of the Resurrection, in nearby Glen Ellyn. The new congregation later aligned itself with the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA), which is connected to the Anglican Church in Rwanda.
The new Church of the Resurrection later experienced its own split, with some members leaving to launch the Church of the Great Shepherd—also affiliated with AMIA—in Wheaton. The Church of the Great Shepherd eventually closed its doors, but not before a 2004 split led to the formation of the Church of the Savior back in West Chicago. During this time the ranks of St. Mark’s, an Episcopal congregation in Glen Ellyn, had been swelling—until the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003, whereupon many St. Mark’s members left to form All Souls, still another AMIA church, in Wheaton. Meanwhile, another split at the original Church of the Resurrection in West Chicago, which had experienced renewed growth, led to the creation of the Church of the Resurrection Anglican, a church which is overseen by the archbishop of Uganda. So now there are two Resurrection churches in the area, both formed in exodus from the original—now defunct—Church of the Resurrection, and both affiliated with African Anglican bodies, not with the Episcopal Church in the United States, sometimes abbreviated as TEC.
Got all that? Even for Anglicans in the vicinity it takes a long memory or a flow chart to keep straight all the Episcopal-Anglican divisions and acronyms that have developed in the well-heeled suburbs of DuPage County, just west of Chicago…
The energy in all these churches comes to a great extent from the many evangelicals who have converted to Anglicanism, a phenomenon outlined some 20 years ago by Robert Webber in Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail. For the most part, evangelicals joined the Episcopal Church out of an appreciation for its liturgy and tradition, not for its generally liberal approach to sexual ethics and scripture. Many of these people have an association with evangelically oriented Wheaton College, where Webber taught for many years.
The various conservative groups that have broken away from the Episcopal Church in the U.S. have conglomerated into Common Cause, a group that has formed an alliance with churches in the global South in an effort to reverse the long liberal trend of the Anglican Communion in the Northern Hemisphere. Its advocates champion a thesis advanced by historian Philip Jenkins and others: Christianity’s axis of power is tilting south and east, with church membership growing rapidly in the developing world while it declines in Europe and America. The late Diane Knippers, a leader among conservative Anglicans, summarized the situation this way: “Today’s statistically typical Anglican is not drinking tea in an English vicarage. She is a 26-year-old African mother of four.” …
Many observers of the Anglican splits assume that the key issue is homosexuality, but a closer look reveals that several other factors are also at work. In fact, the local Anglican story is largely about charismatic leaders coming and going, and congregations growing in their presence or folding in their absence. Among the AMIA folks, the juiciest disagreements have been over the ordination of women rather than the ordination of gays. And the biggest fight to date has been over the relationship between church and state in Rwanda, not in the U.S.
Speaking with these former Episcopalians, I was struck that each gave me a slightly different rationale for separating from TEC. Sausele and Jacobs of All Souls focused on doctrinal issues raised by a figure like Spong. For Koch of the Anglican Church of the Resurrection the problem was what he sees as TEC’s relativism in matters of salvation. For Dorsett of the now defunct Great Shepherd, it was what he calls the denomination’s disdain of scripture. For Beasley, who left TEC in the early 1990s, it was liberal views on homosexuality—though he downplays that now and emphasizes issues of scripture and doctrine. Jacobs also points to what he calls TEC’s elevation of tolerance as the sine qua non of the church. He told me that if TEC were in the habit of advancing theologically rigorous arguments like those offered by orthodox (and gay) theologian Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body, he’d still be in the denomination— “part of the loyal opposition” but still in communion, he said.
Theologians from Augustine onward have insisted that the effort to leave one church to start a better one results not in a better church but a worse one—and it also fosters the bad habit of defection. The history of Western Christendom attests to the wisdom of this view. The question for the Anglican Mission in the Americas is whether antagonism toward the Episcopal Church is enough to shape a coherent Anglican identity in a complex global setting.
I recommend taking a look at the whole article. It is a good read, and you can find it here.
Last year the Church of the Resurrection in suburban West Chicago closed its doors and put its building up for sale. The Episcopal congregation had suffered membership losses 14 years earlier when some conservative members left to start their own church, also called the Church of the Resurrection, in nearby Glen Ellyn. The new congregation later aligned itself with the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA), which is connected to the Anglican Church in Rwanda.
The new Church of the Resurrection later experienced its own split, with some members leaving to launch the Church of the Great Shepherd—also affiliated with AMIA—in Wheaton. The Church of the Great Shepherd eventually closed its doors, but not before a 2004 split led to the formation of the Church of the Savior back in West Chicago. During this time the ranks of St. Mark’s, an Episcopal congregation in Glen Ellyn, had been swelling—until the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003, whereupon many St. Mark’s members left to form All Souls, still another AMIA church, in Wheaton. Meanwhile, another split at the original Church of the Resurrection in West Chicago, which had experienced renewed growth, led to the creation of the Church of the Resurrection Anglican, a church which is overseen by the archbishop of Uganda. So now there are two Resurrection churches in the area, both formed in exodus from the original—now defunct—Church of the Resurrection, and both affiliated with African Anglican bodies, not with the Episcopal Church in the United States, sometimes abbreviated as TEC.
Got all that? Even for Anglicans in the vicinity it takes a long memory or a flow chart to keep straight all the Episcopal-Anglican divisions and acronyms that have developed in the well-heeled suburbs of DuPage County, just west of Chicago…
The energy in all these churches comes to a great extent from the many evangelicals who have converted to Anglicanism, a phenomenon outlined some 20 years ago by Robert Webber in Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail. For the most part, evangelicals joined the Episcopal Church out of an appreciation for its liturgy and tradition, not for its generally liberal approach to sexual ethics and scripture. Many of these people have an association with evangelically oriented Wheaton College, where Webber taught for many years.
The various conservative groups that have broken away from the Episcopal Church in the U.S. have conglomerated into Common Cause, a group that has formed an alliance with churches in the global South in an effort to reverse the long liberal trend of the Anglican Communion in the Northern Hemisphere. Its advocates champion a thesis advanced by historian Philip Jenkins and others: Christianity’s axis of power is tilting south and east, with church membership growing rapidly in the developing world while it declines in Europe and America. The late Diane Knippers, a leader among conservative Anglicans, summarized the situation this way: “Today’s statistically typical Anglican is not drinking tea in an English vicarage. She is a 26-year-old African mother of four.” …
Many observers of the Anglican splits assume that the key issue is homosexuality, but a closer look reveals that several other factors are also at work. In fact, the local Anglican story is largely about charismatic leaders coming and going, and congregations growing in their presence or folding in their absence. Among the AMIA folks, the juiciest disagreements have been over the ordination of women rather than the ordination of gays. And the biggest fight to date has been over the relationship between church and state in Rwanda, not in the U.S.
Speaking with these former Episcopalians, I was struck that each gave me a slightly different rationale for separating from TEC. Sausele and Jacobs of All Souls focused on doctrinal issues raised by a figure like Spong. For Koch of the Anglican Church of the Resurrection the problem was what he sees as TEC’s relativism in matters of salvation. For Dorsett of the now defunct Great Shepherd, it was what he calls the denomination’s disdain of scripture. For Beasley, who left TEC in the early 1990s, it was liberal views on homosexuality—though he downplays that now and emphasizes issues of scripture and doctrine. Jacobs also points to what he calls TEC’s elevation of tolerance as the sine qua non of the church. He told me that if TEC were in the habit of advancing theologically rigorous arguments like those offered by orthodox (and gay) theologian Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body, he’d still be in the denomination— “part of the loyal opposition” but still in communion, he said.
Theologians from Augustine onward have insisted that the effort to leave one church to start a better one results not in a better church but a worse one—and it also fosters the bad habit of defection. The history of Western Christendom attests to the wisdom of this view. The question for the Anglican Mission in the Americas is whether antagonism toward the Episcopal Church is enough to shape a coherent Anglican identity in a complex global setting.
I recommend taking a look at the whole article. It is a good read, and you can find it here.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
London Times Cryptic Crossword for May 18
And here is today’s puzzle from the Sunday London Times. Just click on it to get the full-sized version.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Church of Ireland General Synod: Speech on Changing Attitude
I found this speech by a layman to the recent General Synod of the Church of Ireland so excellent that I have reproduced it in its entirety, from the Anglican Mainstream website.
The speaker, Dermot O’Callaghan, has been a member of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland for over thirty years. His words were greeted with warm applause by most of the 400 members of General Synod.
Archbishop and members of Synod
I would like to ask if any criteria will be applied in permitting organisations to exhibit on stands at Synod in 2009.
I believe in freedom of speech, but I am concerned at some of the doctrines being promoted by the organisation called Changing Attitude. I should say that (a member of Changing Attitude) was on duty yesterday at the CA stand, and I had a long friendly chat with him. He knows that my concerns are driven by compassion, not homophobia. Indeed I met him again this afternoon and said that I intended to make a speech against CA, but that he should know that it was not against him personally. I asked him to pray for me as I made my speech, and he promised to do so.
The current CA Newsletter (Spring 2008, No.40, available free on the CA stand at Synod) contains a defence by Rev Colin Coward of CA’s document called Sexual Ethics. He describes it as “a well-written, serious contribution” to the church’s debate on sexual ethics.
The document says that:
• exploration of our sexual selves can be something which benefits from involvement with more than one person
• serial commitments and serial faithfulness may be a more realistic aspiration than permanent faithful stable relationships–clearly moving on from Jeffrey John’s position.
These are deadly doctrines. (Last night I rang my wife and asked how she would react if I ‘changed my attitude’ and proposed to involve more than one person in my sex life. I thought she would say she would have my guts for garters, but she said simply, “I would just walk. No woman would put up with such a thing.”
There is a video on the Stand Firm website which shows last year’s Gay Pride parade in San Francisco. It includes:
• the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (men dressed up as nuns mocking the Church with their motto, “Go forth and sin some more”)
• a woman, hands handcuffed behind her back, led on a dog leash by a man cracking a whip
• a banner promoting Polyamory – covenanted groups of multiple sex partners
and much more.
All this is the very antithesis of the psalm we shared in this morning’s devotions:
Who may ascend the hill of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart ….. (Ps 24:3,4).
Tragically, these people are not ascending but descending.
But you will say, it is the world, not the church that is doing these things. Sadly, this is not so. Starring in the parade is an open-topped car carrying Mr Davis Mac-Iyalla (who is featured in the current CA Newsletter) waving to the cheering crowds. And with him is Marc Andrus, Anglican Bishop of San Francisco. He is leading his flock down the hill. And you can buy a tee shirt with the legend:
San Francisco Pride 2007
The Episcopal Church
Welcomes You
Marching with Bishop Marc
And, sickeningly, you can also buy them for your children (sample adult and child tee shirts held up for Synod members to see).
Archbishop, I have to say that I am marching against Bishop Marc – in precisely the opposite direction. And every one of our bishops has to decide whether he is marching with or against him and his fellow-marchers, who include most of the bishops of The Episcopal Church (USA) and the leaders of Changing Attitude.
So I appeal to you from the bottom of my heart, when you go to Lambeth, to take a principled stand against the Episcopal Church and against pressure groups like Changing Attitude. Our children’s future depends on it.
The speaker, Dermot O’Callaghan, has been a member of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland for over thirty years. His words were greeted with warm applause by most of the 400 members of General Synod.
Archbishop and members of Synod
I would like to ask if any criteria will be applied in permitting organisations to exhibit on stands at Synod in 2009.
I believe in freedom of speech, but I am concerned at some of the doctrines being promoted by the organisation called Changing Attitude. I should say that (a member of Changing Attitude) was on duty yesterday at the CA stand, and I had a long friendly chat with him. He knows that my concerns are driven by compassion, not homophobia. Indeed I met him again this afternoon and said that I intended to make a speech against CA, but that he should know that it was not against him personally. I asked him to pray for me as I made my speech, and he promised to do so.
The current CA Newsletter (Spring 2008, No.40, available free on the CA stand at Synod) contains a defence by Rev Colin Coward of CA’s document called Sexual Ethics. He describes it as “a well-written, serious contribution” to the church’s debate on sexual ethics.
The document says that:
• exploration of our sexual selves can be something which benefits from involvement with more than one person
• serial commitments and serial faithfulness may be a more realistic aspiration than permanent faithful stable relationships–clearly moving on from Jeffrey John’s position.
These are deadly doctrines. (Last night I rang my wife and asked how she would react if I ‘changed my attitude’ and proposed to involve more than one person in my sex life. I thought she would say she would have my guts for garters, but she said simply, “I would just walk. No woman would put up with such a thing.”
