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.

…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

The Anglican Mess: Kiwis, Yanks, Comprehensiveness, Liberal Theology and the Bible

Both New Zealand's General Synod and The Episcopal Church's General Convention have just taken place. The Kiwis and Polynesians have decided to study the theology of marriage with a view to somehow "progressing" beyond the merely heterosexual. The Episcopalians have approved a rite for blessing same-sex couples and have decided that transgender issues may not inhibit a person from leadership in the church and ordination. There are plenty of Canadian Anglicans who want to go there, too—several dioceses already have.

There has, of course, been considerable commentary on it all. For example, Anglican Down Under (ADU) who works for Bishop Victoria Matthews and the Diocese of Christchurch, feels that these developments threaten the comprehensiveness he believes has been the Anglican advantage up to now:

Personally I would be deeply saddened to find that the comprehensiveness of the church to which I belong, through birth, baptism, conviction and license, is jettisoned. But worse, I see signs that it would be the beginning of the end of this church. As Anglicans used to being the largest and greatest church of the land, we can miss seeing the bigger picture of contemporary Christianity in these islands. In that bigger picture we are increasingly a smaller player. The growth areas in congregational life are in churches of other denominations and even of no denomination. Anglicanism could disappear tomorrow off the face of New Zealand's earth and Christianity would continue to thrive, grow, permutate and develop. In particular, Christianity of the non-Anglican variety is showing itself as particularly adept at winning young people to Christ. And, guess what, most are joining up to a discipleship programme which is not liberal/progressive. 

I see a huge temptation in the GS of 2014 to determine that when most of the rest of Christianity in Aotearoa New Zealand is conservative, traditional, biblical in its orthodoxy and orthopraxy, ACANZP can become the liberal/progressive alternative. My prayer, wish, agenda and campaign here (for what it is feebly worth) is that our church does not take that turn, but determines, whatever re-examinations take place in the next two years, that we will both remain a comprehensive church and be part of the mainstream future of Christianity in these islands.

In that same post (all here) ADU also refers to a New York Times piece on the subject: "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" in which one, Ross Douthat, comments on the headlong Episcopal push to progressive-liberal theology:

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase. 

Traditional believers, both Protestant and Catholic, have not necessarily thrived in this environment. The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message. 

But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance.

All here.

There's more! ADU puts his finger the underlying and real issue behind and through it all in another post entitled "Let's change the Bible. No, let's silence it!"

It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into, Ollie, and that's a fact!

Posted with Blogsy

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Votes to Bless Same Sex Marriages

I'm surprised they went before we Anglicans did. I thought Lutherans were more stringent with their theology.

This is just wrong.

For comment and reportage, see here, here and here.

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.

St Alban's Ottawa Folk Forced From Their Building

A sad day. An injustice methinks. I agree with George Sinclair's belief that the parish is the rightful owner of the property "legally, canonically and morally"—especially morally.

I also like the way he describes the problem in much of the Anglican Church of Canada:

If you end up thinking you’re smarter and nicer and wiser than the master, in what way are you still his disciple? … The Bible is very clear on certain things, as to what is right or wrong.

H/T Anglican Essentials Blog

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad :-)

Why the Anglican Church of Canada Can't, In Conscience, Sign On to the Anglican Covenant

A good piece by Dean Mercer and Catherine Sider-Hamilton in The Anglican Journal:

Since we are already proceeding with same-sex blessings in three dioceses, it would be self-contradictory, if not dishonest, to approve, still less adopt, the Covenant. 

I think they're right. As Archbishop Jensen suggests in the post below, the crisis is past, we must now live with the consequences.

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.

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.

Anglican Communion Covenant Digest for Today

A good discussion and summary with links over at the excellent and thoughtful Anglican Down Under here.

The thing that lit up for me in it all was this from the "Covenant Working Party Commentary on Revisions to Section 4:"

If, however, the canons and constitutions of a Province permit, there is no reason why a diocesan synod should not commit itself to the covenant, thus strengthening its commitment to the interdependent life of the Communion.”

Let's get at it!

