General Interest Anglican Headlines

Scripture’s task is to tell people, at the risk of their displeasure, the mystery of God and the secrets of their own hearts—to speak out and make a clean breast. There are many ways to say and write these truths: in oracles, in poems, in novels, in sermons, in satire, in journalism, in drama. Honestly written and courageously presented words reveal reality and expose our selfish attempts to violate beauty, manipulate goodness and dominate people, all the while defying God. Most of us most of the time, whether consciously or not, live this way. Honest writing shows us how badly we are living and how good life is. Enlightenment is not without pain. But the pain, accepted and endured is not a maiming but a purging. “Every significant utterance is a wound” but ‘faithful are the wounds of a friend.’”

--Eugene Peterson, Run With Horses (Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1983), p.128

In a ruling written by Justice Ming W. Chin, the state high court said the property of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach is owned by the national church, not the congregation. The congregation split away after the national church ordained a gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire, in 2003.

"When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it," Chin wrote for the court.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles applauded the ruling even as he held out an olive branch to St. James and other parishes sued by his office.

Read it all.

The 38 page pdf is here.

Sure would be nice if that happened . . .

From NRO:

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is absolutely right to warn against Obama’s gigantic stimulus-spending package. McConnell says it “will be the largest spending bill in the history of our country at a time when our national debt is already the largest in history.” As a result, he says the bill “will require tough scrutiny and oversight.”

According to McConnell, scrutiny should include this simple test: “Will the yet unwritten, reportedly trillion-dollar spending bill really create jobs and grow the economy — or will it simply create more government spending, more bureaucrats, and deeper deficits?”

The Republican leader is drawing a clear line in the sand. Okay, good. But the GOP has got to do more. It must start talking about tax cuts to grow the economy. And it must get back to the supply-side by talking about lower marginal tax rates on individuals, businesses, and investors.

We don’t need bailout nation. Nor do we need the government picking winners and losers in a massive, Keynesian, new-New Deal spending extravaganza. And it’s not Obama’s middle-class tax cut that’s going to get us out of this economic jam. At best his vision is incomplete. But at worst his aversion to successful earners and investors is a real obstacle to full economic recovery.

from here (PDF)

by Phil Johnson

...In my message that morning a decade ago, I pointed out that the spirit of that kind of panic-mongering was 180 degrees at odds with a whole string of Jesus' commands in Matthew 25-33. I mostly just explained the biblical text.

I admit I wasn't prepared for the reaction I got that morning. There was a smallish group of people in the church who were fully into the Y2K hysteria, and they approached me in a phalanx as soon as the service was over. The guy who would have been their spokesman (if his wife hadn't kept interrupting him) was so angry he was red in the face and spitting when he talked. He said he was going to meet with the elders and demand equal time to tell the people of Grace Church they needed to start stockpiling food and preparing for the looming crisis. He likened me to me a holocaust denier.

I stood there and listened to them for ten minutes or so until they began to calm down a bit. I let them talk and did not interrupt, except to ask how they thought Matthew 6:25-34 applied to our society in 1999.

As the spokesdude began to lose some of his steam, he said, "Look: all I know is that if you're wrong, you are guilty of placing the people of our church in mortal jeopardy by not encouraging them to stockpile food and prepare Y2K bunkers. But if I'm wrong, the worst that will happen is that I will have to come back and apologize to you for losing my temper."

"Will you do that?" I asked.

...more

How weird a year was it?

Here's how weird:

• O.J. actually got convicted of something.

• Gasoline hit $4 a gallon -- and those were the good times.

• On several occasions, Saturday Night Live was funny.

• There were a few days there in October when you could not completely rule out the possibility that the next Treasury Secretary would be Joe the Plumber.

Read it all.

I don't see a theological "argument" anywhere in this piece. I see a lot of references to current societal norms -- but am not certain what that has to do with the practices of the church. And the historical example of the "abbess" is precisely the wrong example as the abbess was not purporting to be ordained and is, in fact, the perfect example of women in leadership and "rising to heights of power" -- if that's what this has come down to -- without ordination.