There is a video on the Stand Firm website which shows last year’s Gay Pride parade in San Francisco. It includes:
• the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (men dressed up as nuns mocking the Church with their motto, “Go forth and sin some more”)
• a woman, hands handcuffed behind her back, led on a dog leash by a man cracking a whip
• a banner promoting Polyamory – covenanted groups of multiple sex partners
and much more.
All this is the very antithesis of the psalm we shared in this morning’s devotions:
Who may ascend the hill of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart ….. (Ps 24:3,4).
Tragically, these people are not ascending but descending.
But you will say, it is the world, not the church that is doing these things. Sadly, this is not so. Starring in the parade is an open-topped car carrying Mr Davis Mac-Iyalla (who is featured in the current CA Newsletter) waving to the cheering crowds. And with him is Marc Andrus, Anglican Bishop of San Francisco. He is leading his flock down the hill. And you can buy a tee shirt with the legend:
San Francisco Pride 2007
The Episcopal Church
Welcomes You
Marching with Bishop Marc
And, sickeningly, you can also buy them for your children (sample adult and child tee shirts held up for Synod members to see).
Archbishop, I have to say that I am marching against Bishop Marc – in precisely the opposite direction. And every one of our bishops has to decide whether he is marching with or against him and his fellow-marchers, who include most of the bishops of The Episcopal Church (USA) and the leaders of Changing Attitude.
So I appeal to you from the bottom of my heart, when you go to Lambeth, to take a principled stand against the Episcopal Church and against pressure groups like Changing Attitude. Our children’s future depends on it.
Canterbury Calling: Archbishop on the Phone for Lambeth
The Living Church reports…
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ Pentecost letter to the bishops of the Anglican Communion was not the anticipated communication in which he reportedly would ask bishops to predicate their attendace at the Lambeth Conference this summer upon their willingness to accept the recommendations in the Windsor Report.
A spokesman said Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the colleagial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth. Instead, Archbishop Williams has been in telephone contact with a number of bishops, asking that they honor the integrity of the meeting, the spokesman told The Church of England Newspaper.
In his Pentecost letter, Archbishop Williams said the conference had the potential to strengthen the Communion and to bring Anglicans closer together in a “lasting and Christ-centered way.” He also alluded to the supplemental communication with specific bishops.
“In circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together,” he said.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ Pentecost letter to the bishops of the Anglican Communion was not the anticipated communication in which he reportedly would ask bishops to predicate their attendace at the Lambeth Conference this summer upon their willingness to accept the recommendations in the Windsor Report.
A spokesman said Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the colleagial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth. Instead, Archbishop Williams has been in telephone contact with a number of bishops, asking that they honor the integrity of the meeting, the spokesman told The Church of England Newspaper.
In his Pentecost letter, Archbishop Williams said the conference had the potential to strengthen the Communion and to bring Anglicans closer together in a “lasting and Christ-centered way.” He also alluded to the supplemental communication with specific bishops.
“In circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together,” he said.
Trinity School for Ministry announces new dean
From the Trinity website:
The Trinity School for Ministry Board of Trustees announced today that the Rev. Dr. Justyn Terry has accepted an enthusiastic call by the board to become the new Dean and President, succeeding the Rt. Rev. Dr. John H. Rodgers, Trinity’s second Dean and President, who left retirement to serve as Interim Dean/President beginning in August 2007.
Chairman of the Board of Trustees the Rev. Canon David Roseberry said, “The Lord has blessed us indeed, as Justyn will assume the awesome responsibility of Trinity’s vital role as a bearer of an orthodox evangelical witness in North America.”
According to the Rev. Geoff Chapman, search committee co-chair, “Dr. Justyn Terry is a superb leader, a tested pastor and a leading scholar of gospel and culture. His election is a sign of hope for the future of evangelical Anglicanism and the gospel we love. His warmth of heart, clarity of mind and depth of faith will be a model for those who join us at Trinity.”
Terry, 42, was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1996. With undergraduate studies in physics at Keble College, Oxford (UK), and graduate studies in theology and ministry at Cranmer Hall, St. John’s College, Durham (UK), Dr. Terry received the PhD in Systematic Theology from King’s College, London, in 2003. Since 2005 he has served as Trinity’s Associate Professor of Systematic Theology. Prior to coming to Trinity, he was rector of St. Helen’s Church, a church plant in North Kensington, London. Dr. Terry and his wife, Cathy, live in Sewickley, Pennsylvania and have two young daughters, Sophia and Lydia. He will begin his duties on July 1, 2008.
The Trinity School for Ministry Board of Trustees announced today that the Rev. Dr. Justyn Terry has accepted an enthusiastic call by the board to become the new Dean and President, succeeding the Rt. Rev. Dr. John H. Rodgers, Trinity’s second Dean and President, who left retirement to serve as Interim Dean/President beginning in August 2007.
Chairman of the Board of Trustees the Rev. Canon David Roseberry said, “The Lord has blessed us indeed, as Justyn will assume the awesome responsibility of Trinity’s vital role as a bearer of an orthodox evangelical witness in North America.”
According to the Rev. Geoff Chapman, search committee co-chair, “Dr. Justyn Terry is a superb leader, a tested pastor and a leading scholar of gospel and culture. His election is a sign of hope for the future of evangelical Anglicanism and the gospel we love. His warmth of heart, clarity of mind and depth of faith will be a model for those who join us at Trinity.”
Terry, 42, was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1996. With undergraduate studies in physics at Keble College, Oxford (UK), and graduate studies in theology and ministry at Cranmer Hall, St. John’s College, Durham (UK), Dr. Terry received the PhD in Systematic Theology from King’s College, London, in 2003. Since 2005 he has served as Trinity’s Associate Professor of Systematic Theology. Prior to coming to Trinity, he was rector of St. Helen’s Church, a church plant in North Kensington, London. Dr. Terry and his wife, Cathy, live in Sewickley, Pennsylvania and have two young daughters, Sophia and Lydia. He will begin his duties on July 1, 2008.
Myanmar Aid Crisis Triggers More Deaths, Disease
From Christianity Today, some on-the-scene observations of the current crisis in Burma by Tim Costello, president of World Vision Australia:
The scenes I am witnessing here in Myanmar have been dreadful. Enormous trees litter the roads and queues for fuel are 2.5 miles long, making travel in the country difficult. In the countryside, people are jammed into monasteries, school halls, and any other buildings left standing. There, they carve out strips of floor where the remnants of their families huddle. As of May 15, Red Cross/Red Crescent estimates the death toll at 68,000 to 128,000 people.
On the road to Bogalay, I saw people camped by the roadside. Already there are signs of malaria and skin infections. Beyond those camps there are still people we have not reached seven days after the cyclone, a situation that leaves me feeling frustrated at the pace of assistance, and guilty knowing that more can be done.
However, we are getting life-saving aid to people. Yesterday I attended two World Vision rice distributions on the outskirts of Yangon, each to more than 3,000 people. We are still able to purchase relief goods inside the country. What we must do now is turn this trickle of aid into a flood.
The scale of this disaster would be beyond the capacity of authorities and local organizations in any country. Here in Yangon, I have witnessed both of those groups performing well — but there is simply more need than can be met. Already it is clear this disaster will have an impact on Myanmar the equal of anything witnessed in countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia after the tsunami of 2004…
In the absence of clean water sources, the specter of waterborne diseases is now the most urgent concern. There is stagnant water everywhere. As people become more desperate, dysentery, cholera, and malaria is likely to take many more lives.
Movement throughout the southern delta region is extremely slow. Cyclone Nargis cut a broad swathe 160 miles into Myanmar; by comparison the 2004 tsunami reached about two miles inland when it struck. Massive amounts of debris must be moved. Only then will any sort of assistance start to reach those who have been hardest hit. Temporary shelter needs to be set up to allow families some respite from the elements.
There will be longer-term structural problems for the country as well. The Irrawaddy Delta area was the rice bowl of the nation. It is now a devastated wasteland. The banks and levees are destroyed. Rice has doubled in price.
With every day I spend here, my sense of urgency increases. There are thousands of people receiving aid every day, yet there are tens of thousands more still to be helped. The sight of so many people without shelter or basic necessities is distressing. The work is urgent, the need great. As I write, there are hopeful signs of a breakthrough in discussions that will allow aid to start flowing into the country. But the clock is ticking in the race to save lives.
This estimate of the death toll is 2 to 4 times the current official figures. Last Sunday our church raised $2,500 to send to the Anglican Relief & Development Fund. I hope we can see at least another $7,500 come in this week. You can read the full article here.
The scenes I am witnessing here in Myanmar have been dreadful. Enormous trees litter the roads and queues for fuel are 2.5 miles long, making travel in the country difficult. In the countryside, people are jammed into monasteries, school halls, and any other buildings left standing. There, they carve out strips of floor where the remnants of their families huddle. As of May 15, Red Cross/Red Crescent estimates the death toll at 68,000 to 128,000 people.On the road to Bogalay, I saw people camped by the roadside. Already there are signs of malaria and skin infections. Beyond those camps there are still people we have not reached seven days after the cyclone, a situation that leaves me feeling frustrated at the pace of assistance, and guilty knowing that more can be done.
However, we are getting life-saving aid to people. Yesterday I attended two World Vision rice distributions on the outskirts of Yangon, each to more than 3,000 people. We are still able to purchase relief goods inside the country. What we must do now is turn this trickle of aid into a flood.
The scale of this disaster would be beyond the capacity of authorities and local organizations in any country. Here in Yangon, I have witnessed both of those groups performing well — but there is simply more need than can be met. Already it is clear this disaster will have an impact on Myanmar the equal of anything witnessed in countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia after the tsunami of 2004…
In the absence of clean water sources, the specter of waterborne diseases is now the most urgent concern. There is stagnant water everywhere. As people become more desperate, dysentery, cholera, and malaria is likely to take many more lives.
Movement throughout the southern delta region is extremely slow. Cyclone Nargis cut a broad swathe 160 miles into Myanmar; by comparison the 2004 tsunami reached about two miles inland when it struck. Massive amounts of debris must be moved. Only then will any sort of assistance start to reach those who have been hardest hit. Temporary shelter needs to be set up to allow families some respite from the elements.
There will be longer-term structural problems for the country as well. The Irrawaddy Delta area was the rice bowl of the nation. It is now a devastated wasteland. The banks and levees are destroyed. Rice has doubled in price.
With every day I spend here, my sense of urgency increases. There are thousands of people receiving aid every day, yet there are tens of thousands more still to be helped. The sight of so many people without shelter or basic necessities is distressing. The work is urgent, the need great. As I write, there are hopeful signs of a breakthrough in discussions that will allow aid to start flowing into the country. But the clock is ticking in the race to save lives.
This estimate of the death toll is 2 to 4 times the current official figures. Last Sunday our church raised $2,500 to send to the Anglican Relief & Development Fund. I hope we can see at least another $7,500 come in this week. You can read the full article here.
1,000 Christian leaders, 280 bishops to GAFCON in Jerusalem
Over 1000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, have registered for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem at the close of the online registration process. They include 280 bishops, almost all accompanied by their wives. Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors.
GAFCON leaders have met in the period leading up to Pentecost with the leaders of Anglican, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches and Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews in Jerusalem to brief them on the nature and purpose of GAFCON. GAFCON is concerned to affirm the continuing presence of the Church in the Holy Land.
Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, the chair of the Programme Committee reports that the programme is almost complete. “Our programme will focus on the transforming love of Christ. We will be drawing from the scriptures of the Old and New Testament in our pilgrimage, and their relevance to the challenges facing the church globally today. These include secularism, other religions, poverty and HIV/AIDS as well as moral and theological issues.”
Pilgrims will visit traditional sites in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage June 22-29, 2008 including Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane and the Ophel Gardens and Temple steps where at the first Pentecost Peter preached and people of all nations responded. The 1000 pilgrims will travel to Bethlehem to the Church of the Nativity and Shepherds’ Field, and then to Galilee.
The goals of the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem are to:
1. Provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Christ.
2. Develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.
3. Prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority.
You can find out more about this significant Anglican Communion-wide conference by visiting their website here.
GAFCON leaders have met in the period leading up to Pentecost with the leaders of Anglican, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches and Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews in Jerusalem to brief them on the nature and purpose of GAFCON. GAFCON is concerned to affirm the continuing presence of the Church in the Holy Land.
Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, the chair of the Programme Committee reports that the programme is almost complete. “Our programme will focus on the transforming love of Christ. We will be drawing from the scriptures of the Old and New Testament in our pilgrimage, and their relevance to the challenges facing the church globally today. These include secularism, other religions, poverty and HIV/AIDS as well as moral and theological issues.”