Anglicans Must Change or Die

Sobering words by Steve Weatherbe of canadianchristianity.com. His article focuses on the Diocese of British Columbia's development director, the Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi, who calls for the Vancouver Island Anglican diocese to encourage growth by requiring

50 percent of rental incomes be spent on evangelization; by rewarding clergy with higher salaries and more holidays; by training those that don’t grow their parishes – and, if necessary, move them to non-leadership positions, or out of the ministry entirely.

It's not just a BC problem. It's an Anglican Church of Canada, Diocese of Calgary, StB and my problem, too. Lord, have mercy.

All here.

Lord Carey on the Roman Cat(holic) Among the Anglican Pigeons

In "Cause for Sadness and Celebration" for The Washington Post, Lord Carey, erstwhile and most recent Archbishop of Canterbury, gives his take on Pope Benedict's offer of a Roman Catholic 'Apostolic Constitution' for "Anglicans wishing to flee their own troubled shores."

I enjoy the way Lord Carey thinks and expresses himself. This on why we have this complicated Anglican predicament:

Historically, we have been a Church formed and shaped from a 'troika' of three traditions - evangelical, high church and liberal. Many evangelicals are now hiving off to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and refusing to have anything to do with the rest of the church. If Anglo-Catholics are wooed by Rome we could see the Church of England becoming a mainly liberal church, espousing little more than tolerance and liberality in all things; a kind of green party at prayer. Yes, the troika we have inherited has been, at times, a wild group of horses but, for myself, I would rather have that, than what we are likely to have if distinctive groups go their separate ways.

We do indeed live in uncertain times but I remain quite convinced that Anglicanism stands for something that is not quite caught by other traditions and, with respect, not even by Rome. That is to say, Catholic and Reformed. This has sometimes been put in the Latin tag: 'Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda' (the Church reformed and constantly in need of reform). In faithful continuity to the past and yet open to all that God wishes to reveal to us through the fundamental sources of our faith, namely, the scriptures.

Our mess is a fine one, indeed.

All here.

A Momentous Vatican Announcement and Two Anglican Choices

In his Hope Among the Fragments, Ephraim Radner writes that we conservative Anglicans only have two choices; stay, or go back to Rome.

A New Road to Rome

The Pope's invitation to disaffected Anglicans has now made the second of Radner's choices  a real option (see the Catholic News Service article here).

Staying On

On staying, "Staying On" by Philip Turner, an excellent piece over at The Anglican Planet:

As I understand it, my role as a Presbyter is to protect the church from strange doctrine rather than go to another place whenever error rears its ugly head.

…past divisions leave all sorts of opportunities to find a church that is more to my liking–one that seems a little more faithful. On a relative scale of things there are no doubt a number of more faithful options.  But to my mind, to avail myself of one or another of them is simply to repeat what I believe to have been an inadequate grasp of the way in which God has confronted the defection of the world.  No matter how noble my intentions and no matter how understandable my reasons, I, nonetheless, repeat in my own life the divisions of the past.  In so doing, I avoid once again, as did my forebears in the faith, the way my Lord took.  He stayed on.

All here. (H/T Canon James Robinson)

And, for better or for worse, that's where I find myself at the moment.

The Great Divide: Two Gospels, Contrasting Views

The view from one side of the divide

Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Shori in her opening address at The Episcopal Church's General Convention a few days ago on what she calls "the great Western heresy":

that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

From the other side

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, William Carey:

Let's not have any truck with bland theology, that Jesus is just one option among many. Dialogue with other faiths is very important, but I can respect another faith and a believer of that faith by saying I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Do with that truth what you may, but my job is to say that to you.

Choose life.

Melanie Phillips on the Resignation of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the Church, Multiculturalism and Secularism

Melanie Phillips, columnist for The Daily Mail, calls the resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, a "terrible blow." Here's why:

Dr Nazir-Ali is one of the very few inside the church to make explicit the link between Christian and British values, and to warn publicly that they are being destroyed through the prevailing doctrine of multiculturalism.

That strong voice of protest has never been needed more than it is now. For Christianity in Britain is under attack from all sides.