From the Times Online, where there is more:

Senior politicians are in favour of breaking up the all-male enclave of the 26 bishops in the House of Lords, the cleric tipped to become Britain’s first female Anglican bishop believes.

Canon Jane Hedges says that there is increasing discomfort at the highest levels of the Establishment that the power wielded in the Lords by bishops is entirely in the hands of men.

As Canon Steward at Westminster Abbey, she is in a position to know. She has access to the corridors of power and has met nearly everyone at the highest levels of the Establishment, from the Queen and the Prime Minister down.

In an interview with The Times, Canon Hedges, 53, said: “We pick up from parliamentarians that there would be strong support for women bishops.”

Unlike some male bishops who have recently attacked the Government for pursuing economic policies that have contributed to the country’s financial woes, she is also urging a more conciliatory response to the recession. She believes that worshippers should use the unique status of the established Church, the only institution with a presence in every parish, to help to rebuild a sense of community and encourage people to help each other.

Doesn't the 12/50/1000 standard for dioceses penalize small parishes?

The question refers to Canon 1 of the Provisional Canons of the Anglican Church in North America which reads:

“A diocese, cluster or network is a grouping gathered for mission under the oversight of a bishop consisting of a minimum of twelve congregations with an Average Sunday Attendance ("ASA" calendar year) of at least fifty each and a collective ASA of at least 1,000. These requirements may be modified on a case-by-case basis by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Provincial Council.”

The Canons and Constitution are designed to encourage the growth and development not only of existing dioceses, networks, and clusters (I'll be using one word, “diocese” from this point on, because dioceses, networks and clusters are used as equivalent terms) but also to provide incentives for the creation of new ones. The hope is that congregations across North America will form regional and/or theological affinity groups for the purpose of growing into a diocese and applying for representation in the Provincial Assembly.

But unless some kind of measurable standard for the size and shape of dioceses is established at the outset there could be at least tfour negative consequences.

First, the Provincial Assembly (in which every ACNA diocese is represented by a minimum of a bishop two clergy and two members of the laity) could easily cease to fulfill its representative function. Delegations from dioceses with say 10 parishes of less than 20 people at worship each might have the same legislative clout as delegations from diocese with 15 parishes of over 60 worshipers apiece.

Second, the legitimacy of the province could be called into question by the inclusion of paper “dioceses” in the Provincial Assembly. There is an unfortunate tendency among some Anglican groups to consecrate bishops for and form “dioceses” comprised of small numbers of small congregations. A province made up of “dioceses” like this would be more pretense than province.

Third, there could be a proliferation of bishops. The unregulated proliferation of bishops or, for lack of a better phrase, “episcopal inflation” plagues conservative Anglican bodies in North America. Some bishops exercise their “jurisdiction” over little more than a handful of parishioners. Episcopal inflation within an ecclesial body tends to de-legitimize the body as a whole and produce damaging cynicism in onlookers both within the and outside the organization.

Lastly, the ACNA is presently made up of a number of existing Common Cause jurisdictions that hold to a variety of sometimes conflicting theological principles. Without measurable standards for the creation of dioceses, jurisdictions could be accused of “stocking” the Assembly for the sake of gaining legislative power.

The benefits of the 12/50/1000 standard are fairly evident by contrast with the negative consequences that have already been described, so I'll name only a few of that are not implied above. The 12/50/1000 standard:

1.Promotes unity in the ACNA through the breakdown of existing jurisdictions. For the first few years after the formal establishment of the ACNA, jurisdictions like CANA and the REC will be formally represented on the Provincial Council. Afterwards, the Provincial council will be elected by the delegates to the Provincial Assembly. Representation in the Assembly, from the start, will be by diocese, in accordance with the 12/50/1000 standard, not jurisdiction. CANA, for example, will not be represented as CANA. Instead each group within CANA meeting the 12/50/1000 standard will apply for representation on the Assembly. If successful, the various jurisdiction blocs within ACNA will, over time, melt away and dioceses will become the building blocks of the province

