Catholic in the Third Millennium

The Bread of Life - Sermon Preached on Pentecost 10

2009-08-11T14:29:00.001-05:00

1 Kings 19:4-8
Psalm 34:1-8
Ephesians 4:25-52
John 6:35, 41-51

Many of the stories in the Old Testament have an epic character to them, where the forces of good battle against forces of evil. This is no less of our story from 1 Kings. The hero of our epic story is the prophet Elijah – one of the last surviving prophets of God. He is a wanted man, for the wicked Queen Jezebel has been purging the nation of its prophets of Yahweh and replacing them with prophets of Baal. In our Old Testament reading (1 Kings 19:4-8), we see Elijah at a tragic, low point in the story… a low point in his life… ready to give up. At first reading, this seems strange, because he has just won a major battle against the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18). However, no sooner had Elijah defeated the forces of Baal than Queen Jezebel resumed her manhunt with renewed vigor, and Elijah is forced to flee into the barrenness of the desert. In the desert, under a solitary broom tree, Elijah falls into a deep depression and asks God to take his life. “It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life, for I am no better than my ancestors” (1 Kings 19:4). At this point, God sends an angel to minister to him. Upon waking him, the angel bids Elijah to get up and eat the baked bread lying near him on hot stones. He does this twice in fact. And through this bread, prepared by God’s angelic messenger, Elijah is given the strength, encouragement and endurance he needs for the forty day journey to the mountain of God – Mount Horeb.

Once again the connection between our Old Testament reading and the Gospel appointed for this Sunday (cf. John 6:35, 41-51) is the metaphor of Bread. Our gospel begins with the words of Jesus: “I am the Bread of Life. He who comes to me will never be hungry. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (Verse 35). Bread is an incredibly powerful metaphor, both in Scripture and in the historical narratives of virtually every culture. Bread is as old as culture itself. Anthropologists mark the beginning of civilization with the cultivation of grains – e.g., wheat, rye, barley, rice. Our earliest human ancestors may have had a diet richer in protein, gathering nuts and fruit and hunting game, but it was not until humankind mastered the tilling of the soil for grain crops that human populations could settle into communities and nations. Ancient Rome was just as dependent on the breadbasket of Egypt to advance its dominion as are Western nations today dependent on oil rich countries to fuel modern society and advance modern values and ideals.

You see, there is more to bread than meets the eye or nourishes the body. It is the root of human ingenuity and industry, the fundamental building block of culture. Bread is fundamentally a human “invention,” yet the ability to make bread depends entirely on God’s goodness in creation – i.e., in creating the seeds of the earth, sending the rains, and providing the nourishment to grow. In a very real sense, one could say that the making of bread defines what it means to be human. Yet if this is true, it is true in the sense that it defines what it means to be human in relation to each other and human in relation to our Creator. This is expressed well in the Offertory of the Roman Mass:

“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all Creation: Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. Blessed be God for ever.”

It should not surprise us, then, that throughout the biblical narrative God meets his people in and through bread. The preparation, giving and eating of bread is no less than the juncture of divine and human fellowship – whether it is in the unleavened bread of the Passover meal, the Manna in the wilderness, the showbread in the Tabernacle which David and his men were permitted to eat to replenish their strength, or in the bread that Elijah ate to strengthen his body and replenish his soul. Throughout Scripture, God demonstrates his companionship towards humankind in bread. In fact the words “companion” and “companionship” come from the Latin words “com” meaning “with” and “panis” meaning “bread” – i.e., to partake of bread together.

For Jesus then to make the claim to be “the bread that came down from heaven” would have been astounding to his hearers. Remember these were people who were steeped in these stories from the Old Testament; good Jews who knew that Jesus’ statement amounted to a claim that he was in himself the mediator between God and humankind, that God meets us and communes with us in Jesus. Indeed, our Gospel tells us that it was this claim that caused the crowds to complain about him and disbelieve his message; this same prophet who only a day before had fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fish. “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” Is he not a mere man like the rest of us? No doubt they could have accepted Jesus as a good teacher, a rabbi, or perhaps a prophet; no doubt, had he given them the sign they demanded they would even have accepted him as a prophet on par with the great Moses! Even today there are people who can accept Christ as a good teacher or perhaps a prophet. But Jesus claims to be more than this, much more. At one and the same time, his claim is grounded both in the human and the divine. By saying that he is “bread” he is claiming to be fundamentally human (in fact the fundamental human – the founder of a “new humanity”). By claiming to be “from heaven” he claims a divine origination, like the Manna from heaven, and yet much more than Manna that merely feeds for a day. For the Bread that Jesus gives is his own flesh, and the life that he gives through his body is eternal. It is in Jesus, in partaking of him through his broken flesh, that we meet God, that we are strengthened, encouraged, and given eternal life. But more than this…it is in Jesus, in participating in our human condition, that God meets us and solidarity and companionship with God is established.

