Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
Getting the Gospel Right, Getting the Gospel Out!
Are we getting the gospel right? What if we don't? Does it matter? And if we are getting it right, how do we get it out? These are some of the questions our guest speaker, Dr. Cornelis Venema will be addressing when he visits us October 12-14 at All Saints' Anchorage, and Church in the Wildwood in Eagle River, AK.
The first session will be Friday at All Saints' (corner of 8th and F in Anchorage, 907-279-3924) from 7-9 pm (babysitting available).
The second session will be Saturday at Church in the Wildwood, 16832 Hansen Drive, Eagle River (907-694-2089) from 9-11 am.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Toon On International Standing Committee
An International Committee finds TEC is in compliance with requests made of it.
Dr Peter Toon
On October 2nd, the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council submitted its Report on The Episcopal Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who then sent it on to the Primates of the Global Communion. The Report is nineteen pages in length, is clearly written, and is unlikely to be misunderstood in terms of its findings by anyone who reads it carefully.
In order to appreciate its major findings or recommendations, we need to bear in mind the following context concerning the work of the Joint Committee:
1. It had a limited brief which concerned the relation of The Episcopal Church, more specifically its House of Bishops, to The Windsor Report and to the recent Communique from The Primates Meeting in Tanzania. Further, it met only with Bishops at the Bishops’ Meeting and apparently had no prolonged conversation there with the Bishops of the Anglican Communion Network, who are closely allied with the Provinces of the Global South.
2. It made no study of either (a) “the practical theology” of much of TEC, which theology is closely related to a radical reading of the much-vaunted “Baptismal Covenant,” or (b) what goes on in dioceses without the Bishops’ formal permission and as he or she turns “a blind eye.” Thus it only studied the words of Bishops when they were on their best behavior and engaged in crafting forms of words in order to be seen as genuine members of the Global Anglican Communion. Further, it relied on the lady Presiding Bishop for information and interpretation, where perhaps the use of other sources may have been better (e.g., on how many parishes have left TEC recently and their size).
3. It is composed of persons who, while being admirably committed to the unity of the Global Anglican Family, belong in the main to what we may call “the centrist” position and apparently are neither too perturbed by “the practical theology” of the TEC nor too supportive of the “enthusiasm and zeal” of some in the Global South.
Obviously these three factors profoundly affected the tone, if not the facts in this Report, in which are three major findings or recommendations.
First of all, the Joint Committee finds—after a long tour of the documentary evidence on sexuality in recent discussion— that the House of Bishops (and thus TEC) has met the requests and demands made by both The Windsor Report of 2004 and of The Communique of the Primates from Dar es Salaam. That is, the Committee accepts as trustworthy the words of the resolutions of the recent House of Bishops’ Meeting in New Orleans, wherein the House committed not to bless the unions of same-sex couples, not to ordain active homosexual persons and not to vote for any such for the office of bishop. The Report thus states:
"By their answers…, we believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified
all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them in the Windsor Report, and on which clarifications were sought by 30th September 2007, and given the necessary assurances sought of them.”
We note that the Committee was able to come to this conclusion because—and it really had little option—it had to take the words of the Bishops’ resolutions in their literal, straightforward meeting. Had the Committee also toured say ten of the more “prophetic” dioceses, it would have found most probably that the blessing of same-sex persons has in no way ceased, even though there is no official Liturgy for the same and the official permission of the Bishop is not requested. (It may be noted here that is because the Primates of the Global South have reliable reports of what goes on unofficially and widely in not a few liberal dioceses that they do not take the statements of the House of Bishops as necessarily faithful and true.)
Secondly, the Joint Committee finds that the “interventions” by overseas Bishops to establish missions and congregations on U.S. territory, and to consecrate missionary Bishops for this purpose, are wholly against the spirit and the letter of what may be called a fundamental law of Anglican polity. In this it agrees with the statement of the House of Bishops of TEC from New Orleans defending the territorial episcopate as the Anglican way of being the church on the ground. Further, it advances in support of this position all kinds of evidence from Councils of the Early Church and resolutions from Lambeth Conferences. Further, it also seems to believe that there is some hope of resolving this problem and so makes suggestions—mostly concerning what the Archbishop of Canterbury could do—for ways to heal this growing schism and to bring back into TEC the recent seceders on terms that are reasonable and fair. One may comment that while what it stated and recommended by the Committee is balanced and reasonable, what is wholly missing—perhaps because the Committee does not really feel this—is the sense that the present TEC leadership has actually adopted a new form of religion. That is a new type of Christianity which, while using much traditional wording and symbols, is contrary to classic, biblically-based traditional Anglican worship, doctrine and discipline. In a word, its basic confession is not “Jesus is the only Lord and Savior” but something like “Jesus is a Savior and is our Savior.”