Pilgrims will visit traditional sites in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage June 22-29, 2008 including Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane and the Ophel Gardens and Temple steps where at the first Pentecost Peter preached and people of all nations responded. The 1000 pilgrims will travel to Bethlehem to the Church of the Nativity and Shepherds’ Field, and then to Galilee.
The goals of the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem are to:
1. Provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Christ.
2. Develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.
3. Prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority.
You can find out more about this significant Anglican Communion-wide conference by visiting their website here.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
“Come, Let Us Reason Together”—The Future of a Useful Covenant
From the Anglican Communion Institute, a paper by Drs Philip Turner and Christopher Seitz:
One concern about the covenant process now underway is that the reality of the Communion’s present condition could be bypassed by well-intentioned efforts of a committee to hear everyone and find a common document that proves unable to address a reality.
We are in a crisis. Unless someone can offer facts to the contrary, there is only one way for an Anglican Communion to remain in place, and no real alternatives to that. Indeed this was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own stated assumption from the very beginning as he sought to address the crisis before us.
This is for a two-tiered composition to emerge, with the largest bloc of Anglicans genuinely interested in and committed to Communion to remain as such, and a second tier to ‘take courage in both hands’ and declare their intention to develop a form of Anglicanism stressing federal arrangements, based upon commitments to new teaching in the area of human sexuality, and an emphasis on the larger theological systems that undergird these commitments…
But apart from this sense of where we are likely headed, there is a matter of principle to be considered. Two different understandings of the desirability of Communion, and a conciliar framework for maintaining that, are before us. One wishes to give priority to decision making about Gospel priorities within a context of Communion forbearance, in the widest network of consultation. The other wishes to give priority to local autonomy and cultural context. Rather than dividing the baby, can it not be granted that these two principled positions have their respective integrity and exist within differing frameworks of understanding?
Our view is that if this set of considerations is placed at the forefront, we can begin to make genuine progress. Any effort, however, to make process more decisive than a consideration of these two principled realties, introduces insuperable problems and forestalls a genuine grasp of the situation and so a hope for resolution…
Our plea is then for the adherents of a new teaching in sexuality, and a principled view of Anglicanism as a worldwide federal reality, to take courage and move forward, and detach from an understanding of both of these issues, theological and ecclesiological, with which they disagree. There is no reason for this action to be the cause of any negative judgment whatsoever, and every reason for it to be applauded as principled, courageous, and a sign of consistent belief and consistent commitment. It is unclear why this view of the way forward is not enthusiastically embraced, as a principled commitment to a specific understanding of the Gospel and its demands.
It has become clear that mutual subjection in Christ, within a worldwide catholic Communion, is not a priority for certain American Episcopalians; it may also not be so for some Anglicans with opposing views, though their opposition emerged in the context of provocation. We see no reason whatever to contest this view or argue for its deficiency. Its logic is clear and time has allowed that to emerge with clarity. Can we not then allow for a different view to go its own way, and so find a resolution that belongs to the logic of ‘ecumenical relationships’? The Anglican Communion is not some kind of ultimate good, necessary for salvation, and indeed it is seen to be a hindrance for many within The Episcopal Church…
The point of this appeal is the reality before us that two versions of Anglicanism have emerged, and that associating them in any principled way can only happen in the framework of ‘ecumenical relationship’ (whose character can then be clarified, as can the political shape of disengagement). To be sure, there are those who wish this kind of reality was not before us, and hope time could provide a tertium quid. That is simply not going to happen. If a two-tiered ‘ecumenical relationship’ were however to emerge, the means for associating could be clarified and the peace, in some measure, restored. In that kind of a climate, choices would be crystallized and decisions made accordingly.
We mention this specifically in the context of the present covenant design team work and published reactions to it. Many reactions offer the opinion that the covenant idea is un-anglican or in other ways distasteful, ill-conceived, and so forth.
What is not grasped in most of these reactions is that there are no alternatives but a covenant if the Communion is not to divide, or perhaps one should say, remain divided and broken. This in effect lets a view of federal Anglicanism win by default, whether in the form of arguments for autonomy and independent national bodies or arguments for conservative realignment. At present the status quo is not an Anglican Communion, but a broken Anglican family. The covenant could be the means for restoring order and allowing an Anglican Communion to be extended, and set on a footing that is more secure than the one which allowed the present breakdown such wide scope for emergence. The covenant design workers must acknowledge and anticipate that the obligations and joys of Communion are not truly desired by many today, for principled reasons, and that the option to form an ecumenical relationship is the best way forward for those who do not wish to exist in Communion. Without this realism, the danger exists that a covenant is produced that serves no purpose at all, because it simply endorses a status quo of strongly held but incommensurate views of what it means to live in an Anglican Communion, which would effectively be no Communion at all.
The proposal of these two brilliant authors has a lot to recommend it. However, from my own admittedly limited perspective, I don’t see it gaining much momentum in the Episcopal Church or in the wider Anglican Communion in their present state. You can read the whole of their paper here.
One concern about the covenant process now underway is that the reality of the Communion’s present condition could be bypassed by well-intentioned efforts of a committee to hear everyone and find a common document that proves unable to address a reality.
We are in a crisis. Unless someone can offer facts to the contrary, there is only one way for an Anglican Communion to remain in place, and no real alternatives to that. Indeed this was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own stated assumption from the very beginning as he sought to address the crisis before us.
This is for a two-tiered composition to emerge, with the largest bloc of Anglicans genuinely interested in and committed to Communion to remain as such, and a second tier to ‘take courage in both hands’ and declare their intention to develop a form of Anglicanism stressing federal arrangements, based upon commitments to new teaching in the area of human sexuality, and an emphasis on the larger theological systems that undergird these commitments…
But apart from this sense of where we are likely headed, there is a matter of principle to be considered. Two different understandings of the desirability of Communion, and a conciliar framework for maintaining that, are before us. One wishes to give priority to decision making about Gospel priorities within a context of Communion forbearance, in the widest network of consultation. The other wishes to give priority to local autonomy and cultural context. Rather than dividing the baby, can it not be granted that these two principled positions have their respective integrity and exist within differing frameworks of understanding?
Our view is that if this set of considerations is placed at the forefront, we can begin to make genuine progress. Any effort, however, to make process more decisive than a consideration of these two principled realties, introduces insuperable problems and forestalls a genuine grasp of the situation and so a hope for resolution…
Our plea is then for the adherents of a new teaching in sexuality, and a principled view of Anglicanism as a worldwide federal reality, to take courage and move forward, and detach from an understanding of both of these issues, theological and ecclesiological, with which they disagree. There is no reason for this action to be the cause of any negative judgment whatsoever, and every reason for it to be applauded as principled, courageous, and a sign of consistent belief and consistent commitment. It is unclear why this view of the way forward is not enthusiastically embraced, as a principled commitment to a specific understanding of the Gospel and its demands.
It has become clear that mutual subjection in Christ, within a worldwide catholic Communion, is not a priority for certain American Episcopalians; it may also not be so for some Anglicans with opposing views, though their opposition emerged in the context of provocation. We see no reason whatever to contest this view or argue for its deficiency. Its logic is clear and time has allowed that to emerge with clarity. Can we not then allow for a different view to go its own way, and so find a resolution that belongs to the logic of ‘ecumenical relationships’? The Anglican Communion is not some kind of ultimate good, necessary for salvation, and indeed it is seen to be a hindrance for many within The Episcopal Church…
The point of this appeal is the reality before us that two versions of Anglicanism have emerged, and that associating them in any principled way can only happen in the framework of ‘ecumenical relationship’ (whose character can then be clarified, as can the political shape of disengagement). To be sure, there are those who wish this kind of reality was not before us, and hope time could provide a tertium quid. That is simply not going to happen. If a two-tiered ‘ecumenical relationship’ were however to emerge, the means for associating could be clarified and the peace, in some measure, restored. In that kind of a climate, choices would be crystallized and decisions made accordingly.
We mention this specifically in the context of the present covenant design team work and published reactions to it. Many reactions offer the opinion that the covenant idea is un-anglican or in other ways distasteful, ill-conceived, and so forth.
What is not grasped in most of these reactions is that there are no alternatives but a covenant if the Communion is not to divide, or perhaps one should say, remain divided and broken. This in effect lets a view of federal Anglicanism win by default, whether in the form of arguments for autonomy and independent national bodies or arguments for conservative realignment. At present the status quo is not an Anglican Communion, but a broken Anglican family. The covenant could be the means for restoring order and allowing an Anglican Communion to be extended, and set on a footing that is more secure than the one which allowed the present breakdown such wide scope for emergence. The covenant design workers must acknowledge and anticipate that the obligations and joys of Communion are not truly desired by many today, for principled reasons, and that the option to form an ecumenical relationship is the best way forward for those who do not wish to exist in Communion. Without this realism, the danger exists that a covenant is produced that serves no purpose at all, because it simply endorses a status quo of strongly held but incommensurate views of what it means to live in an Anglican Communion, which would effectively be no Communion at all.
The proposal of these two brilliant authors has a lot to recommend it. However, from my own admittedly limited perspective, I don’t see it gaining much momentum in the Episcopal Church or in the wider Anglican Communion in their present state. You can read the whole of their paper here.
Archbishop Orombi Responds to the Presiding Bishop
From Anglican Mainstream (and numerous other sites):
Dear Bishop Katharine,
I received word of your letter through a colleague who had seen it on the internet. Without the internet, I may never have known that you had written such a personal, yet sadly ironic, letter to me.
Unfortunately, you appear to have been misinformed about key matters, which I hope to clear up in this letter.
1. I am not visiting a church in the Diocese of Georgia. I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda. Were I to visit a congregation within TEC, I would certainly observe the courtesy of contacting the local bishop. Since, however, I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda, I feel very free to visit them and encourage them through the Word of God.
2. The reason this congregation separated from TEC and is now part of the Church of Uganda is that the actions of TEC’s General Convention and statements of duly elected TEC leaders and representatives indicate that TEC has abandoned the historic Christian faith. Furthermore, as predicted by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in October 2003, TEC’s actions have, in fact, torn the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level.
3. May I remind you that the initial reason the Lambeth Commission on Communion was appointed was because of unbiblical decisions taken by TEC in defiance of repeated warnings by all of the Anglican Instruments of Communion. The Windsor Report was produced and accepted in amended form by the Primates at our meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in February 2005. It is, therefore, quite ironic for you to be quoting the Windsor Report to me. Nowhere in the Windsor Report or in subsequent statements of the Instruments of Communion is there a moral equivalence between the unbiblical actions and decisions of TEC that have torn the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level and the pastoral response on our part to provide ecclesiastical oversight to American congregations who wish to continue to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints and remain a part of the Anglican Communion. Your selective quoting of the Windsor Report is stunning in its arrogance and condescension.
4. You and your House of Bishops rejected outright the Pastoral Scheme painstakingly devised in Dar es Salaam, and to which you agreed. You have, therefore, left us no choice but to continue to respond to the cries of God’s faithful people in America for episcopal oversight that upholds and promotes historic, biblical Anglicanism.
5. An important element of the Dar es Salaam agreement was the plea by the Primates that "the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation." This was something to which you gave verbal assent and yet you have initiated more legal actions against congregations and clergy in your short tenure as Presiding Bishop than all of your predecessors combined. I urge you to rethink, suspend litigation and follow a more Christ-like approach to settling your differences.
Finally, I appeal to you to heed the advice of Gamaliel in Acts 5.38ff, "Leave these [churches] alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [them]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
Yours, in Christ,
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.
Three cheers for Archbishop Orombi, who is not afraid to “tell it like it is”! Katharine Jefferts Schori’s original letter, to which this is a response, may be found here.
Dear Bishop Katharine,
I received word of your letter through a colleague who had seen it on the internet. Without the internet, I may never have known that you had written such a personal, yet sadly ironic, letter to me.
Unfortunately, you appear to have been misinformed about key matters, which I hope to clear up in this letter.
1. I am not visiting a church in the Diocese of Georgia. I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda. Were I to visit a congregation within TEC, I would certainly observe the courtesy of contacting the local bishop. Since, however, I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda, I feel very free to visit them and encourage them through the Word of God.
2. The reason this congregation separated from TEC and is now part of the Church of Uganda is that the actions of TEC’s General Convention and statements of duly elected TEC leaders and representatives indicate that TEC has abandoned the historic Christian faith. Furthermore, as predicted by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in October 2003, TEC’s actions have, in fact, torn the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level.
