Category Archives: Anglican

A bishop a professor and a layman walk into a chatroom

Posted on by
4

I recently had this exchange with Bishop Peter Carrell, bishop of Christchurch New Zealand and Polynesia, on twitter. I thought some of you might find it interesting. To be clear, I like Peter Carrell even though I largely disagree with him. There aren’t many bishops who would bother with this.

It all started with this cartoon retweeted by the bishop:

To which I replied, and he replied etc. (sorry about the duplicate bits – that’s twitter):

What does all this mean? We appear to be speaking two different languages. Or perhaps we are using the same words to mean different things. Or we live on different planets. Either way, the gulf between us appears to be as broad as the one mentioned in Luke 16:26.

A Prayer of Woke for our World

Posted on by
6

Sorry, that should have been hope.

I vaguely remember a day, long long ago, when the church used to pray for people, often for their salvation. Today the church prays for the planet and its salvation. Such is the price of progress.

This is a prayer from the Lambeth Conference:

Forgive us for our insensitivity and carelessness with the environment, instigate us to fight for socio-environmental preservation and for the end of the climate crisis, taking care and woking (sorry working my keyboard is misbehaving) for the preservation of species and the maintenance of life on earth, as living proof of our conversion to the way of Jesus Christ.

I can see the next Lambeth conference is going to be a woke (sorry a lot, dratted keyboard) of fun.

Facile Anglican Recognition Theology

Posted on by
Reply

Or FART for short.

The Anglican church loves nothing better than recognising something as if, by doing so, it has in some magical way diminished the mounting catalogue of human misery accumulating a safe distance from its vicars’ rectories. Other than making clerics feel, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that they have a purpose in life, it is all gaseous futility.

Here is an example:

Are bishops housing migrants in their palaces? Treating them to a nightly glass of Bristol Cream, perhaps? Erecting hospitality tents in their empty cathedrals? Take a wild guess.

Anglicans at the UN

Posted on by
5

Although it is reluctant to admit it, the Anglican Church no longer believes in hell. If there is no hell, no one needs to be saved from it so Anglican clergy have nothing to do: no mandate, no mission and, most worrying, no stipend! What is to be done?

Save the United Nations, that’s what:

A match made in heaven since the only organisation that is as lost as the United Nations is the Anglican Church – although since Anglicans don’t believe in hell, they can’t believe in its opposite, heaven, either.

Bow down to your god: Diversity

Posted on by
7

Wayne Holst, a Lutheran pastor, tells us in the Anglican Journal that mainline Canadian churches have, since the 1960s, been becoming more diverse. He seems to think that is a good thing. What he fails to mention is that in the same period, mainline churches have also lost most of their people. Those that remain, though, are more diverse, apparently. Diversity is more important than countless run of the mill Yahweh worshippers because diversity is  – god.

One definition of diversity is “the inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socioeconomic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.” A half-century ago, little was made of diverse communities of faith. At best, we tended to deny or soft-pedal this characteristic in favour of a certain “uniformity.” Sameness, even combativeness, was honoured. But Canadian social values have evolved. Today, we are much more committed to embracing diversity.

As Canadian society has changed from mono- and bi-cultural to multi- and intercultural, our Christian communities have continued, albeit hesitantly, to reflect societal composition and tendencies.

When and how did we change from being churches that valued uniformity to becoming communities valuing diversity? I believe it was during the 1960s when (at the Canadian centennial) we became more intentionally focused on our distinct identity as a nation.

Meanwhile, another group established by Justin Welby last year has been picking over what diversity really means. To forestall any inadvertent stumbling into discovering anything useful, they avoided theological discussions completely. The reason is obvious: it’s much easier to maintain unity in a church devoid of theology; a side benefit is that a diverse church, unshackled from the constraints of having to believe in anything coherent, attracts no-one – other than clergy. No people, no arguments. This is called “walking together”

From here:

“We have been developing a greater understanding between us of the diversity within the Communion,” he said. “But, significantly, we have been seeing the many, many areas of commonality.

“It has not been a theological discussion. Instead, we have been examining what differences mean at a practical level. In particular, we looked at marriage practices and relationships in different parts of the Communion. But we also looked at the spiritual dimensions of the idea of walking together.”

The secretary general of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon – who serves the group as secretary – added that it had been considering how the authority of primates and bishops was practiced in different parts of the Communion.

