Category Archives: anglican

Blast from the past

Posted on by

I was given the book “The Practice of Religion” last year by a good friend. It is an older and little Anglican book that sets out the Faith and the practice of it, particularly the Catholic expression of Anglicanism. The rector of St. Paul’s said that he wished the book was still in print, because it is this book that he would give as a gift to all those kids who prepare for their first communion.
Three sections in the back of the book:

Spiritual Growth:

Life shows itself in growth. It is so in the practice of religion. “We go from grace to grace and from strength to strength.” This implies being ever ready to receive the truth. Many persons make no progress because of pride, prejudice and ignorance, which oppose anything which they do not understand or in which they have been imperfectly instructed. To advance spiritually one must follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost and especially welcome any new blessing or privilege which the Church brings out of her “treasures of things new and old.” In the restoration going on in our part of the Church today, all souls should gladly receive and follow anything that helps to develop their spiritual life and bring them into closer union with God.

Manners and Morals:

“Manners maketh the man.” Character shows a close connection between Manners and Morals. Not necessarily the polished Manners which should be the “noblesse oblige” of those of birth and education but those possible in any walk of life where there is consideration of others and a refinement bred of high ideals and standards. As “a face is the index of the soul” and “one is known by the company he keeps,” Manners reveal Morals, as Character expresses itself. The coarseness and vulgarity so common today are but the evidence of the decline in Morality and Religion.

True Joy:

God wills us to be happy, but happy in the things of God more than in those of the world. True Joy comes in pleasing God not self. Live for self and happiness is never found, for all the lavish gifts of the world. Live for God and true joy is found, in trouble and trial, in sickness and sorrow, as well as in joy, peace and prosperity. Without God, nothing is really worth while. With God, naught else is necessary, yet all that God sends is welcome. He who has True Joy in God is always thankful. For as Saint Augustine wrote, “When God gives earthly blessings, give thanks; when God takes away earthly blessings, give thanks; for it is God Who gives and God Who takes away but God never takes Himself away from one who gives thanks.”
The Lord preserve thy going out,
The Lord preserve thy coming in.
God send His angels round about
To keep thy soul from every sin;
And when thy going out is done,
And when thy coming in is o’er,
When in death’s darkness all alone,
Thy feet can come and go no more,
The Lord preserve thy going out
From this dark world of grief and sin,
When angels standing round about,
Sing, “God preserve thy coming in.”

Our Anglican forms

Posted on by

A lot has been going through my mind over the last months concerning the proposed changes to our Anglican understanding of church structure, authority, mutuality, and communion. It is true that we are not at all Roman Catholic – no Pope, no Majesterium, no Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, et.al, yet we are in our ecclesiology Catholic, albeit in an Anglican form and locally adapted (as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral specifies).
Within the Anglican Communion, our traditional and juridical basic unit is the “province” or “national church.” The structures that have developed over the last hundred years or so (Instruments of Unity) have been to enable all those national churches to come together for support, encouragement, cooperation, and thinking together, but not to adjudicate (with the possible exception of the Anglican Consultative Council). The more recent calls for a fundamental change in our Anglican-Catholic structures would move us to be far more Roman.
It is odd that the Protestant pungent for rebelling against order, breaking away from established structures, ignoring the hierarchs, creating one’s own rules, et.al., has taken over in the minds of so many even though the solution proposed by them is far more internationally hierarchical and Roman.
One can easily say that the American Church did not have the authority to change the Communion’s understanding of morality or discipline or Scriptural understanding by consecrating bishop Robinson, or women for that matter. It is true, we didn’t and we don’t. However, and despite the assertions otherwise, we are not demanding such acceptance by all the other provinces – we haven’t the authority. No other provinces must agree with us, associate with Robinson or women bishops, or accept their authority. It is messy within Anglican ecclesiology, of course, but this is the reality.
None of our recent troubles had to happen. The same course could have been followed that occurred with women’s ordination. Agitators agitate for the purpose of agitation. They can’t help it and will find any reason that enables them to exercise their lust for agitation and division and to have their way.
If we talk about straw-men arguments, then it seems to me that the assertion that the American Church is trying to foist upon the communion homosexuals and women bishops is certainly a straw-man argument! We cannot do such a thing within our current international structures. It isn’t possible.
If, however, our structures change and we do take on a more hierarchal and Roman form (the Covenant, perhaps), then it can be easily understood that at some point in the future our new international body(ies) (our own pope or majesterium or congregation-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith, or some such thing in Anglican form), will deem this or that idea, activity, or theological perspective to be normative for the whole Communion, and we will have no recourse but to obey in our various provinces. What then?
What happens when these new international authorities make a decision in thirty years that this or that groups detests (like declaring that Charismatic forms of worship be infused within the liturgy, or like opening the way for faithful homosexuals to be full members once again, or that all provinces must accept women bishops)? Those that hate the decisions will do what they are doing right now – being very American, individualistic, and Protestant by rebelling against current structures and breaking away to be more pure and creating a whole new set of structures that are “really” and “truly” “Anglican-Christian.”
The presumption that because right now some primates in various parts of the world agree with our reactionary American members – that they working their newly found power will “restore” right thought, faith, and practice throughout the Communion as a whole and always and forever, amen, is a deception of the Enemy of our Faith, particularly in its Anglican form.
Just because one group may haven the upper-hand now, does not mean they will later! The proposed structural changes could well be used against you in the future!
Anglicanism has understood this and has developed a means of being together in communion in a way that has allowed the various forms to remain one, even in tension and argument and while attempting to persuade all others that their party is more right about whatever. We are in the midst of tearing down those very forms and ourselves over demands for all to acquiesce to particularly sectarian theological and interpretive understandings.