3. May I remind you that the initial reason the Lambeth Commission on Communion was appointed was because of unbiblical decisions taken by TEC in defiance of repeated warnings by all of the Anglican Instruments of Communion. The Windsor Report was produced and accepted in amended form by the Primates at our meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in February 2005. It is, therefore, quite ironic for you to be quoting the Windsor Report to me. Nowhere in the Windsor Report or in subsequent statements of the Instruments of Communion is there a moral equivalence between the unbiblical actions and decisions of TEC that have torn the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level and the pastoral response on our part to provide ecclesiastical oversight to American congregations who wish to continue to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints and remain a part of the Anglican Communion. Your selective quoting of the Windsor Report is stunning in its arrogance and condescension.
4. You and your House of Bishops rejected outright the Pastoral Scheme painstakingly devised in Dar es Salaam, and to which you agreed. You have, therefore, left us no choice but to continue to respond to the cries of God’s faithful people in America for episcopal oversight that upholds and promotes historic, biblical Anglicanism.
5. An important element of the Dar es Salaam agreement was the plea by the Primates that "the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation." This was something to which you gave verbal assent and yet you have initiated more legal actions against congregations and clergy in your short tenure as Presiding Bishop than all of your predecessors combined. I urge you to rethink, suspend litigation and follow a more Christ-like approach to settling your differences.
Finally, I appeal to you to heed the advice of Gamaliel in Acts 5.38ff, "Leave these [churches] alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [them]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
Yours, in Christ,
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.
Three cheers for Archbishop Orombi, who is not afraid to “tell it like it is”! Katharine Jefferts Schori’s original letter, to which this is a response, may be found here.
McGill buys Anglican Diocesan Theological College
From the Montreal Gazette:McGill University has bought the Anglican Diocesan Theological College for an undisclosed amount. “The sale price is between us and McGill University,” college principal John Simons said yesterday. “But all things shall one day be revealed.” The college says it can no longer afford to maintain the century-old neo-Gothic building on University St. north of Sherbrooke St. It will however, lease the north wing of the building, known as the Principal’s Lodge, from the university, convert it into a seminary and continue to use St. Luke’s chapel in the building’s south wing, which it will share with McGill as a multi-purpose teaching facility.
“The church’s influence and position in this city has been in sharp decline since the 1960s,” Simons said. “Anglicans today represent less than one per cent of the city's population, and while the church still owns valuable real estate, the question as to how long we can maintain our buildings is one that won't go away. We’re going down the river, and we can hear the roar of the falls.”
The college was founded in 1873 by Ashton Oxenden, Montreal’s second Anglican bishop, to teach “10 young men who desired to be trained for the ministry”. Affiliated with McGill University since 1880, its present red-brick building was a gift from Canadian cotton king Andrew Frederick Gault. Designed by Sir Andrew Taylor … it opened in 1896. Today, there are 35 students studying for the Anglican ministry.
Simons, who is moving out of the Principal’s Lodge this week, said the faculty has a responsibility to provide an academically excellent and field-based theological education, adding that “we can accomplish this without maintaining a heritage building or running a residence for McGill students or by providing a meeting space for an array of campus organizations”.
“Dio”, as it is affectionately called, was my seminary. The picture above was taken more than 35 years ago when I was a student there. (I’m the one waving from the right side of the top of the archway.) While this move was inevitable, it is sad to see what was founded as an evangelical institution (but hasn’t been one for a long time) slowly sink into oblivion.
In Memory of Bishop H.B. Dehqani-Tafti
A brief memorial by Alice C. Linsley in Global South Anglican (and revised thanks to the Rev. Lee Francis-Dehqani):
The first Iranian Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Iran, the Rt Revd Hassan Dehqani-Tafti died on Tuesday, April 29 at his home in Oakham, England. He was consecrated in Jerusalem on St. Mark’s day, April 25, 1961. I remember him from my time at St. Luke Anglican Church in Isfahan, Iran. The Bishop’s residence was on the grounds of the same complex that housed the church, a hospital, and a school for blind children.
Some may remember the story of Bishop Dehqani-Tafti’s miraculous escape from death in October 1979 when he and his wife were shot at while still in bed. The Bishop had barely awaked to find the barrel of a revolver pointed at his head. Shots rang out and his wife, Margaret, was wounded as she threw herself across the bishop. Then she pursued the fleeing attackers, her wounded left hand dripping blood through their house. The Bishop looked at his pillow and saw four small bullet holes surrounding the place where his head had been.
Months later, his secretary Jean Waddell was shot in the side and left to die on her bed, but she survived when her neighbor, Paul Hunt, the C of E priest who catechized me in 1976, was able to get her to the hospital.
The priest in charge of the Anglican complex in Shiraz, Arastoo Syah, had been brutally murdered in the parish church in February 1979 and most of the missionaries who ran the hospitals and schools had been forced to leave. Church properties and files were confiscated and false charges were brought against many Iranian Anglicans. Then on 6 May 1980, the Bishop’s only son, Bahram, was carjacked and driven to the desert where he was executed. Following this tragedy, the bishop’s remarkably moving prayer ended:
O God,
Bahram’s blood multiplies the fruit of the Spirit in the soil of our souls:
So when his murderers stand before thee on the Day of Judgement
Remember the fruit of the Spirit by which they have enriched our lives,
And forgive.
His life’s work was to relate the Christian faith to Iranian culture and religion and to do so from within a Church with strong English connections. His legacy to the Church in Iran will be his very wide range of writings particularly his masterly three volume work, Christ and Christianity in the Persian Poets.
Bishop Dehquani-Tafti was a good man who suffered much for the sake of the Gospel. In his book The Hard Awakening, he wrote: “The Cross of Jesus Christ … has often been misunderstood. Instead of being a symbol of suffering and sacrificial love, it has been regarded by some as the symbol of possessions and power. Christians must reverse this, and the only way of doing so is to be ready to suffer for love’s sake, in weakness not in power. The only remedy for a false view of the Cross is the Cross itself.”
Bishop Dehqani-Tafti’s funeral was held at Winchester Cathedral on May 14th.
And here is more, from The Telegraph:
Many considered Bishop Hassan a 20th-century saint. Gentle and compassionate, he seemed incapable of thinking evil of anyone, and devoted most of his adult life to the tiny Christian community in Iran, in an often hostile atmosphere, and supporting schools and hospitals. Having converted to Christianity in his late teens, he was the first Iranian to become a bishop since the 7th century, apart from those of the Armenian and Assyrian churches. Although he enjoyed cordial relations with Islamic leaders during the shah’s reign, he never found it easy to minister in his own country because his change of religion led to some alienation from Persian society. In exile he was a pastor to the Iranian Christian community in Britain. From 1976 to 1986 he was also President Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East.
Hassan Barnaba Dehqani-Tafti, who died at 87, was born in the village of Taft. His parents were poor Muslims but he trained as a teacher at Teheran University and became a Christian. From 1943 to 1945 he was an officer in the Iranian Imperial Army and an interpreter to senior British officers. After studying theology in England, he became pastor of St Luke’s, Isfahan, then St Paul’s, Teheran, then bishop.
Life under the shah was never easy for Christians, and Bishop Hassan welcomed the revolution. He wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini pledging support for the building of a just, equal and free society, but things got worse, culminating in the attempted assassination. His life was saved when his wife, Margaret, threw her body across her husband to protect him. The bishop wrote books in Persian and English, including an autobiography, The Unfolding Design Of My World, was a considerable poet and a gifted watercolourist. He is survived by Margaret and their three daughters.
Bishop Dehqani-Tafti was a true Anglican hero of the twentieth century, one who made me feel privileged to be part of the Anglican Communion.
The first Iranian Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Iran, the Rt Revd Hassan Dehqani-Tafti died on Tuesday, April 29 at his home in Oakham, England. He was consecrated in Jerusalem on St. Mark’s day, April 25, 1961. I remember him from my time at St. Luke Anglican Church in Isfahan, Iran. The Bishop’s residence was on the grounds of the same complex that housed the church, a hospital, and a school for blind children.
Some may remember the story of Bishop Dehqani-Tafti’s miraculous escape from death in October 1979 when he and his wife were shot at while still in bed. The Bishop had barely awaked to find the barrel of a revolver pointed at his head. Shots rang out and his wife, Margaret, was wounded as she threw herself across the bishop. Then she pursued the fleeing attackers, her wounded left hand dripping blood through their house. The Bishop looked at his pillow and saw four small bullet holes surrounding the place where his head had been.
Months later, his secretary Jean Waddell was shot in the side and left to die on her bed, but she survived when her neighbor, Paul Hunt, the C of E priest who catechized me in 1976, was able to get her to the hospital.
The priest in charge of the Anglican complex in Shiraz, Arastoo Syah, had been brutally murdered in the parish church in February 1979 and most of the missionaries who ran the hospitals and schools had been forced to leave. Church properties and files were confiscated and false charges were brought against many Iranian Anglicans. Then on 6 May 1980, the Bishop’s only son, Bahram, was carjacked and driven to the desert where he was executed. Following this tragedy, the bishop’s remarkably moving prayer ended:
O God,
Bahram’s blood multiplies the fruit of the Spirit in the soil of our souls:
So when his murderers stand before thee on the Day of Judgement
Remember the fruit of the Spirit by which they have enriched our lives,
And forgive.
His life’s work was to relate the Christian faith to Iranian culture and religion and to do so from within a Church with strong English connections. His legacy to the Church in Iran will be his very wide range of writings particularly his masterly three volume work, Christ and Christianity in the Persian Poets.
Bishop Dehquani-Tafti was a good man who suffered much for the sake of the Gospel. In his book The Hard Awakening, he wrote: “The Cross of Jesus Christ … has often been misunderstood. Instead of being a symbol of suffering and sacrificial love, it has been regarded by some as the symbol of possessions and power. Christians must reverse this, and the only way of doing so is to be ready to suffer for love’s sake, in weakness not in power. The only remedy for a false view of the Cross is the Cross itself.”
Bishop Dehqani-Tafti’s funeral was held at Winchester Cathedral on May 14th.
And here is more, from The Telegraph:
Many considered Bishop Hassan a 20th-century saint. Gentle and compassionate, he seemed incapable of thinking evil of anyone, and devoted most of his adult life to the tiny Christian community in Iran, in an often hostile atmosphere, and supporting schools and hospitals. Having converted to Christianity in his late teens, he was the first Iranian to become a bishop since the 7th century, apart from those of the Armenian and Assyrian churches. Although he enjoyed cordial relations with Islamic leaders during the shah’s reign, he never found it easy to minister in his own country because his change of religion led to some alienation from Persian society. In exile he was a pastor to the Iranian Christian community in Britain. From 1976 to 1986 he was also President Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East.
Hassan Barnaba Dehqani-Tafti, who died at 87, was born in the village of Taft. His parents were poor Muslims but he trained as a teacher at Teheran University and became a Christian. From 1943 to 1945 he was an officer in the Iranian Imperial Army and an interpreter to senior British officers. After studying theology in England, he became pastor of St Luke’s, Isfahan, then St Paul’s, Teheran, then bishop.
Life under the shah was never easy for Christians, and Bishop Hassan welcomed the revolution. He wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini pledging support for the building of a just, equal and free society, but things got worse, culminating in the attempted assassination. His life was saved when his wife, Margaret, threw her body across her husband to protect him. The bishop wrote books in Persian and English, including an autobiography, The Unfolding Design Of My World, was a considerable poet and a gifted watercolourist. He is survived by Margaret and their three daughters.
Bishop Dehqani-Tafti was a true Anglican hero of the twentieth century, one who made me feel privileged to be part of the Anglican Communion.
Khartoum bishop recounts traumatic attack by Darfur rebels
From Episcopal Life:
Bishop Ezekiel Kondo of the Diocese of Khartoum has described last weekend’s ordeal when rebels from the Darfur-based Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) stormed Sudan’s capital city on May 10 but were repelled after clashes with Sudanese troops. Kondo said he heard machine gun fire west of his home in Omdurman and saw people running randomly in panic. “I saw more than 10 pick-up cars full of solders and heavy guns, four of them stationed in front of my house” where the diocesan offices are located, he said. “The rest of cars went ahead [and] then there was continued gun shots. My children and I were on the floor; others joined us from the street. I thought the house was going to fall on us. Our life was in danger, but we were in deep prayer.”
Students at an Episcopal Church of the Sudan evening school were injured in the attack, Kondo reported. “Intensified gun shots continued for about three hours. When I got out I could see one of the cars burning in front of the house.” Kondo reported power outages throughout the city and said the government imposed a 22-hour curfew. “Most of the churches in Khartoum could not celebrate Pentecost Day due to the curfew,” he said. “I had confirmations in the cathedral that could not proceed” due to security concerns and lack of transportation.
