Decline or Renewal in the West?

Some sobering stats including the graph above and an interesting read at the Church Growth Modelling blog here. I wonder where the Anglican Church of Canada would fall on the chart.

Interesting thoughts on the matter in a different post on the same blog where the writer wonders why the Church of England's decline is less precipitous including this:

Of the four denominations the C of E has been influenced more by Charismatic Renewal than the others, despite the “Renewal” starting with a US clergyman [10]. Additionally The C of E’s expression of charismatic renewal has also  been more evangelical, including a revival in expository preaching. Perhaps the C of E has been more open to revival than the others. (The rest here)

Something that blesses my Anglican Renewal Ministries heart and something for which to pray—that the Anglican Church of Canada would be not only influenced by Charismatic Renewal, but thoroughly refreshed and revived by it. Oh, yes!

The Anglican Communion's Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order Has Urged The Anglican Church of Canada Not to Amend Its Marriage Canon

Something of which we Anglicans need to be aware:

The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has urged the Anglican Church of Canada not to amend its marriage canon (church law) to allow the marriage of same-sex couples, saying such a move would “cause great distress for the Communion as a whole, and for its ecumenical relationships.” 

The IASCUFO’s statement came in response to a request from the Canadian church’s Commission on the Marriage Canon for an opinion about proposed changes to Canon 21 that would allow for same-sex marriages. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, decided IASCUFO would be the “most appropriate” body within the Communion to deal with such a question. (See more here.)

Back in September I posted some information on The Anglican Church of Canada's Commission on the Marriage Canon to which IASCUFO refers. That post included a link to the more than two hundred submissions received by the Commission (including my own) here.

Please pray that the Holy Spirit's direction would be clearly heard and obeyed concerning this difficult and divisive matter and that The Anglican Church of Canada will respond humbly and wisely.

A Delicate State: Thoughts Arising From Archbishop Welby's Address to the CofE's General Synod

Recently I read The Anglican Communion's Challenges and The Way Forward, Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s address to the Church of England General Synod. Anyone looking for a magic bullet to solve all our problems, toss out the bad guys and make everything better will be disappointed. Instead, the Archbishop acknowledged that we are “a flourishing Communion but also a divided Communion” and that he is "utterly daunted by the differences that exist. They are huge,” and “our divisions may be too much to manage.” No rose-tinted spectacles there or here:

In many parts of the Communion, including here, there is a belief that opponents are either faithless to the tradition, or by contrast that they are cruel, judgemental, inhuman. I have to say that we are in a state so delicate that without prayer and repentance, it is hard to see how we can avoid some serious fractures.

To resolve the issues we face

is almost unimaginably difficult, and most certainly cannot be done except with a whole-hearted openness to the Holy Spirit at work amongst us. It comes with prayer, and us growing closer to God in Jesus Christ and nothing else is an effective substitute. There are no strategies and no plans beyond prayer and obedience. 

Prayer, repentance and obedience. I can’t argue with that. The trouble is I’m inclined to think it’s the people I believe are in error that need to pray, repent and obey the most. And then, what if I’m right? Or, is it remotely possible that I’ve been log-blinded and am wrong? How then shall I behave? Archbishop Welby again:

…the future of the Communion requires sacrifice.  The biggest sacrifice is that we cannot only work with those we like, and hang out with those whose views are also ours.  Groups of like-minded individuals meeting to support and encourage each other may be necessary, indeed often are very necessary, but they are never sufficient.  Sufficiency is in loving those with whom we disagree.  What may be necessary in the way of party politics, is not sufficient in what might be called the polity of the Church. 

Even when we feel a group is beyond the pale for its doctrine, or for its language about others or us, we must love. Love one another, love your neighbour, love your enemy. Who in the world is in none of those categories?

