In the U.S.A. seceders from a congregation or denomination assume without question their right under God to form a new congregation or a new denomination, usually according to a specific blueprint. There are hundreds of examples of this since the American Civil War. In fact, this right and its consequences lie at the heart of American religion.
And this right was in essence what the secessions from The Protestant Episcopal Church assumed in both 1873 and 1977—the one to restore the Evangelical character of Anglican Protestantism and the other to restore the Episcopalianism of the 1950s, before the revolutionary 1960s. One group created The Reformed Episcopal Church and the other group the various Continuing Churches.
But the secession planned by the four dioceses of S-J, F-W, Pittsburgh and Quincy from 2008-9 is different in a basic principle. Here there is no claimed right to set up an autonomous local ecclesial entity; rather there is an attempt to be validated and authenticated by an overseas ecclesial entity! That is, there is an intention to become part of, by adoption, an overseas Province that is in good standing within the Anglican Communion. For to be within the Anglican Communion is seen by these dioceses as the sure way to be a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and not be in schism. So what is planned is a movement from one Province (judged to be seriously in error and so perhaps not in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church) to another Province (judged to be orthodox and within the Church of God).
Here then is the innovation in American Protestantism! It is the negation of the right simply to secede and create one’s own thing in favor of the lesser right to transfer from one local Province to another which is overseas.
Let us be clear. Other options are available to the four seceding dioceses but these are rejected.
One is to form together a Province in embryo and patiently wait for full recognition from overseas Provinces; and in the interim simply be in fellowship with overseas dioceses and Provinces and seek to unite the Common Cause Partners.
Another is to join the missions from African Provinces (Rwanda. Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda) already on U.S.A. soil and enter the Anglican Communion via the back door as it were by uniting and working with one oir all of these.
These two possibilities are rejected because, it appears, belonging to the Anglican Communion in a clear and observable manner is fundamental to their belief system. They are not even sure about membership of the Communion via the missions of Rwanda etc.
In a sense, one could say that the four dioceses are imitating what the churches of the former thirteen colonies did in 1788-9 when they asked the Church of England to authenticate their Prayer Book (edited version of BCP 1662) and also declare that they were in full communion with the mother Church. Both were granted from England (see the Preface to the American BCP of 1789-1928).
This said, the innovatory position adopted by the four dioceses is not without its difficulties, practical and theological. The practical begin with the lively interest of the leadership and lawyers of PECUSA in their intention to secede; and the theological begin with the ecclesial reality of the Anglican Way in North America. I deal only with the latter for the former is well known—many law-suits.
It is not well known that Lambeth Conferences from 1867 to 1998 have only been consistent in their many Resolutions in a few matters; and one of these has been the territorial integrity of a Province and within it of a diocese. No other position is so clearly and often articulated as this, which means that in the few cases where there are overlapping jurisdictions they are seen as a problem and one to be solved (e.g., the American and English dioceses overlapping in Europe).
Here then is the oddity in the U.S.A. At the same time as the four dioceses are insisting that their full integrity as members of the Catholic Church can only be maintained through transfer to another (territorial) Province overseas, they are actually supporting the invasion of the PECUSA territory—but not interestingly theirs— by at least five overseas Provinces from Africa and South America.
By any measure, this is inconsistent thinking! If these overseas Provinces are right to invade with the Gospel Mandate, then the four dioceses logically should join these missions for they are already on U.S.A. territory. Further, they should declare that they think that the Lambeth Conference teaching over 150 years on the integrity of Provinces is wrong—at least with respect to the U.S.A. in 2007-8!
Consider what will be the situation in 2009 if the plans of the four dioceses go ahead and PECUSA is unable to stop them.
There will be at least five—buy probably more—missions from overseas Provinces organized into dioceses and networks with multiple bishops and with separate administrations; there will be multiple single congregations with a bishop somewhere overseas in another continent; there will be four dioceses belonging to overseas Provinces (e.g. Southern Cone); there will be multiple, small Continuing churches, the Reformed Episcopal Church and other groups yet to emerge. And over against all these variations there will be the Episcopal Church, in which are congregations and dioceses claiming to be orthodox (e.g. Dioceses of Dallas & Springfield), even as the Province of the U.S.A. is still regarded by many Provinces as a true Province of the global Anglican Communion!
To conclude:
Either there is here in this bewildering variety an absolutely new form of comprehensiveness in the Anglican Way in North America, a form never envisaged before; or else, there is the shattering of the Anglican Way into many parts (and like Humpty Dumpty no one—except a Moses or Joshua or David or Solomon— may be able to put them together again). Secession is relatively easy; reconciliation and unifying are relatively difficult!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon; December 5, 2007; drpetertoon@yahoo.com
Friday, December 14, 2007
THE MEANING OF ADVENT
Matthew 21: 5 Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold thy King cometh unto thee.
In the Christian Year, the season of Advent (Latin, adventus, “Coming”) runs from the fourth Sunday before Christmas until the eve of Christmas Day. It is also the beginning of the Christian Year.
But consider this. For us, in the secularized West in 2007, it is as though for all practical purposes Advent has disappeared. For Christmas has devoured Advent, gobbled it up with the turkey giblets and the goblets of seasonal ale. In fact the practical disappearance of Advent has opened a major hole from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day and this hole has been filled up with many different attempts to anticipate Christmas! More Christmas trees, more Christmas lights, more tinsel, more tassels, more glitter, more glee—so that the glut of candles and carols, ornaments and trimmings, parties, programs and performances, has left nothing for Christmas Day. In fact, Christmas Day arrives for most people not as the fulfilment of Advent but rather as the end of the long Yule season, that has burned without ceasing since the Thanksgiving sales began in late November in the malls. In fact, Christmas Day is like the peace after the strom.
To avoid this profanation of Advent is a massive task and is probably impossible if we live in the West in 2007. However, we can put up some kind of fight against this heavy secularization and this I shall attempt to do now.
One way of thinking about the purpose and meaning of ADVENT is to take each letter of the word, a-d-v-e-n-t, and let it represent a theme or aspect of this season. So let us try this method.
A – Arrival
During the season of Advent, the Church of Christ using the faculty of memory joins, as it were, the remnant of Israel (represented by such as Simeon & Anna) in preparing for the Arrival of the Messiah, the Son of David & the Son of God, even Jesus, Son of Mary. Further, the Church joins Israel out in the wilderness of Judea in listening to John the Baptist, who prepares the way of the Messiah.
By and in Liturgy, and caught up in the Spirit of the Lord, it is as though the contemporary people of God in 2007 are joined to the people of God two thousand years ago—and we join with them in faith, hope and charity.
Also, during the season of Advent the Church of Christ as the Bride of Christ looks for his Return to earth, his Arrival as the Lord of lords and King of kings to raise the dead, judge the nations and inaugurate the kingdom of God. In fact the expectance of the Second Coming adds greatly to the true piety and spirituality of Advent season.
So the Church prays on Advent III
“O Lord Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise turn so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world, we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.”
D -- Devotion
The four weeks of Advent provide the possibility of a period of intense and deep Devotion both in the public liturgy of the Church and in personal times of prayer and meditation. This consecration to walking with God in humility and obedience is summed up in the Collect for the last of the four Sundays:
O LORD, raise up (we pray thee) thy power, and come among us, and with great might succour us; that whereas, through our sins and wickedness, we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us, thy bountiful grace and mercy may speedily help and deliver us; through the satisfaction of thy Son our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be honour and glory, world without end. Amen.
The Collect is addressed to God, the heavenly Father, and it is an earnest request that he will gather up his power and descend to his people (by the Holy Ghost) in order to help, succour and sustain them in the race they are running in their earthly pilgrimage towards the goal & fullness of the kingdom of heaven (see Hebrews 12:1).
In making this petition, God’s people recognize that due to their sins of omission and commission they have failed to run in God’s grace as gracefully and swiftly as they are called to do and ought to have done. Thus they look to the Father to provide them through his Son and by his Spirit, and in grace and mercy, the help they need.
If God’s people are to live as those who expect the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, then they need not only to watch and pray but also to live as the obedient and faithful servants of God, engaged daily in his service and running the race that is set before them. This is true Devotion!
V. Volition (the act of willing or resolving)
God is merciful and gives us grace, but we have to be willing to receive that grace and to commit ourselves to his will and purpose. The Devotion of Advent requires definition Volition! But this we prayed for in the week before Advent: “Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people…”
The season of Advent may be viewed as a short Lent as a time when strict discipline over the body through Fasting is one means of deepening awareness of God and devotion to him. The colour for this season, like Lent, is purple pointing to asceticism. Then the words of the Advent Collect, “Give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness” also suggest the need for discipline & Fasting. Further, it is possible for four weeks to omit “Gloria in Excelsis” from the Eucharist as a sign of liturgical asceticism – but to make this omission without developing the interior Devotion of asceticism is to miss out!
Yet Volition, the commitment of the will resolved to do what God requires and to please him, is the real thing here! That is, the will as it is graciously turned towards the Lord to obey him and to do his bidding.
E – Expectancy
As the righteous remnant in Israel waited for the Messiah in hopeful expectancy, and greeted him with great joy—Lord, now let thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seen….—so Christian worshippers in the Liturgy throughout Advent grow in expectancy week by week for the arrival of the Son of God Incarnate. And their expectancy is joyfully fulfilled at the first service of Christmas as either they hear (a) the words of the angel first spoken to the shepherds: “To you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord,” or (b) the majestic words of John 1, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth…”
Further, liturgically Expectancy is communicated by the great “O’s” used during the last week of Advent.
O WISDOM, that camest out of the mouth of the Most High, reaching from one end to another, firmly and gently ordering all things: Come and teach us the way of understanding.
O ADONAI, Captain of the house of Israel, who didst appear to Moses in the flame of the burning bush, and gavest him the law on Sinai: Come and deliver us with thine outsretched arm.
O ROOT OF JESSE, who standest for an ensign of the people, before whom kings shall shut their mouths, to whom the nations shall seek: Come and deliver us and tarry not.
O KEY OF DAVID, Sceptre of the house of Israel, who openest and no man shutteth, and shuttest and not man openeth; Come and bring forth out of the prison-house him that is bound.
O DAY-SPRING FROM ON HIGH, Brightness of Eternal Light, and Sun of righteousness: Come and enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death.
O KING OF NATIONS, thou for whom they long, the Cornerstone that makest them both one: Come and save thy creatures whom thou didst fashion from the dust of the earth.
O EMMANUEL, our King and Lawgiver, the Desire of all nations and their Saviour: Come and save us, O Lord our God.
N – Narrative
The Scripture passages, the Bible narrative, read, heard and pondered during Advent are of critical importance. In the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Book of Isaiah the Prophet is prominent and is read extensively throughout the four weeks as the Old Testament Lesson. In this book, not only are there many passages addressed to ancient Israel but there are also prophecies that look into the future to proclaim the arrival of the Messiah, the nature of his kingdom, his exaltation through suffering, and the triumph of his cause. Please be sure to read this Book with the elect of God in this season.
The Collect for Advent II refers to the unique importance of Holy Scripture for our doctrine and devotion:
“Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark ,learn and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.”
T – Thanksgiving
Though there is a strong element of penitence accompanying the fasting and asceticism in Advent, there is a stronger element of Thanksgiving! For God is praised and thanked for his saving deeds and his inspired words recorded in the Old Testament, all of which point to their climax in the arrival of the Messiah, the Saviour, who came to “fulfil the Law and the Prophets.” There is celebration of God’s mighty salvation experienced by the Israelites and there is anticipation of the even mightier salvation wrought in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And of course the meaning of the word, “Eucharist”, is “Thanksgiving” and thus in the Sacrament each week there is profound thanksgiving offered to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit.