JEM, a rebel group from Darfur, is headed by Khalil Ibrahim, whom Reuters news agency reported as saying: “This is just the start of a process and the end is termination of the regime. Don’t expect just one attack.”
Sudan, Africa’s largest country by area, has been devastated by two back-to-back civil wars spanning some 40 years. The latest 21-year conflict between the southern, non-Arab populations and the northern, Arab-dominated government ended in January 2005 with the signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
Throughout Sudan’s history of independence, the Khartoum-based government has periodically attempted to impose Sharia law nationwide, including punishments such as amputations and stoning. A conflict in Darfur, a remote region of western Sudan where government-backed militias have carried out a program of ethnic cleansing against Darfuris for the past five years, has claimed at least 300,000 lives and displaced as many as a million people from their homes…
“Please continue to pray for the whole situation of the Sudan,” said Kondo.
We have members of our church working in Sudan, and their life has been difficult over the last few weeks, with water shortages, and fighting and explosions within earshot.
You can read the remainder of the article here.
Bishop Ezekiel Kondo of the Diocese of Khartoum has described last weekend’s ordeal when rebels from the Darfur-based Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) stormed Sudan’s capital city on May 10 but were repelled after clashes with Sudanese troops. Kondo said he heard machine gun fire west of his home in Omdurman and saw people running randomly in panic. “I saw more than 10 pick-up cars full of solders and heavy guns, four of them stationed in front of my house” where the diocesan offices are located, he said. “The rest of cars went ahead [and] then there was continued gun shots. My children and I were on the floor; others joined us from the street. I thought the house was going to fall on us. Our life was in danger, but we were in deep prayer.”
Students at an Episcopal Church of the Sudan evening school were injured in the attack, Kondo reported. “Intensified gun shots continued for about three hours. When I got out I could see one of the cars burning in front of the house.” Kondo reported power outages throughout the city and said the government imposed a 22-hour curfew. “Most of the churches in Khartoum could not celebrate Pentecost Day due to the curfew,” he said. “I had confirmations in the cathedral that could not proceed” due to security concerns and lack of transportation.
JEM, a rebel group from Darfur, is headed by Khalil Ibrahim, whom Reuters news agency reported as saying: “This is just the start of a process and the end is termination of the regime. Don’t expect just one attack.”
Sudan, Africa’s largest country by area, has been devastated by two back-to-back civil wars spanning some 40 years. The latest 21-year conflict between the southern, non-Arab populations and the northern, Arab-dominated government ended in January 2005 with the signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
Throughout Sudan’s history of independence, the Khartoum-based government has periodically attempted to impose Sharia law nationwide, including punishments such as amputations and stoning. A conflict in Darfur, a remote region of western Sudan where government-backed militias have carried out a program of ethnic cleansing against Darfuris for the past five years, has claimed at least 300,000 lives and displaced as many as a million people from their homes…
“Please continue to pray for the whole situation of the Sudan,” said Kondo.
We have members of our church working in Sudan, and their life has been difficult over the last few weeks, with water shortages, and fighting and explosions within earshot.
You can read the remainder of the article here.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Mouse that Roared
Athbasca is a tiny diocese of just 18 parishes tucked away in the north of Alberta. However, at their diocesan synod last month they were not afraid to challenge the federal government of Canada and recent actions of the Anglican Church of Canada:
Resolution # 2008-9 - BE IT RESOLVED that this synod of the Diocese of Athabasca request that the issue of abortion be brought to the forefront within the Anglican Church of Canada by the Primate.
Resolution # 2008-10 - BE IT RESOLVED that this synod of the Diocese of Athabasca lobby the current Prime Minister of Canada, The Right Honorable Stephen Harper: the current Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson and our Members of Parliament and the current Premier of Alberta, the Honorable Ed Stelmach and our members of the Legislative Assembly, to table effective legislation on abortion that protects the interest and well being of both the fetus and mother.
Resolution # 2008-11 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Synod of the Diocese of Athabasca inform the parishes and the bishops who have joined the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone that we are in full communion with them.
Resolution # 2008-12 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Synod of the Diocese of Athabasca express its dismay that bishops of dioceses have resorted to secular courts when parishes within those dioceses have found it necessary to align themselves with the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone.
Resolution # 2008-16 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Diocese of Athabasca reaffirm and uphold its foundational theology as expressed in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 as complete and accurate in every part, and consequently,
• That this synod repudiates those actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and its constituent parts which are contrary to the Solemn Declaration in any way;
• That this synod affirms and encourages the stand of those who have declared a like understanding of Anglican theology as expressed in the Solemn Declaration;
• That this synod directs the Secretary of Synod to memorialize Council of General Synod of this motion.
All the motions passed at their synod, along with an open letter from their bishop, can be found here.
Resolution # 2008-9 - BE IT RESOLVED that this synod of the Diocese of Athabasca request that the issue of abortion be brought to the forefront within the Anglican Church of Canada by the Primate.
Resolution # 2008-10 - BE IT RESOLVED that this synod of the Diocese of Athabasca lobby the current Prime Minister of Canada, The Right Honorable Stephen Harper: the current Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson and our Members of Parliament and the current Premier of Alberta, the Honorable Ed Stelmach and our members of the Legislative Assembly, to table effective legislation on abortion that protects the interest and well being of both the fetus and mother.
Resolution # 2008-11 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Synod of the Diocese of Athabasca inform the parishes and the bishops who have joined the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone that we are in full communion with them.
Resolution # 2008-12 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Synod of the Diocese of Athabasca express its dismay that bishops of dioceses have resorted to secular courts when parishes within those dioceses have found it necessary to align themselves with the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone.
Resolution # 2008-16 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Diocese of Athabasca reaffirm and uphold its foundational theology as expressed in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 as complete and accurate in every part, and consequently,
• That this synod repudiates those actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and its constituent parts which are contrary to the Solemn Declaration in any way;
• That this synod affirms and encourages the stand of those who have declared a like understanding of Anglican theology as expressed in the Solemn Declaration;
• That this synod directs the Secretary of Synod to memorialize Council of General Synod of this motion.
All the motions passed at their synod, along with an open letter from their bishop, can be found here.
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost Letter to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion
Here is the Archbishop of Canterbury’s most recent missive to our bishops in preparation for Lambeth. Is this the famous letter that Bishop Tom Wright said was in the mail a month ago? I hope not!
The Feast of Pentecost is a time when we give thanks that God, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, makes us able to speak to each other and to the whole world of the wonderful things done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a good moment to look forward prayerfully to the Lambeth Conference, asking God to pour out the Spirit on all of us as we make ready for this time together, so that we shall indeed be given grace to speak boldly in his Name.
I indicated in earlier letters that the shape of the Conference will be different from what many have been used to. We have listened carefully to those who have expressed their difficulties with Western and parliamentary styles of meeting, and the Design Group has tried to find a new style – a style more reflective of that Pentecost moment when all received the gift of speaking freely about Christ.
At the heart of this will be the indaba groups. Indaba is a Zulu word describing a meeting for purposeful discussion among equals. Its aim is not to negotiate a formula that will keep everyone happy but to go to the heart of an issue and find what the true challenges are before seeking God’s way forward. It is a method with parallels in many cultures, and it is close to what Benedictine monks and Quaker Meetings seek to achieve as they listen quietly together to God, in a community where all are committed to a fellowship of love and attention to each other and to the word of God.
Each day’s work in this context will go forward with careful facilitation and preparation, to ensure that all voices are heard (and many languages also!). The hope is that over the two weeks we spend together, these groups will build a level of trust that will help us break down the walls we have so often built against each other in the Communion. And in combination with the intensive prayer and fellowship of the smaller Bible study groups, all this will result, by God’s grace, in clearer vision and discernment of what needs to be done.
As I noted when I wrote to you in Advent, this makes it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage. We hope that people will not come so wedded to their own agenda and their local priorities that they cannot listen to those from other cultural backgrounds. As you may have gathered, in circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together.
Of course, as baptised Christians and pastors of Christ’s flock, we are not just seeking some low-level consensus, or a simple agreement to disagree politely. We are asking for the fire of the Spirit to come upon us and deepen our sense that we are answerable to and for each other and answerable to God for the faithful proclamation of his grace uniquely offered in Jesus. That deepening may be painful in all kinds of ways. The Spirit does not show us a way to by-pass the Cross. But only in this way shall we truly appear in the world as Christ’s Body as a sign of God’s Kingdom which challenges a world scarred by poverty, violence and injustice.
The potential of our Conference is great. The focus of all we do is meant to be strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission; only God the Holy Spirit can bind us together in lasting and Christ-centred way, and only God the Holy Spirit can give us the words we need to make Christ truly known in our world. So we must go on praying hard with our people that the Spirit will bring these possibilities to fruition as only he can. Those who have planned the Conference have felt truly touched by that Spirit as they have worked together, and I know that their only wish is that what they have outlined for us will enable others to experience the same renewal and delight in our fellowship.
This is an ambitious event – ambitious for God and God’s Kingdom, which is wholly appropriate for a Lambeth Conference. And our ambition is nothing less than renewal and revival for us all in the Name of Jesus and the power of his Spirit.
May that Spirit be with you daily in your preparation for our meeting. As Our Lord says, ‘You know him, for he lives with and will be in you’ (Jn 14.17).
+ Rowan Cantuar
I read this letter yesterday and concluded that it is a careful exercise in double talk—high-flown words signifying nothing (without even any sound and fury!). I am suspicious of the “indaba groups” as a means of avoiding all meaningful conversation. “Careful facilitation” in the past has often meant manipulation, and it always seems to be the conservatives who are accused of being “wedded to their own agenda”. And since when was the mission of the church to be “a sign of God’s Kingdom which challenges a world scarred by poverty, violence and injustice”? Sounds a lot like another version of the Millennium Development Goals to me. I am trying not to become too cynical, but GAFCon is starting to look better all the time.
The Feast of Pentecost is a time when we give thanks that God, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, makes us able to speak to each other and to the whole world of the wonderful things done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a good moment to look forward prayerfully to the Lambeth Conference, asking God to pour out the Spirit on all of us as we make ready for this time together, so that we shall indeed be given grace to speak boldly in his Name.
I indicated in earlier letters that the shape of the Conference will be different from what many have been used to. We have listened carefully to those who have expressed their difficulties with Western and parliamentary styles of meeting, and the Design Group has tried to find a new style – a style more reflective of that Pentecost moment when all received the gift of speaking freely about Christ.
At the heart of this will be the indaba groups. Indaba is a Zulu word describing a meeting for purposeful discussion among equals. Its aim is not to negotiate a formula that will keep everyone happy but to go to the heart of an issue and find what the true challenges are before seeking God’s way forward. It is a method with parallels in many cultures, and it is close to what Benedictine monks and Quaker Meetings seek to achieve as they listen quietly together to God, in a community where all are committed to a fellowship of love and attention to each other and to the word of God.
Each day’s work in this context will go forward with careful facilitation and preparation, to ensure that all voices are heard (and many languages also!). The hope is that over the two weeks we spend together, these groups will build a level of trust that will help us break down the walls we have so often built against each other in the Communion. And in combination with the intensive prayer and fellowship of the smaller Bible study groups, all this will result, by God’s grace, in clearer vision and discernment of what needs to be done.
As I noted when I wrote to you in Advent, this makes it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage. We hope that people will not come so wedded to their own agenda and their local priorities that they cannot listen to those from other cultural backgrounds. As you may have gathered, in circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together.
Of course, as baptised Christians and pastors of Christ’s flock, we are not just seeking some low-level consensus, or a simple agreement to disagree politely. We are asking for the fire of the Spirit to come upon us and deepen our sense that we are answerable to and for each other and answerable to God for the faithful proclamation of his grace uniquely offered in Jesus. That deepening may be painful in all kinds of ways. The Spirit does not show us a way to by-pass the Cross. But only in this way shall we truly appear in the world as Christ’s Body as a sign of God’s Kingdom which challenges a world scarred by poverty, violence and injustice.
The potential of our Conference is great. The focus of all we do is meant to be strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission; only God the Holy Spirit can bind us together in lasting and Christ-centred way, and only God the Holy Spirit can give us the words we need to make Christ truly known in our world. So we must go on praying hard with our people that the Spirit will bring these possibilities to fruition as only he can. Those who have planned the Conference have felt truly touched by that Spirit as they have worked together, and I know that their only wish is that what they have outlined for us will enable others to experience the same renewal and delight in our fellowship.
This is an ambitious event – ambitious for God and God’s Kingdom, which is wholly appropriate for a Lambeth Conference. And our ambition is nothing less than renewal and revival for us all in the Name of Jesus and the power of his Spirit.
