This is one reason I have come to love Anglicanism so much, at least in its broad understanding. We will stand by the historal ecumenical Creeds and in Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
Here is a recent statement from Emergent concerning its critics’ call for a clear statement of beliefs or doctrine.
———
From Tony Jones, National Coordinator, Emergent-U.S.
Yes, we have been inundated with requests for our statement of faith in Emergent, but some of us had an inclination that to formulate something would take us down a road that we don’t want to trod. So, imagine our joy when a leading theologian joined our ranks and said that such a statement would be disastrous. That’s what happened when we started talking to LeRon Shults, late of Bethel Seminary and now heading off to a university post in Norway. LeRon is the author of many books, all of which you should read, and now the author a piece to guide us regarding statements of faith and doctrine. Read on…
From LeRon Shults:
“The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a “statement of faith” to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous.
“Why is such a move unnecessary? Jesus did not have a “statement of faith.” He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a “statement of faith” is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties – and this brings us to the next point.

Continue reading →

It is far too easy to claim that one’s (or a group’s) beliefs or calls for change are “Spirit-led,” especially when those beliefs are contrary to the long and traditional understanding of things. Anything we want to change, we now tend to claim the leading by the Spirit and a prophetic voice. Where is the proof?
Coming from a Pentecostal background, I have witnessed Spirit-led stuff that defies reason or logic. I have heard prophetic voices that I know did not know the situation or facts before the prophetic utterance.
Much of what is claimed to be “prophetic” within our Church is nothing more than voices calling for change. I think we need to be very careful when we use the word “prophetic,” and when we really mean change, say change. Lots of things need to change within our Church, but not all of the calls for change are “prophetic” or specifically “Spirit-led.”
The proof of the correctness of any change, I suspect, must come with time and with hindsight. Only if we are willing, that is, to admit or recognize that the previously called for changed, or the change itself if undertaken, may in fact not have been led by the Spirit and then we are willing to undo such change. Otherwise, we are not truly seeking the Spirit of God for the Truth of God, but only striving for change for the sake of change and the ascendancy of our particular viewpoint.

I received this announcement (see below) this morning from the Anglican Communion Network concerning their intent to replace The Church Pension Group as their source for retirement, medical, life, and property insurances. Since many of them believe that The Episcopal Church is apostate, the Church Pension Group is also by association.
I remember Fr. Wright, long-time history professor at General Theological Seminary (my seminary), who related a story about his mentor. During the controversies surrounding the approval of women’s ordinations in the 1970’s, the more traditional side of the Church, especially a good part of Anglo-Catholics, could not accept the ordination of women to the priesthood. Many clergy and some parishes left and “poped” or “crossed over the Tiber.” Fr. Wright told me that his mentor, who in principle was opposed to the ordination of women, ask him, “Robert, do you know where I stand on women’s ordination?” Fr. Wright’s mentor then added, “I stand with the Pension Fund!”
There were a lot of people who “stood with the Pension Fund” over the years when our Church did things (both liberal and conservative things) that they did not approve of. Now, with this announcement, the Network moves to remove this means by which we often remained together despite our differences until cooler heads prevailed.
This is a final stage in their preparation to form a new denomination after General Convention 2006 in Columbus – if it comes to this, which I hope it does not.
I continue to be assounded by the fact that for so many Christians in this country that despite everything else, and I mean anything and everything else, that we may agree on, the issues of homosexuality and same-sex unions have now become the litmus test of whether one is a Christian or an apostate heretic. So much money, time, energy, and disregard for the impact on the lives of so many is put into recreating a wheel that if taken to its full extent will only lead to more and more division. The Charismatic Evangelical Anglicans and the Anglo-Catholics will not hold together. The pro- and anti-women’s ordination crowds will not hold together. Once division (schism) begins, it will only continue in the schismatic groups. History has shown us this fact. Yet, we waste all the time, money, and energy and learn nothing from history. The forces that oppose the advancement of the Gospel are rejoicing!
Here is the announcement:

Network Announces Retirement Plan for Clergy
The Anglican Communion Network is pleased to announce the rollout, effective April 1, of its Qualified Retirement Plan for clergy. ACN-related clergy who are not in or otherwise eligible for the Church Pension Fund of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) are invited to enroll.
The Plan Provider selected by the Network is American Funds, highly regarded in the investment community with more than 70 years of investment experience. The Plan is a defined contribution plan and provides for annual contributions by employers of up to 20% of compensation. Covered clergy have the option to contribute additionally to the plan in accordance with federal regulations.
Contributions are vested when made, and the benefits, which are transportable, can also be augmented by rolling over into the Plan other portable retirement accounts. The plan was launched on April 1, but arrangements can be made to apply the plan retroactively to January 1, 2006.
Application forms for parishes, clergy and other organizations to join the Network are available online at www.acn-us.org/join. Applications to enroll in the Clergy Retirement Plan can be obtained by contacting Lisa Waldron, ACN Director of Accounting, at lwaldron@acn-us.org or by calling 412-325-8900 x102.
In addition, the Network anticipates announcing a retirement plan for lay employees, property and casualty insurance programs for parishes and organizations, and a group health insurance program before the end of the year. In connection with these efforts, the Network is gathering input from its members to help with the development of a health care benefits plan. Network affiliates and partners are invited to download a health insurance survey form at www.acn-us.org. Completed surveys can be faxed to 412-325-8902 or mailed to 535 Smithfield Street, Suite 910, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
“We are excited that we are now able to offer the retirement plan for eligible clergy,” said Wicks Stephens, ACN Chancellor. “We hope by year’s end to be able to offer a whole range of benefit options for our Network constituencies, both clergy and lay.”

I read this morning a press release from the Anglican Communion Network, the organizational network of several churches and a few dioceses opposed to the controversial decisions coming out of The Episcopal Church’s 2003 General Convention (basically, the full inclusion of gay people in the life and leadership of the Church). The Network announced their initiative for planting new churches.
As I have written (and said) many times that so much of my life and focus is in agreement with a lot of what the Network holds to, but on some very important and strategic issues we are in disagreement. Regrettably, in those disagreements the division seems almost insurmountable (at least for them – as much as it is possible with me, I will be at peace with all people despite how they respond to me).
Here, in this announcement, I have to say that the Network seems to be doing things right. Time will tell. The Episcopal Church Center has their “20/20 Vision” project to double the attendance in Episcopal churches by the year 2020. From what I can see, despite the good efforts of well intentioned people, the project is going nowhere (which may be unfair of me to say, but that is the way I perceive it). The Network at least seems to have “in its genes” the understanding and desire to expand and spread the Gospel through the pioneering of new churches.
Good for them – go for it. I wish, however, that a more open attitude with less triumphalism was also “in their genes.” Only hindsight will tell us whether their effort will be a success. Much of the leadership of the Network still seems to be more intent on division and “winner take all” then on working together for the advancement of the Gospel to all people. They would disagree, of course.

Continue reading →

It seems in fact that the history of disagreements, of seperating, of going one’s own way, of schism (sort of), of a common faith that was not all together consistent and unified, and of difference has been apparent for a very long time – from the beginning. The Church has never been “one” by any visible or discernable way, but we are only “one” by way of what Jesus did and continues to do and our intentional following of the Way of Christ.
Acts 15:36-41
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
“Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”