My Struggle| Legitimacy

Lately I have noticed a very serious presence of arrogance. It started around my confirmation, and is getting stronger every day.

Most noticeably, it turns up when I’m (usually reluctantly) talking theology with people. I go to a Dutch Reformed school, dominated by Catholics, and am in a Wesleyan family. Usually in these discussions I am the one defending things like apostolic succession, episcopal governance, the sacred nature of the sacraments, or why I don’t recognize the Pope as the end-all-be-all of church authority (but still think of him as a swell guy). I try to be diplomatic, but in the back of my head and heart I am secretly thinking “give up your Presbyteries, come back to the true church”

More Dangerously though, my arrogance turns up when I’ve been meeting with people to discuss and discern possible paths for ordination. I’ll ask  my questions and listen to what they have to say, and then something along the lines of “There is no way I am going to be a pastor in the Reformed Eastern Anglo-Catholic Church – Lutheran Rite, they are not truly of God” Usually my reason for thinking this is rather stupid to.

That is very dangerous. In the first example, its a simple disagreement, we all have them; Coke vs. Pepsi, Obama vs. McCain, AFC vs. NFC. Life moves on. But in the latter, Im not just waging a debate, I am dismissing an entire demographic as not being of God, dismissing their faith as a sham, dismissing them as people.

This is my struggle. If I do enter the ministry, I should go into it thinking that my tradition is the most holy way to be in communion with God, meaning that I have to denounce other traditions as insufficient faiths. How can I take this position, and still see the fact that God is at work within these other traditions, that their faith is as legitimate as mine?

+Alex Resurgent

The Nature of the Keys

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

Brief Thoughts on GAFCON| Part Two

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

That they may be one…

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