Who am I to think such things…

Posted on by

An infection that invades our thinking is impatience and pride – thinking that we are the all-knowing ones who must act NOW in order to save God’s Church (or our little Anglican part of it). Come on. Why do we think (in all our various forms – liberals and conservatives – political or theological) that we now know God’s mind well enough to act as we do? We like our ways, frankly, better than God’s ways, don’t we? You know, love you enemy and all that.
God is in control and He doesn’t need our impatient hubris to accomplish anything, particularly the reform of The Episcopal Church – again, either liberal or conservative reform. It is His!, not ours’ (liberal or conservative)! He will do what He deems best and at the right time – even if that time is beyond our lifetimes’. The solutions to our current problems may well be beyond our lifetimes. So? God is still God and His Church is still His Church.
Sometimes I think we act so hastily and arrogantly because we don’t think God is doing what He should be doing (like casting into utter darkness the people with whom we disagree), so we have to help the poor guy along. My goodness.
Live faithfully. Live consistently. Most of all live humbly and seek wisdom – God will provide without our feeble strategizing and politicking. Boy, God, am I glad I am not like one of THOSE people! 😉

Lack of understanding

Posted on by

I was watching a video from the Network in the U.S. meeting in Texas this week. The “Network of Anglican Parishes and Dioceses,” otherwise known as the “Anglican Communion Network” is the reactionary group of people who oppose the direction the Episcopal Church has been heading over the past 30 years. The issues generally revolve around women’s ordination, the whole gay issue, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and the theologically and social liberal tilt of the Church. I am sympathetic to some of their concerns, even though I absolutely do not agree with their tactics to force a narrowly defined conformity upon the entire Communion and to attain power and control.
I watched an interview with three of the bishops who are big in the Network, Bishops Duncan, Iker and Ackerman – lead by the Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh Bob Duncan. What struck me most is an early statement by Bishop Duncan that it is a true shame that due to the lack of leadership by the Archbishop of Canterbury (the traditional determiner of who are members of the Anglican Communion), that the two “instruments of unity” – The Archbishop of Canterbury and the decennial Lambeth Conference – no longer function as such. His statement indicates that these Episcopal Church bishops (and many others, I’m sure, around the world) will no longer look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the source of unity or the Lambeth Conference as the gathering of all actual Anglican Communion bishops.
These folks are infected with the same virus as are many of the “liberals” in the American Church and the lackeys of both groups. Duncan and his followers and co-religionists make decisions over things they do not have the authority to decide. They make grand pronouncements. (Now, I recognize that similar arguments can be made against the American Church’s decision to ordain women and consecrate a gay priest in a relationship to be a bishop of the Church, but I don’t expect “liberals” to abide by the similar traditional understandings and standards that the reactionary “conservatives” propagate and demand compliance to. The liberals simply do not believe in the same way.)
Regardless of anything American or other Anglican bishops what to declare, they do not have the authority in themselves individually or as a group outside of an intentional and Anglican ecumenical Council to redefine what constitutes the symbol of Anglican unity or who decides such things. (Despite the fact that I don’t have a problem with Robinson being bishop of New Hampshire, I also do not think the American Church acted prudently in the way it handled the new Bishop of New Hampshire.) In Anglicanism, it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who determines who is a member of the Communion, period. They can split off or declare they are the true expression of Anglicanism all they want, but they then end up being a break-off, a sect, a denomination. They won’t call themselves that, but that is what they will be.
Now, the “liberals” in the American Church who are determined to press forward with their agendas and who say such things as, “let them have it” or “we don’t need the Communion,” are just as guilty and liable for the demise of the unity of the Communion. Yet, for the liberals, since many of them no longer believe in all this mystical stuff anyway (after all, religion is devised by humanity anyway, as some are prone to think), it is consistent for them to say such things. What differences, in the final analysis, does it really make?
For the “conservatives,” (who accuse the “liberals” of disrespect for discipline and tradition, heresy, abuse of authority, lack of a moral standard, and the like) they make statements like Bishop Duncan’s that suggest that they are taking upon themselves an authority they do not have, well, they too are infected with the virus of American hyper-individualism and they are as profoundly blind to their central role in the demise of the catholicity and unity and the Communion. To claim that this Church is Catholic, part of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they are certainly acting in a very Protestant and really congregational way. They do not have the authority to declare the Archbishop of Canterbury or Lambeth to be irrelevant to what constitutes actual membership in the Anglican Communion because these two entities will not do or declare what they want them to.
It is funny, really, childish, despite being very sad and profoundly frustrating. It is very American. It is diseased thinking and acting. It is not Catholic. The way things have been going, none of this is very Christian, period.
UPDATE:
Ephraim Radner, from the Anglican Communion Institute, has resigned from the Anglican Communion Network as a result of Bishop Duncan’s recent statements. Read his letter here:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4770/#more