Arrival Devotion Volition Expectancy Narrative Thanksgiving
I close with the Advent Collect to be said throughout all Advent.
Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
In the Christian Year, the season of Advent (Latin, adventus, “Coming”) runs from the fourth Sunday before Christmas until the eve of Christmas Day. It is also the beginning of the Christian Year.
But consider this. For us, in the secularized West in 2007, it is as though for all practical purposes Advent has disappeared. For Christmas has devoured Advent, gobbled it up with the turkey giblets and the goblets of seasonal ale. In fact the practical disappearance of Advent has opened a major hole from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day and this hole has been filled up with many different attempts to anticipate Christmas! More Christmas trees, more Christmas lights, more tinsel, more tassels, more glitter, more glee—so that the glut of candles and carols, ornaments and trimmings, parties, programs and performances, has left nothing for Christmas Day. In fact, Christmas Day arrives for most people not as the fulfilment of Advent but rather as the end of the long Yule season, that has burned without ceasing since the Thanksgiving sales began in late November in the malls. In fact, Christmas Day is like the peace after the strom.
To avoid this profanation of Advent is a massive task and is probably impossible if we live in the West in 2007. However, we can put up some kind of fight against this heavy secularization and this I shall attempt to do now.
One way of thinking about the purpose and meaning of ADVENT is to take each letter of the word, a-d-v-e-n-t, and let it represent a theme or aspect of this season. So let us try this method.
A – Arrival
During the season of Advent, the Church of Christ using the faculty of memory joins, as it were, the remnant of Israel (represented by such as Simeon & Anna) in preparing for the Arrival of the Messiah, the Son of David & the Son of God, even Jesus, Son of Mary. Further, the Church joins Israel out in the wilderness of Judea in listening to John the Baptist, who prepares the way of the Messiah.
By and in Liturgy, and caught up in the Spirit of the Lord, it is as though the contemporary people of God in 2007 are joined to the people of God two thousand years ago—and we join with them in faith, hope and charity.
Also, during the season of Advent the Church of Christ as the Bride of Christ looks for his Return to earth, his Arrival as the Lord of lords and King of kings to raise the dead, judge the nations and inaugurate the kingdom of God. In fact the expectance of the Second Coming adds greatly to the true piety and spirituality of Advent season.
So the Church prays on Advent III
“O Lord Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise turn so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world, we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.”
D -- Devotion
The four weeks of Advent provide the possibility of a period of intense and deep Devotion both in the public liturgy of the Church and in personal times of prayer and meditation. This consecration to walking with God in humility and obedience is summed up in the Collect for the last of the four Sundays:
O LORD, raise up (we pray thee) thy power, and come among us, and with great might succour us; that whereas, through our sins and wickedness, we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us, thy bountiful grace and mercy may speedily help and deliver us; through the satisfaction of thy Son our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be honour and glory, world without end. Amen.
The Collect is addressed to God, the heavenly Father, and it is an earnest request that he will gather up his power and descend to his people (by the Holy Ghost) in order to help, succour and sustain them in the race they are running in their earthly pilgrimage towards the goal & fullness of the kingdom of heaven (see Hebrews 12:1).
In making this petition, God’s people recognize that due to their sins of omission and commission they have failed to run in God’s grace as gracefully and swiftly as they are called to do and ought to have done. Thus they look to the Father to provide them through his Son and by his Spirit, and in grace and mercy, the help they need.
If God’s people are to live as those who expect the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, then they need not only to watch and pray but also to live as the obedient and faithful servants of God, engaged daily in his service and running the race that is set before them. This is true Devotion!
V. Volition (the act of willing or resolving)
God is merciful and gives us grace, but we have to be willing to receive that grace and to commit ourselves to his will and purpose. The Devotion of Advent requires definition Volition! But this we prayed for in the week before Advent: “Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people…”
The season of Advent may be viewed as a short Lent as a time when strict discipline over the body through Fasting is one means of deepening awareness of God and devotion to him. The colour for this season, like Lent, is purple pointing to asceticism. Then the words of the Advent Collect, “Give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness” also suggest the need for discipline & Fasting. Further, it is possible for four weeks to omit “Gloria in Excelsis” from the Eucharist as a sign of liturgical asceticism – but to make this omission without developing the interior Devotion of asceticism is to miss out!
Yet Volition, the commitment of the will resolved to do what God requires and to please him, is the real thing here! That is, the will as it is graciously turned towards the Lord to obey him and to do his bidding.
E – Expectancy
As the righteous remnant in Israel waited for the Messiah in hopeful expectancy, and greeted him with great joy—Lord, now let thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seen….—so Christian worshippers in the Liturgy throughout Advent grow in expectancy week by week for the arrival of the Son of God Incarnate. And their expectancy is joyfully fulfilled at the first service of Christmas as either they hear (a) the words of the angel first spoken to the shepherds: “To you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord,” or (b) the majestic words of John 1, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth…”
Further, liturgically Expectancy is communicated by the great “O’s” used during the last week of Advent.
O WISDOM, that camest out of the mouth of the Most High, reaching from one end to another, firmly and gently ordering all things: Come and teach us the way of understanding.
O ADONAI, Captain of the house of Israel, who didst appear to Moses in the flame of the burning bush, and gavest him the law on Sinai: Come and deliver us with thine outsretched arm.
O ROOT OF JESSE, who standest for an ensign of the people, before whom kings shall shut their mouths, to whom the nations shall seek: Come and deliver us and tarry not.
O KEY OF DAVID, Sceptre of the house of Israel, who openest and no man shutteth, and shuttest and not man openeth; Come and bring forth out of the prison-house him that is bound.
O DAY-SPRING FROM ON HIGH, Brightness of Eternal Light, and Sun of righteousness: Come and enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death.
O KING OF NATIONS, thou for whom they long, the Cornerstone that makest them both one: Come and save thy creatures whom thou didst fashion from the dust of the earth.
O EMMANUEL, our King and Lawgiver, the Desire of all nations and their Saviour: Come and save us, O Lord our God.
N – Narrative
The Scripture passages, the Bible narrative, read, heard and pondered during Advent are of critical importance. In the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Book of Isaiah the Prophet is prominent and is read extensively throughout the four weeks as the Old Testament Lesson. In this book, not only are there many passages addressed to ancient Israel but there are also prophecies that look into the future to proclaim the arrival of the Messiah, the nature of his kingdom, his exaltation through suffering, and the triumph of his cause. Please be sure to read this Book with the elect of God in this season.
The Collect for Advent II refers to the unique importance of Holy Scripture for our doctrine and devotion:
“Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark ,learn and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.”
T – Thanksgiving
Though there is a strong element of penitence accompanying the fasting and asceticism in Advent, there is a stronger element of Thanksgiving! For God is praised and thanked for his saving deeds and his inspired words recorded in the Old Testament, all of which point to their climax in the arrival of the Messiah, the Saviour, who came to “fulfil the Law and the Prophets.” There is celebration of God’s mighty salvation experienced by the Israelites and there is anticipation of the even mightier salvation wrought in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And of course the meaning of the word, “Eucharist”, is “Thanksgiving” and thus in the Sacrament each week there is profound thanksgiving offered to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit.
Arrival Devotion Volition Expectancy Narrative Thanksgiving
I close with the Advent Collect to be said throughout all Advent.
Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
Certain Words are Crucial for contemporary Episcopalians and Anglicans in North America
For nearly all US history, to think of Episcopalians or of Anglicans was to think of The Protestant Episcopal Church (later called “The Episcopal Church”). Only in very recent times are we required of necessity to think of “Church” in the Anglican sense of being both The Episcopal Church (TEC) and those groups, denominations, jurisdictions, networks and associations using the term Anglican or Episcopal but outside TEC.
So the state of the “Church” that we observe is that of being primarily divided, and divided in at least two senses—(a) organizationally, as already indicated; and (b) doctrinally, in terms of what is true teaching and what is right conduct.
How we evaluate this situation depends on a lot of things, but here let us focus on just one of them—the form of words, expressions, phrases, titles that we use to describe the departing from or leaving of The Episcopal Church to form congregations, networks, dioceses and the like. Let us examine briefly the three major departures from The Episcopal Church of people intending to create a new form or revive an old form of Anglicanism or Episcopalianism.
First of all, a committed, small group of Evangelicals left The PECUSA in 1873 and formed The Reformed Episcopal Church using the 1785 Prayer Book (the Latitudinarian Book rejected by the English Bishops) rather than that of 1789. To the General Convention of The Protestant Episcopal Church and to many of the Evangelicals who stayed within it, this departure was schism. However, though they did not use the word, for those exiting it was re-alignment, for they saw themselves as restoring a right relation and line with denominations that were truly Evangelical and true heirs of the Reformation. The PECUSA had lost its Protestant character, they believed, and they needed to restore it by re-aligning for only thus could they remain Evangelical.
Secondly, a somewhat larger group left TEC in 1977 and formed at the Congress of St Louis the Continuing Anglican Church. They rejected the arrival of female clergy in TEC and were concerned about the liturgical innovations in the pipeline (which led to the 1979 Prayer Book of TEC). They saw their departure as an act of continuation of the historic Anglican tradition, a tradition which they believed TEC was losing; and they intended to align with Anglican Churches overseas that did not embrace innovation in Ministry and Doctrine and Liturgy. For The Episcopal Church this departure was open schism and caused some high churchmen inside it to begin to use the expression, “schism is the worst kind of heresy.”
Right now in 2007 we seem to be towards the end of a continuing saga of departure that started ten years ago and accelerated after 2003. Here the exiting is because TEC has embraced doctrine, especially in sexuality, that embraces immorality and calls it holiness. Those departing claim that they are engaging in the process of re-alignment, of joining orthodox Anglican provinces abroad and thereby remaining genuine Anglicans. From within TEC the seceders are seen as creating and engaging in schism.
Let us now focus on the words, schism and realignment. If we take dictionary definitions and seek to remove all emotion then one may say that in all three cases of departing from TEC there is both the fact of schism and the attempt to realign.
However, psychologically, it is most important that those departing use only realignment to refer to what they have done for this puts a positive spin on their activity and raises it to a good, and even noble purpose. Through this frame of reference they can see everything connected with their departure from TEC, and their arrival in a new sphere, positively and give themselves to pursuing it more cheerfully and sacrificially. They say to themselves, “Not schism but realignment, and, indeed, necessary realignment.”
From the other side, within the walls of TEC, the word schism is necessary to describe what happens, because it underlines such ideas as (a) that those departing have cut themselves off; (b) they have forsaken their heritage and friends; (c) they have brought division where there was none before; and (d) they are causing unnecessary trouble at home and abroad. They say, “It is schism, not realignment, and schism is the worst kind of heresy.”
From even a minimal acquaintance with the political scene in the U.S.A., one can see that there are very definite frames of reference or mindsets present around and within the political agendas and activities of the two major political parties in the U.S.A. And so it is also with the “parties” in the Anglican “Church” of the U.S.A. To recognize this is to gain some preliminary understanding of how people feel and why they speak and act as they do. Likewise, what the Global South Provinces from abroad are doing in terms of creating congregations of their own on U.S.A. soil is, from one perspective, very clearly aiding and abetting schism; but, from another, it is making the process of alignment easier and quicker. And which words are used matters a lot for the words are the outward expression of a deeply embedded frame of reference.