Sacrifice and love. As Jesus did, Welby covers the all love bases: one another, neighbour and enemy. No loop-holes there. Then

underpinning us is a unity imposed by the Spirit of God on those who name Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

A unity imposed by the Holy Spirit. Can withdrawal from relationship or schism be imposed by the Holy Spirit? Paul calls the Corinthians not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, to go out from them and be separate (2 Cor 6:14-17) but when we think believers are in error, what then? Might something like Paul's instructions to the Thessalonians apply?

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15 ESV)

I am reminded of Prime Minister Harper's recent treatment of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit: "I guess I'll shake your hand, but I only have one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine." Would our equivalent be, "I'm obliged to love you (agape, not phileo), but I have this to say to you, you need to stop/get out of/ repent of thus and so?" This after considerable self examination with prayer and repentance, an honest and sacrificial commitment to obey Scripture and to love the persons with whom we disagree.

More than almost unimaginably difficult, perhaps. Yet, we live and move and have our being in a world where a virgin gave birth to son who was subsequently raised from the dead. I don't understand how the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ did that any more than I can see how he might hold the Anglican Communion together in a way with which all parties can live and enjoy, but I know he is capable of much more than my puny mind can ask or imagine. And a good thing, too.

Towards Another Great Awakening: a Revolutionary, Revivalist Archbishop of Canterbury!

Photo Credit: New Wine UK

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, speaking at New Wine:

…when things in the Church are not going well, or in bits of the Church historically, God does not repair; He renews. He doesn’t just stitch it up; He gives us something new.   

…There has never been a renewal of the Church in Western Europe without a renewal of prayer and the life of religious communities; never. If we want to see things changed, it starts with prayer. It starts with a new spirit of prayer, using all the traditions, ancient and modern, of prayer. When it comes, it will be linked to what has gone before, but it will look different, because it is a new renewal for new times. God’s created community is perfectly designed for its time and place. It always comes from below; almost always. It comes from Christians seeking Christ, and is often - says I, looking at the one bishop I can see from here - is often opposed by church leaders, and especially archbishops. 

We must have a new movement of prayer, and I commit myself to opposing it, because that seems to work.  

…we are in a time of revolution, and we need another revolution in the Church. What it looks like, I do not know, but I want to be in it. What it feels like is Jesus-centred, fire-filled, peace-proclaiming, disciple-creating, and the Church word for this revolution is revival.

O, yes! Will you not revive us again, O LORD! Read the rest here.

Next Prayer for Revival at StB on Wednesday, August 14th, from 11am to 5pm. Come and go as you like.

Not Just Rotary With a Pointy Roof: Archbishop Justin Welby on His Faith and the Church He Serves

An encouraging read this morning. Charles Moore, a school mate of Justin Welby, writing in The Telegraph. Apart from the title of this post, the following statements caught my eye particularly:

Does he know Jesus? “Yes. I do. He’s both someone one knows and someone one scarcely knows at all, an utterly intimate friend and yet with indescribable majesty.”

Because he came to faith dramatically, he has few prejudices about which tradition to inhabit. “I am a spiritual magpie,” he says. As well as speaking in tongues (a Protestant practice), he adores the sacrament of the eucharist (a Catholic one). He also says the morning and evening office, Book of Common Prayer version, in the chapel of the palace, every day. “Today it was Psalm 51, which is penitential. If you come in thinking how brilliant you are, it’s good to say that psalm.”

All here. H/T Anglican Down Under.

 

Posted with Blogsy

…and Then There Were Twelve

In its authorizing the blessing of same sex relationships, the Diocese of BC becomes the twelfth in the Anglican Church of Canada to do so.

The tear in the fabric of the Canadian Church and Anglican Communion grows longer.

Alas. Lord, have mercy.

H/T Anglican Essentials blog.

