Tag Archives: Anglican

Archbishop of Canterbury's statement on Bishop Mouneer's resignation from SCAC

Posted on by
3

is here

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, today expressed his regret at the decision of the Most Revd Dr Mouneer Anis, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa, and President Bishop of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East, to resign from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion:

“Bishop Mouneer has made an important contribution to the work of the Standing Committee, for which I am deeply grateful. I regret his decision to stand down but will continue to welcome his active engagement with the life of the Communion and the challenges we face together.”

Translated into the common tongue, this means:

“Mouneer, baby, I thought you, me, Kathy and Freddie were getting on so well. This is going to bury me; how could you do this to me now? You say you and your orthodox Anglicans didn’t feel included; surely you could not have felt excluded – that is such an ugly word. Anyway, just as your African buddy likes to say, “there are no homosexuals in Africa” – “there are no orthodox Anglicans in North America”; so there. ”

Not much discernment from an Anglican in discernment for Holy Orders

Posted on by
1

Geoff from The Rose Maniple made this observation:

One article I read in the aftermath of the new papal bull included a quote from an Anglican layman who said that he was attracted to the RCC’s strong stance on abortion and homosexuality, but didn’t think he could join if it meant signing off on the stuff about transubstantiation or the Virgin Mary (hint: it does). As a gay man who reluctantly swam the Thames in spite of my assent to those doctrines, I was astonished that he would seek out a church on such narrow grounds while sweeping away central Catholic dogmas.

I couldn’t believe that he was so offended at the thought of sharing a church with gays and lesbians that any church with a more conservative line thereon than the Anglican Church of Canada was preferable to him, regardless of whether or not he agreed with its central tenets.

The interview that Geoff regales us with above bears an uncanny resemblance to an interview I had with the Toronto Star a few months ago:

David Jenkins of Oakville said he likes the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and homosexual rights.

“From that point of view, being Catholic is pretty tempting to me,” he said.

He would not switch, however, if it meant agreeing to Catholic tenets of the infallibility of the pope, the role of the Virgin Mary and transubstantiation, or the Catholic belief that the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Jesus.

A reporter’s account of an interview never quite captures what the interviewee actually says, of course, particularly when the interviewer relies on scribbles in a notebook rather than a voice recorder.

So I didn’t quite say what was reported in the Star. I did say that I respect and agree with the clear position the RC church holds on abortion and homosexuality, but the fact that I disagree with the RC doctrines mentioned makes the offer less than tempting. And I would have tried to swallow my own tongue before using “opposition” and “homosexual rights” in the same sentence.

Contrary to Geoff’s assumption, I would not be in the least bit offended by the presence of gays or lesbians in my congregation; I’m not offended by anything much – which is not to say I don’t disagree with some things and agree with others. The important question is, is the church in question Christian, a criterion that Geoff overlooked and which the ACoC is increasingly unable to satisfy.

Not that I suppose I am the actual “Anglican layman” in question.

As an aside, I have come to loath the phrases “swim the Tiber” and “swim the Thames”.

Anglican vicar complains to police to shut down blogger

Posted on by
7

Rev. Stephen Sizer is an evangelical Anglican vicar who can’t – and, considering he is an Anglican vicar, this is such a surprise – help getting tangled up in politics. He is opposed to Christian Zionism, believing that it plays a negative part in the politics of the Middle East; having read some of what he has written, I am unconvinced. Rev. Sizer sounds like a relatively typical Anglican leftist politician-manqué who has the expected knee-jerk bias in favour of Palestine and against Israel.

I have little doubt that the using of his calling as an Anglican priest to dabble in politics – for that is what this is – does little for the Gospel, angers Jews and provides ammunition to Islamists who, given half a chance would destroy the West, including Rev. Sizer.

Seismic Shock is a blog  that regularly criticises Rev. Sizer. The particular accusation that has resulted in Sizer’s complaining to the police, is that Sizer has knowingly associated with Islamic terrorists and Holocaust deniers. The police paid the blogger a visit for a “friendly chat” about his blog.