First Sunday in Advent 2007
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
So the state of the “Church” that we observe is that of being primarily divided, and divided in at least two senses—(a) organizationally, as already indicated; and (b) doctrinally, in terms of what is true teaching and what is right conduct.
How we evaluate this situation depends on a lot of things, but here let us focus on just one of them—the form of words, expressions, phrases, titles that we use to describe the departing from or leaving of The Episcopal Church to form congregations, networks, dioceses and the like. Let us examine briefly the three major departures from The Episcopal Church of people intending to create a new form or revive an old form of Anglicanism or Episcopalianism.
First of all, a committed, small group of Evangelicals left The PECUSA in 1873 and formed The Reformed Episcopal Church using the 1785 Prayer Book (the Latitudinarian Book rejected by the English Bishops) rather than that of 1789. To the General Convention of The Protestant Episcopal Church and to many of the Evangelicals who stayed within it, this departure was schism. However, though they did not use the word, for those exiting it was re-alignment, for they saw themselves as restoring a right relation and line with denominations that were truly Evangelical and true heirs of the Reformation. The PECUSA had lost its Protestant character, they believed, and they needed to restore it by re-aligning for only thus could they remain Evangelical.
Secondly, a somewhat larger group left TEC in 1977 and formed at the Congress of St Louis the Continuing Anglican Church. They rejected the arrival of female clergy in TEC and were concerned about the liturgical innovations in the pipeline (which led to the 1979 Prayer Book of TEC). They saw their departure as an act of continuation of the historic Anglican tradition, a tradition which they believed TEC was losing; and they intended to align with Anglican Churches overseas that did not embrace innovation in Ministry and Doctrine and Liturgy. For The Episcopal Church this departure was open schism and caused some high churchmen inside it to begin to use the expression, “schism is the worst kind of heresy.”
Right now in 2007 we seem to be towards the end of a continuing saga of departure that started ten years ago and accelerated after 2003. Here the exiting is because TEC has embraced doctrine, especially in sexuality, that embraces immorality and calls it holiness. Those departing claim that they are engaging in the process of re-alignment, of joining orthodox Anglican provinces abroad and thereby remaining genuine Anglicans. From within TEC the seceders are seen as creating and engaging in schism.
Let us now focus on the words, schism and realignment. If we take dictionary definitions and seek to remove all emotion then one may say that in all three cases of departing from TEC there is both the fact of schism and the attempt to realign.
However, psychologically, it is most important that those departing use only realignment to refer to what they have done for this puts a positive spin on their activity and raises it to a good, and even noble purpose. Through this frame of reference they can see everything connected with their departure from TEC, and their arrival in a new sphere, positively and give themselves to pursuing it more cheerfully and sacrificially. They say to themselves, “Not schism but realignment, and, indeed, necessary realignment.”
From the other side, within the walls of TEC, the word schism is necessary to describe what happens, because it underlines such ideas as (a) that those departing have cut themselves off; (b) they have forsaken their heritage and friends; (c) they have brought division where there was none before; and (d) they are causing unnecessary trouble at home and abroad. They say, “It is schism, not realignment, and schism is the worst kind of heresy.”
From even a minimal acquaintance with the political scene in the U.S.A., one can see that there are very definite frames of reference or mindsets present around and within the political agendas and activities of the two major political parties in the U.S.A. And so it is also with the “parties” in the Anglican “Church” of the U.S.A. To recognize this is to gain some preliminary understanding of how people feel and why they speak and act as they do. Likewise, what the Global South Provinces from abroad are doing in terms of creating congregations of their own on U.S.A. soil is, from one perspective, very clearly aiding and abetting schism; but, from another, it is making the process of alignment easier and quicker. And which words are used matters a lot for the words are the outward expression of a deeply embedded frame of reference.
First Sunday in Advent 2007
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
The real King James Version of 1611
Are you aware that the actual text of what we call the KJV of the Holy Scriptures is not that of 1611, when first published, but of 1769?
What happened was that from 1611, when the first editions came out, through to 1769, scholars employed by the University Presses made minor changes of various kinds, correcting typographical errors, adjusting marginal notes and making changing words where the original had changed in meaning from 1611. Then this process stopped. And all official printings in Britain since 1769 have been of the 1769 text, and thus it has been a most stable text for two hundred and fifty years or so.
Now the differences between the first edition and that of 1769 are by ordinary standards minimal; they do not change the general character or the style of the KJV, the most important and influential of books in the English language. However, these days, when there is a tremendous interest in things as they originally were, to know as exactly as possible what was the text that was actually produced by the translators—before the minor correcting and editing began by printer and scholar—is not only an interesting but an important quest.
Happily, Cambridge University Press and Dr David Norton of Victoria College, Wellington, New Zealand have come to our aid in a magnificent way to guide us in this quest.
First of all, Dr Norton has most carefully investigated the transmission of the text of the KJV from 1611 onwards and his painstaking work may be seen by reading his A Textual History of the King James Bible (Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Secondly, Cambridge University Press has published the original 1611 text of Bible and Apocrypha, as re-created from manuscript and printed evidence, by Dr Norton. And in this edition the text is provided in paragraphs rather than separated into verses. The full title of the Bible is The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha. King James Version (2005). It is produced to the high standards we expect of this Press and it is available in leather or as hardback on high quality paper at discounted prices from places like www.amazon.com.
To cite the Introduction:
Thousands of specks of dust have been blown away from the received text in “The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible,” leaving the King James Bible presented with a fidelity to the translators own work never before achieved, and allowing the most read, heard and loved book in the English language to speak with new vigour to modern readers.
All serious users and lovers of the KJV need to have this unique edition of the KJV in order to become the better acquainted with this classic of literature as well as of Christian religion!
In 1662 the two greatest Books of Christianity in English came together. Inside this new edition, under Charles II, of The Book of Common Prayer, originally published in 1549, revised in 1552, and then authorized by each Monarch from Elizabeth I onwards, the text of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days was printed for the first time from the King James Version, and this has remained the case till the present.
However, so much loved was the Psalter (originally from the pen of Coverdale in the sixteenth century) in The BCP that it was not removed but retained; and it remains there to this day. It is a translation that lends itself to being prayed!
It is amazing that as versions of the Bible come and go—and in recent times with great rapidity—the KJV remains in print and in use; it is also amazing that Cambridge University Press would make such a massive investment in this edition of the KJV.
Many of us know from hearing that it retains its own unique quality when read aloud in the context of public worship and classical Common Prayer.
Oh that more of our younger people would discover the charm, power and accuracy of the KJV and take to reading it day by day! It is not too late for any of us to start this reading.
Peter Toon November 30 2007
What happened was that from 1611, when the first editions came out, through to 1769, scholars employed by the University Presses made minor changes of various kinds, correcting typographical errors, adjusting marginal notes and making changing words where the original had changed in meaning from 1611. Then this process stopped. And all official printings in Britain since 1769 have been of the 1769 text, and thus it has been a most stable text for two hundred and fifty years or so.
Now the differences between the first edition and that of 1769 are by ordinary standards minimal; they do not change the general character or the style of the KJV, the most important and influential of books in the English language. However, these days, when there is a tremendous interest in things as they originally were, to know as exactly as possible what was the text that was actually produced by the translators—before the minor correcting and editing began by printer and scholar—is not only an interesting but an important quest.
Happily, Cambridge University Press and Dr David Norton of Victoria College, Wellington, New Zealand have come to our aid in a magnificent way to guide us in this quest.
First of all, Dr Norton has most carefully investigated the transmission of the text of the KJV from 1611 onwards and his painstaking work may be seen by reading his A Textual History of the King James Bible (Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Secondly, Cambridge University Press has published the original 1611 text of Bible and Apocrypha, as re-created from manuscript and printed evidence, by Dr Norton. And in this edition the text is provided in paragraphs rather than separated into verses. The full title of the Bible is The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha. King James Version (2005). It is produced to the high standards we expect of this Press and it is available in leather or as hardback on high quality paper at discounted prices from places like www.amazon.com.
To cite the Introduction:
Thousands of specks of dust have been blown away from the received text in “The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible,” leaving the King James Bible presented with a fidelity to the translators own work never before achieved, and allowing the most read, heard and loved book in the English language to speak with new vigour to modern readers.
All serious users and lovers of the KJV need to have this unique edition of the KJV in order to become the better acquainted with this classic of literature as well as of Christian religion!
In 1662 the two greatest Books of Christianity in English came together. Inside this new edition, under Charles II, of The Book of Common Prayer, originally published in 1549, revised in 1552, and then authorized by each Monarch from Elizabeth I onwards, the text of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days was printed for the first time from the King James Version, and this has remained the case till the present.
However, so much loved was the Psalter (originally from the pen of Coverdale in the sixteenth century) in The BCP that it was not removed but retained; and it remains there to this day. It is a translation that lends itself to being prayed!
It is amazing that as versions of the Bible come and go—and in recent times with great rapidity—the KJV remains in print and in use; it is also amazing that Cambridge University Press would make such a massive investment in this edition of the KJV.
Many of us know from hearing that it retains its own unique quality when read aloud in the context of public worship and classical Common Prayer.
Oh that more of our younger people would discover the charm, power and accuracy of the KJV and take to reading it day by day! It is not too late for any of us to start this reading.
Peter Toon November 30 2007
Lambeth Resolutions and Reports: What Permanence do they have?
A reflection to aid better Reflections.
Many of the Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference from 1867 to 1998 belong to the space and time when passed and become irrelevant as the years pass by. This is especially so with Resolutions addressed to pressing social, economic and political matters. The same applies to the Reports on these matters which go before the Resolutions.
Some Reports and Resolutions do, however, have a more permanent character—e.g., those to do with Doctrine, Liturgy, Polity, Ecumenism and so on. The effect of some of these is that by their regular statement they have the effect of creating “an Anglican mind” –and this is especially so when they are made part of the received teaching of local Provinces through synodical action. One example is the general agreement set forth after World War II for there to be alongside the one Book of Common Prayer, local, provincial alternative sets of Services to be used under the doctrinal authority of the same Book of Common Prayer. (Thus the Church of England produced The ASB 1980. But what The Episcopal Church did was not in accordance with the Lambeth mind in that it created in 1976/9 a Book of Varied Services and called it The BCP, putting the received, classic BCP in the archives! Here lies one of the major sources of the present TEC’s dysfunctional nature.)
One would expect that a Report and Resolution to do with heresy would have a permanent aspect to them. But this is not necessarily so.
Take the decision made at the first Lambeth Conference of 1867 publicly to support the Metropolitan of Southern Africa, Robert Gray, in his condemnation and deposing of the Bishop of Natal, John William Colenso—even though the Privy Council in England had declared the condemnation null and void. Colenso taught that there was no hell, no everlasting punishment; and he also denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and made the Torah in effect to cease to be Word of God. In 1867, the 76 Bishops at Lambeth agreed with Gray that Colenso was a heretic and ought to cease to be a Bishop, and said so.
In 2007, one hundred and forty years later, one may safely say that many Anglican Bishops—especially in the so-called West or North— do not believe in either everlasting punishment or that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. And such beliefs are regarded as “normal” and “acceptable” generally in educated Christian circles.
In the light of this, one hears today the strong suggestion that though same-sex covenanted, faithful partnerships are seen as immoral and heretical by a majority today, in twenty years time (after the greater spread of human rights and therapeutic views of the human person in Africa) this position will be reversed, just as in the case of Colenso’s heresies. Maybe so!