Finally, the Joint Committee finds that the position of the House of Bishops in terms of the understanding of “sexual orientation” and the making sure that people of all kinds of “orientation” are welcome in the Church as whole persons is wholly in accord with the position adopted by The Lambeth Conference of 1998 and widely accepted within the Anglican Family.
Here is the final paragraph:
"The life of the Anglican Communion has been much damaged in recent years following the tensions raised by the consecration in The Episcopal Church of a bishop living in a committed same-sex relationship and the authorization in some dioceses of Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. With the response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in September 2007, the Communion should move towards closure on these matters, at least for the time being. The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them. Here, The Episcopal Church and the Instruments of Communion speak with one voice. The process of mutual listening and conversation needs to be intensified. It is only by living in communion that we can live out our vocation to be Communion.”
One may regret that the Report ends in this way, which may be seen as placing too much emphasis (by stating it last of all) on the failure of the Church to minister fully to one small class of persons, “gay and lesbian people,” when Communion has many other more important dimensions to be emphasized and lived.
In conclusion:
What will be the fall-out from this Report which is now in the possession of all the global Primates and their advisers? We can only guess and here we go.
The majority of, if not all, the Primates of the Global South will not regard it as binding because, relying on what they believe to be accurate information from the U.S.A., they will believe that the fine words of the House of Bishops (taken at face value by the Committee) do not match either the reality on the ground in many dioceses or the general teaching of the leadership of TEC on the radical meaning and prophetic actions and requirements of “the Baptismal Covenant.” Thus the missionary interventions will continue with the general intention of creating a new province in North America for they regard TEC as apostate and engaged in infidelity.
The majority of Bishops in the West/North will be inclined to accept the Report and support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his going ahead with the 2008 Lambeth Conference, even if many from the Global South do not attend. This Bishops will also pay lip service to the need to bring the American seceders back into TEC and away from their African “Pastors” but do little about it for they have other things to do!
The Global Anglican Communion will effectively be no more, except in name, and this may lead to the effort to create a two-tier membership, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has hinted. But since TEC has been given a relatively clean bill of health by this Committee, it will apparently not be the lead candidate for any such second tier anymore! More likely then that we shall see something like a North/South divide with some in the South (e.g., S Africa) looking to the North and some in the North (e.g., Evangelicals in England, Australia and U.S.A.) looking to the South! If this occurs, Anglicanism will be opening a wholly new era for itself and will have few maps available to guide it.
END
Friday, September 28, 2007
Making Sense of the HOB
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Joint Statement on the Resolution of the House of Bishops
The facts:
Dar es Salaam required TEC these 4 things:
1. End same-sex blessings at all levels.
2. Confirm that no more non-celibate homosexuals will be consecrated bishop.
3. Provide alternative Primatial oversight for those who do not agree with the Episcopal Church's leadership.
4. End all lawsuits against parishes and vestries.
The HOB did the following:
1. Reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
2. Pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
3. Commend our PB's plan for episcopal visitors.
4. Deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
Number 1 means that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included. One of the candidates for the Diocese of Chicago episcopate is a non-celibate lesbian.
Number 2 - means that in addition to refraining from authorizing rites for same-sex blessing, the "majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions." Further, this prohibition will remain until (unless was the word in Dar Es Salaam) a broader consensus regarding sex-sex unions is reached. As the ink dried, a same-sex union was performed in the diocese of Los Angeles.
Number 3 neglects to mention that no affected bishop or diocese was consulted regarding the adequacy of the PB's plan.
Forget about Sexual Innovations, Concentrate on the Basic Doctrine which motivates the leadership of TEC
Though he saw women’s ordination as a serious error, and though he also noticed all kinds of errors and faults in the 1979 Prayer Book, he maintained—I still think rightly—that the answers to three basic questions by Episcopalians would reveal where they were doctrinally and morally.
These questions did not involve anything about women’s ordination or the ordination of active homosexual persons, but they got to basic Christianity:
Who is God?Who is Jesus?
What is salvation?
How one answers these proclaims where one is in the spectrum from pantheism through to biblical Trinitarianism. In passing I may note that Dr Caldwell often demonstrated that the official Prayer Book of TEC had rejected the full, biblical Trinitarian Faith, even though it did so, to mislead the unwary, in nearly “orthodox” phrases.
The present TEC through its House of Bishops (Sept 25, 2007) has declared that it is officially not in favor of blessing same-sex unions or of ordaining people in such unions. At the same time, it is fully committed to the full rights of homosexual persons both in society and in church (so it is not clear if this includes supporting same-sex unions that are not actually blessed in church).
