++Rowan has sent ’round the world this morning two letters–one for Advent and one for Christmas. Ever the liturgical snark, my first instinct was to wish he had sent the Christmas one later than the Advent one if even only by a day or two…
There will be lots of talk about these letters and their contents. I may weigh in on them–I may not. But I do want to suggest that the Advent letter be analyzed with two entirely different questions in mind:
- Does this letter reflect the Anglican understanding of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury? How well does it go about being faithful to our Anglican ways of relating to each other?
- How should the Episcopal Church respond–in so far as we are able to respond in any kind of unified way?
Again, I want to stress that I see these as two entirely different questions that will help us gain a better sense of where we ought to be moving in response to this missive.
Given the behavior of bishops the last few (yeah, ok, 18 hundred or so) years*, it’s always refreshing to see a bishop make some clear, cogent, and thoroughly Christian points. And these are the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster which—as I understand it—is one of the more divided dioceses theologically in the Anglican Church of Canada.
I’ll only editorialize one little bit and that’s to cite James: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (Jam 1:22). It’s important to think these things—but it’s not enough to congratulate yourself for saying you think them; they must be ennacted as well. And that goes as much for the bishop who spoke them as for the rest of us.
1.
Pray for the unity of Christians, for a spirit of charity towards those with whom we may disagree, and for God’s forgiveness of our mutual failure to honour the prayer of Christ in St. John’s Gospel “that they may be one.”
2.
Give particular support to those conservative and traditional Christians who remain with their church and grieve the departure of friends.
3.
Teach our members about the genius of Anglicanism and its balance of Scripture, reason and tradition within the boundaries of common prayer.
4.
Emphasize in our preaching and leadership the centrality of mission and its priority over ecclesiastical politics.
5.
Challenge the false stereotypes that foster polarization – e.g. the ‘heartless conservative’ or the ‘unbiblical liberal.’
6.
Give thanks that our church, for all its messiness, is honestly and openly facing issues some other bodies cannot.
7.
Press forward in ministry and evangelism at the local level.
8.
Deepen our study and immersion in Scripture. Place ourselves under the authority of the Christ it reveals. Avoid both an empty relativism and a harsh literalism.
9.
Encourage both local media and the non-churchgoing public to understand the deeper roots of this development.
10.
Take the ‘long view’ – i.e. remember the consistent triumph of the Gospel over the historic fragmentation of the church, and the persistence of faith through the failures of human discipleship.
Please remember our diocesan and national leaders in your prayers too. And above all, let’s get on with the normal work of being the church.
A big thank you to Lisa from My Manner of Life who posted it and a h/t to the Postulant for linking to it.
* Yes, I believe in bishops. As an Apostolic Succession believer I believe they’re necessary for the fullness of the Church. But I also believe they’re completely human and have ably demonstrated over the centuries their fallibility…
Rwanda’s Anglican Church has just elected three more Americans to be bishops. They are the Rev. Terrell Glenn, the Rev. Philip Jones and the Rev. John Miller. [h/t Thinking Anglicans]
I don’t know any of these folks–but you know who they’re not?
the Reverend William Ilgenfritz
Does that name ring a bell? No? He was the candidate that Forward in Faith put forward to become a bishop by some cooperative foreign Anglican body back in 2002 along with Fr. David Moyer. The call was re-iterated in 2007 when five years later Fr. Ilgenfritz was still not consecrated… (Fr. Moyer was consecrated a while ago by the Traditional Anglican Communion, a group not in communion with Canterbury.)
So—however many American bishops later and Fr. Ilgenfritz has not received the nod. I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t seem to bode well for the place of FiF and traditional Anglo-Catholics in the coming realignment.
[To clarify the confused, I know members of FiFNA and the SSC, have cordidal relationships with them, have learned much from them, but do not agree with them concerning the ordination of women.]
Fr. Haller has an interesting post up where he looks at current Anglican issues in terms of realists and idealists. I agree with much that he writes, but I’m not sure I agree with this one… I think I can sense what he’s trying to set up, but it’s not quite there yet. One difficulty with the post is his initial rhetorical decision: to make the liberals the realists and the conservatives the idealists. In my experience, the liberals I know tend to be the idealists, then attempt to impose their ideals on those around them. I’m not saying conservatives don’t do this, I just think that both groups have both idealists and realists in them.
He presents a binary list of options. But, as I read through them, I found myself not only choosing freely from both, but just as frequently wishing for options not offered. Here are a few I offered in my comment–with a few new additions:
eschatology: sacramental
mood: optative
goal: maturity
pedagogy: experiental (i.e., liturgical)
gospel: Matthew
ecclesia: militans
theological school: benedictine
the church: “you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it”
creation story: John 1
I keep hearing about this spectrum but in an important sense…I’m not on it!
I’ve said before, I’m a moderate by default because I don’t fall into the camps described. Furthermore, I don’t think either of two camps should be the goal. To me, Anglicanism is about a set of boundaries defined broadly by the literal sense of the historical creeds and defined more narrowly (but still fairly broadly) by the theology encoded in the prayer book. I don’t want either liberals or conservatives to shoehorn me into their dogmatic statements; I’d much rather they join me in worshiping in the beauty of holiness and in works of mercy.
In short, I’d really like the conversation to move beyond the binary. We need to be challenged by those on all sides. All those who confess Christ crucified have something to teach me about loving and serving him and my neighbor. I need to be challenged by the “liberals” and the “conservatives” and by all those who don’t fit into either of these for my own growth and correction(…let the righteous smite me in friendly rebuke…)–and I’ll return the favor too.
This is a phenomenon that has needed a name for a long time and now it does. It’s a version of Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies–but the current Anglican version. As Godwin’s Law projects that the longer an internet debate continues the likelihood grows that Nazis and/or Hitler will be invoked, so Arora’s Law projects that in any Anglican online debate the longer it proceeds the likelihood grows that Jack Spong will be mentioned.The whole thing is here… (h/t Thinking Anglicans)
Okay, I may well have been wrong before–with the announcement of a North American Ugandan bishop it seems like there may well be a coherent plan that the “Global South” bishops are following to get a replacement province in place before September 30th so that on October 1 they can demand a new Anglican entity in North America.
If we are moving towards this new flat-earth (Friedman style) Anglicanism where we can all select the bishops we serve under regardless of continent or diocesan boundaries, ++Schori may have to worry about losing me to an African bishop… I quite liked this sermon which arrived over the wires the other day from ++Ndungane. Imagine, a primate who keeps his proclamation centered on the love of God, is open to modern (responsible) biblical interpretation, AND openly confesses a creedal understanding of who Jesus is…
Mr Abraham Yisa, Board Chairman of CANA , who was in the U.S. three weeks ago to attend the enthronement of Minns told NAN “that Canterbury had no right to choose who goes to the Lambeth or not”.
Say what?!?
The whole thing is here; h/t Thinking Anglicans.