To continue: One would also expect that a Report and Resolution to do with basic Polity—the organization of the Church geographically into Provinces with Dioceses—would be fairly stable. And so it was and seemed to be from 1876 until the last decade of the twentieth century!
In 1867 there was a carefully drafted Report which made suggestions how missionary Bishops from two Provinces working in the same general territory and area could plan their activity so that that the unity of the Church was maintained both in the present and for the future. Since 1867 the unity of the Church and the respect for provincial boundaries has been emphasized and agreed upon often. So to enter another Province a Bishop has sought the permission of the local, resident Bishop, who, in the bonds of affection, grants it. But he did not enter to cause dissension but to edify.
This long established custom has been severely challenged in North America from the late 1990s.
Within the territory of The Episcopal Church of the USA [TEC] and the Anglican Church of Canada, there has been in the last decade a series of “visits” by overseas Primates and Bishops, with the intention of creating secession from TEC and a re-alignment with their provinces. Rwanda began this crossing of boundaries to establish The Anglican Mission in America, with a growing number of Bishops (all part of the House of Bishops of Rwanda); and it has been followed by Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda also with their Bishops—and in a slightly different manner the Province of the Southern Cone of America is joining this crossing of boundaries, but coming up from the South, rather than crossing the Atlantic. None of this crossing has been approved by TEC and in fact TEC has not been asked to approve it. When TEC has protested it has not been heard. When the larger Anglican Family has protested it has also not been heard.
Thus the new (as yet minority Anglican) position—not discussed yet at a Lambeth Conference—favored by the Global South provinces appears to be that any province has the right to determine if another province is doctrinally sound; and; if it judges in the negative; then it has the right to enter that province to cause secession and re-alignment, and create an extension of its own church there.
What confusion Anglicans have put themselves in, first in North America and also increasingly globally.
Happily the same Anglicans have declared that even General Councils may err—and if they may err, then so may the Lambeth Conference in any or all of its Resolutions. With this in mind any Resolution planned for 2007 hardly merits excessive zeal or intense support!
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon November 28 2007
Many of the Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference from 1867 to 1998 belong to the space and time when passed and become irrelevant as the years pass by. This is especially so with Resolutions addressed to pressing social, economic and political matters. The same applies to the Reports on these matters which go before the Resolutions.
Some Reports and Resolutions do, however, have a more permanent character—e.g., those to do with Doctrine, Liturgy, Polity, Ecumenism and so on. The effect of some of these is that by their regular statement they have the effect of creating “an Anglican mind” –and this is especially so when they are made part of the received teaching of local Provinces through synodical action. One example is the general agreement set forth after World War II for there to be alongside the one Book of Common Prayer, local, provincial alternative sets of Services to be used under the doctrinal authority of the same Book of Common Prayer. (Thus the Church of England produced The ASB 1980. But what The Episcopal Church did was not in accordance with the Lambeth mind in that it created in 1976/9 a Book of Varied Services and called it The BCP, putting the received, classic BCP in the archives! Here lies one of the major sources of the present TEC’s dysfunctional nature.)
One would expect that a Report and Resolution to do with heresy would have a permanent aspect to them. But this is not necessarily so.
Take the decision made at the first Lambeth Conference of 1867 publicly to support the Metropolitan of Southern Africa, Robert Gray, in his condemnation and deposing of the Bishop of Natal, John William Colenso—even though the Privy Council in England had declared the condemnation null and void. Colenso taught that there was no hell, no everlasting punishment; and he also denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and made the Torah in effect to cease to be Word of God. In 1867, the 76 Bishops at Lambeth agreed with Gray that Colenso was a heretic and ought to cease to be a Bishop, and said so.
In 2007, one hundred and forty years later, one may safely say that many Anglican Bishops—especially in the so-called West or North— do not believe in either everlasting punishment or that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. And such beliefs are regarded as “normal” and “acceptable” generally in educated Christian circles.
In the light of this, one hears today the strong suggestion that though same-sex covenanted, faithful partnerships are seen as immoral and heretical by a majority today, in twenty years time (after the greater spread of human rights and therapeutic views of the human person in Africa) this position will be reversed, just as in the case of Colenso’s heresies. Maybe so!
To continue: One would also expect that a Report and Resolution to do with basic Polity—the organization of the Church geographically into Provinces with Dioceses—would be fairly stable. And so it was and seemed to be from 1876 until the last decade of the twentieth century!
In 1867 there was a carefully drafted Report which made suggestions how missionary Bishops from two Provinces working in the same general territory and area could plan their activity so that that the unity of the Church was maintained both in the present and for the future. Since 1867 the unity of the Church and the respect for provincial boundaries has been emphasized and agreed upon often. So to enter another Province a Bishop has sought the permission of the local, resident Bishop, who, in the bonds of affection, grants it. But he did not enter to cause dissension but to edify.
This long established custom has been severely challenged in North America from the late 1990s.
Within the territory of The Episcopal Church of the USA [TEC] and the Anglican Church of Canada, there has been in the last decade a series of “visits” by overseas Primates and Bishops, with the intention of creating secession from TEC and a re-alignment with their provinces. Rwanda began this crossing of boundaries to establish The Anglican Mission in America, with a growing number of Bishops (all part of the House of Bishops of Rwanda); and it has been followed by Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda also with their Bishops—and in a slightly different manner the Province of the Southern Cone of America is joining this crossing of boundaries, but coming up from the South, rather than crossing the Atlantic. None of this crossing has been approved by TEC and in fact TEC has not been asked to approve it. When TEC has protested it has not been heard. When the larger Anglican Family has protested it has also not been heard.
Thus the new (as yet minority Anglican) position—not discussed yet at a Lambeth Conference—favored by the Global South provinces appears to be that any province has the right to determine if another province is doctrinally sound; and; if it judges in the negative; then it has the right to enter that province to cause secession and re-alignment, and create an extension of its own church there.
What confusion Anglicans have put themselves in, first in North America and also increasingly globally.
Happily the same Anglicans have declared that even General Councils may err—and if they may err, then so may the Lambeth Conference in any or all of its Resolutions. With this in mind any Resolution planned for 2007 hardly merits excessive zeal or intense support!
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon November 28 2007
Lambeth Conference 1867 – addresses two (contemporary) concerns (heresy & missionary bishops)
The first Lambeth Conference of xxxx 1867, presided over by Archbishop Longley, inside Lambeth Palace, London, only lasted three days. However, committee work from it continued afterwards by Bishops who remained in the London area. Two of the areas of concern addressed were:
What to do about a diocesan Bishop who expressed and stood by what were judged by virtually all the Bishops to be heretical views?
And,
What to do about Missionary Bishops from different Provinces working in the same (virgin) territory?
In 2007 the Anglican Communion remains concerned about at least one Bishop (Gene R.) who has heretical views about sexual relations; and with the arrival in the U.S.A. and Canada of “Missionary Bishops” from four or five Anglican Provinces overseas, it is concerned about how these same Bishops relate one to another in the same territory and how all of them relate to the sitting Bishops of the Provinces involved.
In 1867 the Bishop in question was John William Colenso, Bishop of Natal in South Africa. He denied the doctrine of eternal punishment, questioned much sacramental theology, rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and declared that the latter is inaccurate in many of its details. Already before 1867 he had been excommunicated and deposed by the local Metropolitan, Robert Gray of Capetown; but Colenso appealed to the Privy Council in London which on legal not doctrinal grounds did not confirm the ecclesiastical sentence. So Gray wanted the moral support of the Bishops at Lambeth for his action and this he received in full. However, in South Africa, this moral support did not have the effect of moving Colenso, for he clung to his rights under British law. [The continuation of this schism is reflected in the existence of the Church of England in South Africa alongside the Church of the Province of Southern Africa.]
By 1867 both the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church had Missionary Bishops operating in various parts of the world including North America, and in some cases they were in the same country and apparently competing for the same territory and the souls therein. To a man the Bishops at Lambeth desired to maintain the unity of the Anglican Communion and this concern enters the text of the recommendations they offered to the Churches.
In that the Report may shed a little light on the confused situation in North America in 2007 with respect to missionary bishops, here is the Report in full for consideration:
Your Committee report that, after full consideration of the questions referred to them by the Conference, they have adopted the following Resolutions:
I. That every branch of the Church is entitled to found a Missionary Bishopric.
II. That it is desirable that each branch of the Church should act upon rules agreed upon beforehand by the Synod or other Church Council of the said branch.
III. That each Missionary Bishopric should be deemed to be attached to one branch of the Church, and that all rules for the election of a Missionary Bishop, and for the formation of a Diocese or Dioceses out of the Missionary District, should be made by the Synod or other Church Council of such branch of the Church.
IV. That notice of the erection of any Missionary Bishopric, and the choice and consecration of the Bishop, should be notified to all Archbishops and Metropolitans, and all Presiding Bishops, of the Anglican Communion.
V. That in appointing a Missionary Bishop, the district within which he is to exercise his Mission should be defined as far as possible ; and that no other Bishop should be sent within the same district, without previous communication with that branch of the Church which gave mission for the work.
VI. That, while peculiar cases may occur in Missionary work, owing to difference of race and language, in which it may be desirable that more than one Bishop should exercise episcopal functions within the same district, the Committee consider that such cases should be regarded as exceptions, justified only by special circumstances.
VII. That, with respect to the special case of Continental Chaplaincies,
the Committee suggest to the Conference the consideration of some ecclesiastical arrangement by which the various congregations
of the Anglican Communion may be under one authority, whether of the English or American Church.
Resolution XI. " That a special Committee be appointed to consider the Resolutions relative to the notification of proposed Missionary
Bishoprics, and the subordination of Missionaries."
VIII. That the conditions on which a Missionary Bishopric should be brought within a Provincial organisation should be :
1. The request of the Missionary Bishop, addressed both to the Church from which he received mission and to the Province which he wishes to join.
2. The consent of the Church from which he received mission, that consent being given by the Metropolitan or Presiding Bishop.
3. The consent of the Province he wishes to join, that consent being given by the Provincial Synod.
IX. That the status, jurisdiction, and designation of the Bishop thus received into a system of Provincial organisation should be determined by the Synod of the Province to which his Bishopric shall be then attached.
X. That, as a general rule, it is expedient that such Missionary Bishopric should be attached to the nearest Province; but that in certain cases it may be necessary that some more remote Province should be selected.
(Bishop Tozer's Mission is a case to which the Committee desire to draw the attention of the Conference, as being one in which, for the present, Provincial organisation would seem to be impracticable, from the isolation of the district in which Bishop Tozer exercises his episcopal functions, and its remoteness from the Province of South Africa.)
XI. That Missionary Bishops and their Clergy should be bound generally to the Canons of Doctrine and Discipline of the Church from which their mission is derived, or to which they may have been united, and that all alterations in matters of discipline be communicated to the authorities of that Church.
XII. That when a Missionary Church shall be received into the organisation of a Provincial Synod, the said Church should be bound by the acts of that body ; but that, in order to effect this, the Missionary Church should be granted a power of representation, or of vote by proxy, in such Synod.
XIII. That, as a general rule, in conformity with Church order, all Missionaries and Chaplains residing or engaged in the exercise of ministerial duty within the Diocese or District of a Colonial or Missionary Bishop, should be licensed by, and be subject to the authority of the said Bishop.
XIV. That every Clergyman removing from one Colonial or Missionary Diocese or District into another Diocese ought to carry with him Letters Testimonial from the Colonial or Missionary Bishop whose Diocese or District he is leaving.