However, many bishops turn a blind eye and do not seek to prevent such events occurring in their dioceses, as all investigative reporters can demonstrate very quickly.
Thus TEC speaks out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously—a practice that has been in operation since the early 1970s.
Now back to doctrine.
If one reads the growing literature on “The Baptismal Covenant” (so beloved of the Episcopal hierarchy) and its duties (see the recent book of sermonettes by the lady Presiding Bishop), if one studies the theology being taught in most of TEC seminaries, if one studies the resolutions submitted to diocesan and national convents, if one listens to the discussions of the House of Bishop, if one looks at the innovative liturgies being used in many places, if one listens to the sermons in most churches, if one studies the history of innovations in TEC since 1960, if one follows the web Episcopal blogs, and if one reads the learned articles and books of the professors in most TEC seminaries, then one comes to the conclusion quickly that the practical theology—that which makes TEC tick like a clock—is not biblical Trinitiarian Theism at all.
Reduced to a short span it is: God is Love and all love (loving) in the world is God.
Stated in more technical terms, it varies from a dynamic kind of pantheism, through various kinds of panentheism (especially beloved of feminist theologians) to process philosophy/theology, where God and the cosmos are seen to be in an evolutionary process together.
So Who is GOD in the new religion? God may be neuter or feminine but not solely masculine—thus God is She or It and is never Father but is Parent or Mother/Father. Further God is not in God’s own being wholly Transcendent, above and beyond the cosmos—No! God’s being is integrated into the cosmos even while also being apart from it. (A simple picture of this is the Mother giving birth but always keeping what She births tied to her—the cosmos in God and God never wholly apart from the cosmos—pan-en-theism.)
In this way of thinking, the symbol of God as Trinity is retained but usually to present a “divine” picture of community and cooperation for communitarianism on earth.
And who is JESUS? Jesus is the Child of God even as also the child of Mary, a unique Event of cosmic evolution. Jesus is regarded as really androgynous, even while also being male in a male-dominated society, and “his” real saving work is the way “he” got alongside the poor, needy, outcasts, and hungry and ministered to them. Where regular religion and society stopped, there Jesus began to minister and this led to his martyr’s death. The resurrection is the symbol of new life arising from this Jesus, new life to change the world with justice and peace and enabling the value of all human beings of every kind and type to be recognized and affirmed.
And what is SALVATION? Since God is not separate from the cosmos, heaven is not “up there.” Salvation is cooperating with God in change to bring about better and better conditions on earth for people so that they live in dignity, without fear and poverty. The present millennial goals of the United Nations express part of this hope of salvation. Christians today in the Baptismal Covenant are charged to work for justice, peace and dignity.
I SUGGEST that from today onwards those who wish to engage with Episcopal leaders leave aside for the time being the sexuality agenda and move instead to the Basic Christianity agenda to ascertain what kind of sincere, religious people are the majority of the House of Bishop, Executive Council and General Convention of The Episcopal Church. They are sincere, please grant them this, and they are fervent, please grant them this—but move on and examine their theology that motivates them.
Then having done this to go back to the public Liturgies and new Canon Law of TEC since 1970 and read these in the light of the doctrine discovered.
(my own attempts to do this kind of thing are found in the content of several booklets available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1-800-727-1928)Dr Peter Toon
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The statement: it's all here ...
There is one basic problem here: It is not an honest statement. It really does not express the thinking and actions of many of our bishops. As the ink was drying, there are ongoing same-sex unions in many places, and a lesbian candidate for the Diocese of Chicago episcopate.
Kendall Harmon put it this way: "What was it I asked at the beginning of the meeting: Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen? They opted for the second."
Friday, September 21, 2007
Oh, Yes, there was that Game Against Miami
 clipped from www.mysanantonio.comCollege Football: A&M blown away in Miami
|
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
American Bishops to Meet
 clipped from www.kendallharmon.net
|
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
An Interview with Gerald Bray
How Mark Dever Does Application in Sermons
Unique Salvation History – What about the passage is important for the way God unfolds his plan of salvation in history? What’s unrepeatable by us but worthy of worshiping God for?
Non-Christian – How does the passage speak to the unbeliever? How does it call him/her to repentance and belief? How does it warn, rebuke, correct, or prod the unbeliever? What does it say about the danger of the unbeliever’s situation, the exclusivity of Christ, the sinner’s need for a Savior, or the sufficiency of that Savior as a substitute for the sinner?
Public – What does the passage say about our lives and roles in the public sphere, both as Christians and non-Christians (e.g., government, neighborhood)?