Posted with Blogsy

Mutual Loyalty and a Definition of the Anglican Communion

The oldest and probably still most widely accepted understanding of the Communion is that offered by the 1930 Lambeth Conference and subsequently quoted in the preamble to TEC’s constitution. It defined the Communion as a “fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury,” which have in common “the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer”; that “they are particular [dioceses] or national Churches”; and that “they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.”[From "South Carolina: A Communion Response" over at The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., here (H/T Covenant: when you come together to eat, wait for one another)] 

That's the best definition I've seen so far. I can see why the Covenant is creating such a stir. It smacks too uncomfortably of "central legislative and executive authority." But I fear "mutual loyalty" is being stretched, even abused, of late.

Authority is given, power is taken. Just so with loyalty. True mutual loyalty must be earned and given out of trust. If I'm going to do what I feel "the Spirit" is calling me to do, even though it is done in a "duly constituted" manner, and even though you and I have never come to consensus on the rightness of the matter through "common counsel" in "conference," and even though I know you think what I'm doing is wrong and contrary to the teaching of Scripture, I am the betrayer of the "mutual loyalty" in our fellowship, not you.

How, then, should I behave when I feel my loyalty has been stretched and betrayed?

I found an uncomfortable answer today. David Lamb teaches Old Testament and writes a blog, Is the God of the Old Testament…?, in which he finishes a short series on Jeremiah 29:11, "everyone's favourite verse in the whole Bible," and also the verse most taken out of context, with this, on what he calls the best verse in Jeremiah 29:

Seek the welfare of the city where I sent you into exile, pray to YHWH on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare (Jer 29:7). 

What? Yes, those brutal, barbarian Babylonians who ravaged your land and enslaved you, you need to love them, bless them and pray for them. That sounds like something Jesus would say (Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you: Matt. 5:44). 

I think it’s wonderful that God has plans to bless me and give me a future and a hope, but according to Jeremiah 29:7 that promise is tied up with me seeking the welfare of my enemy-neighbors. God wants to bless me, and part of the way that he does that is by calling me to be a blessing to others, even people who I could reasonably hate. [From "The plans God has for me? (Jeremiah 29 Part III)" here]

Love, bless, pray for and seek the welfare of my betrayers? That's stretching loyalty too far the other way. Isn't it?

(David, by the way,  has also written a book with the eye-catching title, God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?)

++Rowan on Authority, the Covenant and an Holy Flash Mob

Thoughts arising from the Presidential Address by the Archbishop of Canterbury at ACC-15 recently.

On Authority

When the people say of Jesus that he speaks with authority, not like the experts, I don’t think they mean that he’s simply a good problem solver. Those words occur when Jesus has performed spectacular acts of liberation. The authority in question is an authority to act and an authority to make a difference. An authority that enables and empowers. 

The Archbishop thinks the Communion needs to be more about enabling authority, which "astonishes people" and out of which liberation comes, than corrective authority.

I don’t say that the one removes the need for the other. I don’t say that the one is more vital than the other. But I do believe that the one is more distinctively of the Gospel than the other. 

Yet, enabling authority ought not to trump corrective authority with what the Bible calls sin.

The Covenant

I still hope and pray, speaking personally, the Covenant has a future, because I believe we do have a message to give the Christian world about how we can be both catholic and orthodox and consensual, working in freedom, mutual respect and mutual restraint. Without jeopardising the important local autonomy of our Churches, I think we still need work on that convergence of our schemes and systems, and I say that because I believe we all need to wake up to the challenges here if we are not to become less than we aspire to be as a Communion.

Shared orthodoxy and mutual restraint have been the biggest challenge.

Holy Flash Mob

I love the way the Archbishop referred to the work of Christchurch young people after the earthquake as a "flash mob of grace." That would be a good way to describe the revival I've been on about in previous posts. Pray for the church to be transformed into one.

Worth the read. All here.

Anglican Drift: Canadian Dioceses and Same Sex Blessings, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Bible in the Life of the Church Project

…upset with the continuing drift in the Anglican world. 

Canada 

The Anglican Essentials Canada Blog recently reported that the Diocese of Rupert’s Land has now joined British Columbia, New Westminster, Edmonton, Niagara, Huron, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in making the blessing of same sex unions possible. That's a third of the dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada. 

