Anglican Communion makes an Encore on Colbert

27 07 2008




Lovely Resolution from the Episcopal Church of Sudan

22 07 2008

Im trying to avoid a lot of the news from Lambeth until it is over, but I did stumble across this amazing resolution from the bishops of the Episcopal Church of Sudan. The bolded parts are what really got to me

July 2008

In view of the present tensions and divisions within the Anglican Communion, and out of deep concern for the unity of the Church, we consider it important to express clearly the position of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) concerning human sexuality.

We believe that God created humankind in his own image; male and female he created them for the continuation of humankind on earth. Women and men were created as God’s agents and stewards on earth We believe that human sexuality is God’s gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman. We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this.

We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.

The unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound significance to us as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities. We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.

Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada, to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular:
- To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops or priests
- To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships
- To cease court actions with immediate effect;
- To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference
- To respect the authority of the Bible

We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion.

We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council; and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.

We appeal to this Lambeth Conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided. We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of division. We pray for God’s strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in unity as the Body of Christ.

The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul
Archbishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and Bishop of Juba

What is so refreshing about this is that it

  • Addresses the primary issue of the Church (witness of Christ)
  • Realizes that the present controversy, no matter whos side your on, makes us look incredibly bad to just about everyone
  • Affirms the nature and uniqueness of communion, as a tribute to the power of Christ, and expresses a desire to preserve it, so that we may better share the gospel.
  • Appeals to the American and Canadian Churches to change their behavior, instead of condemning them with words such as “schismatic” or “heterodox”

Good Work. I hope we see more statements like this coming out of churches.

UPDATE

Another Comment by The Archbishop of Sudan HERE

I want to highlight this segment from his statment.

“This issue of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion has a very serious effect in my country. We are called ‘infidels’ by the Moslems. That means that they will do whatever they can against us to keep us from damaging the people of our country. They challenge our people to convert to Islam and leave the infidel Anglican Church. When our people refuse, sometimes they are killed. These people are very evil and mutilate and harm our people. I am begging the Communion on this issue so no more of my people will be killed.

My people have been suffering for 21 years of war. Their only hope is in the Church. It is the center of life of my people. No matter what problem we have, no material goods, no health supplies or medicine; no jobs or income; no availability of food. The inflation rate makes our money almost worthless and we have done this for 21 years. The Church is the center of our life together.

The culture does not change the Bible; the Bible changes the culture. Cultures that do not approve of the Bible are left out of the Church’s life; people who do not believe in the Bible are left out of our churches…

Wow. This man should be made a saint.

+Alex Resurgent





Prayer for Lambeth…

18 07 2008

Good Evening,

For the next few weeks the bishops of the Anglican Communion are meeting in Lambeth to discuss issues, to pray, worship, and grow together as the visible head of the church. I pray for her sake, that the Holy Spirit would be active in this conference, opening the ears, eyes, and hearts of those involved; that through the conference wounds would be healed, and new bonds formed.

And also for the Church outside her bishops, her members, that we may derive some hope from the conference. There are many out on this blogosphere that are less then hopeful for this conference. I pray that we too would see this time as healing, and look for the brighter things that come out of the depths of chaos. Although some skepticism maybe warranted; God is big and can work in His Church.

This is my prayer for the next two weeks, and I ask you to pray the same.

+Alex Resurgent





The Nature of the Keys

18 07 2008

With the Church of England’s decision to elevate women to the episcopate, there has been a lot of discussion about the nature of Holy Orders, especially the role of bishops and the life of the church. This is not of immediate concern to me, or at least, why I am spending time reflecting on this.

I am currently discerning a call into the “ordained ministry” and what that would look life for myself. For the past few years, whenever I told pastors that I was interested in becoming ordained, they would usually make a comment about how I should take time to pray and make sure it was my calling. Solid advice, but I was/am pretty sure that it is my calling. And I feel like Im making progress with pastors because they are now asking me instead “why the ordained ministry?” “Why not teach as a layman, the church has lay pastors and lay theologians. Why not do that?”

Its a valid question, and it got me thinking. I have absolutely no idea no idea what it means to be ordained, and what makes it different from a lay ministry?