Rev. Sizer, by resorting to bullying instead of publicising facts that exonerate him of Seismic Shock’s accusations, has reinforced the suspicion that there are no facts that exonerate him.

From Harry’s Place:

As some people have noticed, I’ve been rather quiet in blogging about the Reverend Stephen Sizer’s activities of late.

After all, what more can be said of a man who forwards emails from Holocaust deniers, shares platforms with Holocaust deniers, and shamelessly flaunts his anti-Zionist theology before Iran’s apocalyptic Holocaust-denying regime? As Iranian pastors are arrested and house churches closed down, why is the Khomeinist regime translating Sizer’s book on Christian Zionism into Farsi? How many more times can I point all this out?

Yet there’s another reason why I’ve been quiet, and whilst I’ve held my tongue and my pen for a while, now is time to speak.

At 10am on Sunday 29th November 2009, I received a visit from two policemen regarding my activities in running the Seismic Shock blog. (Does exposing a vicar’s associations with extremists make me a criminal?, I wondered initially). A sergeant from the Horsforth Police related to me that he had received complaints via Surrey Police from Rev Sizer and from Dr Anthony McRoy – a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology – who both objected to being associated with terrorists and Holocaust deniers.

(Context: Sizer has associated with some very nasty terrorists and Holocaust deniers; McRoy has delivered a paper at a Khomeinist theological conference in Iran comparing Hezbollah’s struggle against Israel via suicide bombing with the Christian’s struggle against sin via the atoning death of Jesus, and describes the world’s most prominent Holocaust denier as an “intelligent, humble, charismatic, and charming” man who “gives quick, extensive and intelligent answers to any question, mixed with genial humour”).

Calgary church feeds 150,000 people a year. Loses charitable status.

Posted on by
2

Because, even though it happily feeds anyone in need – including homosexuals – it has the gall to disagree with abortion and homosexual activity:

Calgary church loses charitable status for its “non-partisan political activities”.

A Calgary church has lost its charitable status in part because it spends too much of its time advocating on social issues such as abortion and marriage.

In October, the Kings Glory Fellowship Association, a non-denominational Protestant group, was told by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that for several reasons, including a lack of clarity on how it spends it money, they could no longer issue charitable receipts.

But the letter highlighted that the group spent more than 10% of its time on “non-partisan political activities and therefore strayed into activities “outside its stated purpose.”

“We note … the members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative vies about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc.”

The CRA allows charitable organizations to spend some time on “political activities,” but the cutoff is 10%. A spokesman for the CRA was not immediately available to explain how the percentage of time a group spends on non-charitable works is determined.

Artur Pawlowski, the head of the Kings Glory Fellowship, said his group “has nothing to do with politics and we do not advertise for a party or a candidate. The only political activity you can connect us to is defending our right to speak.”

Mr. Pawlowski said the primary mission of his church is to feed homeless people. He said this group supplies food for about 150,000 a year, mainly to people “that no one else wants to deal with.”

“When we feed people we don’t care whether they are homosexuals or have had abortions or been divorced but we preach what the Bible says about those issues.”

He said the financial issues are just a “smoke screen” and the real agenda is to “keep us quiet.” Mr. Pawlowski also noted that his church has never been audited by the CRA.

I do hope that Archbishop Fred Hiltz leaps to the defence of Artur Pawlowski, since one of the Famous Five marks of mission is to respond to human need by loving service. Fred, are you there? You’re breaking up, Fred.

I wonder why the Anglican church of Canada still has tax free status, since it is almost exclusively a politically motivated organisation that is constantly petitioning the government over one thing or another while actually doing almost nothing useful itself.

The Kings Glory Fellowship Association feeds 150,000 people a year, espouses politically incorrect causes and loses its tax exempt status as a charity.