And I wonder about the lack of episcopal voices making explicit the link there ought to be between Christian and Canadian values and the influence of our own increasingly doctrinaire brand of multiculturalism.

Although the anti-Christian onslaught is more advanced in Britain than in Canada, we are well on our way. She goes on:

Take for example the proposal by a regular churchgoer that the churches should ring their bells on St George’s Day, to proclaim that the Christian element of English identity is in robust health.

Only five out of the church’s 44 bishops back the plan while the rest have scuttled for cover. The Bishop of Chester frets about the danger of such ‘public displays’ of confidence, while the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds murmurs faintly: ‘I am not sure assertiveness is a Christian value.’

Such cultural cringe would be comical were it not so tragic. For this is precisely how the church has all but destroyed itself. Instead of asserting its core beliefs against aggressive secularism, it has tried to accommodate its own destroyer.

As a result, it stopped doing God and spirituality and holding the line for Biblical values and mutated instead into a branch of nonjudgmental social work — a kind of Guardian newspaper at prayer. The resulting moral vacuum now threatens not just the church but the nation itself.

Although most people may no longer be churchgoers, Christianity infuses all this country’s institutions, traditions and values.

These have been systematically attacked by a secular culture of unlimited self-indulgence and self-destructive behaviour, resulting in the collapse of the married family, rising crime, drug and alcohol abuse and a grievous erosion of the sanctity of human life.

Canadian Anglican bishops seem to be no different and the Anglican Church of Canada continues its inexorable slide to accommodate the spirit of our age.

The only episcopal voice I hear making any reasonably assertive effort to hold the line for Biblical values in the public arena is Fred Henry, Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary. God bless him.

On "Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other"

I follow Mark Driscoll's blog over at The Resurgence. He's been doing a series on various theological topics…short pieces from a reformed Calvinist perspective. Martin Luther is the subject of today's post. Driscoll quotes Luther's response when he was called upon to recant his reformed views:

Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear, and distinct grounds of reasoning . . . then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen.

That would be my challenge to Anglican leaders who are advocating doctrinal revision around the authority of Scripture and sexuality: instruct and convince me with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear and distinct grounds of reasoning.

Instead, the tools of Anglican instruction and convincing I read about are changed locks, lifted licences, punitive litigation,  and name-calling.

God help us, indeed.

A Case For Faithful Anglican Staying

As is so often the case; ideas, opinions and thoughts about what concerns me float about in my mind "without form" until one day I come across something which crystalizes and settles them into a coherent form. This, from Philip Turner, Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner over at VirtueOnline, is such a something:

It is now the case that the people we know do not see any near possibility of reform and they no longer pursue such purposes. They have recognized the futility for near term of politically realistic change. However, they do hold certain convictions, and they do have certain commitments that give shape to their present actions-actions that hardly qualify as passive. These convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states. They grow from trust that God will use faithful witness in his own time and in his own way to bring about his purposes-purposes that do not stem from our imaginings or our desires but from God's justice and God's mercy.

This is where I now find myself

The experience of two General Synods have convinced me of how unlikely reform is in the Anglican Church of Canada and the futility of any attempts at Biblical or orthodox theological argument in the face of the well meaning but tragically mistaken revisionist tide. Yet this is the time and place into which God, in his wisdom, has called me.

So patient and enduring witness it is 

Turner, Seitz and Radner are committed to: 

witness rather than a strategy designed to bring about a desired future state. Our work is not to take this kingdom by force of design and tactic, but to make a faithful witness, practice faithful endurance, and wait upon the Lord to see what he will make of what we do and say.

Certainly my attempts at "design and tactic" have not been particularly fruitful in the wider church, or in my parish, for that matter.

I find I am strategically challenged, alas

I am, however, capable of faithful endurance. I don't much like it, but, with the Lord's help, it's doable. 

The whole piece here.

And not only that…

In a piece by Timothy Morgan of Christianity Today, one Russell Levenson Jr, Rector of the largest Episcopal church in the United States, explains why he and his parish are staying:

Daniel had to stay in Babylon, but did not abandon his faith. Jeremiah was not given another Israel. Ezekiel had to preach to the dry bones. When Jesus and his message were completely rejected, he did not leave. He wept. He stayed. He did not move on to Egypt. He stayed and faithfully preached when they believed and when they did not believe.