May that Spirit be with you daily in your preparation for our meeting. As Our Lord says, ‘You know him, for he lives with and will be in you’ (Jn 14.17).
+ Rowan Cantuar
I read this letter yesterday and concluded that it is a careful exercise in double talk—high-flown words signifying nothing (without even any sound and fury!). I am suspicious of the “indaba groups” as a means of avoiding all meaningful conversation. “Careful facilitation” in the past has often meant manipulation, and it always seems to be the conservatives who are accused of being “wedded to their own agenda”. And since when was the mission of the church to be “a sign of God’s Kingdom which challenges a world scarred by poverty, violence and injustice”? Sounds a lot like another version of the Millennium Development Goals to me. I am trying not to become too cynical, but GAFCon is starting to look better all the time.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Haiti MPs reject new PM candidate
This report from the BBC suggests that there may be more unrest in store for Haiti:
The parliament of Haiti has rejected the president’s choice for a new prime minister, prolonging the country's period without a government. Haitian lawmakers rejected President René Preval’s candidate for prime minister on Monday, undercutting his efforts to establish a stable democracy in the deeply impoverished Caribbean country.
Ericq Pierre’s nomination failed by a vote of 51-35, with nine members abstaining in the vote in the lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies. He had won overwhelming approval in Haiti’s Senate last Wednesday and had been widely expected to succeed Jacques Edouard Alexis, who was fired by the Senate on April 12 after a week of food riots that killed at least six people. Senators said Alexis had not done enough to increase national food production and lower the cost of living in the poorest country in the Americas.
The rejection, on grounds that Pierre had failed to provide proof required under the constitution that he was descended from native-born Haitians, will force Preval to select another nominee in a process that could drag out for days or weeks. Slum leaders in Les Cayes, the southern city where last month’s food riots began, have threatened more violent protests if parliament did not install a new government by early this week.
There was speculation Pierre’s rejection was organized by Alexis supporters seeking revenge for his dismissal. It also seemed aimed at Preval himself, who took office two years ago this week and has been widely criticized for moving too slowly to address the overwhelming needs of a country where most people live on less than $2 per day.
“He’s been a disappointment to a lot of people,” said Colette Lespinasse, the head of a U.N.-backed Haitian human rights organization. The government has had its head in the clouds while the country is stuck on the ground,” she added, saying Preval had done little to fight poverty and make adequate use of international aid since taking office in May 2006. At least 20 members of Preval’s own political party, Lespwa, voted against Pierre, who is a former adviser to the Inter-American Development Bank.
“Those who voted against Ericq Pierre should be held responsible for any trouble or unrest that may take place in the country in the coming days,” said Saurel François, a deputy loyal to ousted former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Haitians say the cost of some staples such as rice, beans and flour has doubled in the past few months.
The whole article may be found here.
The parliament of Haiti has rejected the president’s choice for a new prime minister, prolonging the country's period without a government. Haitian lawmakers rejected President René Preval’s candidate for prime minister on Monday, undercutting his efforts to establish a stable democracy in the deeply impoverished Caribbean country.
Ericq Pierre’s nomination failed by a vote of 51-35, with nine members abstaining in the vote in the lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies. He had won overwhelming approval in Haiti’s Senate last Wednesday and had been widely expected to succeed Jacques Edouard Alexis, who was fired by the Senate on April 12 after a week of food riots that killed at least six people. Senators said Alexis had not done enough to increase national food production and lower the cost of living in the poorest country in the Americas.
The rejection, on grounds that Pierre had failed to provide proof required under the constitution that he was descended from native-born Haitians, will force Preval to select another nominee in a process that could drag out for days or weeks. Slum leaders in Les Cayes, the southern city where last month’s food riots began, have threatened more violent protests if parliament did not install a new government by early this week.
There was speculation Pierre’s rejection was organized by Alexis supporters seeking revenge for his dismissal. It also seemed aimed at Preval himself, who took office two years ago this week and has been widely criticized for moving too slowly to address the overwhelming needs of a country where most people live on less than $2 per day.
“He’s been a disappointment to a lot of people,” said Colette Lespinasse, the head of a U.N.-backed Haitian human rights organization. The government has had its head in the clouds while the country is stuck on the ground,” she added, saying Preval had done little to fight poverty and make adequate use of international aid since taking office in May 2006. At least 20 members of Preval’s own political party, Lespwa, voted against Pierre, who is a former adviser to the Inter-American Development Bank.
“Those who voted against Ericq Pierre should be held responsible for any trouble or unrest that may take place in the country in the coming days,” said Saurel François, a deputy loyal to ousted former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Haitians say the cost of some staples such as rice, beans and flour has doubled in the past few months.
The whole article may be found here.
Cryptic Crossword Solution for May 4
In case you hadn’t figured it out already, here at last is the solution to last week’s cryptic. Sorry for the tardiness. I’ve been busy!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
London Times Cryptic Crossword for May 11
Here is this week’s cryptic from the Sunday London Times. Just click on it to bring up the full-sized version. Enjoy!
Suddenly … the blowing of a violent wind
These words were written almost exactly a century ago by G.K. Chesterton, yet they still have an uncanny contemporaneity.I remember a little boy of my acquaintance who was once walking in Battersea Park under … torn skies and tossing trees. He did not like the wind at all; it blew in his face too much; it made him shut his eyes; and it blew off his hat, of which he was very proud. He was, as far as I remember, about four. After complaining repeatedly of the atmospheric unrest, he said at last to his mother, “Well, why don’t you take away the trees, and then it wouldn’t wind.”
Nothing could be more intelligent or natural than this mistake. Any one looking for the first time at the trees might fancy that they were indeed vast and titanic fans, which by their mere waving agitated the air around them for miles. Nothing, I say, could be more human and excusable than the belief that it is the trees which make the wind. Indeed, the belief is so human and excusable that it is, as a matter of fact, the belief of about ninety-nine out of a hundred of the philosophers, reformers, sociologists, and politicians of the great age in which we live. My small friend was, in fact, very like the principal modern thinkers; only much nicer.
In the little apologue or parable which he has thus the honour of inventing, the trees stand for all visible things and the wind for the invisible. The wind is the spirit which bloweth where it listeth; the trees are the material things of the world which are blown where the spirit lists…
The great human dogma, then, is that the wind moves the trees. The great human heresy is that the trees move the wind. When people begin to say that the material circumstances have alone created the moral circumstances, then they have prevented all possibility of serious change.
From Tremendous Trifles, chapter 12
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Haitian senate ratifies candidate for prime minister
The latest on Haiti from Reuters:
Haiti took a step toward installing a new government on Wednesday as the Senate ratified nominee Ericq Pierre for prime minister, more than a month after violent protests over rising food prices that led to the ouster of the old government.
The Senate voted 17-0 with two abstentions to approve Pierre, an adviser with the Inter-American Development Bank. His appointment will not become final until he is approved by the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house in Haiti’s Parliament.
Pierre would replace Jacques Edouard Alexis, who was fired by the Senate on April 12 after a week of food riots that killed at least six people. Senators said Alexis had not done enough to ramp up national food production and lower the cost of living in the poorest country in the Americas.
The Senate’s ratification of Pierre came just two days after slum leaders in Les Cayes, the southern city where the food riots began, threatened more violent protests if parliament did not install a new government within one week…
There was no immediate word on when the lower house would take up the ratification of Pierre, a 63-year-old agronomist and agricultural economist picked by Preval to succeed Alexis.
Preval, who took office in 2006, also served as president from 1996 to 2001 and is the only elected Haitian leader to serve a full term and successfully hand over power to a democratically elected successor. In his first term, it took Preval 21 months to put a new government in place after then-Prime Minister Rosny Smarth resigned in June 1997.
“We have made a step forward, so now it is up to the Chamber to do its part,” Sen. Rudy Heriveaux said after the vote. “We believe that Ericq Pierre can help bring solutions to the current problems.”
The whole story is here.
Haiti took a step toward installing a new government on Wednesday as the Senate ratified nominee Ericq Pierre for prime minister, more than a month after violent protests over rising food prices that led to the ouster of the old government.
The Senate voted 17-0 with two abstentions to approve Pierre, an adviser with the Inter-American Development Bank. His appointment will not become final until he is approved by the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house in Haiti’s Parliament.
Pierre would replace Jacques Edouard Alexis, who was fired by the Senate on April 12 after a week of food riots that killed at least six people. Senators said Alexis had not done enough to ramp up national food production and lower the cost of living in the poorest country in the Americas.
The Senate’s ratification of Pierre came just two days after slum leaders in Les Cayes, the southern city where the food riots began, threatened more violent protests if parliament did not install a new government within one week…
There was no immediate word on when the lower house would take up the ratification of Pierre, a 63-year-old agronomist and agricultural economist picked by Preval to succeed Alexis.
Preval, who took office in 2006, also served as president from 1996 to 2001 and is the only elected Haitian leader to serve a full term and successfully hand over power to a democratically elected successor. In his first term, it took Preval 21 months to put a new government in place after then-Prime Minister Rosny Smarth resigned in June 1997.
“We have made a step forward, so now it is up to the Chamber to do its part,” Sen. Rudy Heriveaux said after the vote. “We believe that Ericq Pierre can help bring solutions to the current problems.”
The whole story is here.
Bishop Venables: Communion “Breaking Up Because Nobody is Leading”
From The Living Church a report on Bishop Greg Venables’ recent visit to the Diocese of fort Worth:
“The Anglican Communion in the United States has been hijacked,” Bishop Venables said, by an Episcopal Church leadership that doesn’t “mind what happens as long as they control it. I am astounded that in America, the land of the free, so many people have been robbed of their freedom,” he said.
Bishop Venables visited the Diocese of Fort Worth at the invitation of its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker. In late April, Bishop Venables also visited with Anglicans who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and with the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in California. Prior to his arrival in Fort Worth, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote a public letter to Bishop Venables. She asked him to cancel his visit in part because it was “an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this province,” and because it would prevent “needed reconciliation from proceeding” within The Episcopal Church.
“This is not about schism,” Bishop Venables said. “Schism is separation on secondary issues. This is [a question of] essentials. You [in the Diocese of Fort Worth] must decide whether or not you can stand with a group of people who have denied that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God.”
Should clergy and lay delegates to the annual convention in Fort Worth next November vote a second time to amend the diocesan articles of incorporation and leave The Episcopal Church, the Province of the Southern Cone has invited the diocese to affiliate on an “emergency and pastoral basis” despite the fact that the Southern Cone’s constitution currently limits member dioceses to those geographically located in the countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay…
Bishop Venables said he felt compelled to act so that brother and sister Anglicans can “get on with their ministry. If we don’t do something,” he said, “we are complicit.” This was the same motivation behind his recent decision to attend the Lambeth Conference in July, he said. “Somebody’s got to go and say the house is on fire,” he said. “Things are breaking up because nobody is leading, and that really worries me.”
In each venue, Bishop Venables told those present that the troubles in Anglicanism can be traced to doubt of the word of God (beginning with the words of the serpent in Genesis 2) and doubt that Jesus is the Son of God (the tempter in the wilderness in Matthew 4).
“I believe that the division at the present moment is about how we define Christianity: that God has spoken, that [the Bible] is the word of God, that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, and that he is the only means of reconciliation with God. That marks the foundational truth of true Christianity.”
The whole report is here.
“The Anglican Communion in the United States has been hijacked,” Bishop Venables said, by an Episcopal Church leadership that doesn’t “mind what happens as long as they control it. I am astounded that in America, the land of the free, so many people have been robbed of their freedom,” he said.
Bishop Venables visited the Diocese of Fort Worth at the invitation of its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker. In late April, Bishop Venables also visited with Anglicans who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and with the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in California. Prior to his arrival in Fort Worth, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote a public letter to Bishop Venables. She asked him to cancel his visit in part because it was “an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this province,” and because it would prevent “needed reconciliation from proceeding” within The Episcopal Church.
“This is not about schism,” Bishop Venables said. “Schism is separation on secondary issues. This is [a question of] essentials. You [in the Diocese of Fort Worth] must decide whether or not you can stand with a group of people who have denied that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God.”
Should clergy and lay delegates to the annual convention in Fort Worth next November vote a second time to amend the diocesan articles of incorporation and leave The Episcopal Church, the Province of the Southern Cone has invited the diocese to affiliate on an “emergency and pastoral basis” despite the fact that the Southern Cone’s constitution currently limits member dioceses to those geographically located in the countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay…
Bishop Venables said he felt compelled to act so that brother and sister Anglicans can “get on with their ministry. If we don’t do something,” he said, “we are complicit.” This was the same motivation behind his recent decision to attend the Lambeth Conference in July, he said. “Somebody’s got to go and say the house is on fire,” he said. “Things are breaking up because nobody is leading, and that really worries me.”