Martin Luther, in his Small Catechism, states that…

The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinner, but to with-hold forgiveness from the unrepentant…

Thus the job of the pastor is to ensure that the forgiveness and absolution of God is administered and realized on the congregation. Fair enough.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, I choose you…

The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the people of God by teaching…, divine worship…, and pastoral governance…

Yes, I did open that up with a reference to Pokemon. The CCC affirms this sacred-power approach, but expands it to other things besides absolution of sins: teaching, leading worship, and sacred bureaucracy.

Next we turn ordination serive for Priests found in the book of common prayer

In all that you do, you are to nourish Christ’s people from the riches of his grace, and strengthen them to glorify God in this life and in the life to come.

Priests are to carry out a sacred lifestyle for the benefit of others.

Finally, for the win, the bible…

So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.

There were a few other verses pertaining to the mission of the church, but that one cut to the heart of the matter.

It seems that there is a mystical otherness attached to ordination. With the laying of hands, an ontological change occurs. So the change between lay ministry and ordained ministry is that lay ministry proclaims truth; ordained ministry administers truth.

Thus going back to the original question “Why not lay ministry? Why not Ordained ministry?”

I really do not have an answer that that. I really cant answer that. I can say that I want to take part in the secret things of God, but that doesn’t mean that I’m cut out for it. It almost sounds arrogant.

All I can say is that I “feel called” to it, which seems just as out there as the concept itself.

+Alex Resurgent





Unity in Essentials…

7 07 2008

Time For a Christian Truce

I really do not want this to become one of those “religious political” blogs, where i sling mud at the right or left. Ill sling it wherever it needs to be slung. So I don’t want this post to be critical of Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec’s person, or even his logic.

In his article “Time for a Christian Truce”, Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec states that we can never truely know anything about our faith, and that it is time for Christians to settle their differences and preach the gospel. I could not agree more with him on this point. In specific he referenced the dispute between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Anglican Network in Canada. Indeed I would love it if Anglicans, or Christians for that matter, would stop warring over minute things and propagated the gospel. But I do have a problem with his thinking, and it is a very common train of thought, and it can have very real effects on the message that we preach.

In the article, Grabiec uses the example of the Arius controversy in the 300’s. Arius argued that Christ was a created being that God the Father gave some sort of divinity. This was condemned as heresy, and rejected. Grabiec seems to say that such beliefs are secondary to the bigger message of God.

I disagree. I think that if we are going to preach the Gospel, we should be fairly clear about what we believe, and make sure that it makes sense.

Arius’ argument didn’t check with the facts. There are two ways that Christ could have been a created being (please tell me if there are others). Way 1: He was a normal human whom God enabled to be sinless and amazingly wise, possessing healing powers. Way 2: He was below God, but above humanity, a sort of Angle or super angel. Each sounds plausible, but each makes it impossible for salvation to work.

We are told that the wages of sin is death, and the only way to atone for sin is through a Human sacrifice. If this is the case, than a Divine-Human Christ’s death would have atoned for the sins of one man. (I swore earlier tonight, sorry guys). A super-human being Christ would have saved no one but himself, because it is clear that what is to be saved, must be assumed. Thats why it must be a human sacrifice, nothing else would have legitimately worked.

This is why Arianism was rejected, it did not fit the understanding of the faith. This is just a small example amongst the myriad of disputes. My point is that we as a Christian community do need to have some unity in the faith that we profess. Its a shame that so many disagreements have divided us so much. But If we say that “anything is possible, really don’t know” to everything, we won’t have much of a faith to profess.

And That would be a larger shame unto itself

+Alex Resurgent
Eighth Sunday After Pentecost





Brief Thoughts on GAFCON| Part Two

4 07 2008

It would appear that my colleague +N.T.Wright beat me to the punch for my second thought on GAFCON.

Article 13 of the Jerusalem Declaration:

We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

The fifth section of the GAFCON final statement read as such, again, emphasis my own

Primates’ Council

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, do hereby acknowledge the participating Primates of GAFCON who have called us together, and encourage them to form the initial Council of the GAFCON movement. We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans.

We urge the Primates’ Council to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.

We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread,and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons.

We thank God for the courageous actions of those Primates and provinces who have offered orthodox oversight to churches under false leadership, especially in North and South America. The actions of these Primates have been a positive response to pastoral necessities and mission opportunities. We believe that such actions will continue to be necessary and we support them in offering help around the world.