It is for these reasons that on his last night with his disciples, Jesus gave us the bread and wine of the Eucharist – the holy food and drink of eternal life. Through these actions at the altar, the Church’s primary act of worship together, that we meet the Christ who died for us, the Christ who is risen for us, and the Christ who will one day come again us. This is the Church’s hope and faith. This is our faith as the body of Christ.

Standing in the Gap - Sermon for Pentecost 7

2009-07-23T14:56:00.004-05:00

“We are called to stand in the gap and that has not and will not change.”(Carol Barnwell, Communications Director, Diocese of Texas, July 2009)

Sometimes we can be very naïve in our reading of the New Testament. We read it with rose-colored lenses, thinking that there were no serious or divisive controversies in the New Testament age – at least none as serious as those which threaten to divide our churches today. Well, I have news for you: there has never been a time in church history when the Body of Christ has not been under the threat of division; and this includes the New Testament age. Today’s reading from the Book of Ephesians [2:11-22] reminds us of this.

Read in light of the controversies of the day (rather than reading it as just another theological treatise) we can begin to appreciate that, in context, this passage was an admonition of sorts. Specifically, it served as an admonition directed towards a predominantly Gentile church – i.e., a church tempted to think too highly of itself as it looked down upon those of Jewish descent, and thus a church in danger of division. The “presenting cause” (if you will) was the Law of Moses and, more specifically, the practice of circumcision which Gentile believers rejected, but which many believers of Jewish descent still regarded as a necessary rite of initiation.

By the time this letter was written, Gentile Christians no doubt outnumbered those of Jewish descent in most places, and were presumably enjoying their newfound preeminence in the Church. But here the author takes the opportunity to remind them that they were once “far off” … “without Christ and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” … “strangers to the covenants of promise and without God in the world.” After reminding them of their former alien-status, the author proceeds to tell them that there is absolutely no basis or reason for divisions amongst Christians of different backgrounds, because “…Christ is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.”

Once again – this week – we were made painfully aware of how divided our own Church and Communion are. (On a personal note, I tried very hard to ignore what was going on in Anaheim. However, the media and blogosphere managed to break through my self-imposed indifference to remind me of just how close the Anglican Communion actually is to dividing and separating into factions.)

True, the issues of today are very different from those of St. Paul’s day. Nevertheless, we are witnessing the same dynamics at work: people of strong convictions on both sides of serious issues alienating each other, and setting up walls of division between themselves for the sake of preeminence in the church. Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that “Christ is our peace”; and that in his flesh he has made us one Body, by breaking down dividing walls and abolishing all of our hostilities.

I know it is natural at this point to object to what I am suggesting. After all, if this statement were true (or if it applied to OUR controversies) – i.e., if Christ really has broken down all “dividing walls” and abolished all hostilities through his flesh – then how is it that otherwise sincere Christians still find themselves so divided? Why are there differences of opinion at all? How can it be that the Church of Christ is of two minds on such important matters? I believe the answer can be boiled down to a simple distinction: The difference between “being” and “knowing;” i.e., the difference between “what we are” and “our understanding of what we are.”

Now the dirty little secret in academic circles is that philosophers and theologians have known about this distinction for a long time; indeed, they have built whole careers on it! How this distinction applies to the Body of Christ is quite simple: there is a crucial difference between “what we are in Christ” and how we understand and experience “what it means to be in Christ.” Intuitively, we all know this to be true, especially when it comes to our own personal Christian walks. For example: We so fervently believe in Christ’s victory in our lives! And yet… how difficult is it to live that life of victory? As a tenet of our faith we believe that Christ has conquered sin and death, and yet… we continue to struggle with sin and the prospect of death! Each week we drop to our knees in confession, because we believe that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. But if “knowing” was identical to “being,” we would never have to confess our sins because we would never sin!

Individually, we experience salvation as a process. It is process for us corporately as the Body of Christ as well. Hence, if “knowing” was identical to “being,” it would stand to reason that there would no longer be any differences in the Church. Yet as St. Paul reminds us elsewhere, what we know we know “only in part”: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:9, 12).

It is when one or more parties in the Church confuse “knowing” with “being” that separation and division in the Body of Christ becomes inevitable. It is only a matter of time.