Who do you say that I am?

Posted on by

I was just reading Brad Drell’s blog about the Episcopal priest who now claims, and I have to admit this is hearsay, that she is both Christian and Muslim. An Episcopal priest who is also a practicing Muslim.
A few of the comments pertaining to this particular post are worth mentioning. As someone alluded to, this whole mess we find ourselves is really about who we say Jesus is. Last Sunday’s Gospel lesson recounted Jesus asking his disciples, “Who do the people say that I am?” and then, “Who do YOU say that I am.” Peter answered, “The Messiah of God!” Funny thing, Jesus told them not to tell anyone.
I do believe that so many of the issues we are dealing with today do revolve around the question of who Jesus is! If Jesus is simply one of many prophets of God, even if a special one, even though not the same kind of one as Muhammad, then being a Muslim and Christian is not all that outlandish. Of course, most Muslims would completely reject the idea because most believe we worship three gods, among numerous other differences between the two religions – perceived or otherwise.
Likewise, the whole issue of “Open Communion” – allowing anyone to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord whether they are baptized or not or even a believer or not or whether they are in the midst of notorious sin or not – pertains to who Jesus is and what actually goes on during the mass. If one believes that the Eucharistic celebration and the receiving of the elements is simply a ritual of remembrance, in the Protestant fashion, rather than truly a Sacrament, in the Catholic fashion, then what difference does it make whether anyone takes communion or not or why they do? If Jesus is not honestly present, by faith, in some way, then they are just pieces of bread and a bit of wine or grape juice. Who do we say Jesus is and what do we say goes on within the liturgies of the Church and its sacraments?
I was reading the final letter to the parish by the interim priest of my sponsoring parish in Ohio. There has been a bit of controversy, it seems, with this interim because he introduced for the experience practices that were consider “Popish” by many in the decidedly low-church parish. In his letter, he commented on reasons and realities of church growth,

“The fourth reason seems new to us, but it really isn’t: a growing number of people are now “church shopping” and they are rarely looking for a church which will challenge them with the Gospel; they’re looking for a church which will affirm their current beliefs and values. And they usually find these two positions incompatible. (This phenomenon is also true in the secular world. Perhaps, you’ve seen recent studies about the growing number of people who, when seeking a new home for their retirement, are looking not just for better weather, but for a community or state where their views, values and politics are in the majority — perhaps, for the first time in their lives.)”

There are, I think, too many people who do not what to be asked the question, “Who do you say that I am?” They don’t want to be challenged that their particular belief or their ignorance may be wrong. It is far easier and far less messy and not at all as costly to believe in a new guru Jesus, rather than the eternally existent, resurrected and ascended Son of God through whom we have access to reconciliation with God, one another, and all of God’s creation.
Another commenter added this quote from St. Basil as an explanation for why she rarely involves herself in all this wrangling:

“The love of many has grown cold; concord among brothers is no more; the very name of unity is ignored; Christian compassion or sympathetic tears cannot be found anywhere. There is no one to welcome someone weak in faith, but mutual hatred blazes so fiercely among brothers that a neighbors’ fall brings them more joy than their own household’s success. And just as a contagious disease spreads from the sick to the healthy during an epidemic, in these days we have become like everyone else: imitators of evil, carried away by this wicked rivalry possessing our souls. Those who judge the erring are merciless and bitter, while those judging the upright are unfair and hostile. This evil is so firmly rooted in us that we have become more brutish than the beasts: At least they herd together with their own kindred, but we reserve our most savage warfare for the members of our own household.”

St. Basil
A timely quote, don’t you think?