We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council.

I have a few concerns about the bolded areas.

The first is in regards to this Primate’s Council. I, along with many other observers, would like to know what powers this council will vest itself with, and who will ‘make the cut’ to join the council.

The second is like it, what will the New North American Province look like? They mention the Common Cause Partnership, which is a confederation of Nine Different Anglican groups, each with a different orientation, goal, system of oversight, ect… Will these groups unite and become “The Church of of the Province in the New World” (Yes, that is my suggested title), or will Orthodox Anglicanism turn into something like the Orthodox Churches with a myriad of jurisdictions, all in inter communion?

My big beef is, however, with this exclusionary tone in the passages above. It sounds like this Council has given itself the right to determine what “Orthodox Anglicanism” is. I do not think anyone will pretend that some highly suspect Bishops exist within the Episcopal Church, but I don’t think all of them are, although many maybe more liberal than the GAFCON primates would like. Would these Bishops be heretics? What is the litmus test for abandoning the faith? And who gets to set it?

On a whole, Im happy that over a thousand people came together and reaffirmed their Christian belief, but I would like to see more clarity in some of their proposals before I can say that Im on Board.

+Alex Resurgent
Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle





Brief thoughts on GAFCON| Part One

3 07 2008

GAFCON is over, the communion is still intact, everyone has something to say. So why not throw my two cents into the giant Coin-Star Machine that is the Anglican blogsphere.

The Final Statement Can be found Here

The significant meat of the statement is found in “The Jerusalem Declaration.” By and large it resembles your run of the mill catechism , something that most people should be able to agree with. I did have some concerns though. Many, myself included, have the stance that Anglicanism is the third branch on the tree of apostolic faith, with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. A few passages in the statement lead me to believe that those in the New American Province may not be as dear to that idea as we are.

The first was around article three which reads:

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I’m just curious as to why the first four councils. There were Seven before the East-West Schism (after that they took a very administrative nature). I would like to know why the leaders of GAFCON rejected the repudiation of Monosphysitism (5th Council), the affirmation of Christs dual wills (human and divine – 6th council), and the veneration of icons (7th council). These are major decisions in the life and history of the unified church. We should be affirming them as part of our common heritage.

My second concern is found in article four which reads (emphasis my own):

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

I want to know what “authoritative” is defined as and how it would be manifest. I am more “Anglo-Catholic” than I am “Calvinist Evangelical”, and as such I have certain qualms with the following articles.

XXV. Of the Sacraments…
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

I uphold that all seven Sacraments are divinely instituted and are useful in spiritual formation, and would say that by limiting God to Two Sacraments is limiting his power.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper…

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Many Anglicans do belive that the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ -in a manor that may or may not be transubstantiation, we can not know how- and should be honoured as such. After all, we pray in the BCP that the Holy Spirit would make it as such.

I understand that they have been formative in Anglican development, and have been enforced (if at all) with varying amounts of leniency over time. I have no doubt that Anglo-Catholics and High-Church-Anglicans would be welcome in the New American Province, but Im not sure how the leadership would react to such deacons, priests, and bishops. Would they permit such beliefs, or crack the whip to enforce the Calvinism.

Likewise I wonder how these views will effect our Eccumenical Relations. Granted this is currently just a faction of the church, and every church has them, but if this becomes the prevailing statement of modern Anglicanism, how will this effect our relations with the Catholics and Orthodox. Many of us yearn for communion with our ancient brethren, something that we have been growing towards more and more in the past century. I would hate to have this statement destroy our chances at that, and inhibiting our place as an ancient church in the process.

+Alex Resurgent





That they may be one…

30 06 2008

Due to recent events, both in my life and the life of the Anglican Church, topics of Church Structure and Spiritual Authority have been on my mind a lot, and this is probably the first in a series revolving around that. Bare with me…

An old friend of I had a good discussion about church unity, and what constitutes it. I shant bore you with the play by play details, but I think her point was that the Roman Church is the only “valid” church, and the rest of Christianity (including myself) should reconcile ourselves to Rome. There is validity to her argument. Christ Himself wished that we would be one, and that is something that we should all strive for.

But what would this “unity” look like? The Roman Catholic Church mastered this concept for millenia, with a strong bureaucracy (the Pontificate), and a universal language for worship (Latin). The Congregationalists likewise turned “unity” into an art by not having any institutional (or necessarily theologically) but still by maintaining an identity.