It seems that in deciding not to make a decision on the matter, General Synod 2010 was not so much allowing time for growing consensus as making the way clear for dioceses to go ahead severally. There has been no intention of holding off for the sake of the communion. It's hard not feel duped. 

The Anglican Consultative Council meeting in NZ

Things are not much better on the international level. Canon Phil Ashey, Chief Operating and Development Officer for the American Anglican Council writes: 

In terms of what seems to be emerging, I would respectfully suggest the following as a “pincer” movement that ACC/ACO is going to place upon confessing Anglicans: 

1. Through Continuing Indaba dialogue and stories, bolstered by the work of the Bible in the Life of the Church (BILC) resources, Biblical interpretation of human sexuality and its limits will be rendered value-neutral with no limits on Biblical interpretation within the Communion. Lambeth 1.10 will be declared in effect non-binding; 

2. Then, through the new Code of Conduct and the Safe Church resolution, any objection to sexual expressions that are not Biblical will be deemed “harassment,” chilling any speech and bringing consequences to those who, in Anglican communion meetings, dare to raise the subject. 

I pray I am mistaken, but that is my best look into the future. 

…also from The Anglican Essentials Canada Blog and just as disturbing. 

Bible in the Life of the Church

There was a report from the Bible in the Life of the Church project at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in New Zealand. Why do such projects so rarely call for deeper submission to Scripture in the Anglican world? On the contrary, the authority and reliability of Scripture is constantly called into question. Personal experience, a culture of victimhood and postmodern progressive cultural mores trump the Scripture every time.  

Anglican Down Under comments on the Anglican Consultative Council and the report:

if its celebration of the report on the Bible in the Communion is a guide, any time there is disagreement about truth, we celebrate our diversity instead of mourning our loss of unity. Such response is scandalous, a stumbling block to true Christian "progress"…

Celebrating diversity constantly is a shell game, an avoidance of the hard work finding the truth involves. The point of theology is to seek truth. Stopping when the going gets hard with a celebration of diversity of viewpoint is intellectual laziness. We will only progress as a Communion when we repent of our apathy and move forward zealous for the truth.

But then, there's no longer such a thing as objective truth. All is relative.

Anglican Down Under, also shared this comment on the project: 

After three and half years of worldwide research, the Bible in the Life of the Church project has found that Anglicans around the globe share “a high common ground” over the essential place and use of the Bible in Anglican life. 

How can a communion which can't agree on whether it is even God's Word possibly have a "high common ground"? And that's before we get onto interpretation, criticism, contextualisation etc. The authors appear to have done a thorough job in their research, but it doesn't seem to pass the common sense test. Why is our communion falling apart if we all agree on our foundational text and its meaning for us today?

To me it always feels like the truth of Scripture and the importance and uniqueness of Jesus as Saviour is always being called into question and watered down. I continue to be saddened by it all.

Saving Christianity: Liberal or Conservative

Below is my piece for today's "By the Way," the local clergy column in The Medicine Hat News. As I read it again I'm thinking I should have made it clear that I am a Christian who is more on the conservative end of the spectrum than liberal. I agree with Douthat and Marks more than Butler Bass.

As a result of The Episcopal (United States Anglican, that is) Church’s recent General Convention, there’s been a flurry of activity in the press and blogosphere about the fate of “liberal” Christianity. 

For example, New York Times op-ed columnist, Ross Douthat, asks “Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?” He points out that in the last decade The Episcopal Church experienced “something between a decline and a collapse…average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.” He suggests that by being “flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes…liberal Christianity has simply collapsed.”

In response, Jim John Marks, in his The Life of Meaning blog, asks, “Why Should Liberal Christianity be Saved?” “Getting hip to the culture,” he writes, “is not the way to reach people, and to save them. The culture around us is what people need saving from. The more you look like it, the less effective you can be.”