Christ – How is Jesus foreshadowed or typed? What particular perfection of Christ does that type depict? How is Jesus remembered or described in character, authority, glory, or essence?
Christian – What does the passage mean for the life of the individual Christian? How does it call him/her to deeper repentance and belief? How does it warn, rebuke, correct, motivate, comfort, or encourage the Christian?
Capitol Hill Baptist – What does the passage mean for the corporate life of our local church? How does it call the local corporate body to tend to its corporate life together and corporate witness to the unbelieving community around it?
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Bishop Howe on the Mark
My Dear Archbishop Rowan,
I have just seen the preposterous diatribe sent to you by Bishop Jack Spong, and, as one of his fellow Bishops, I send my deepest apology.
I am saddened that in his very first sentences he has disparaged you for "not coming alone" to the meeting of the American House of Bishops later this month The invitation, which I personally composed, was, of course, to you AND the members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates.
Bishop Spong has systematically denied virtually every tenet of the Christian Faith, and he presided over the near-destruction of the Diocese of Newark. During his tenure (1978 - 2000) the number of baptized members in the Diocese of Newark declined from 64,323 to 36,674, a loss of 27,649 or 43 percent. Eighteen congregations were closed between 1978 and 1997, and a further nine in 2000.
His sarcasm, his disrespect, and his arrogance are simply stunning. But then this is the same Bishop Spong who stated at the last Lambeth Conference that the African Bishops had "moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity. They've yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to face in the developing world. That's just not on their radar screen."
Your commitment to the Primates, and to all the members of the Communion, to uphold the teaching of Lambeth 1998 has been a spectacular gift, one that we all understand has been costly to you, personally.
Bishop Spong dares to say that you have become a "miserable failure." Shame on him. It is Bishop Spong who has consistently repudiated the teachings of the Holy Scriptures in favor of the latest cultural innovations, and he has inflicted tremendous damage on the Church of Jesus Christ.
Bishop Spong has the hubris to say of the orthodox, "We are espousing a position about homosexuality that is dated, uninformed, inhumane and frankly embarrassing. No learned person stands there today."
Actually, it is his position that is embarrassing! Study after study, from Masters and Johnson to Charles Socarides has shown that for a remarkably high percentage of homosexual persons a change of orientation is possible.
But the deeper question is not whether or not a given person's orientation has changed, but whether or not that person is willing (often at great personal sacrifice!) to conform his/her conduct to the teaching of Scripture that sexual intimacy is for marriage (one man, one woman, in Christ).
For Bishop Spong to lecture you as he has done is beyond belief. Please know that he speaks for himself alone, and that the Bishops who are gathering in New Orleans in just two weeks will greet you with great eagerness and affection.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
Friday, September 07, 2007
Tony Snow: Cancer's Unexpected Blessings
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Chuck Collins writes his congregation
The Rev. Chuck Collins
Rector of
I am writing to inform you about an important matter. The upcoming House of Bishops meeting in
Nineteen "Windsor Bishops," of whom Bishop Lillibridge is an active member, met a few weeks ago. I have high hopes that their presence at the House of Bishops meeting will be known and recognized, if for nothing else as a minority group of bishops (there are about 120 diocesan bishops in all) who are committed to be constituent members f the Anglican Communion by agreeing to follow the directives of the Windsor Report and the Tanzania Communiqué. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will interrupt his sabbatical to meet with the bishops gathered in
There is still much that isn't clear. For example, it's not clear if moderate uncommitted bishops will join the nineteen in support of traditional values. It's not clear if the meeting with the Archbishop will impact the invitations to attend Lambeth 2008 (if at all). If it doesn't impact the invitations as they stand, a number of Global South Primates have already said they will not be attending. It's unclear how
Even though there are many unknowns, there are some things that are clear at this point. First, there is no indication that Episcopal Church leaders (House of Bishops and our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori) will change their direction back to traditional and biblical values. And they seem largely unfazed by the possibility of severing our tie to the Anglican Communion. This was evident by their rejection of portions of the Primate's Communiqué at the last House of Bishops meeting. Secondly, Bishop Lillibridge has repeatedly told the diocese that he will continue to uphold the values and principles of the Windsor Report that uphold traditional Christianity. We have a bishop who courageously stands against the tide for the things that are most important to us and to the people of the Diocese of West Texas. Thirdly, it seems that the different groups and personalities that make up the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church will argue and bicker among themselves, not understanding that different churches have had to respond differently because of different circumstances. And lastly, for the traditional-minded churches and dioceses who feel that they have been pushed off the back of the boat, the Primates will not leave us to drown but will provide some means for us to connect to the Anglican Communion. It's clear that one of the results of the realignment will be to rethink the way we do dioceses and provinces.