2. Provides for honest self-assessments. Some have questioned the use of Average Sunday Attendance to measure the size of a congregation and diocese. The ASA standard is not perfect. My own congregation, for example, probably has about 110-115 regular worshipers, people who attend at least twice a month. But our present ASA is around 90-100 because a good portion of our regulars have jobs that require them to work on Sundays and others are college students who go home for weekends and holidays. So ASA does not provide a perfect measure of a congregation's size and health because the actual numbers can be depressed by various circumstantial absences but it far exceeds the other commonly used measures. “Membership” and “Communicant” numbers are far too unreliable. Many congregations boast membership numbers that dwarf the actual worshiping congregation. The temptation for leaders to console themselves with membership numbers while the actual Sunday worship crowd dwindles is great. ASA provides an honest assessment of size and health in precisely the venue that matters...the pews. And it will hopefully discourage mission complacency on the part of highly endowed, high membership parishes.

3.Creates incentive for newly forming dioceses. The 12/50/1000 standard provides a goal toward which any group of congregations, anywhere in North America, organized regionally or by theological affinity can strive. Once the 12/50/1000 measure is met a grouping of congregations willing to live within the Constitution and Canons of the Province can apply with great confidence for representation in the Provincial Assembly.

Finally, some have mistakenly assumed that the 12/50/1000 somehow prevents dioceses from including small parishes and congregations as “congregations” or “parishes” in their polity. This is not true. The standard has nothing to do with the internal definitions or standards for parishes within various dioceses. It is assumed that dioceses that meet the 12/50/1000 standard will include any number of smaller congregations. The standard is s provincial measure only. It does not define or describe what constitutes a parish on the diocesan level.

The 12/50/1000 standard, then, is not a “penalty.” Rather, it is a measurable way to ensure the legitimacy, quality, and the mission focus of dioceses within the new province and the province as a whole.

From The Telegraph:

The poll of General Synod members found that only half of them would support the compromise deal proposed by the Church.

After years of bitter wrangling over the issue, a report was published last week that advocated creating a new class of clergy to cater for traditionalists who refuse to accept women's ordination.

However, 41 per cent of respondents said they would not back such a solution, and a further eight per cent said they were undecided.

Figures on both sides of the debate argued that providing "complementary" or "flying" bishops for opponents of female bishops was unacceptable.

While traditionalists said that this did not represent a satisfactory safeguard, supporters of women bishops claimed it is too great a concession.

The overwhelming majority of the Synod - 70 per cent - believe that Anglo-Catholic priests will leave the Church if the current proposal becomes law.

Earlier this year more than 1,300 clergy, including 11 bishops, warned that they would consider defecting from the Church if they do not receive proper safeguards when women become bishops.

Monday January 5 11:10 PST San Francisco (AP) – The state’s high court has prohibited three Southern California parishes who left the U.S. Episcopal Church over its ordination of gay ministers from retaining ownership of their chu rch buildings and property. In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the property belongs to the Episcopal [...]

One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client. Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, warns that the proposal is just the "tip of the iceberg."

According to reports in Arizona, the state bar is considering a major change to its existing oath that requires lawyers to affirm they won't "permit considerations of gender, race, age, nationality, disability or social standing to influence my duty of care" to clients.

The proposal in Arizona is to add "sexual orientation" to that list.

The concept would demand that Christian lawyers affirm they would pursue child custody cases for lesbians and "marriage" rights for homosexuals just as they would pursue any other issue for clients, regardless of their religious perspective.

Not agreeing to the demand would end a Christian lawyer's career before it even starts, since attorneys cannot practice law without bar association permission.

Already, several dozen attorneys have sent a letter objecting to the plan, and concern has been raised by the online Catholic.org report.

"Are these lawyers going to be excluded from their profession because of their religious beliefs? Or will they have to give up their beliefs in order to continue practicing?" the report asked.

The entire article can be read here.