The Anglican Church of Canada, a national organisation, by comparison feeds almost no-one, peddles politically correct banalities and, mysteriously, still has charitable status.

How To Live A Simple Life: The Little Flowers of St. Jones

Posted on by
2

An Anglican priest is trying to live a simple life just like St. Francis of Assisi. While making this attempt he will be followed around by a full BBC production crew, sound equipment, Add an Imagecameras and computers recording his every excursion into an urban dustbin. Can’t get much simpler that that. Nice simple hat too.

Anglican priest Peter Owen Jones has gone back to basics in the search for a simpler way of living life for a new BBC Two series.

How To Live A Simple Life is inspired by St Francis of Assisi who entered into a life of voluntary poverty after hearing a sermon on Matthew 10, in which Jesus tells his disciples to go and proclaim the Kingdom of God without taking any money or other possessions with them.

The series was filmed over eight months in Jones’ small country village of Firle, in Sussex and sees him grow his own crops and raise chickens.

Taking to the road without any cash, Jones has to barter his skills for scraps of food and throw himself at the mercy of his community as well as strangers.

Jones sees the programme as a personal challenge to discover whether the best things in life are really free after feeling like he had become caught in mindless spending.

“I want to see if there is another way,” he said.

“All the great religions say don’t rely on money – it is too much the measure of a life. And I’m addicted to the stuff!

“I want to see if I can wean myself off it and live a different life.”

Another unrealistic proposal from Ephraim Radner

Posted on by
3

It’s a specialty of his:

An Unrealistic Proposal for the Sake of the Gospel.

In the face of the tragedy in Haiti, I want to make a proposal. It’s not a realistic proposal, I grant; but it is a serious one. My proposal is this: that all those Anglicans involved in litigation amongst one another in North America – both in the Episcopal Church and those outside of TEC; in the Anglican Church of Canada, and those outside – herewith cease all court battles over property. And, having done this, they do two further things:

a. devote the forecast amount they were planning to spend on such litigation to the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church and its people in Haiti; and

b. sit down with one another, prayerfully and for however long it takes, and with whatever mediating and facilitating presence they accept, and agree to a mutually agreed process for dealing with contested property.

Before addressing the “unrealistic” character of this proposal, let’s be clear about the money that may be involved. As I read TEC’s national budget, for instance, over $4 million has been spent already on “Title IV” and litigation matters in the dioceses, and over $4 million more is budgeted for the next triennium. Let’s assume that some comparable amount is being spent by the opposing parties – maybe not as much, but still a lot. I don’t know … $3 million over the past three years and $3 million more over the next? Maybe less. Then there are the dioceses alone that are spending their own money. I know that Colorado has spent upwards of $3 million in these matters, and its opponents again, perhaps less again but certainly a sizable amount. I really don’t know what we’re talking about here – maybe $20 million already spent, maybe more? And certainly another $10 million in the pipeline.

Isn’t this rather crazy? Isn’t this in fact unfaithful? Isn’t this, indeed, perverse and even blasphemous?

And it is certainly so in the face of the needs we have just been witnessing in Port-au-Prince, needs which, it must be said, have been around us all the time these past years, but here have come into a blinding and heart-rending focus.

Rev. Radner has a point; giving large sums of money to lawyers to squabble over who owns a building does seem criminal in the face of what the church in Haiti has suffered.

Of course, it is so much easier to offer advice on how others should donate to good causes than it is to receive similar advice oneself. Radner is Professor of Historical Theology at Wycliffe College, Toronto. I can’t help noticing that Wycliffe College occupies some large buildings in an expensive part of Toronto; they would probably fetch at least $10M if sold to a condo developer – the probable fate of most of the buildings that are now in property disputes. So, Rev. Radner, take your own advice, sell the buildings and, along with Messrs. Bowen, Hayes, Seitz and the rest, find somewhere cheaper – a tent, say – and give the money to Haiti.