Most of you know I have not always been an Episcopalian. My original ordination was in the Reformed Episcopal Church, a group that separated 136 years ago from the Episcopal Church because they could no longer tolerate differences of opinion in that denomination. However, 136 years ago the controversies were not over homosexual bishops and same-sex unions, but rather whether or not ministers should wear Eucharistic vestments … and whether candles should be placed on the altar … and whether the altar should even be called an altar (rather than a table) … and whether a priest should be called a priest! These issues seem petty and unimportant to us today; indeed, they are no longer important to the Reformed Episcopal Church! But they were important enough at the time to separate from the main body. Though the issues have changed, the underlying problem for the original Reformed Episcopalians is the same one we face today: the confusion of “knowing” with “being.”

When someone or some group insists that they alone “know” or possess the truth they are, in essence, making a claim to be the embodiment of the truth. Recent events clearly demonstrate this. On the one hand, we have the “ultra-conservatives” (for want of a better term) who have so settled the issues in their minds that no amount of potential new evidence, scientific research, or even careful consideration of and attention to pastoral needs could ever dislodge their conviction that not only do they KNOW the truth but that they themselves ARE the truth – that is, that their separate existence apart from the rest of the Anglican world embodies “true Anglicanism.”

On the other hand, what is becoming ever so clear to the rest of the Anglican Communion is that the “elites” and “social activists” in our Church are confusing American-style democratic processes with the voice and leading of the Holy Spirit, and majority voting procedures with the consensus fidelium (i.e., the consensus of the faithful). As a result, our national church ends up ignoring or belittling the legitimate concerns and consensus of the rest of the Anglican Communion, while insisting that the Anglican Communion should accept us on our terms (always under the veiled threat of withdrawing our financial support).

That’s why I’m thankful to part of the Diocese of Texas, and indeed, your priest. You may not always feel like it (and I sometimes might be negligent in telling you), but you are a gift to this diocese; and the diocese as a whole is a gift to The Episcopal Church. Why? Because, as Carol Barnwell (communication director for the diocese) recently expressed it, “We [as a diocese] are called to stand in the gap and that has not and will not change.” As your priest I am here today to remind you that this parish in particular is called to “stand in the gap” as well. I’m not telling you anything you do not already know from your own experience. We live this calling every day. We are keenly aware of the costs and the struggle. It will always be a part of our DNA.

So what does it mean to stand in the gap?

Standing in the gap means guarding and protecting that which has been received by the Church and remaining faithful to our Anglican heritage and consensus. But it also means remaining open to the guidance and prompting of the Holy Spirit, and thus perhaps to the possibility (if only hypothetical) of the emergence of a new consensus on issues that, at present, are controversial.

Standing in the gap means understanding the difference between “knowing” and “being.” It means that if we would ever hope to know the fullness of Christ we must first live into the truth that we – ALL OF THE BAPTIZED (even those with whom we disagree) – are the Body of Christ.

Standing in the gap means standing precisely where others will want to build walls of separation, walls of hostility and division, walls that Christ through his flesh tore down, and refusing to step aside or out of the way.

Standing in the gap means being called to offer ourselves as a bridge of reconciliation to those, on both sides, who cannot see beyond their own prejudices to appreciate the gifts that others of different opinions might bring to the table.

God Speed Jeffrey!

2009-06-08T15:04:00.003-05:00

Fr. Jeffrey Steel of De Cura Animarum has recently announced that he is swimming the Tiber. By last count that makes eight of my former students who have gone either to Rome or Orthodoxy. Jeff is a man of deep conviction and theological reflection, so I am confident that his conversion is the logical and necessary next step in his pilgrimage. Anglicanism's loss is Rome's gain, for Jeff is a gifted thinker. But alas, as Jeff knows firsthand, there is no greater struggle than to live in inconsistency. And for this next step, I rejoice with him and support him.

I wish him and his family all the best in this next chapter of their lives. They will be in my prayers while they relocate to London, seek employment, schools, etc.

Read about Jeff's conversion HERE.

Science vs. Norse Mythology

2009-04-28T11:53:00.005-05:00

See The Pain.

Warning: language may be offensive to more sensitive audiences.

Evolution and Incarnation

2009-04-27T22:14:00.002-05:00

The following excerpt was taken from an article by Roland over at his blog Two Natures. I found it insightful.

Evolution and the Incarnation

In a stereotypical creationist-vs.-atheist debate, I have no one to root for. Both sides have already lost me before the debate even begins. Once the debate is joined, it looks like they disagree on every single point, and that is how they are usually perceived. To me, however, it seems that they agree with each other on the central premise that underlies the debate: in the provocative form attributed to Richard Dawkins, "If Darwin's cosmology was right, then theology is senseless babble." And creationists like Phillip Johnson accept the premise and join the debate on those terms. This all-or-nothing proposition, for those who accept it, validates both the conflict and the energy they expend on it.