From here, where there is more:

What Maltby neglects to tell her readers at this point however is that that votes in 1993 introduced women priests on the understanding that the doctrinal discernment in this area was not yet complete and that the Church of England, as part of the wider catholic church, was in a period of reception as regards this innovation. That meant that the Act of Synod and accompanying documentation explicitly acknowledged that those who objected to the ordination of women on theological grounds did so (and still do so) with integrity and as fully participating members (and clergy) of the Church. There was therefore absolutely no "theology of taint" intended by the provisions for discenting parishes and furthermore, the Synod understood the necessity for such provision.

And it’s worth pointing out here of course that there are plenty of us opposed to women’s ordination who have no issue with male bishops who have ordained women. We have, after all, read Article 26:

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.

On with Maltby:

The point is this: I have a very ‘high’ view of the Eucharist – if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me for surely Eucharistic theology is as important as disputes over ordination. But no. From disagreements over the Eucharist, the Bible, even the theological meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we Anglicans feel no need to haul in a complementary bishop.

Not even in the slightest. The Anglican position on the Eucharist from the Articles can be easily seen:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

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.

It’s very clear that if you believe in transubstantiation and yet assent to the 39 Articles you are perjuring yourself, pure and simple. In the same way, to take a Zwinglian view (that the elements are only ever bread and wine and do not in any sense becomes tools by which we receive from Christ in the Eucharist) is also proscribed by the first paragraph of the Article. So the Anglican position is actually rather clear - what happens at the Lord’s Table is neither simply a memorial nor the magical transformation of the elements into Christ himself, but some other mystery somewhere between these two rejected heresies. Many priests like myself are more than happy with such a position, and for those who believe that doctrine cannot be expressed in such a manner (the denial of what is not true rather than the explicit affirmation of what is true), then they need to take another read of the Athanasian Creed.

So back to Maltby. It’s very clear that the Anglican Church has settled its mind as to what occurs on the Lord’s Table, but furthermore, it has also decided that no provision needs to be made for those who might afterall believe something slightly different to their Bishop in this regard (for example my Bishop might take a position more akin to Calvin, I one more akin to Cranmer or Hooker). It has however decided that since the final discernment as to whether it is correct to ordain women has not been made, it is perfectly acceptable to make provision in this regard for those who object to the 1993 innovations.

It is therefore simply incorrect for Maltby to argue that "if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me". The Articles show very clearly that on the matter of the economics of the Eucharists there are incorrect interpretations and there are correct interpretations (or to be more precise, there are interpretations that are not incorrect). On the matter of women’s ordination however the Synod has clearly argued that there is no one valid correct interpretation (we are in a period of reception) and that therefore allowance can and should be made for those who object to the innovation.

On to the killer paragraph:

Why is that? One is left with the sad conclusion that the draft legislation and its code of practice isn’t really trying to deal with genuine theological difference – the Church of England has that in abundance – it is trying to deal with women. I don’t blame the hard working members of the drafting group for this – this reflects state of the Church of England. Women are the problem, not a gift, which needs a solution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘complementary’ as ‘completing and perfecting’. What, I wonder, could possibly be ‘incomplete’ about a woman in episcopal orders (answers on a post card, please)? Maude Royden, the first Anglican woman to preach in the Church of England in 1919, sparking enormous controversy at the time (as it still would in Sydney), once remarked ironically ‘I was born a woman and I can’t get over it’. The Church of England, it would appear, bereft of any irony, cannot get over it either.

Maltby’s argument descends to the usual position of those who object to the objectors - that they are afterall just misogynists and the provisions being made for them pander to such prejudice. And really, one cannot fail to see why she should resort to such a response, because she doesn’t use Scripture in her argument and the procedural / ecclesiastical objections she raises are simply incorrect. The only way therefore to argue against those who have genuine theological and ecclesiastical objections to women’s ordination and consecration is to allege that our objections are not afterall theological but stem from prejudice. If we can be portrayed as prejudiced and bigotted against a certain group then it becomes much easier to demonise us and dismiss our arguments, not on the basis of good Bible study or reasoned ecclesiology but simply because our viewpoint is not acceptable in the enlightened 21st Century.