XV. That no person admitted to Holy Orders by the Bishop of any Diocese in England or Ireland, who shall afterwards have been serving under the jurisdiction of any Scottish, Colonial, or Foreign Bishop, should be received into any of the Home Dioceses, without producing letters Dimissory or Commendatory from the Scottish, Colonial, or Foreign Bishop in whose Diocese he has been serving.
.
W. J. GIBRALTAR, Chairman. WILLIAM GEORGE TOZER, Missionary Bishop, Secretary.
What to do about a diocesan Bishop who expressed and stood by what were judged by virtually all the Bishops to be heretical views?
And,
What to do about Missionary Bishops from different Provinces working in the same (virgin) territory?
In 2007 the Anglican Communion remains concerned about at least one Bishop (Gene R.) who has heretical views about sexual relations; and with the arrival in the U.S.A. and Canada of “Missionary Bishops” from four or five Anglican Provinces overseas, it is concerned about how these same Bishops relate one to another in the same territory and how all of them relate to the sitting Bishops of the Provinces involved.
In 1867 the Bishop in question was John William Colenso, Bishop of Natal in South Africa. He denied the doctrine of eternal punishment, questioned much sacramental theology, rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and declared that the latter is inaccurate in many of its details. Already before 1867 he had been excommunicated and deposed by the local Metropolitan, Robert Gray of Capetown; but Colenso appealed to the Privy Council in London which on legal not doctrinal grounds did not confirm the ecclesiastical sentence. So Gray wanted the moral support of the Bishops at Lambeth for his action and this he received in full. However, in South Africa, this moral support did not have the effect of moving Colenso, for he clung to his rights under British law. [The continuation of this schism is reflected in the existence of the Church of England in South Africa alongside the Church of the Province of Southern Africa.]
By 1867 both the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church had Missionary Bishops operating in various parts of the world including North America, and in some cases they were in the same country and apparently competing for the same territory and the souls therein. To a man the Bishops at Lambeth desired to maintain the unity of the Anglican Communion and this concern enters the text of the recommendations they offered to the Churches.
In that the Report may shed a little light on the confused situation in North America in 2007 with respect to missionary bishops, here is the Report in full for consideration:
Your Committee report that, after full consideration of the questions referred to them by the Conference, they have adopted the following Resolutions:
I. That every branch of the Church is entitled to found a Missionary Bishopric.
II. That it is desirable that each branch of the Church should act upon rules agreed upon beforehand by the Synod or other Church Council of the said branch.
III. That each Missionary Bishopric should be deemed to be attached to one branch of the Church, and that all rules for the election of a Missionary Bishop, and for the formation of a Diocese or Dioceses out of the Missionary District, should be made by the Synod or other Church Council of such branch of the Church.
IV. That notice of the erection of any Missionary Bishopric, and the choice and consecration of the Bishop, should be notified to all Archbishops and Metropolitans, and all Presiding Bishops, of the Anglican Communion.
V. That in appointing a Missionary Bishop, the district within which he is to exercise his Mission should be defined as far as possible ; and that no other Bishop should be sent within the same district, without previous communication with that branch of the Church which gave mission for the work.
VI. That, while peculiar cases may occur in Missionary work, owing to difference of race and language, in which it may be desirable that more than one Bishop should exercise episcopal functions within the same district, the Committee consider that such cases should be regarded as exceptions, justified only by special circumstances.
VII. That, with respect to the special case of Continental Chaplaincies,
the Committee suggest to the Conference the consideration of some ecclesiastical arrangement by which the various congregations
of the Anglican Communion may be under one authority, whether of the English or American Church.
Resolution XI. " That a special Committee be appointed to consider the Resolutions relative to the notification of proposed Missionary
Bishoprics, and the subordination of Missionaries."
VIII. That the conditions on which a Missionary Bishopric should be brought within a Provincial organisation should be :
1. The request of the Missionary Bishop, addressed both to the Church from which he received mission and to the Province which he wishes to join.
2. The consent of the Church from which he received mission, that consent being given by the Metropolitan or Presiding Bishop.
3. The consent of the Province he wishes to join, that consent being given by the Provincial Synod.
IX. That the status, jurisdiction, and designation of the Bishop thus received into a system of Provincial organisation should be determined by the Synod of the Province to which his Bishopric shall be then attached.
X. That, as a general rule, it is expedient that such Missionary Bishopric should be attached to the nearest Province; but that in certain cases it may be necessary that some more remote Province should be selected.
(Bishop Tozer's Mission is a case to which the Committee desire to draw the attention of the Conference, as being one in which, for the present, Provincial organisation would seem to be impracticable, from the isolation of the district in which Bishop Tozer exercises his episcopal functions, and its remoteness from the Province of South Africa.)
XI. That Missionary Bishops and their Clergy should be bound generally to the Canons of Doctrine and Discipline of the Church from which their mission is derived, or to which they may have been united, and that all alterations in matters of discipline be communicated to the authorities of that Church.
XII. That when a Missionary Church shall be received into the organisation of a Provincial Synod, the said Church should be bound by the acts of that body ; but that, in order to effect this, the Missionary Church should be granted a power of representation, or of vote by proxy, in such Synod.
XIII. That, as a general rule, in conformity with Church order, all Missionaries and Chaplains residing or engaged in the exercise of ministerial duty within the Diocese or District of a Colonial or Missionary Bishop, should be licensed by, and be subject to the authority of the said Bishop.
XIV. That every Clergyman removing from one Colonial or Missionary Diocese or District into another Diocese ought to carry with him Letters Testimonial from the Colonial or Missionary Bishop whose Diocese or District he is leaving.
XV. That no person admitted to Holy Orders by the Bishop of any Diocese in England or Ireland, who shall afterwards have been serving under the jurisdiction of any Scottish, Colonial, or Foreign Bishop, should be received into any of the Home Dioceses, without producing letters Dimissory or Commendatory from the Scottish, Colonial, or Foreign Bishop in whose Diocese he has been serving.
.
W. J. GIBRALTAR, Chairman. WILLIAM GEORGE TOZER, Missionary Bishop, Secretary.
Lambeth Conference 1867: the crucial contribution of an American Evangelical
Bishop C.P., McIlvaine of Ohio on the world stage: The crucial contribution of an American Evangelical Bishop to the first Lambeth Conference of 1867
London)
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Thomas Longley, wrote to each of the 144 Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1867 in this manner:
PALACE,
February 22nd, 1867.
RIGHT REV. AND DEAR BROTHER,
I request your presence at a meeting of the Bishops in visible communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, purposed (God willing) to be holden at Lambeth, under my presidency, on the 24th of September next and the three following days.
The circumstances under which I have resolved to issue the present invitation are these : The Metropolitan and Bishops of Canada, last year, addressed to the two Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury the expression of their desire that I should be moved to invite the Bishops of our Indian and Colonial Episcopate to meet myself and the Home Bishops for brotherly communion and conference. The consequence of that appeal has been that both Houses of the Convocation of my province have addressed to me their dutiful request that I would invite the attendance, not only of our Home and Colonial Bishops, but of all who are avowedly in communion with our Church. The same request was unanimously preferred to me at a numerous gathering of English, Irish, and Colonial Archbishops and Bishops recently assembled at Lambeth; at which I rejoice to record it we had the counsel and concurrence of an eminent Bishop of the Church in the United States of America the Bishop of Illinois.
Moved by these requests, and by the expressed concurrence therein of other members both of the Home and Colonial Episcopate, who could not be present at our meeting, I have now resolved not, I humbly trust,
without the guidance of GOD the Holy Ghost to grant this grave request, and call together the meeting thus earnestly desired. I greatly hope that you may be able to attend it, and to aid us with your presence and brotherly counsel thereat.
I propose that, at our assembling, we should first solemnly seek the blessing of Almighty GOD on our gathering, by uniting together in the highest act of the Church's worship. After this, brotherly consultations will follow. In these we may consider together many practical questions, the settlement of which would tend to the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and to the maintenance of greater union in our missionary work, and to increased intercommunion among ourselves.
Such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would greatly tend to maintain practically the unity of the faith : whilst they would bind us in straighter bonds of peace and brotherly charity.
I shall gladly receive from you a list of any subjects you may wish to suggest to me for consideration and discussion. Should you be unable to attend, and desire to commission any brother Bishop to speak for you, I shall welcome him as your representative in our united deliberations.
But I must once more express my earnest hope that, on this solemn occasion, I may have the great advantage of your personal presence. And now I commend this proposed meeting to your fervent prayers; and, humbly beseeching the blessing of Almighty GOD on yourself and your diocese, I subscribe myself,
Your faithful brother in the Lord,
C. T. CANTUAR."
United Church of England and Ireland, purposed (God willing) to be holden at Lambeth, under my presidency, on the 24th of September next and the three following days.
Out of the 144 invited some 76 arrived.
The Conference met on Tuesday, September 24th, the opening service being preceded by a Celebration of Holy Communion in Lambeth Palace Chapel, with a sermon from Bishop Whitehouse of Illinois.The meetings of the Conference were held in the upstairs dining-hall, or "Guard-Room," of Lambeth Palace, not (as was the case in 1878) in the great library. On the Archbishop of Canterbury's right sat the Archbishop of Armagh, the Bishop of London, the Presiding Bishop of the American Church, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Bishop of Calcutta and the Bishop of Sydney. On the left were the Archbishop of Dublin, and the Bishops of Montreal, New Zealand and Capetown. The other Bishops sat in front. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol acted as episcopal secretary to the meeting throughout its deliberations.
In his opening address, Archbishop Longley again defined, with some care, the position of the Conference. "It has never been contemplated," he said, "that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the Churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action. Thus it will be seen that our first essay is rather tentative and experimental, in a matter in which we have no distinct precedent to direct us."
Special importance attached to the discussions of the first day, when, in the form of a preamble to the subsequent resolutions, the standpoint taken by the Anglican Church was in general terms described. All the leading Bishops took part in the debate, and its outcome will be best seen by comparing the submitted preamble with the one that was adopted and which had been written by the American Evangelical Charles P McIlvaine of Ohio.
[Bishop McIlvaine was deeply disturbed by what seemed to him to be the strong anglo-catholic overtones of the draft preamble prepared by the Bishop of Capetown, South Africa before the Conference and circulated with the expectation that it would be approved quickly. So encouraged by the English Evangelical Bishop, C. R. Sumner of Winchester, McIlvaine prepared a revised draft which to his surprise was passed after discussion.]
Here is what McIlvaine prepared and what the Conference officially adopted on its first day:
Here the priority of Scripture above all tradition is very clear and this was a theme that McIlvaine had written and preached about for the last thirty years!
The Preamble from the Bishop of Capetown in the view of McIlvaine and Sumner tended to make Scripture part of Tradition.
"We, Bishops of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, professing the faith of the primitive and undivided Church, as based on Scripture, defined by the first four General Councils, and reaffirmed by the Fathers of the English Reformation, now assembled by the good providence of GOD at the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, under the presidency of the Primate of all England, desire, first, to give hearty thanks to Almighty GOD for having thus brought us together for common counsels and united worship ; secondly, we desire to express the deep sorrow with which we view the divided condition of the flock of Christ throughout the world ; and lastly, we do here solemnly declare our belief that the best hope of future re-union will be found in drawing each of us for ourselves closer to our common Lord, in giving ourselves to much prayer and intercession, in the cultivation of a spirit of charity, and in seeking to diffuse through every part of the Christian community that desire and resolution to return to the faith and discipline of the undivided Church which was the principle of the English Reformation."