Then, on the Huff Post Blog, author Diane Butler Bass, reckons the real question is not so much about just liberal Christianity, but “Can Christianity be Saved?” “Decline is not exclusive to the Episcopal Church,” she writes, “nor to liberal denominations--it is a reality facing the whole of American Christianity.” Far from being the problem, “Can Liberal Churches Save Christianity?” she wonders. ‘The twenty-first century has yet to answer that, but I think we may be surprised.”

There are also liberal and conservative expressions of Christianity in Canada and Medicine Hat. We struggle with similar problems. Many of our churches are also in decline. Divisions can, and do, arise here, too. The challenging question for those of us who follow Jesus is how to treat the people with whom we disagree. Jesus is clear on the matter. We are to love, do good to, bless and pray for them; and not just those with whom we disagree; but even our enemies and those who hate, curse, and mistreat us (Luke 6:27-28). When we disagree, even sharply (Acts 15:39), there is always the commandment to love (Mark 12:29-31).

In any case, if there is any saving to be done, Jesus will do it. 

Why I Stay: a Response to Kate (and others who might be wondering)

My response to a challenge from Kate on this post where she asks why my "time, talents and money are still with the ACoC."

Time and Talents
Here is my—what? Rationale? Too strong a word, perhaps, it's more a heart-faith thing for me. I'm not sure I can defend it all that well. However, here goes:

• I am not aware that the LORD has given me permission to leave my post
• Radner's observation in Hope Among the Fragments seems to apply to me; i.e., we have two choices: go to Rome, or stay. Further splits are a problem for me. 
• Jeremiah didn't leave…an example there
• Jesus seems to suggest that both wheat and weeds ought to be allowed to grow together for now. I am uncomfortably aware of my own weediness should the weeds be gathered and burned at the moment.
• I'd have to leave too many of the people I love and was called to serve at StB
• to support my Bishop

All that said, I do not like the way in which some ACoC bishops and dioceses treat ANiC folk. The property grab (see my naughty doodle here) and use of secular courts is very unlovely. Do I find it comfortable in the ACoC? No. Do I think my staying will change its course? No. But following Jesus is not as much about my personal tastes and comfort as it is being obedient, nor is it as much about being effective and right as faithful. And this is where I've been put.

I have to confess I rather envy (sin, I know) the folk who have left. It sounds wonderful to be among like-minded people in a growing, tension free (or at least tension free-er) community.

Money
My tithe is due to the LORD through my local church. It seems to me that has little to do with whether I approve of what is done with the money or not. I don't always approve of the way my own congregation uses it. If folk further up the line misuse that money they will have to answer for that.

…and So?
Not very tidy or well reasoned, but that's about it. See here for a previous attempt at answering the same question based on some better reasoned arguments from smarter folk than me.

Progess or Backwardness: David Warren on the Vancouver Riot

In his usual straight forward manner, David gets right in amongst it:

Nor is Vancouver to be especially condemned, for something that could happen and has happened elsewhere. What makes Vancouver interesting is that it is socially more "advanced" - has gone farther down the road to which all Canadian society has been trending. It is Canada's most "progressive" city. We see here what that progress has been toward; what lies just under the surface of all that smileyface, laid-back, "inclusivity."
Compare Calgary, whose Flames both won and lost Stanley Cup finals without property damage. Among large Canadian cities, Calgary is supposedly most "backward." It is the redneck town; the wild west of oil rigs and cowboy capitalism. We need more such enterprising backwardness.

I find myself reminded of what these last few months and years has shown to be lying "just under the surface of that smileyface, laid-back, 'inclusivity'" of some of our "progessive" Anglican bishops. Perhaps we, too, need more enterprising "backwardness"—especially when it comes to Holy Scripture and our rich tradition.

All here. 