Church fetes ‘radicalising Anglicans’ claim

Posted on by
1

Anglican extremism in action:

An extremist Anglican group is infiltrating church fetes and vicarage tea parties in a plot to radicalise churchgoers, according to the anti-terrorist squad.

The group, MoreT4Uvicar, is believed to have close links with Al-cester, with some members allegedly attending training camps in the town.

But the group says that the training camps only provide religious instruction, choir practice and bell-ringing classes.

It’s alleged that the money raised at the events is laundered and used to build and maintain strategically placed fortified stone towers throughout the country.

‘We’re concerned about MoreT4Uvicar and the paramilitary infrastructure being built right under our noses,’ said the head of the anti-terrorist squad. ‘We want to ensure that innocent church-going folk understand the dangers of paying 20p for a slice of Victoria Sponge to these people.’

Anglican vicar blesses gadgets

Posted on by
8

A Church of England vicar is blessing gadgets:

Vicar gives high-tech blessing to mobile phones, laptops and BlackBerries.

A vicar has blessed the mobile phones and laptops of city workers in a church ceremony.

The Rev Canon David Parrott blessed a pile of laptops and smart phones on the altar of London’s 17th-century St Lawrence Jewry church.

The ritual was an effort to remind the capital’s busy office workers that God’s grace can reach them in many ways, he said.

Blessed be: The congregation hold up their mobile phones and Blackberries as Canon David Parrot conducts a service at the City of London Corporation’s church, St Lawrence Jewry, on Monday

‘It’s the technology that is our daily working tool, and it’s a technology we should bless,’ Rev Parrott said.

What exactly does it mean to “bless” a collection of chips on a printed circuit board? Very little, I suspect; coincidentally, Rev. Keith Nethery, media relations officer for the Anglican Diocese of Huron, has been wriggling vigorously here trying to explain why, in the Diocese of Huron, it is kosher to Celebrate a same-sex marriage but not to Bless it. Would he have a problem blessing a Mac running Vista one wonders, or would it be sufficiently deviant to be merely Celebrated.

Most people would probably choose to have their computer exorcised rather than blessed. Come to think of it, perhaps that could apply to same-sex marriages, too.

Anglican Covenant: whitewashing a denomination’s immorality

Posted on by
Reply

I met Bishop Moses Tay around 1990 when I was leading the musical part of the worship at a conference in Canada where he was the main speaker. I can’t really remember much about the theme of the conference or exactly what he said, but one thing sticks in my mind. He said something to the effect that “The besetting sin of North American Christians is that we are too sensitive, too quick to have hurt feelings; we are unable to take criticism”. He definitely used the word “sin”. And I think he was right.

It was refreshing then to hear an Anglican clergyman speak plainly and honestly and it is still refreshing to hear retired Archbishop Moses Tay speak, this time about the Anglican Covenant (the following are extracts):

…. he has advised fellow Anglican leaders not to waste their time on church structures which the Bible describes as dung and instead to concentrate on the supreme tasks of evangelism and discipleship, which he has succeeded in doing in America.

“To me, at best, it (the Anglican Communion Covenant) is whitewashing so the Church remains one and is not split; a lot of crack underneath is not shown,” said The Right Reverend Moses Tay, the immediate past Singapore Anglican bishop and former archbishop of the Anglican churches in Southeast Asia and Nepal.

Speaking today in an exclusive interview with The Christian Post, the retired archbishop said the covenant will not solve the essential problem of the Anglican Communion, which he identified as a crisis of biblical orthodoxy where the historic Anglican counterpart in America has embraced immorality and refuses to repent of it.

“It’s (the success of the Anglican Covenant) dependent on their willingness to repent, but they (the leaders of the American Anglican Church) have no fear of God,” he said, comparing them to Eli, a priest in the Bible whose sons died because he failed to discipline them.