So the 76 bishops, having agreed on where they were starting from theologically, began to address several major problems facing the Anglican Communion at that time, not least the question as to what to do about Bishop Colenso of South Africa, who was teaching error.
(Part II of the 1867 Lambeth Conference to follow.)
The Revd Dr Peter Toon November 26 2007
London)
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Thomas Longley, wrote to each of the 144 Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1867 in this manner:
PALACE,
February 22nd, 1867.
RIGHT REV. AND DEAR BROTHER,
I request your presence at a meeting of the Bishops in visible communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, purposed (God willing) to be holden at Lambeth, under my presidency, on the 24th of September next and the three following days.
The circumstances under which I have resolved to issue the present invitation are these : The Metropolitan and Bishops of Canada, last year, addressed to the two Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury the expression of their desire that I should be moved to invite the Bishops of our Indian and Colonial Episcopate to meet myself and the Home Bishops for brotherly communion and conference. The consequence of that appeal has been that both Houses of the Convocation of my province have addressed to me their dutiful request that I would invite the attendance, not only of our Home and Colonial Bishops, but of all who are avowedly in communion with our Church. The same request was unanimously preferred to me at a numerous gathering of English, Irish, and Colonial Archbishops and Bishops recently assembled at Lambeth; at which I rejoice to record it we had the counsel and concurrence of an eminent Bishop of the Church in the United States of America the Bishop of Illinois.
Moved by these requests, and by the expressed concurrence therein of other members both of the Home and Colonial Episcopate, who could not be present at our meeting, I have now resolved not, I humbly trust,
without the guidance of GOD the Holy Ghost to grant this grave request, and call together the meeting thus earnestly desired. I greatly hope that you may be able to attend it, and to aid us with your presence and brotherly counsel thereat.
I propose that, at our assembling, we should first solemnly seek the blessing of Almighty GOD on our gathering, by uniting together in the highest act of the Church's worship. After this, brotherly consultations will follow. In these we may consider together many practical questions, the settlement of which would tend to the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and to the maintenance of greater union in our missionary work, and to increased intercommunion among ourselves.
Such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would greatly tend to maintain practically the unity of the faith : whilst they would bind us in straighter bonds of peace and brotherly charity.
I shall gladly receive from you a list of any subjects you may wish to suggest to me for consideration and discussion. Should you be unable to attend, and desire to commission any brother Bishop to speak for you, I shall welcome him as your representative in our united deliberations.
But I must once more express my earnest hope that, on this solemn occasion, I may have the great advantage of your personal presence. And now I commend this proposed meeting to your fervent prayers; and, humbly beseeching the blessing of Almighty GOD on yourself and your diocese, I subscribe myself,
Your faithful brother in the Lord,
C. T. CANTUAR."
United Church of England and Ireland, purposed (God willing) to be holden at Lambeth, under my presidency, on the 24th of September next and the three following days.
Out of the 144 invited some 76 arrived.
The Conference met on Tuesday, September 24th, the opening service being preceded by a Celebration of Holy Communion in Lambeth Palace Chapel, with a sermon from Bishop Whitehouse of Illinois.The meetings of the Conference were held in the upstairs dining-hall, or "Guard-Room," of Lambeth Palace, not (as was the case in 1878) in the great library. On the Archbishop of Canterbury's right sat the Archbishop of Armagh, the Bishop of London, the Presiding Bishop of the American Church, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Bishop of Calcutta and the Bishop of Sydney. On the left were the Archbishop of Dublin, and the Bishops of Montreal, New Zealand and Capetown. The other Bishops sat in front. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol acted as episcopal secretary to the meeting throughout its deliberations.
In his opening address, Archbishop Longley again defined, with some care, the position of the Conference. "It has never been contemplated," he said, "that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the Churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action. Thus it will be seen that our first essay is rather tentative and experimental, in a matter in which we have no distinct precedent to direct us."
Special importance attached to the discussions of the first day, when, in the form of a preamble to the subsequent resolutions, the standpoint taken by the Anglican Church was in general terms described. All the leading Bishops took part in the debate, and its outcome will be best seen by comparing the submitted preamble with the one that was adopted and which had been written by the American Evangelical Charles P McIlvaine of Ohio.
[Bishop McIlvaine was deeply disturbed by what seemed to him to be the strong anglo-catholic overtones of the draft preamble prepared by the Bishop of Capetown, South Africa before the Conference and circulated with the expectation that it would be approved quickly. So encouraged by the English Evangelical Bishop, C. R. Sumner of Winchester, McIlvaine prepared a revised draft which to his surprise was passed after discussion.]
Here is what McIlvaine prepared and what the Conference officially adopted on its first day:
Here the priority of Scripture above all tradition is very clear and this was a theme that McIlvaine had written and preached about for the last thirty years!
The Preamble from the Bishop of Capetown in the view of McIlvaine and Sumner tended to make Scripture part of Tradition.
"We, Bishops of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, professing the faith of the primitive and undivided Church, as based on Scripture, defined by the first four General Councils, and reaffirmed by the Fathers of the English Reformation, now assembled by the good providence of GOD at the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, under the presidency of the Primate of all England, desire, first, to give hearty thanks to Almighty GOD for having thus brought us together for common counsels and united worship ; secondly, we desire to express the deep sorrow with which we view the divided condition of the flock of Christ throughout the world ; and lastly, we do here solemnly declare our belief that the best hope of future re-union will be found in drawing each of us for ourselves closer to our common Lord, in giving ourselves to much prayer and intercession, in the cultivation of a spirit of charity, and in seeking to diffuse through every part of the Christian community that desire and resolution to return to the faith and discipline of the undivided Church which was the principle of the English Reformation."
So the 76 bishops, having agreed on where they were starting from theologically, began to address several major problems facing the Anglican Communion at that time, not least the question as to what to do about Bishop Colenso of South Africa, who was teaching error.
(Part II of the 1867 Lambeth Conference to follow.)
The Revd Dr Peter Toon November 26 2007
Pray this Collect each Day in Advent Season, December 2 – 24, 2007
The prayer printed below was composed in 1549 as the Collect for the first Sunday of the Christian Year, Advent I, and to be used also throughout Advent until Christmas Eve, and after the other Collects appointed for Advent II, III & IV. It captures wonderfully the two Advents or Comings of the Son of God to earth—the first in deep humility to assume our human nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the second in majestic glory to judge the living and the dead at the end of the age.
“Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal, through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.”
When you read it aloud you realize just how memorable is this Prayer in its grand roll and rhythm, with the result that it is hard to say whether the ear or the mind finds most satisfaction in hearing it. Yet, at the same time, it is a Prayer that is also a short Creed, declaring major articles of the Christian Faith with clarity! So, bearing in mind its excellence, let us not fail to pray it through Advent daily, and in sincerity, godly reverence, fervency and devotion.
The prayer is addressed to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and he is called the all-powerful, omnipotent God, the sovereign LORD of all things, visible and invisible. But it is not addressed directly to the holy and righteous Father for sinful beings need a Mediator to approach the holy LORD. Thus it arises to the Father “ [the Lord Jesus Christ]” who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Blessed Holy and Undivided Trinity, One God. Further, this Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the very One who became Incarnate by the Holy Spirit,; that is he “.”
We reverently address the Almighty God as those who live on the earth as mortal beings, that is as those who are born and who eventually die. This existence may be expressed as being “” for we live in space and time as mortal beings, who, in and of ourselves, cannot make ourselves immortal.
So we wisely pray for “that is, for the merciful and compassionate assistance of God through the presence of the Holy Spirit to do what is pleasing to God by mortal beings living in an evil age. And what is pleasing has two aspects to it—a casting away and a putting upon. We need help from God both to desire and determine as well as then “ (all those sinful and evil deeds and actions, small and great) which are contrary to the law of Christ; and we also need help to clothe ourselves with, “,” the armor provided by Christ for Christ’s warriors, with which we resist the arrows of devilish temptations and conquer sin in our lives to live in holiness, using the “sword of the Spirit.”
This petition within the Collect is taken straight from the Epistle appointed for Advent Sunday. St Paul wrote: “ And the theme of armor recalls what the same apostle told the church in Thessalonica: “Let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:7). Later in his apostolic career he was also to describe this armor in greater detail—see Ephesians 6.
As soldiers of Christ wearing his armor, we are to watch and pray as we live under his command. We do not know when he will return to earth from his exalted throne in heaven, that is “ Thus we ought to live each day in such a godly manner that if he comes we shall not be ashamed but rather be delighted to see him, so that “ with him in the courts of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Advent is that four-week part of the Christian Year when we not only prepare ourselves for the celebration of the Incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of the Father on Christmas Day and in the twelve days following, but also, and very importantly, we look up to heaven for the same Lord Jesus Christ to return to earth “” and with all the holy angels accompanying him, to raise the dead, to judge the peoples and to inaugurate the fullness of the kingdom of God. Let us not forget that the best way to prepare for the celebration of the birth of Jesus, our Immanuel, is by watching and praying in the knowledge and light of his promised Second Advent.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon November 26 2007
“Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal, through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.”
When you read it aloud you realize just how memorable is this Prayer in its grand roll and rhythm, with the result that it is hard to say whether the ear or the mind finds most satisfaction in hearing it. Yet, at the same time, it is a Prayer that is also a short Creed, declaring major articles of the Christian Faith with clarity! So, bearing in mind its excellence, let us not fail to pray it through Advent daily, and in sincerity, godly reverence, fervency and devotion.
The prayer is addressed to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and he is called the all-powerful, omnipotent God, the sovereign LORD of all things, visible and invisible. But it is not addressed directly to the holy and righteous Father for sinful beings need a Mediator to approach the holy LORD. Thus it arises to the Father “ [the Lord Jesus Christ]” who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Blessed Holy and Undivided Trinity, One God. Further, this Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the very One who became Incarnate by the Holy Spirit,; that is he “.”
We reverently address the Almighty God as those who live on the earth as mortal beings, that is as those who are born and who eventually die. This existence may be expressed as being “” for we live in space and time as mortal beings, who, in and of ourselves, cannot make ourselves immortal.
So we wisely pray for “that is, for the merciful and compassionate assistance of God through the presence of the Holy Spirit to do what is pleasing to God by mortal beings living in an evil age. And what is pleasing has two aspects to it—a casting away and a putting upon. We need help from God both to desire and determine as well as then “ (all those sinful and evil deeds and actions, small and great) which are contrary to the law of Christ; and we also need help to clothe ourselves with, “,” the armor provided by Christ for Christ’s warriors, with which we resist the arrows of devilish temptations and conquer sin in our lives to live in holiness, using the “sword of the Spirit.”
This petition within the Collect is taken straight from the Epistle appointed for Advent Sunday. St Paul wrote: “ And the theme of armor recalls what the same apostle told the church in Thessalonica: “Let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:7). Later in his apostolic career he was also to describe this armor in greater detail—see Ephesians 6.