A few images of this unity come to mind:

Unity in Baptism and Belief in Christ
The church arguably has this already, save for a few exceptions. All Christians profess a belief in Christ, and most have been baptized. Baptism may seem like a small unifying factor, but it is also nearly-universally recognized as being valid, regardless of who did the baptism. Unfortunately the unity ends there as many Christians have fundamental disagreements about the basics of the faith, such as the nature of Christ, his work, and how it relates to the world today.

I try to keep this Unity at the front of my mind, especially when talking theology with people. I may believe that one thing is true, and that the other person is guilty of total heresy, but at the end of the day, they are still my brother or sister in Christ.

Unity in Creed or Confession
This is probably the second most prevalent form of unity; unity centered around a Confession or Catechism, and can be found prominently amongst the protestant churches (Small Catechism for Lutherans, Belgic Confession for Reformed churches, 39 Articles for Anglicans). Plus side for this is that Families of Confessions actually have a basic common faith and history, downside is that they don’t have to share a common vision on what the faith should look like. How many Lutheran/Presbyterian Denominations are there? In a way, these divisions may be even more personal that the inter-denominational divisions.

Unity in Governance
This is a HUGE one, and responsible for more divisions than any other, probably because it is the strongest form of unity, with less room for liberty. Churches united through behemoth style bureaucracies can be amazing for providing unity across states or nations. I think that it is amazing to know that, as an Anglican, I can walk into an Anglican church anywhere on earth and know about what Im going to get, and know that I have a direct institutional link with that church. I cant say that about non-denominational churches. This fact is true for Catholics and Orthodox churches, and to a lesser extent the mainline protestants. The HUGE downside is that it is very easy for the little guy to get over run.

On a side note, the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches maintain belief in Apostolic Succession, the faith that they posses an unbroken linage of Bishops to the apostles. Plus side: provides connection the past and some legitmacy of the faith. Downside is that it can be easily hijacked by wayward Bishops who can preach apostasy under the guise of legitimacy (See Liberal Catholic Churches).

I dont know what “Unity” is supposed to look like today. I dont think that my freinds dream of a universal Roman church will come anytime soon. The Second and Third views, although provides coherency in faith, also breeds division, disdain, neither of which are Christian virtues; meanwhile the first candy coats serious differences that need discussion.

Any thoughts?

+A. Resurgent

Feast of St. Peter and St Paul





Anglican Theology per N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report…

22 06 2008

Great Interview, I encourage watching it at the Colbert website, but it isnt quite what I want to address.

About Two Thirds of the way into the interview, Bishop Wright defines all of Anglican theology in a nutshell:

The great thing about Anglicans is that we have no theology of our own; if something is true, then Anglicans believe it… or that’s the theory anyway.

Bishop Wright did two great things in that sentence, one is that he defined Anglicanism in a brevity that I have tried to achieve when explaining it to my friends.

Secondly, in the disclaimer he addressed the strain occurring within the communion right now, and what is causing it. There a dozens of theories as to what is at the heart of the mini-schism between the Episcopal Church and the Wider Anglican Community. The media blames it on homosexuality, many Anglicans would argue that it hinges on ‘the authority of scripture’, others would attribute it to fear of change, selling out to society, or a myriad of other things. But, whether Bishop Wright agrees to it or not, it all comes down to truth. What does it look like, where do we find it, what do we do with it.

The Anglican method for finding truth is the “three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.” And, unfortunately, the Homosexual issue has pitted the legs against each other. The “traditional marriage” argument invokes scripture (after all Christ is the way, the truth and the life” and tradition (its never been done before), while the “pro SSM” side invokes reason (homosexuality is natural, how can it be sinful?) coupled with the scriptural principal of equality (for there are no more Jews and Gentiles in Christ).

What I hope we find with Gafcon and Lambeth is a further exploration into what us confessionless Anglicans define as truth. Perhaps if we cant agree on this, its time for us to split, and thats a suggestion I dont make lightly.

+Alex Resurgent





Worthwhile Artice on the Anglican Commuinon

20 06 2008

Split Identity, Divided Loyalties? – By Global South Anglican

Good Overview on the Global situation, lengthy, but worth it.