The group was established in January 2016 by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the request of the primates. It was given the task of restoring relationships, rebuilding mutual trust and responsibility, healing the legacy of hurt and exploring deeper relationships. The group met for the first time last September.  Seven of the nine-member group met this week. Canon Elizabeth Paver – the former vice chair of the ACC — and Bishop Paul Sarker from Bangladesh were unable to attend on this occasion.

Roman Catholics and Anglicans continue their ecumenical dance

Posted on by
2

Justin Welby met with Pope Francis for more ecumenical dialogue recently. The conclusion was that the denominations are still divided.

A great deal of expense and carbon emissions could have been avoided by a close inspection of the invitation list. It included Fred Hiltz from Canada who, not only has no influence over healing divisions between Catholics and Anglicans, but has spent most of the time during his tenure in his own denomination promoting division in it. Justin Welby, seemingly eager to learn from the colonies, is about to follow suit.

What a waste of time, energy and resources.

From here:

While the decision by some provinces in the Anglican Communion to accept the ordination of women and same-sex marriage have posed new obstacles to formal unity between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, a common declaration issued by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Pope Francis October 5 reaffirmed their commitment to ecumenical work.

“While…we ourselves do not see solutions to the obstacles before us, we are undeterred,” the declaration says. “We are confident that dialogue and engagement with one another will deepen our understanding and help us to discern the mind of Christ for his church.”

[….]

Representing Canada were Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, and Bishop Dennis Drainville, of the diocese of Quebec.

A Statement on Archbishop Beach’s Participation at Primates 2016

Posted on by
1

Contrary to previous reports, it seems that the lack of repentance from TEC and the ACoC did finally provoke a walkout.

From here (my emphasis):

The Anglican Church in North America has received numerous questions regarding whether or not Archbishop Beach was “a full voting member of the Primates Meeting.” Archbishop Beach did not consider himself a full voting member of the Primates Meeting, but with the exception of voting on the consequences for the Episcopal Church, Archbishop Beach participated fully in those parts of the meeting that he chose to attend.

Prior to Primates 2016 he was informed that there may be certain times when the Primates would move into a formal meeting, and, as the Anglican Church in North America is not an official member of the Communion’s instruments, he would be asked to step out of the room. However, he was never asked to leave the meeting.

While at the meeting, he addressed the gathering and participated in various balloting measures that set the agenda, ordered the agenda, and sought to discern the way those in the room wanted to proceed. He did not vote on the consequences for The Episcopal Church.

Some have asked whether Archbishop Beach voted to approve the final Communique or the new members of the Standing Committee. Neither he nor a majority of the GAFCON Primates were​ present for these discussions on Friday. Although early in the week he joined the other Primates in affirming his desire to walk together, this desire was necessarily contingent upon The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada giving evidence of returning to Biblical and historical Anglican theology and morality (Amos 3:3). On Thursday ​evening, ​with the absence of repentance, restored order, and true unity, Archbishop Beach felt it necessary to withdraw from the meeting.

Archbishop Beach appreciated the gracious invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the meeting, and was thankful to be warmly received as the Primate of the Anglican Church in North America by most of the other primates who were present.  While the Anglican Church in North America is recognized and in full communion with provinces who represent the majority of Anglicans in the world, the future place of the Anglican Church in North America in relation to the formal instruments remains an open question.  Archbishop Beach was encouraged to see the growing recognition of the Anglican Church in North America as a part of the Communion by many of the Primates and Provinces around the table.

More on the Archbishop of Uganda’s departure from the Primates’ gathering

Posted on by
9

Archbishop Stanley Ntagali’s statement below makes it reasonably clear whose side – no one should be under the illusion that there are no sides in this disagreement – Justin Welby is on: TEC’s and the ACoC’s. This doesn’t bode well for enforcing the sanctions that were placed against TEC, nor does it create much confidence that in three years’ time, if TEC has not repented, much will be done to further censure them. The success of the liberal technique of wearing everyone down through the passage of time and endless enervating conversation is well established and will be employed during the next three years.

The fact that, by the end of the meeting, there was any criticism of TEC at all was little short of miraculous.

To compensate for this unforeseen lapse, the first thing Welby did after the meetings were over, was apologise for the “hurt and pain” the Anglican church has inflicted on lesbian, gay and transgender people”

From here (my emphasis):

Unfortunately, neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any of the other structures of the Anglican Communion were able to discipline the Episcopal Church USA. That meant that the Anglican Communion had become like the time in the Book of Judges when God’s judgment was upon the people of God because it says, “Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” Even the Anglican Church of Canada has allowed the blessing of same-sex unions in their church.