Things That Make Me Go, "Say what?" in the March 2011 Anglican Journal

The Anglican Journal (March 2011) got up my nose today. The masthead on the front page says "Inspiring the faithful since 1875." Inspiring them to what, I wonder? For me a sense of disappointment and grief.

Focal Point for What?
The front page story about the primates meeting was subtitled “A focal point for unity.” Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori and Primate Fred Hiltz smile at us from the accompanying photograph. How can the primates who represent the provinces whose unilateral actions resulted in the empty chairs be considered part of any kind of point, focal or otherwise, for unity? The idea is misleading, to say the least.

Anglicanorum Ignoratio Elenchi
Michael Ingham states that the papal ordinariate for Anglicans, Anglicanorum Coetibus

is directed primarily at the Church of England where there are a number of Anglo-Catholics who are dissatisfied with women bishops.

Does he really not realize the significance of his role in bringing the Anglican Communion to the present situation and making the ordinariate necessary? But then, he also says

The number of people affected in Canada is expected to be very small.

Well, it must be okay then.

(Widipedia tells me Ignoratio Elenchi means missing the point).

The Fundamentalist Threat
And then there’s a full page lauding Brent Hawkes, pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church; the first pastor to preside at the wedding of a same-sex couple. “Bullets over Broadway," it's called, "Toronto pastor leads way for social justice” (and away from historic gospel of Jesus Christ). The article concludes:

In Hawke’s view, moderate religious leaders must stand beside secular leaders in confronting social injustice of every stripe. “Whenever there’s a confrontation between secularism on its own and religious fundamentalism, the latter always wins out.” 

I don't know where he gets that idea. Fundamentalism, or even mild, reasonable Biblical conservatism doesn't seem to be anywhere near winning out in Canada or the Anglican church.

Tikanga: the place where you stand
Primate Hiltz' piece on Tikanga is good. So are the pieces on Lent and a Church in a trailer in Manitoba. But meanwhile, in the editorial, Kristin Jenkins suggests yoga retreats for inner battery recharging. Why would a follower of Jesus choose that rather than an Ignatian or Franciscan or some other Christian form of spiritual refreshment?

I don't want to be a grinch, but I find the Journal's political correctitudes and liberal spin doctoring distressing and discouraging. If the Journal is an accurate reflection of the place in which Canadian Anglicanism now stands, then it seems that I can only stand there, too, as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mexico Adopts the Covenant

According to the Anglican Communion News Service, Mexico has become the first Communion Province to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant following its VI General Synod in Mexico City on 11 and 12 June.

Ole´!

All here.

Accountability, Autonomy, Canada and the Anglican Communion

In commenting on Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Shori's Mitre adventures in England, the most excellent Anglican Down Under has done an insightful piece on accountability vs autonomy in the Anglican Communion in which he writes:

It would have been most helpful if Canada in its recent Synod had followed up its protestations of closeness to TEC with a signal action that it too was more committed to internal dynamics around homosexuality than to uninhibited membership of the Communion. It did not, and that, surely, is something more important to think about at this time than being mitreless at communion in Southwark.

Most helpful to TEC, I think he means. Affirming the Sexuality Discernment statement, even with all it's "diverse pastoral practices," "local contexts" and "different local discernment," nuances and qualifications, can be interpreted as more about continuing full membership in the Communion and accountability rather than autonomy. I appreciate that.

Anglican Down Under goes on:

It is very clear that some member churches such as Canada value their membership of the Communion highly and will not imperil it if they can help it.

I'll drink to that.

And more:

If the colonial days of the Communion are over then so are the pioneering days. What is counting for the future is accountability not autonomy. If the Spirit is moving in the Communion today then it is in building coherency among the majority of Anglicans. Unchecked diversity is yesterday's news. In unity is our strength; the centre cannot hold if things fall apart. The question of our relationships as member churches is not whether our rights for autonomous action will be respected under the Covenant. The important question is whether we understand the blessing accountability brings: the unbreakable strength of true union in the body of Christ.