Anglican Lite

Posted on by

Well, it seems the drive to establish a new “Anglican” church in the U.S., and perhaps world-wide, is well on its way.
From the U.K. Telegraph:

Anglican coalition to force through breakaway
I titled the post “Anglican Lite” because while they may retain some of the trappings of Anglicanism (i.e. the 1662 BCP, 39 Articles, etc.), they will and have jettison(ed) the ethos and theological perspective that defines historical Anglicanism – comprehensiveness, methods for approaching theology and Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, Reformed-Catholicism, Scripture-Tradition-Reason, etc.
This new church, which will now compete with the Anglican Mission in America (Rwandian) and the Convocation of North American Anglicans (Nigerian), will be yet another quasi-Anglican entity and part of the splintered “Anglican Continuum.”
Once division happens, it doesn’t end. We see this in Protestantism and as much as we have tried to avoid it in Anglicanism (which is a result of its own separation from Rome, although for very different circumstances), we see the reality. I believe there needed to be a reformation within Roman Catholicism (with Luther attempted, until he was excommunicated). The Continental reformers went too far, I think. The English Reformers were more subtle and right, IMHO.
What will be, will be. The minds of men are made up. Their heart’s are set. Their egos gloriously cajoled. The rightness of their cause wondrously firm. God’s blessing triumphantly expected. Lord have mercy on our arrogance and pride.

Why? Oh, that’s why!

Posted on by

Two interesting articles. The first comes from the Washington Post’s review of the new book, RELIGIOUS LITERACY: What Every American Needs to Know — and Doesn’t, by Stephen Prothero.
Here are a couple paragraphs from the review:

The United States is the most religious nation in the developed world, if religiosity is measured by belief in all things supernatural — from God and the Virgin Birth to the humbler workings of angels and demons. Americans are also the most religiously ignorant people in the Western world. Fewer than half of us can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and only one third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount.
“The book’s main concern, though, is ignorance about the role of religion in American history. Prothero dates the beginning of the long decline in our religious literacy to the Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s. The fervor of America’s periodic cycles of revivalism, rooted in a personal relationship with God rather than in theology handed down by learned clergy, has always had a strong anti-intellectual as well as spiritual component.”

Read the whole article.
The second is an opinion piece that comes from the Dallas News about a renewed appeal of Tradition in religious observance, particularly among the younger folk. This is one reason why I chose an Anglo-Catholic parish to do my field-placement, and why I am still there as a priest. I need and want to learn due to the fact that I grew up in a religious tradition that did not keep Tradition, but it also appeals to that part of me that longs for the tried-and-true and that which is beyond me. The lived experience of millions upon million of people over 2,000 years and including some of the most brilliant human minds add to the Tradition that still speaks to the inner most part of us – Deep calls to deep. (I preaches a sermon on that, yesterday, Pentecost.) The last paragraph is vitally important when considering Tradition!
Here are a few paragraphs:

“What’s the least I have to believe and do to feel good about myself?
That’s the fundamental question modern religious seekers seem to be asking. For many contemporary Americans, religion is like a scented candle: The purpose of its light is to provide a comforting psychological ambience. But for a small, growing minority – for whom religion, properly understood, exists to illuminatethe challenging path to truth and holiness – there is an alternative: tradition… ”
“Traditionalists of any religion fundamentally differ from modernists in that they see truth as objective and delivered within the rules, rituals and teachings of the tradition. Truth, so considered, is something around which individuals must shape their lives. The modernist sees religious truth as subjective, something that can be shaped to fit the lives of individuals in different times and places. If they’re right, there’s nothing regressive about reclaiming attractive and useful elements of tradition within a modernist context.
Except that it’s a dead-end. Orthodoxy (right belief) cannot be severed from orthopraxy (right practice); both inform and reinforce the other, beholding the truth and embodying it in the rites and pious practices of individuals and communities. The writer and Orthodox convert Frederica Mathewes-Green warns tradition-seekers that the reason the outward manifestations of tradition – the chants, the icons, the liturgies – have such power in our fast-moving, throwaway culture is that their authority is embedded within a living and longstanding communal tradition. If you don’t accept the tradition whole, you cut yourself off from its transformative power.
‘It’s like gathering flowers: They look great when you bring them into your contemporary church, but they have no roots and they’re going to die,’ she says. ‘You’ll have to keep going out and getting more flowers. Eventually, the whole thing will feel stale. Unless you plug into the ancient-continuing church and let it form you, you’re just being a shopper.’
Modernists nevertheless make a point that traditionalists ignore at their peril. Tradition has to be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances without abandoning its core principles. A tradition that loses touch with the needs of the living community is in danger of degenerating into rigid formalism. Some traditionalists make an idol of sacred tradition, as if it were an end in itself, not the most reliable and efficacious means to God.”

Read the whole article.
I got this stuff from: SARX

Continue reading →