We had hoped that the meeting this past week would restore godly order to the Anglican Communion and re-establish the Bible as the authority for our faith and morals.

On the second day of the meeting, I moved a resolution to ask the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to voluntarily withdraw from all Anglican Communion groups. It grieves me to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was chairing the meeting, did not take my resolution seriously and simply moved on to another matter without ever allowing any discussion on it.

At that point in the meeting, I realized that the process that had been set up would not allow us to accomplish the purpose for which we had come.

The Canterbury Compromise

Posted on by
5

The 2016 Primates’ gathering in Canterbury is over and few are happy about the outcome. Liberal Anglicans, particularly in the U.S., are outraged, rebellious and, doing what liberals do best, experiencing pain and reinforcing their victimhood, while conservatives, even the GAFCON primates who attended the gathering, believe the sanctions against TEC were too weak.

The Anglican Church of Canada emerged unscathed because they have not yet adopted a marriage liturgy that accommodates same-sex marriages; the vote to alter the Marriage Canon will occur in 2016 and again in 2019. The sanctioning of TEC will undoubtedly cast a pall over the ACoC 2016 general synod but it’s anyone’s guess whether the threat of similar sanctions will prevent the motion succeeding; my guess is that it won’t.

Since both conservatives and liberals are less than satisfied by the meeting’s outcome, it is reasonable to assume that a compromise has been reached. But what has been compromised?

On the second day, the Archbishop of Uganda, Stanley Ntagali, moved a resolution that asked the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to voluntarily withdraw from the meeting and other Anglican Communion activities until they repented. Neither Fred Hiltz nor Michael Curry received this idea with enthusiasm, the resolution failed to pass and Stanley Ntagali left the meeting. He was uncompromising.

The remainder of the conservative Primates stayed to attempt to win support from other undecided Primates and to present the Gospel truth regarding same-sex marriage to the entire meeting. They compromised; I think they would say that they did not compromise the Gospel message, a claim whose truth I would not dispute, but they did make a political compromise. Whether it was a wise compromise, only time will tell, but this is why I think it may not have been:

TEC has been given three years to repent of their actions. Short of a sovereign act of God on a par with parting the Red Sea, TEC will not repent. Every reaction I have seen from TEC clergy has been defiant; their presiding bishop, Michael Curry not only has no intention of repenting but thinks that TEC’s role in the Communion is to convince conservatives of the error of their ways. TEC’s Rev. Gay Jennings serves on the Anglican Consultative Council, a role which, according to the sanction, she will be denied for the next three years; she plans to show up anyway and has defied anyone to stop her. If no one does stop her – and I doubt anyone will – who will stand up to an unrepentant TEC in three years time when secular and, I suspect, mainline church values have become further hardened against an orthodox view of marriage?

Lambeth 1.10 declared that same-sex blessings are unbiblical. That seems to have been forgotten in the Primates’ gathering. The ACoC allows same-sex blessings but, since the rigour of what is permitted or not permitted has loosened, the ACoC has been let off the hook. There has been a sleight of hand a – to use a Welbyesque corporate idiom – moving of the goalposts. In three years time, who knows to what remote region of outer space the goal posts will have been transported?

Sadly, I think the GAFCON primates have been manipulated by Justin Welby. The conservative Primates seem to me to be wonderful Godly men – who are politically naive; I intend that as a compliment.

The underlying problem that did not appear to be addressed in the meeting is that there exist within Anglicanism two different religions. One is orthodox Christianity with 2000 years of history and a consistent understanding of what the Gospel is behind it and the other is, at best, a sub-Christian mish-mash of Unitarian, new-age, relativist, anti-biblical, feel-good religion whose main aim is to reinforce the idea that virtue resides in the acting out of our inner desires no matter what they may be. The two cannot co-exist and a less than definitive censure on the deviant variety may well be worse than none at all, since it makes conservatives complicit in perpetuating the illusion that they can and the illusion of progress where there is nothing but liberal stalling.

Only time will tell – and I hope I am wrong, I really do – but I believe that three years from now TEC will have strengthened their resolve, there will be more committees, more meetings, more dialogue, more listening. The only thing missing will be a resolution to the problem.