As soldiers of Christ wearing his armor, we are to watch and pray as we live under his command. We do not know when he will return to earth from his exalted throne in heaven, that is “ Thus we ought to live each day in such a godly manner that if he comes we shall not be ashamed but rather be delighted to see him, so that “ with him in the courts of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Advent is that four-week part of the Christian Year when we not only prepare ourselves for the celebration of the Incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of the Father on Christmas Day and in the twelve days following, but also, and very importantly, we look up to heaven for the same Lord Jesus Christ to return to earth “” and with all the holy angels accompanying him, to raise the dead, to judge the peoples and to inaugurate the fullness of the kingdom of God. Let us not forget that the best way to prepare for the celebration of the birth of Jesus, our Immanuel, is by watching and praying in the knowledge and light of his promised Second Advent.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon November 26 2007
GLOBAL REALIGNMENT; WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE STAND
By J. I. Packer
Anglican Essentials
http://tinyurl.com/yppy6b
November 23rd, 2007
The following presentation was made by Dr. J. I. Packer who is on the Board of Governors’ and Professor of Theology at Regent College, on the campus of the University of British Columbia. He has been hailed by TIME as “a doctrinal Solomon” among Protestants.
Aim of Talk
Do you remember Peter Sellers, creator of Dr. Strangelove and Inspector Clouseau, man of a thousand voices as they called him? He was once asked to record the whole Bible on disc, and he refused. “To do something like that,” he said, “you need to know exactly who you are. I don’t know who I am.”
Do we know who we are? I think we do, and I will state what I think straight away. We are sinners, miserable and hell-deserving, saved by the glorious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are orthodox biblical Christians, members of the worldwide Anglican Communion, who value the Anglican heritage of wisdom and faithful devotion, and who cannot in good conscience go along with the increasing slippage from Anglican standards of the Anglican Church of Canada. We are in fact increasingly isolated in our church, much as Jeremiah long ago was isolated in Jerusalem - and if we do not feel something of Jeremiah’s distress at being so placed, I would say there is something wrong with us.
But we are so placed, and action is called for, and my aim in this talk is to ensure that we move ahead with clarity in our minds as to who we are, where we come from, what we are doing and why, and how to explain our action when we are challenged and criticized for it, as surely we shall be.
May I say: I tackle this talk with both a sense of compulsions and a heavy heart. When God called me from England to Canada three decades ago, I thought I was leaving behind the world of intra-church conflict in which I had been involved for twenty years, but no. In England, when Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones called on evangelicals ministering in doctrinally-mixed denominations to leave them, I resisted the idea. I did not expect that in Canada withdrawal from the diocese and province that had welcomed me would become an issue of conscience, but so it is. Like other Christians, I find peace in doing what I believe I have to do, but I cannot always find pleasure in it, and this for me is an instance of that. However, I move now to my argument.
The Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion is one expression of the church universal, militant here in earth, and this is where I start.
a. The Church of God
What is the church? I state what I believe to be the Bible’s teaching. In its visible aspect - that is, as we see it in this world - the church is the entire community of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. This church is gathered in local assemblies, each of which, in the words of Anglican Article 19, is “a congregation” (that is, an association) of faithful men (that is, believing people). In its spiritual aspect, that is, in terms of its relationship to God, the church as a whole is three things together, corresponding to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. It is the family of the Father’s adopted children; it is the body of the ascended, glorified and enthroned Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord; and it is the community, or fellowship of mutual love and service that is created and sustained by the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit draws us close to each other by drawing each of us close to Christ, and by so doing transforms God’s children in character, animates Christ’s body in ministry, and builds up each fellowship in love. Every congregation is called to live as an outcrop, microcosm, sample and specimen of the one holy universal fellowship.
b. The Church’s unity
Paul analyses the church’s given unity in terms of one body and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one family, and speaks of the resultant reality as “the unity of the Spirit,” which all Christians must work to preserve “in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4: 3-6). So the unity of God’s holy universal church is something to be recognized and expressed. Jesus’ prayer in John 17: 21-23 that all his disciples may be one as he and the Father are one shows us how this is to be done. The Father and the Son are one in thought, in love, in mutual honour and in disciple-making purpose (they were on mission together, we may truly say, at the time when Jesus prayed, just before his cross). So, too, the church, which is already one in Christ, must express its unity in all appropriate forms of communication, communion, and cooperation.
Togetherness with other congregations is integral to expressing Christian unity, and two principles of organized togetherness have emerged down the centuries: the geographical, which expresses the purpose of covering a particular area with functioning congregations, and the denominational, which expresses the sense that one is a trustee for some truth or practice that is not universally accepted, but that all need for biblical fullness of life together, so that as many churches as possible that have this distinctive feature should be founded. The two concerns, of course, regularly go together, distinct though they are. Thus, different patterns for connecting congregations have grown up, ranging from the pyramidal global structure of the Roman Catholic Church, with its Italian base, to the legally registered foundation deeds of each small addition to the 20,000 or so Protestant denominations that the statisticians tell us we can find if we look.
Now, it is in relation to these organizational structures, large or small, that the notion of schism should be defined. Schism means unwarrantable and unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group within the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism, as such, is sin, for it is a needless and indefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become unorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance when the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be called not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that is faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship with the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept the offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who call such a move schism should be told that they do not know what schism is.
c. The Anglican Communion
Now, within this frame of reference, how are we to define the Anglican Communion? It is not, and never was, an integrated, pyramidal global organization with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its head. It is simply, as its name proclaims, a Communion - that is, a fellowship of independent provinces sharing ministry and sacraments on the basis of a shared faith, and bound together by a distinctive and very precious heritage - tradition, or style, as you might say - which all appreciate, and wish in some form to conserve. This heritage may be described as follows. (This is familiar ground, so I move over it quickly.)
First, Anglicanism is biblical. Anglicanism says to the world: “Show us anything in Scripture that should be taught and that we are not teaching, and we will teach it. Show us anything we are teaching that is contrary to Scripture, and we will stop teaching it.” The Bible, straightforwardly interpreted as revelation from God through human writers, is the Anglican rule of faith.
Second, Anglicanism is creedal, embracing and building on the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, which highlight the Trinity, the incarnation, Christ’s saving ministry and the reality of salvation itself. The 39 Articles dot i’s and cross t’s and fill gaps in the Creeds, clarifying in particular the doctrines of faith, of grace, of justification and of the sacraments.
Third, Anglicanism is liturgical, in continuity with the church of patristic and pre- Reformation days. Through Archbishop Cranmer we inherited a superlative Reformed Prayer Book, in which the thematic sequence, sin - grace - faith runs through the set services, so that it is a truly evangelical book, and should be appreciated as such.
Fourth, Anglicanism is pastoral, centred upon the making of disciples both domestically and through outreach. Bishops are ordained to give pastoral leadership, caring for both clergy and congregations, and their jurisdiction is to be exercised for the furtherance of pastoral goals.
Fifth, Anglicanism is missional in the sense of being committed to transformation through the gospel - transformation of individuals through teaching and nurture, transformation of congregations through preaching a renewal, transformation of culture through the wisdom and values of the gospel. The transformational purposes of the Reformers and Puritans, the eighteenth-century revival and later revivals, and the latter-day renewal movements, have permanently shaped authentic Anglicanism in a missional way.
Sixth, Anglicanism is not hierarchical nor maintenance-motivated, though it has sometimes appeared to be both; but in fact it is service-oriented. Dioceses exist to resource and help parishes, and provinces exist to coordinate both diocesan and local church ministry; Anglicanism is service-oriented at every level, and it is in loving practical service, shaped by the divine Word and empowered by the divine Spirit, that Anglican unity is finally expressed.
Lambeth Conferences, Primates’ meetings, the Anglican Consultative Council, and other national and international gatherings at leadership level, can only be called instruments of unity in a significant sense as they seek to further Anglicanism’s service in the gospel to a lost humanity. For the fundamental unity is unity in truth and in mission based on truth; nothing can ever change that.
Such, then, is Anglicanism; and if I may speak personally for a moment, one reason why siren songs urging me to abandon Anglicanism strike no chord in my heart is that I value his heritage so highly, and am so sure that if I walked away from it under any circumstances I should lose far more than I gained. The present project, however, is precisely not to abandon
Anglicanism but to realign within it, so as to be able to maintain it in its fullness and authenticity - and that, to me, is a horse of a very different colour. In this I recognize the calling of God.
Anglicans Adrift
For what should we think of global Anglicanism today? It has often been said during the past few years that the Anglican Communion is like a torn net, due to denials by some of things that the rest believe to be integral to the gospel and affirmation, mainly by the same people, of behaviour that the rest believe the gospel absolutely rules out. In certain cases communion with a small “c” - that is, full and free welcome and interchange of clergy and communicants at the Lord’s Table - has been suspended. How, we ask, has this come about? In brief, it is the bitter fruit of liberal theology, which has become increasingly dominant in seminaries and among leaders in what we may call the Anglican Old West - that is, North America in the lead, with Britain and Australasia coming along behind.
This has been the story over the past two generations, since Anglo-Catholic leadership began to flag. Let me explain. Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverance, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are to be fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the cultural pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The intrinsic goodness of each “in thing” is taken for granted. In following this agenda the church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.
Well now; with liberal leaders thinking and teaching in these terms, a collision with conservatives - that is, with upholders of the historic biblical and Anglican faith - was bound to come. It came over gay unions, which liberals wish to bless as a form of holiness, a quasimarriage.
As part of its current agenda of affirming minority rights (that is the “in thing” these days), western culture has for the past generation accepted gay partnerships as a feature of normal life. Despite the pronouncement of the 1998 Lambeth Conference in favour of the old paths, New Westminster diocese began in 2002 to bless gay couples, and others followed suit.
The Windsor Report called for a moratorium on this, which was not forthcoming. The St. Michael’s report said that the issue, though theological, was not against Anglican core doctrine so was not a matter over which to divide the church. On a side wind and by a stopgap motion, the General Synod of 2004 declared gay unions to be marked by “integrity and sanctity”. The 2007 General Synod affirmed the St. Michael’s position. So here we are now, the Anglican Network in Canada, accepting the invitation to realign in order to uphold historic Anglican standards, not only regarding gay unions but across the board, as those standards were formulated in our church’s foundation documents and reformulated in the Montreal Declaration of 1994.
Anglicans Anchored
So, who are we today, and where do we stand at this moment in relation to all that is happening in the storm-tossed Anglican Communion? In light of what I have said so far, I put it to you that there are four things we can and must now say. They are as follows.
To start with, we are a community of conscience, - committed to the Anglican convictions - those defined, I mean, in our foundation documents and expressed in our Prayer Book. The historic Anglican conviction about the authority of the Bible matches that which Luther expressed at the Diet of Worms: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe” - that is, it imperils the soul. As for the historic Anglican conviction about homosexual behaviour, it contains three points:
First, it violates the order of creation. God made the two sexes to mate and procreate, with pleasure and bonding; but homosexual intercourse, apart from being, at least among men, awkward and unhealthy, is barren.
Second, it defies the gospel call to repent of it and abstain from it, as from sin. This call is most clearly perhaps expressed in 1Cor. 6: 9-11, where the power of the Holy Spirit to keep believers clear of this and other lapses is celebrated.
Third, the heart of true pastoral care for homosexual persons is helping them in friendship not to yield to their besetting temptation. We are to love the sinner, though we do not love the sin.
We must hold to these positions, whatever the culture around us may say and do. So a biblically educated conscience requires.
Second, we are a community of church people, committed to the Anglican Communion.
We rejoice to know that the more than 90% of worshipping Anglicans worldwide outside the Old West are solidly loyal to the Christian heritage as Anglicanism has received it, and we see our realignment as among other things, an enhancing of our solidarity with them. As I said earlier, what we are doing is precisely not leaving Anglicanism behind.
Third, we are a community of consecration, committed to the Anglican calling of worship and mission, doxology and discipling. Right from the start church planting will be central to our vision of what we are being called to do.