“We are identifying teen dating abuse and violence more than ever,” said Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, who began doing research on abuse in teenage dating relationships nearly a decade ago.

Dr. Miller cited a survey last year of children ages 11 to 14 by Liz Claiborne Inc., a clothing retailer that finances teenage dating research, in which a quarter of the 1,000 respondents said they had been called names, harassed or ridiculed by their romantic partner by phone call or text message, often between midnight and 5 a.m., when their parents are sleeping.

Such behavior often falls under the radar of parents, teachers and counselors because adolescents are too embarrassed to admit they are being mistreated.

Read it all.

NEWPORT BEACH, CA: Church that split off over gays can't keep property
California Supreme Court rules that St. James Anglican Church, 3 other parishes that broke with diocese don't control their houses of worship.

By Jeff Overley
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/beach-church-episcopal-2273505-newport
January 5, 2009

A breakaway parish that left its parent church because of differences over doctrine and homosexuality can't take its seaside place of worship with it, the California Supreme Court ruled today.

Anglicans and Their Unwelcome House Guests

by John Mark Reynolds
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_mark_reynolds/2008/12/the_unwelcome_house_guest.html
January 4, 2009

Imagine a fan so full of admiration that he takes your name and moves into your house. Your family has always tried to reach out to others and so you allow him to stay with you as an act of kindness.

Weirdly, after this fan moves in he becomes quite critical. He decides that many of your costumes and ways are unworthy of the family name and begins to demand that you change them. Your own children stop coming home, because the interloper has become so obnoxious.

I met April Dobbs some years ago. She is a conservative Episcopalian attending St. John's, Roseville, in the Diocese of Northern California. Looks like she's been busy!

[Received via email]

We (Rick and April Dobbs) first visited Kabale, Uganda, in August of 2006 as part of a Sister Parish program within the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California. We were unprepared to be so moved by the people, and especially children, of Uganda. We met so many orphans, many living with relatives who were already struggling to live day to day. We found out there are over 1 million orphans living on the street, and there was no orphanage in the Kabale area. We founded a non-profit, Shepherd’s Love, to provide fund-raising for the building of the orphanage (and other projects in the future, God willing). God provided us with the opportunity to build Twinomujuni Orphanage with the help of Rev. David Rurihoona and his son, Fred Rurihoona. Twinomujuni Orphanage will house up to 64 children and 10 infants, providing food, shelter, schooling, religious instruction, medical care. Most important, Twinomujuni Orphanage will provide love, nurture and a family atmosphere for children who have never had those things. Shepherd’s Love is non-denominational.

Twinomujuni Orphanage
Now built and licensed, Twinomujuni Orphanage began accepting children December 1, 2008.
For a donation of $50.00/month, (about $1.75/day) you can sponsor a child to live there.

You may never have heard of E. A. Adeboye, but the pastor of The Redeemed Christian Church of God is one of the most successful preachers in the world. He boasts that his church has outposts in 110 countries. He has 14,000 branches—claiming 5 million members—in his home country of Nigeria alone. There are 360 RCCG churches in Britain, and about the same number in U.S. cities like Chicago, Dallas, and Tallahassee, Fla. Adeboye says he has sent missionaries to China and such Islamic countries as Pakistan and Malaysia. His aspirations are outsize. He wants to save souls, and he wants to do so by planting churches the way Starbucks used to build coffee shops: everywhere.

"In the developing world we say we want churches to be within five minutes' walk of every person," he tells NEWSWEEK. "In the developed world, we say five minutes of driving." Such a goal may seem outlandish, but Adeboye is a Pentecostal preacher: he believes in miracles. And Pentecostalism is the biggest, fastest-growing Christian movement since the Reformation.

Read it all.

Lent & Beyond, the Anglican prayer blog, continues to do great work tracking Anglican events -- check out their January calendar.