May we Anglicans be so blessed.

Read it all here.

Post-Crisis Consequences in the Anglican Communion: Archbishop Peter Jensen on the Global South Encounter

UPDATE: Oops! Thanks "Anon" for pointing out my error is calling the Archbishop Jenkins rather than Jensen.

Comment from Sydney's Archbishop Peter Jensen, General Secretary of GAFCON/FCA, on the recent Anglican Global South Encounter and the Anglican "crisis":

The crisis moment has now passed. Many of the Global South provinces have given up on the official North American Anglicans (TEC and the Canadian Church) and regard themselves as being out of communion with them. They renew the call for repentance but can see that, failing something like the Great Awakening, it will not occur. 

I am saddened to know that my church helped to precipitate the crisis that is now past. Jensen believes that the Anglican Communion is now living out the consequences of that crisis.

On the Anglican Covenant—he writes about a discovery in the small group to which he was assigned:

We were discussing covenants, and the issue of the Anglican covenant emerged. Very gently but firmly the group let me into a secret. It was all very well to have a covenant, but what if the people have different ideas as to what a covenant may mean? What if you were in covenanting with westerners, whose word could not be relied on? Of what use is a covenant then? Look at the state of marriage in the west. Consider the western capacity to use slippery words. What would a covenant be worth?

Not only do they see the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) as body that caused the crisis, but they see us as unreliable "slippery" talkers.

Jensen has a challenge for we orthodox who remain in the western churches like the ACoC:

Right action demands that we understand our own times accurately. If I am correct, that we now belong to the post-crisis phase, we need to know what such a moment requires. Action in this phase is no less demanding. One thing is for sure: those who wait and do nothing will be playing into the hands of ideologues who have had such a triumph in the west. This is especially so for the orthodox in those churches in the west which have yet to come into their moment of truth. For them there can no longer be, ‘A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest…’ (Proverbs 24:33). Instead they must wield, ‘The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’ (Ephesians 6:17), if they wish to survive. This is at the heart of what I observed in Singapore, and it is in this, as in the communiqué, that I believe that Global South, like GAFCON/FCA, is pointing to the Anglican future.

All here. H/T Anglican Down Under.

Anglican Global South Encounter in Singapore Wraps Up

In their latest newsletter The Anglican Network in Canada communications folk have done an excellent summary of the results. The Anglican Church of Canada features prominently although not in a good way. For example, the Global South Primates call for:

• A condemnation of the continued defiance of the clear teaching of Scripture by the Anglican Church of Canada and the US Episcopal Church.  (See section #16)
• An expression of solidarity with Archbishops Mouneer Anis (Jerusalem and the Middle East), Henry Orombi (Uganda) and Ian Ernest (Indian Ocean).  “[We] are encouraged by their decision not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present”.  (#17)
• A request that all Global South provinces that have not officially declared they are out of communion “reconsider their communion relationships with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada until it becomes clear that there is genuine repentance”.  (#18)
• An assurance of love and prayerful support for the “Communion Partner” bishops and the orthodox Anglicans they represent within the Episcopal Church. (#19)
• Embrace of the ACNA. “We are grateful that the recently formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a faithful expression of Anglicanism. We welcomed them as partners in the Gospel and our hope is that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners.”  (#19)
• A desire to strengthen and rewrite the proposed Anglican Covenant. “We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.”  (#21)
• A desire to restructure the Anglican Communion.  “We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.”  (#22)
• Also, perhaps of symbolic significance, the Archbishop of Canterbury is mentioned in the paragraph devoted to the ecumenical speakers at the meetings. (#6)

Find the whole newsletter with lots of helpful links here. 

I hope the Anglican Church of Canada will pay attention and turn back from its present course at the General Synod in June.

COMMUNIQUÉ FROM THE PRIMATES' COUNCIL OF GAFCON/FCA

The The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) Primates have weighed in on the confirmation of Mary Glasspool as suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles (GAFCON was a seven day conference of conservative Anglican bishops and leaders held in Jerusalem in June 2008).