Fourth, I think we may soberly say of ourselves that we are a community of courage, heading out into unknown waters but committed to the Anglican confidence that God is faithful to those who are faithful to him.
Anglican Essentials
http://tinyurl.com/yppy6b
November 23rd, 2007
The following presentation was made by Dr. J. I. Packer who is on the Board of Governors’ and Professor of Theology at Regent College, on the campus of the University of British Columbia. He has been hailed by TIME as “a doctrinal Solomon” among Protestants.
Aim of Talk
Do you remember Peter Sellers, creator of Dr. Strangelove and Inspector Clouseau, man of a thousand voices as they called him? He was once asked to record the whole Bible on disc, and he refused. “To do something like that,” he said, “you need to know exactly who you are. I don’t know who I am.”
Do we know who we are? I think we do, and I will state what I think straight away. We are sinners, miserable and hell-deserving, saved by the glorious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are orthodox biblical Christians, members of the worldwide Anglican Communion, who value the Anglican heritage of wisdom and faithful devotion, and who cannot in good conscience go along with the increasing slippage from Anglican standards of the Anglican Church of Canada. We are in fact increasingly isolated in our church, much as Jeremiah long ago was isolated in Jerusalem - and if we do not feel something of Jeremiah’s distress at being so placed, I would say there is something wrong with us.
But we are so placed, and action is called for, and my aim in this talk is to ensure that we move ahead with clarity in our minds as to who we are, where we come from, what we are doing and why, and how to explain our action when we are challenged and criticized for it, as surely we shall be.
May I say: I tackle this talk with both a sense of compulsions and a heavy heart. When God called me from England to Canada three decades ago, I thought I was leaving behind the world of intra-church conflict in which I had been involved for twenty years, but no. In England, when Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones called on evangelicals ministering in doctrinally-mixed denominations to leave them, I resisted the idea. I did not expect that in Canada withdrawal from the diocese and province that had welcomed me would become an issue of conscience, but so it is. Like other Christians, I find peace in doing what I believe I have to do, but I cannot always find pleasure in it, and this for me is an instance of that. However, I move now to my argument.
The Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion is one expression of the church universal, militant here in earth, and this is where I start.
a. The Church of God
What is the church? I state what I believe to be the Bible’s teaching. In its visible aspect - that is, as we see it in this world - the church is the entire community of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. This church is gathered in local assemblies, each of which, in the words of Anglican Article 19, is “a congregation” (that is, an association) of faithful men (that is, believing people). In its spiritual aspect, that is, in terms of its relationship to God, the church as a whole is three things together, corresponding to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. It is the family of the Father’s adopted children; it is the body of the ascended, glorified and enthroned Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord; and it is the community, or fellowship of mutual love and service that is created and sustained by the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit draws us close to each other by drawing each of us close to Christ, and by so doing transforms God’s children in character, animates Christ’s body in ministry, and builds up each fellowship in love. Every congregation is called to live as an outcrop, microcosm, sample and specimen of the one holy universal fellowship.
b. The Church’s unity
Paul analyses the church’s given unity in terms of one body and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one family, and speaks of the resultant reality as “the unity of the Spirit,” which all Christians must work to preserve “in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4: 3-6). So the unity of God’s holy universal church is something to be recognized and expressed. Jesus’ prayer in John 17: 21-23 that all his disciples may be one as he and the Father are one shows us how this is to be done. The Father and the Son are one in thought, in love, in mutual honour and in disciple-making purpose (they were on mission together, we may truly say, at the time when Jesus prayed, just before his cross). So, too, the church, which is already one in Christ, must express its unity in all appropriate forms of communication, communion, and cooperation.
Togetherness with other congregations is integral to expressing Christian unity, and two principles of organized togetherness have emerged down the centuries: the geographical, which expresses the purpose of covering a particular area with functioning congregations, and the denominational, which expresses the sense that one is a trustee for some truth or practice that is not universally accepted, but that all need for biblical fullness of life together, so that as many churches as possible that have this distinctive feature should be founded. The two concerns, of course, regularly go together, distinct though they are. Thus, different patterns for connecting congregations have grown up, ranging from the pyramidal global structure of the Roman Catholic Church, with its Italian base, to the legally registered foundation deeds of each small addition to the 20,000 or so Protestant denominations that the statisticians tell us we can find if we look.
Now, it is in relation to these organizational structures, large or small, that the notion of schism should be defined. Schism means unwarrantable and unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group within the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism, as such, is sin, for it is a needless and indefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become unorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance when the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be called not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that is faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship with the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept the offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who call such a move schism should be told that they do not know what schism is.
c. The Anglican Communion
Now, within this frame of reference, how are we to define the Anglican Communion? It is not, and never was, an integrated, pyramidal global organization with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its head. It is simply, as its name proclaims, a Communion - that is, a fellowship of independent provinces sharing ministry and sacraments on the basis of a shared faith, and bound together by a distinctive and very precious heritage - tradition, or style, as you might say - which all appreciate, and wish in some form to conserve. This heritage may be described as follows. (This is familiar ground, so I move over it quickly.)
First, Anglicanism is biblical. Anglicanism says to the world: “Show us anything in Scripture that should be taught and that we are not teaching, and we will teach it. Show us anything we are teaching that is contrary to Scripture, and we will stop teaching it.” The Bible, straightforwardly interpreted as revelation from God through human writers, is the Anglican rule of faith.
Second, Anglicanism is creedal, embracing and building on the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, which highlight the Trinity, the incarnation, Christ’s saving ministry and the reality of salvation itself. The 39 Articles dot i’s and cross t’s and fill gaps in the Creeds, clarifying in particular the doctrines of faith, of grace, of justification and of the sacraments.
Third, Anglicanism is liturgical, in continuity with the church of patristic and pre- Reformation days. Through Archbishop Cranmer we inherited a superlative Reformed Prayer Book, in which the thematic sequence, sin - grace - faith runs through the set services, so that it is a truly evangelical book, and should be appreciated as such.
Fourth, Anglicanism is pastoral, centred upon the making of disciples both domestically and through outreach. Bishops are ordained to give pastoral leadership, caring for both clergy and congregations, and their jurisdiction is to be exercised for the furtherance of pastoral goals.
Fifth, Anglicanism is missional in the sense of being committed to transformation through the gospel - transformation of individuals through teaching and nurture, transformation of congregations through preaching a renewal, transformation of culture through the wisdom and values of the gospel. The transformational purposes of the Reformers and Puritans, the eighteenth-century revival and later revivals, and the latter-day renewal movements, have permanently shaped authentic Anglicanism in a missional way.
Sixth, Anglicanism is not hierarchical nor maintenance-motivated, though it has sometimes appeared to be both; but in fact it is service-oriented. Dioceses exist to resource and help parishes, and provinces exist to coordinate both diocesan and local church ministry; Anglicanism is service-oriented at every level, and it is in loving practical service, shaped by the divine Word and empowered by the divine Spirit, that Anglican unity is finally expressed.
Lambeth Conferences, Primates’ meetings, the Anglican Consultative Council, and other national and international gatherings at leadership level, can only be called instruments of unity in a significant sense as they seek to further Anglicanism’s service in the gospel to a lost humanity. For the fundamental unity is unity in truth and in mission based on truth; nothing can ever change that.
Such, then, is Anglicanism; and if I may speak personally for a moment, one reason why siren songs urging me to abandon Anglicanism strike no chord in my heart is that I value his heritage so highly, and am so sure that if I walked away from it under any circumstances I should lose far more than I gained. The present project, however, is precisely not to abandon
Anglicanism but to realign within it, so as to be able to maintain it in its fullness and authenticity - and that, to me, is a horse of a very different colour. In this I recognize the calling of God.
Anglicans Adrift
For what should we think of global Anglicanism today? It has often been said during the past few years that the Anglican Communion is like a torn net, due to denials by some of things that the rest believe to be integral to the gospel and affirmation, mainly by the same people, of behaviour that the rest believe the gospel absolutely rules out. In certain cases communion with a small “c” - that is, full and free welcome and interchange of clergy and communicants at the Lord’s Table - has been suspended. How, we ask, has this come about? In brief, it is the bitter fruit of liberal theology, which has become increasingly dominant in seminaries and among leaders in what we may call the Anglican Old West - that is, North America in the lead, with Britain and Australasia coming along behind.
This has been the story over the past two generations, since Anglo-Catholic leadership began to flag. Let me explain. Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverance, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are to be fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the cultural pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The intrinsic goodness of each “in thing” is taken for granted. In following this agenda the church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.
Well now; with liberal leaders thinking and teaching in these terms, a collision with conservatives - that is, with upholders of the historic biblical and Anglican faith - was bound to come. It came over gay unions, which liberals wish to bless as a form of holiness, a quasimarriage.
As part of its current agenda of affirming minority rights (that is the “in thing” these days), western culture has for the past generation accepted gay partnerships as a feature of normal life. Despite the pronouncement of the 1998 Lambeth Conference in favour of the old paths, New Westminster diocese began in 2002 to bless gay couples, and others followed suit.
The Windsor Report called for a moratorium on this, which was not forthcoming. The St. Michael’s report said that the issue, though theological, was not against Anglican core doctrine so was not a matter over which to divide the church. On a side wind and by a stopgap motion, the General Synod of 2004 declared gay unions to be marked by “integrity and sanctity”. The 2007 General Synod affirmed the St. Michael’s position. So here we are now, the Anglican Network in Canada, accepting the invitation to realign in order to uphold historic Anglican standards, not only regarding gay unions but across the board, as those standards were formulated in our church’s foundation documents and reformulated in the Montreal Declaration of 1994.
Anglicans Anchored
So, who are we today, and where do we stand at this moment in relation to all that is happening in the storm-tossed Anglican Communion? In light of what I have said so far, I put it to you that there are four things we can and must now say. They are as follows.
To start with, we are a community of conscience, - committed to the Anglican convictions - those defined, I mean, in our foundation documents and expressed in our Prayer Book. The historic Anglican conviction about the authority of the Bible matches that which Luther expressed at the Diet of Worms: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe” - that is, it imperils the soul. As for the historic Anglican conviction about homosexual behaviour, it contains three points:
First, it violates the order of creation. God made the two sexes to mate and procreate, with pleasure and bonding; but homosexual intercourse, apart from being, at least among men, awkward and unhealthy, is barren.
Second, it defies the gospel call to repent of it and abstain from it, as from sin. This call is most clearly perhaps expressed in 1Cor. 6: 9-11, where the power of the Holy Spirit to keep believers clear of this and other lapses is celebrated.
Third, the heart of true pastoral care for homosexual persons is helping them in friendship not to yield to their besetting temptation. We are to love the sinner, though we do not love the sin.
We must hold to these positions, whatever the culture around us may say and do. So a biblically educated conscience requires.
Second, we are a community of church people, committed to the Anglican Communion.
We rejoice to know that the more than 90% of worshipping Anglicans worldwide outside the Old West are solidly loyal to the Christian heritage as Anglicanism has received it, and we see our realignment as among other things, an enhancing of our solidarity with them. As I said earlier, what we are doing is precisely not leaving Anglicanism behind.
Third, we are a community of consecration, committed to the Anglican calling of worship and mission, doxology and discipling. Right from the start church planting will be central to our vision of what we are being called to do.
Fourth, I think we may soberly say of ourselves that we are a community of courage, heading out into unknown waters but committed to the Anglican confidence that God is faithful to those who are faithful to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)