In each venue, Bishop Venables told those present that the troubles in Anglicanism can be traced to doubt of the word of God (beginning with the words of the serpent in Genesis 2) and doubt that Jesus is the Son of God (the tempter in the wilderness in Matthew 4).
“I believe that the division at the present moment is about how we define Christianity: that God has spoken, that [the Bible] is the word of God, that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, and that he is the only means of reconciliation with God. That marks the foundational truth of true Christianity.”
The whole report is here.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Haiti riot instigators set deadline to install PM
Here is some recent news from Haiti, as reported by Reuters:
Slum leaders in the southern town of Les Cayes who started Haiti’s recent food riots handed lawmakers an ultimatum on Monday to install a new government within a week or face more protests. Jean René Frazil, an organizer of last month’s street demonstrations, told Haitian President René Preval and parliament that renewed protests could be more violent than last month’s unrest across the impoverished Caribbean country.
“Preval and parliament have no more than one week to install a new prime minister and a new government,” Frazil, 28, told Reuters. “Otherwise, we’ll take to the streets again and it will be much worse than what happened during the past protests.” Parliamentary leaders were not immediately available for comment on the threat.
At least six people were killed in April in a week of unrest that spread from Les Cayes to the capital, Port-au-Prince, and other cities. Five of the deaths occurred in Les Cayes, where rock-throwing protesters clashed with U.N. peacekeepers and looted businesses and food warehouses.
I had been part of a planned church trip to visit Haiti until the unrest began to break out nearly a month ago. Both the US State Department and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs continue to warn their nationals not to travel to Haiti. The rest of the story is here.
Slum leaders in the southern town of Les Cayes who started Haiti’s recent food riots handed lawmakers an ultimatum on Monday to install a new government within a week or face more protests. Jean René Frazil, an organizer of last month’s street demonstrations, told Haitian President René Preval and parliament that renewed protests could be more violent than last month’s unrest across the impoverished Caribbean country.
“Preval and parliament have no more than one week to install a new prime minister and a new government,” Frazil, 28, told Reuters. “Otherwise, we’ll take to the streets again and it will be much worse than what happened during the past protests.” Parliamentary leaders were not immediately available for comment on the threat.
At least six people were killed in April in a week of unrest that spread from Les Cayes to the capital, Port-au-Prince, and other cities. Five of the deaths occurred in Les Cayes, where rock-throwing protesters clashed with U.N. peacekeepers and looted businesses and food warehouses.
I had been part of a planned church trip to visit Haiti until the unrest began to break out nearly a month ago. Both the US State Department and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs continue to warn their nationals not to travel to Haiti. The rest of the story is here.
Archbishop of Canterbury offers prayers for Burma following devastating cyclone
From the Episcopal News Service:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has written to the Anglican Church in Burma following the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in the area of the Irrawaddy River Delta.
In the letter to Archbishop of Myanmar and Bishop of Yangon Stephen Than Myint Oo, Williams assures the church of the prayers of the Anglican Communion and commends the rescue operation now underway.
“I am heartened to know relief efforts are underway to help hundreds of thousands of people who are without clean water, food, or shelter," said Williams. “Our hearts grieve with all those who have lost their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods. In the face of such loss, all I can offer in my prayers for you is the totality of the love of God, even in the face of all that on earth is disfigured by natural disaster. ‘This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.’ (John 6.39). Please be assured that your brothers and sisters across the Communion are holding you in their prayers.”
The Anglican Relief and Development Fund is already sending assistance to Burma. Find out more about how you can help here.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has written to the Anglican Church in Burma following the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in the area of the Irrawaddy River Delta.
In the letter to Archbishop of Myanmar and Bishop of Yangon Stephen Than Myint Oo, Williams assures the church of the prayers of the Anglican Communion and commends the rescue operation now underway.
“I am heartened to know relief efforts are underway to help hundreds of thousands of people who are without clean water, food, or shelter," said Williams. “Our hearts grieve with all those who have lost their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods. In the face of such loss, all I can offer in my prayers for you is the totality of the love of God, even in the face of all that on earth is disfigured by natural disaster. ‘This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.’ (John 6.39). Please be assured that your brothers and sisters across the Communion are holding you in their prayers.”
The Anglican Relief and Development Fund is already sending assistance to Burma. Find out more about how you can help here.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Local Myanmar community responds to cyclone disaster
Cyclone Nargis has had a disastrous impact on Burma. The death toll has reached as high as 20,000, and is still climbing. It is having its impact on faraway Minnesota as well, as this Public Radio report reveals:
A leader of Minnesota’s ethnic Karen community said he hopes relief will come to victims of Saturday’s tropical cyclone in his native Myanmar, where the death toll has soared above 22,000.
St. Paul, Minn. — Robert Zan said he was shocked and saddened to hear about the deadly cyclone in his homeland, once known as Burma.
The former Karen army colonel said he plans to pass around a collection plate Sunday at First Baptist Church in downtown St. Paul, home to a burgeoning Karen refugee population. “$10 and $5 is OK, because they are refugees and they don’t have enough much money,” Zan said. Zan said he’s tried calling an aunt and a cousin in Myanmar, but he hasn’t been able to get through.
The Karen are one of the fastest-growing refugee groups in Minnesota. Many fled persecution from the ruling military junta in Myanmar. Zan estimates that about a thousand Karen live in St. Paul, and for many, the downtown church has been a first stop.
I hope that at Messiah, where we have a score of Karen worshiping, we can do something significant to help with this disaster.
A leader of Minnesota’s ethnic Karen community said he hopes relief will come to victims of Saturday’s tropical cyclone in his native Myanmar, where the death toll has soared above 22,000.
St. Paul, Minn. — Robert Zan said he was shocked and saddened to hear about the deadly cyclone in his homeland, once known as Burma.
The former Karen army colonel said he plans to pass around a collection plate Sunday at First Baptist Church in downtown St. Paul, home to a burgeoning Karen refugee population. “$10 and $5 is OK, because they are refugees and they don’t have enough much money,” Zan said. Zan said he’s tried calling an aunt and a cousin in Myanmar, but he hasn’t been able to get through.
The Karen are one of the fastest-growing refugee groups in Minnesota. Many fled persecution from the ruling military junta in Myanmar. Zan estimates that about a thousand Karen live in St. Paul, and for many, the downtown church has been a first stop.
I hope that at Messiah, where we have a score of Karen worshiping, we can do something significant to help with this disaster.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
London Times Cryptic Crossword for May 4
Here is this week’s cryptic from the Sunday London Times. Just click on it to get the full-sized printable version.
Cryptic Crossword Solution for April 20
Here is my solution to last Sunday’s London Times cryptic crossword puzzle:
Saturday, May 3, 2008
A Deeper Relevance
This article appeared in the May issue of Christianity Today. It is the second article on liturgical churches and their worship this year. What is happening in the evangelical world?
… Many evangelicals are attracted to liturgical worship, and as one of those evangelicals, I’d like to explain what the attraction is for me, and perhaps for many others. A closer look suggests that something more profound and paradoxical is going on in liturgy than the search for contemporary relevance. “The liturgy begins … as a real separation from the world,” writes Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann. He continues by saying that in the attempt to “make Christianity understandable to this mythical ‘modern’ man on the street”, we have forgotten this necessary separation.
It is precisely the point of the liturgy to take people out of their worlds and usher them into a strange, new world—to show them that, despite appearances, the last thing in the world they need is more of the world out of which they’ve come. The world the liturgy reveals does not seem relevant at first glance, but it turns out that the world it reveals is more real than the one we inhabit day by day…
Worshiping in the liturgical tradition is no panacea. When not approached wisely, it can be misused and abused; it can tempt participants to substitute mere religious ritual for a vital, personal faith in Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, this tradition does have much to offer contemporary evangelicalism. Take our fascination with relevance: the first thing this liturgy asks us to rethink is what we mean by “relevant” worship…
This is one reason I thank God for the liturgy. The liturgy does not target any age or cultural subgroup. It does not even target this century. (It does not imagine, as we moderns and postmoderns are tempted to do, that this is the best of all possible ages, the most significant era of history.) Instead, the liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place. Its earliest forms took shape in ancient Israel, and its subsequent development occurred in a variety of cultures and subcultures—Greco-Roman, North African, German, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. It has been prayed meaningfully by bakers, housewives, tailors, teachers, philosophers, priests, monks, kings, and slaves. As such, it has not been shaped to meet a particular group’s needs. It seeks only to enable people—people in general—to see God…
The liturgy, from beginning to end, is not about meeting our needs. The liturgy is about God. It’s not even about God-as-the-fulfiller-of-our-need-for-spiritual-meaning. It’s about God as he is himself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not about our blessedness but his. The liturgy immediately signals that our needs are not nearly as relevant as we imagine. There is something infinitely more worthy of our attention—something, someone, who lies outside the self.
With talk of “God” and “kingdom”, it announces another order of reality we are being called into. We are in the habit of thinking that our culture—the reality we strive to be relevant to—is the measure of meaning. That’s why we’re tempted to shape our churches to look like that culture, because that is what people in this culture will find meaningful. It is logical on one level, and there is no question that we have to be culturally sensitive in our outreach. But the liturgy wants to show us a deeper logic and relevance.
The liturgy begins by saying that our culture needs not so much to have its “presenting needs” met as to be gently and calmly invited into a wiser culture—the culture of a Trinitarian God and his kingdom. This is what is blessed, now and forever. Our culture is the transitory thing, an apparition that will someday have to pass away, just as childhood has to pass away. The liturgy says to us as we enter, “You’re in the culture of God and his kingdom now. Things will be different from now on.” …
In what’s now an old essay, F. H. Brabant put it this way: “All liturgical acts … have a double function: one directed Godwards, expressing in outward form the thoughts and feelings of the worshippers, the other directed manwards, teaching worshippers how they ought to think and feel by setting before them the Church’s standard of worship.”
We have to pay attention to cultural context, no question. The history of liturgy has been in part about finding words and ritual that help people in a given culture express their thoughts and feelings to God in ways that make cultural sense. The liturgy has always had freedom and variety within its basic structure.
But it has steadfastly refused to let the culture determine its shape or meaning. Liturgical churches know that as profound a reality as is the surrounding culture, there is an even more profound reality waiting to be discovered. The liturgy gently and calmly gets us to open our eyes to the new reality, showing us the “necessary separation” from the old. Suddenly, in the blink of an eye, we find our gaze directed away from ourselves and toward God and his kingdom. When we return to our homes, we are never the same.
You can read it all here.
… Many evangelicals are attracted to liturgical worship, and as one of those evangelicals, I’d like to explain what the attraction is for me, and perhaps for many others. A closer look suggests that something more profound and paradoxical is going on in liturgy than the search for contemporary relevance. “The liturgy begins … as a real separation from the world,” writes Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann. He continues by saying that in the attempt to “make Christianity understandable to this mythical ‘modern’ man on the street”, we have forgotten this necessary separation.
It is precisely the point of the liturgy to take people out of their worlds and usher them into a strange, new world—to show them that, despite appearances, the last thing in the world they need is more of the world out of which they’ve come. The world the liturgy reveals does not seem relevant at first glance, but it turns out that the world it reveals is more real than the one we inhabit day by day…
Worshiping in the liturgical tradition is no panacea. When not approached wisely, it can be misused and abused; it can tempt participants to substitute mere religious ritual for a vital, personal faith in Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, this tradition does have much to offer contemporary evangelicalism. Take our fascination with relevance: the first thing this liturgy asks us to rethink is what we mean by “relevant” worship…
This is one reason I thank God for the liturgy. The liturgy does not target any age or cultural subgroup. It does not even target this century. (It does not imagine, as we moderns and postmoderns are tempted to do, that this is the best of all possible ages, the most significant era of history.) Instead, the liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place. Its earliest forms took shape in ancient Israel, and its subsequent development occurred in a variety of cultures and subcultures—Greco-Roman, North African, German, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. It has been prayed meaningfully by bakers, housewives, tailors, teachers, philosophers, priests, monks, kings, and slaves. As such, it has not been shaped to meet a particular group’s needs. It seeks only to enable people—people in general—to see God…
The liturgy, from beginning to end, is not about meeting our needs. The liturgy is about God. It’s not even about God-as-the-fulfiller-of-our-need-for-spiritual-meaning. It’s about God as he is himself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not about our blessedness but his. The liturgy immediately signals that our needs are not nearly as relevant as we imagine. There is something infinitely more worthy of our attention—something, someone, who lies outside the self.