John Stott's Counsel

Levenson visited with John Stott recently. They talked and prayed about the challenges facing the Anglican Communion. When he asked Stott for his counsel, Stott said:

If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, 'the church is evidence of God's patience.' And we just don't know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share.

Faithful staying, witness, endurance and preaching…

…while leaving the outcomes to the LORD are the order of the day for the likes of  Turner, Seitz, Radner and Levenson. Me, too, I guess.

O Lord, write these on my heart and may our faithfulness lead to Kingdom fruitfulness in the Anglican church. 

Read the whole interview with Levenson here.

Pope's Remarks on Sexuality will widen Anglican rift: a No-Bull Christmas Message

I found a thought provoking comparison of the clarity of Catholic and Anglican expression in a piece by Andrew Pierce in The Telegraph entitled, "Pope's remarks on sexuality 'will widen Anglican rift.'"…

Rev Geoffrey Kirk, a vicar in south London who is general secretary of the traditionalist Forward in Faith organisation, said: "It should not be a surprise that the Pope is a catholic and makes clear statements supporting catholic teaching.

"If there is confusion about what he said it is not because he is not clear - it will be because people chose not to listen to what he said. If there is confusion about what Rowan Williams says it is because he is not clear. We are in such a mess in the Anglican church, clarity on sexual morality is now impossible."

Rev Kirk said that even though the remarks of the Pope would increase pressure on the Archbishop to clear up the confusion he expected no movement. "Rowan will not be any clearer on the issue," he said. "He is an Anglican."

One of the things I admire about Pope Benedict is that he is a "no-bull" Pope—he says what he believes and what he means clearly. While I appreciate Anglicanism's breadth, many of our North American leaders go too far in compromising Biblical clarity with Anglican smoke and mirrors.

Read the whole article here. H/T Anglican Mainstream.

On Smells and Bells

On the one hand, something that makes my heart sing from Matt Kennedy over at Stand Firm (in a post on the use of incense in worship):

we embrace the essential biblical truths recovered during the Reformation...

1. Sola Scriptura--the bible is the sole infallible source of revelation, the primary authority in the church by which all doctrine and discipline must be tested and measured.

2. Sola Fide--sinners are justified through the instrument of faith alone

3. Sola Christi--Christ's righteousness, sacrifice, and mediation is the sole basis or grounding for the justification that is communicated to sinner by faith alone.

4. Sola Gratia--the whole arch of salvation, from beginning to end, is due to and grounded in the free gracious gift of God and for no merit or deserving on our part.

5. Soli Deo Gloria--God's purpose in Creation, Judgment and Redemption is ultimately his own glory.

Therein lies our hope, our future and our salvation.

A pleasing Aroma

And speaking of "smells," I've always enjoyed it although I've discovered you need a high ceiling in your sanctuary. We tried it one Christmas Eve in the low-ceilinged St Francis in Airdrie, Alberta. One of the acolytes fainted dead away in the blue, sweet smelling haze. Flat on her face. Talk about being slain in the Spirit.

More from Matt on the sweet "smells" issue here.

A Less Pleasant Odour and Yet Another Warning Bell

(H/T The Essentials Blog)

The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Bishop of Montreal intends to proceed with same sex blessing despite the recent House of Bishops decision.

Why is it that we only seem to hear from the liberal revisionist bishops in the media? I wonder why our conservative bishops are so quiet? Faithful Anglicans who are trying to stand for Biblical orthodoxy within the ACoC need to hear some encouragement from their episcopal leaders. We need to hear something Biblical and clear and firm to counter the bland, nuanced, official Anglicanese which always tries to say yes and no at the same time and which, therefore, ends up saying nothing definite at all. And we need to hear it from the bishops within the institution otherwise it seems as if it's only the Southern Cone or the Global South bishops who are concerned about what is happening to our church.

When those who are silent seem to consent, it's hard for us in the trenches not to be discouraged as the mud gets deeper and the stench increases.