I like the way they define themselves as a body determined to:

give witness to the life transforming gospel of Jesus Christ and the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Then, on the topic at hand:

We acknowledged that the issues that divide our beloved Communion are far from settled and that the election of the Reverend Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian,  is a Bishop in Los Angeles in The Episcopal Church (TEC), makes clear to all that the American Episcopal Church leadership has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture.

This action also makes clear that any pretence that there has been a season of gracious restraint in the Communion has come to an end. Now is the time for all orthodox biblical Anglicans, both in the USA and around the world, to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous stand for the historic faith and their refusal to participate in the direction and unbiblical practice and agenda of TEC.

The Anglican Church of Canada is also being cited as having committed itself to patterns of life which are contrary to Scripture. Our General Synod in June could be significant in this regard. Uganda's Primate Orombi has called the Archbishop of Canterbury not to invite the US Presiding Bishop and Canada's Primate Hiltz to future Primates' meetings because of it all.

So how does one "demonstrate a clear and unambiguous stand for the historic faith"? By making one's beliefs known to one's leaders. By participating in the councils of the church and by speaking out in favour of biblical and historic principles and by not voting for resolutions which take us away from such principles. By treating the people who are personally struggling with these lifestyle issues with compassion and love.

I'm sure there are other ways.


Read the whole statement here. H/T The Anglican Essentials Blog. 

CofE Resolution in Support of the Anglican Church of North America(ACNA)

If you haven't seen it yet, here is the text of the resolution:

That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada
a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family
b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011
Votes for 309, against 69, abstentions 17
Motions to pass to next business and to adjourn the debate were lost.

Notice that Canada is included. There's a ton of comment all over the blogosphere, but I like David Virtue's take:

First of all, the resolution said orthodox Episcopalians are indeed being persecuted by revisionists; however much TEC leaders whine that the brokenness is caused by those leaving, the resolution says otherwise.

Secondly, the resolution said that these faithful orthodox Anglicans want to remain in the Anglican family and not become outsiders. In fact, it did more than that. It was a wedge that will, in time, lead to a full chair at the Anglican Communion table.

…the rest of David's piece here.

Sabbath Interesting Bits: Anglicanism, Marriage, Leadership and theCovenant

My Sabbath is on a Wednesday this week. Some interesting bits from my blog reading this morning:

More Anglican good news

…this time from The Rev'd Dr. John W. Yates II who lists the good things about Anglicanism. At its best, Anglicanism:

1. is Biblical
2. is Sacramental
3. is Evangelical
4. is Liturgical
5. is Worldwide
6. is Charismatic
7. is about Accountability (we have bishops)
8. is Musical
9. Engages society and the world us
10. is Prayerful
11. is a Community of Grace
12. loves Children
13. loves Beauty

All here (H/T VirtueOnline).

What Marriage and Leadership Have in Common

In our Sabbath devotional this morning, Jude and I read this:

Contrary to hundreds of Hollywood romance movies, marriage is not primarily designed to make us happy. God is not primarily interested in our happiness, but in something deeper and more lasting: our holiness. Or we might say that God is so interested in our long-term happiness — our eternal joy, which only holiness leads to — that he reserves the right to sacrifice our short-term happiness to ensure we receive it.

Ditto for leadership. Kevin Miller, here.

The Anglican Covenant

The excellent ANGLICAN DOWN UNDER has a good point about the living with an Anglican Covenant and whether or not it can work:

Is homosexual practice compatible with Scripture? Some say No, some say Yes. But together we have not yet agreed to one of two things which would accord with a common approach to truth: either that it does not matter if an open contradiction on this matter is a feature of Anglican life, or that it matters that there is an open contradiction but nevertheless we can live with the contradiction.

That's the question. Wise Kiwi. All DOWN UNDER here.