With talk of “God” and “kingdom”, it announces another order of reality we are being called into. We are in the habit of thinking that our culture—the reality we strive to be relevant to—is the measure of meaning. That’s why we’re tempted to shape our churches to look like that culture, because that is what people in this culture will find meaningful. It is logical on one level, and there is no question that we have to be culturally sensitive in our outreach. But the liturgy wants to show us a deeper logic and relevance.
The liturgy begins by saying that our culture needs not so much to have its “presenting needs” met as to be gently and calmly invited into a wiser culture—the culture of a Trinitarian God and his kingdom. This is what is blessed, now and forever. Our culture is the transitory thing, an apparition that will someday have to pass away, just as childhood has to pass away. The liturgy says to us as we enter, “You’re in the culture of God and his kingdom now. Things will be different from now on.” …
In what’s now an old essay, F. H. Brabant put it this way: “All liturgical acts … have a double function: one directed Godwards, expressing in outward form the thoughts and feelings of the worshippers, the other directed manwards, teaching worshippers how they ought to think and feel by setting before them the Church’s standard of worship.”
We have to pay attention to cultural context, no question. The history of liturgy has been in part about finding words and ritual that help people in a given culture express their thoughts and feelings to God in ways that make cultural sense. The liturgy has always had freedom and variety within its basic structure.
But it has steadfastly refused to let the culture determine its shape or meaning. Liturgical churches know that as profound a reality as is the surrounding culture, there is an even more profound reality waiting to be discovered. The liturgy gently and calmly gets us to open our eyes to the new reality, showing us the “necessary separation” from the old. Suddenly, in the blink of an eye, we find our gaze directed away from ourselves and toward God and his kingdom. When we return to our homes, we are never the same.
You can read it all here.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Memo: Presiding Bishop Subverting Constitution and Canons
How did I miss this one yesterday in The Living Church?
Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.
A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report’s recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop’s ordination vows. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants “of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident.” …
The 7,000-word memorandum states it does not address issues of doctrine under Title 4, Canon 1, Section 1c, but limits its review to the “recent actions she has taken against bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.” …
Concerning the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Presiding Bishop’s announcement that she did not recognize the “duly elected” diocesan standing committee violated Articles IV and II.3 of the church’s constitution and repudiated her duties under [Title I, Canon 2, Section 4(a)(3)] which permits her only to “consult” with the diocesan ecclesiastical authority in the event of an episcopal vacancy…
“The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop,” the legal memorandum concluded.
The procedural difficulties in bringing this matter to adjudication were formidable, the paper argued, as the “ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the [Title IV] Review Committee.”
The authors of the legal memorandum were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would be conducive for a conviction. The Title IV committee could issue a presentment, it could decline to issue a presentment and “produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers,” or it could “decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the respondent,” it said.
This third outcome is “highly likely,” the paper concluded, but it noted the effort should nonetheless be made to hold the institution “accountable.”
It’s an interesting idea, but at this point I think the paper is right that there is little hope of this moving forward. You can read the whole report here. The actual document is here.
Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.
A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report’s recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop’s ordination vows. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants “of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident.” …
The 7,000-word memorandum states it does not address issues of doctrine under Title 4, Canon 1, Section 1c, but limits its review to the “recent actions she has taken against bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.” …
Concerning the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Presiding Bishop’s announcement that she did not recognize the “duly elected” diocesan standing committee violated Articles IV and II.3 of the church’s constitution and repudiated her duties under [Title I, Canon 2, Section 4(a)(3)] which permits her only to “consult” with the diocesan ecclesiastical authority in the event of an episcopal vacancy…
“The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop,” the legal memorandum concluded.
The procedural difficulties in bringing this matter to adjudication were formidable, the paper argued, as the “ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the [Title IV] Review Committee.”
The authors of the legal memorandum were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would be conducive for a conviction. The Title IV committee could issue a presentment, it could decline to issue a presentment and “produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers,” or it could “decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the respondent,” it said.
This third outcome is “highly likely,” the paper concluded, but it noted the effort should nonetheless be made to hold the institution “accountable.”
It’s an interesting idea, but at this point I think the paper is right that there is little hope of this moving forward. You can read the whole report here. The actual document is here.
The Presiding Bishop of TEC: Does She Know What She Is Doing?
A critique of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions by Dr Philip Turner of the Anglican Communion Institute—
Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant.
To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop. The canonical irregularities surrounding the specially called convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the actions to depose Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan raise questions about the way in which she understands and deploys the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Finally, her Easter Message to TEC raises a question about the adequacy of her grasp of the Christian Gospel…
I confess that this decision produced in me a degree of amazement. First, at an ambassadorial level, regrets based on “scheduling conflicts” are always interpreted as a “diplomatic” excuse meant to send a negative message. Second, central to the office of Presiding Bishop is the responsibility to represent TEC in its relations with the Anglican Communion and with other churches. The Anglican Communion has no more important ecumenical partner than the Church of Rome. Why would dedication of a building have priority over an opportunity to greet the Pope in the name of TEC? If there was some reason to give it priority, why was that reason not made public so that the members of TEC and the Anglican Communion would know that the reason for sending regrets was of serious consequence? Further, a more lengthy explanation might prevent Roman Catholic observers from concluding that she thought it for a number of reasons proper that she absent herself. Third, many of us have struggled for years to insure that women take their rightful place within the leadership of TEC and the Anglican Communion. Given the negative reception by Rome of TEC’s decision to ordain women as priests and bishops, why would an opportunity for the Pope to meet a Presiding Bishop who is a woman be passed up? …
The decision not to greet the Pope is I grant a prudential one that must, sadly, be judged imprudent. More serious is her aggressive interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of TEC in the cases mentioned above. In each instance, either the Presiding Bishop does not understand the Constitution and Canons of TEC or she is trying to expand the power of her office in a way contrary to the clear meaning of the Constitution and Canons and without due authorization by the General Convention.
The most serious of the irregularities concern her interventions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. As one commentator has stated in a private communication, though in the cases of Bishops Cox and Duncan the violations on the part of the Presiding Bishop pertain to individual Bishops, those with respect to the Diocese of San Joaquin “subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed by bishops not under a metropolitan or archbishop.” …
In one way the last of my questions and concerns may seem the least serious, namely, the content (or lack thereof) of the Presiding Bishop’s Easter message. However, this concern is in fact the most serious and anxiety producing of all. If, in this instance, she did not know what she was saying, then one must conclude that she does not understand the central tenets of Christian belief, namely, the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection. If, however, she does understand what she is saying, she is suggesting a novelty that forces one to ask if her version of Christian belief is in fact recognizable as what Christians through the ages have believed and professed…
In the cross and resurrection God has bridged the gap that separates us from the true source of our life and in so doing has opened for us a new way of life. The Easter message is first of all that sin and death have been defeated and that God in Christ has proved to be faithful to his promises.
It is this confession that is missing in the Presiding Bishop’s Easter Message and in the new version of the Stations of the Cross her office is making available to TEC. It is, however, this confession that gives Christians their identity. It is also this confession that many Anglicans throughout the world fail to hear coming from TEC’s leadership. It is silence on this matter that worries Anglicans in the Global South far more than the new sexual ethic that TEC now seems in the process of adopting. It is silence in respect to the central Christian confession that may make our Presiding Bishop an ineffective representative in the councils of the Anglican Communion. It is also silence on this matter that may have led the Pope on his recent visit to express to an ecumenical gathering at which the Presiding Bishop was not present concern about “so called prophetic actions that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of scripture and tradition.” One can only say that the Pope’s concern is widely shared, and that the absence of the Presiding Bishop from the gathering at which these words were spoken serves only to isolate further both her and TEC from the voice of the church catholic.
You can read Dr Turner’s whole thoughtful analysis here.
Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant.
To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop. The canonical irregularities surrounding the specially called convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the actions to depose Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan raise questions about the way in which she understands and deploys the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Finally, her Easter Message to TEC raises a question about the adequacy of her grasp of the Christian Gospel…
I confess that this decision produced in me a degree of amazement. First, at an ambassadorial level, regrets based on “scheduling conflicts” are always interpreted as a “diplomatic” excuse meant to send a negative message. Second, central to the office of Presiding Bishop is the responsibility to represent TEC in its relations with the Anglican Communion and with other churches. The Anglican Communion has no more important ecumenical partner than the Church of Rome. Why would dedication of a building have priority over an opportunity to greet the Pope in the name of TEC? If there was some reason to give it priority, why was that reason not made public so that the members of TEC and the Anglican Communion would know that the reason for sending regrets was of serious consequence? Further, a more lengthy explanation might prevent Roman Catholic observers from concluding that she thought it for a number of reasons proper that she absent herself. Third, many of us have struggled for years to insure that women take their rightful place within the leadership of TEC and the Anglican Communion. Given the negative reception by Rome of TEC’s decision to ordain women as priests and bishops, why would an opportunity for the Pope to meet a Presiding Bishop who is a woman be passed up? …
The decision not to greet the Pope is I grant a prudential one that must, sadly, be judged imprudent. More serious is her aggressive interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of TEC in the cases mentioned above. In each instance, either the Presiding Bishop does not understand the Constitution and Canons of TEC or she is trying to expand the power of her office in a way contrary to the clear meaning of the Constitution and Canons and without due authorization by the General Convention.
The most serious of the irregularities concern her interventions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. As one commentator has stated in a private communication, though in the cases of Bishops Cox and Duncan the violations on the part of the Presiding Bishop pertain to individual Bishops, those with respect to the Diocese of San Joaquin “subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed by bishops not under a metropolitan or archbishop.” …
In one way the last of my questions and concerns may seem the least serious, namely, the content (or lack thereof) of the Presiding Bishop’s Easter message. However, this concern is in fact the most serious and anxiety producing of all. If, in this instance, she did not know what she was saying, then one must conclude that she does not understand the central tenets of Christian belief, namely, the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection. If, however, she does understand what she is saying, she is suggesting a novelty that forces one to ask if her version of Christian belief is in fact recognizable as what Christians through the ages have believed and professed…
In the cross and resurrection God has bridged the gap that separates us from the true source of our life and in so doing has opened for us a new way of life. The Easter message is first of all that sin and death have been defeated and that God in Christ has proved to be faithful to his promises.
It is this confession that is missing in the Presiding Bishop’s Easter Message and in the new version of the Stations of the Cross her office is making available to TEC. It is, however, this confession that gives Christians their identity. It is also this confession that many Anglicans throughout the world fail to hear coming from TEC’s leadership. It is silence on this matter that worries Anglicans in the Global South far more than the new sexual ethic that TEC now seems in the process of adopting. It is silence in respect to the central Christian confession that may make our Presiding Bishop an ineffective representative in the councils of the Anglican Communion. It is also silence on this matter that may have led the Pope on his recent visit to express to an ecumenical gathering at which the Presiding Bishop was not present concern about “so called prophetic actions that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of scripture and tradition.” One can only say that the Pope’s concern is widely shared, and that the absence of the Presiding Bishop from the gathering at which these words were spoken serves only to isolate further both her and TEC from the voice of the church catholic.
You can read Dr Turner’s whole thoughtful analysis here.
Ascension Day
Here is an excerpt from a sermon on Christ’s ascension, by Leo the Great (c.395-461):
Accordingly, dearly-beloved, throughout this time which elapsed between the Lord’s resurrection and ascension, God’s providence had this in view, to teach and impress upon both the eyes and hearts of his own people that the Lord Jesus Christ might be acknowledged to have as truly risen, as he was truly born, suffered, and died. And hence the most blessed apostles and all the disciples, who had been both bewildered at his death on the cross and backward in believing his resurrection, were so strengthened by the clearness of the truth that when the Lord entered the heights of heaven, not only were they affected with no sadness, but were even filled with great joy.
And truly great and unspeakable was their cause for joy, when in the sight of the holy multitude, above the dignity of all heavenly creatures, the nature of humankind went up, to pass above the angels’ ranks and to rise beyond the archangels’ heights, and to have its uplifting limited by no elevation until, received to sit with the eternal Father, it should be associated on the throne with his glory, to whose nature it was united in the Son.
Since then Christ’s ascension is our uplifting, and the hope of the Body is raised, whither the glory of the Head has gone before, let us exult, dearly-beloved, with worthy joy and delight in the loyal paying of thanks. For today not only are we confirmed as possessors of paradise, but have also in Christ penetrated the heights of heaven, and have gained still greater things through Christ’s unspeakable grace than we had lost through the devil’s malice. For us, whom our virulent enemy had driven out from the bliss of our first abode, the Son of God has made members of himself and placed at the right hand of the Father, with whom he lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God for ever and ever. Amen.
You can find the whole sermon here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