“None of the resolutions have worked. None of the committees have worked,” said archbishop Tay. He described the Anglican Consultative Council, a ‘major decider’ in the Anglican Communion, as ‘U.S.-controlled.’

The archbishop depicted the covenant as an attempt to “draw a bigger circle to include both the gays and the non-gays.”

Some sincere evangelicals support the idea, he said, on the premise that Christians have a responsibility to facilitate the conversion of the liberals, something that cannot be done if they are to cut the latter off from the denomination.

They justify their view by highlighting that Jesus Christ Himself made friends with sinners and so should Christians.

“But Jesus accepting them (sinners) as friends is different from condoning their sins,” said Archbishop Tay, adding that in spite of the attractiveness of human reasoning the Bible is consistent in its warning that no mortal sinner, apostate, homosexual will enter the Kingdom of God.

Filling with passion, the archbishop said: “The Anglican Covenant cannot be of God because if you try to keep the light and darkness together, righteous and immoral together, to say we are a church, it’s disparaging the meaning of covenant… the covenant is a very sacred thing… [It is] God saying, ‘You will be Mine.’ … If you are using the sacred word to include dirt; that use of the word is an abomination.

“I cannot see how Bible-believing people can agree to the covenant,” he said, calling for spiritual ‘discernment’ on the part of Anglican leaders.

He also criticised leaders today for lacking the ‘guts’ to stand up for their convictions.

The archbishop said: “Church leaders will not even sacrifice a little bit of pride for the sake of truth. That is the darkness of the church leadership today. It is too much arrogance, too much human understandings… too much false grace, too much false unity, too much false humility.”

Archbishop Tay said that not only is the covenant an act of disobedience, it is also harmful to the denomination at large.

He said: “For me it’s very simple. If a thing is right it is right. If a thing is wrong it is wrong.”

During the two-hour interview, the archbishop questioned the personal conversions of the spiritual leader of Anglicans worldwide, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and the presiding bishop and other leaders of the established U.S. Anglican Church.

It is because of Archbishop Williams’ failure to speak out against the actions of the U.S. church, he said, that the Anglican Communion is facing the threats of biblical liberalism and of a split – evangelical Anglicans like Archbishop Tay feel that a split has already occurred since conservative leaders held a meeting last year in Jerusalem seen by some of them as an alternative to an all-important conference held every ten years in Canterbury, U.K., for Anglican archbishops and bishops worldwide – between the evangelical and liberal camps.

Archbishop Williams, who is recognised as a liberal, has been ‘accommodating’ the point of view of pro-homosexuality liberals on the grounds that some of them are religious in his view and that a split is an embarrassment and must be prevented at all costs.

As for U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, she has said that “salvation in Jesus is a heresy,” Archbishop Tay said.

The U.S. denomination ‘hates’ the people of God, Jesus Christ and the Word of God and wants to be ‘equal partners’ with the Archbishop of Canterbury, he said.

Clear, direct, honest and – correct.

No swearing or drinking allowed for Welsh clergy

Posted on by
Reply

Rev. Richard Grey, a Welsh vicar has been booted out of his parish for swearing:

A VICAR who is a personal friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury will leave his church today following allegations about his behaviour made by fellow clergymen.

A clergyman from a nearby parish who did not want to be identified told the Western Mail: “I am one of a number of clerics who made formal complaints to the Bishop about Richard Grey.

“I was very concerned at the language he used in a conversation he had with me. It is entirely inappropriate for a clergyman to use four-letter words.

And drinking!

“They have also accused him of having a drink problem, which is totally untrue. He’s a member of the British Legion club and has a drink down there, and it seems some people think that’s not right for a clergyman.

I have no idea what Rev. Richard’s theology is like but I wonder whether if instead of swearing and drinking, he had married a same-sex couple, he would find himself in this predicament.

Obviously Rev. Richard is a bit rough around the edges (he is Welsh, after all); a bit like that carpenter who was crucified a couple of thousand years ago.