When combatants on both sides find a rare proposition they can agree on, one is tempted to let it pass without further examination. But this premise is both illogical and heretical. It assumes that God's only purpose is to serve as a causal explanation of phenomena in the physical universe, and that if a completely natural explanation can be found for every phenomenon then we can dispense with God as redundant and dismiss the supernatural entirely. This argument might be compatible with a Deistic "God of the gaps," but it cannot be reconciled with the God of orthodox Christianity. We believe that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human – that these two natures dwelt in him without contradiction. From this orthodox Christian understanding of the Incarnation, it follows that the supernatural is not excluded by the natural; rather, the supernatural manifests itself in and through the natural. Therefore, even if science were somehow to demonstrate the truth of an entirely materialistic explanation of the universe, it could not exclude the existence or activity of God.

Therefore, from an orthodox Christian point of view, a debate premised on the mutual exclusivity of the natural and the supernatural is flawed from the outset.

The Meaning of "Liturgy"

2009-04-25T15:46:00.004-05:00

The term "liturgy" means different things depending on context. Considered as a field of scholarly inquiry, "liturgy" refers to worship in general. A liturgiologist is someone who studies how various religious traditions order their public acts of worship. In this general sense, Baptists are just as "liturgical" as Roman Catholics.

However, in the churches of the catholic tradition (I obviously include Anglicanism in this mix), "liturgy" and "liturgical" take on very definite and specific meanings that are not really applicable to the "free churches" of the Protestant evangelical tradition (e.g. Baptists). In this case the distinction between "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" is valid, and indeed this is what most people instinctively mean when they employ these terms.

Probably some of the best theological material on what the catholic tradition means by "liturgical celebration" is to found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Considered abstractly, "liturgy" refers to the Church's celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ, preeminently in the sacraments. Indeed, the catholic tradition holds that the greatest sacrament of all is the "Church at prayer." In this sense, liturgy is the action of the Body of Christ with Christ as its head. The Church is "liturgical" in that it orders or sanctifies (i.e. "sets apart as holy") time, space, and material things for the service of adoration of the Triune God. Liturgy is thus practically synonymous with "Sacramental Economy." More concretely, "a liturgy" or "the liturgy" (with either article) refers to the specific formulaic or normative forms, standards, or conventions of any particular worshiping community at any point in its history (e.g. the 1979 BCP).

Although the Paschal Mystery is rooted in the historical events of Christ's life-death-resurrection-ascension, the Church nonetheless believes that the Paschal Mystery transcends historical event and is "made present" in all times through the Church's liturgical life. Hence, the Church itself transcends history, events, and times. Churches of a "liturgical mindset" thus see themselves as the continuation of the original "apostolic community," historically manifested in apostolic succession (sacramentally in its holy orders), and thus in continuity with apostolic churches of all ages. This continuity is not something to which our evangelical friends can easily lay claim, even though they also participate in such things as baptism and the Lord's Supper.

One example may suffice in demonstrating the difference between the "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" mindsets. Many evangelicals recognize and celebrate Christmas and Easter just as those churches in the catholic tradition do. However, the non-liturgical mindset views these "holidays" as mere annual observances or commemorations on par with other annual observances such as Memorial Day, Thanksgiving or Labor Day. This is not to deny that evangelicals recognize Christmas and Easter as being more important than other annual observances. Indeed, most evangelicals certainly recognize the distinctly Christian nature of Christmas and Easter as opposed to secular holidays. But the difference between, say, Christmas and President's Day (considered as annual observances), is really one of degree of importance and significance, rather than a difference of kind.

In the "liturgical mindset," Christmas and Easter are the two annual cycles around which whole of the Church Year is ordered. In and through these cycles the Church celebrates and relives the various "epochs" of the Paschal Mystery, which epochs are thus "made present" to us sacramentally. This cannot be said of Presidents Day or Memorial Day. So the difference is one of kind not of degree.

Letter to Jason Loh (Augustinian Successor)

2009-04-16T19:58:00.003-05:00

If you can't at least be civil (let alone act like a Christian), then I'd appreciate if you wouldn't visit my blog. Don't worry, I won't waste my time visiting yours either.

Don't bother writing back. I really don't care to communicate with you ever again.

Have a good life.

Posted for the purpose of exposing a nuisance blogger.

Answering Todd's Question

2009-04-14T23:52:00.011-05:00

A continuation of the discussion that started over my letter of disaffiliation with the AAC...

Todd Granger writes:

"Simply put, no, I don't think that you've declared yourselves out of communion with the folks in the American Anglican Council. But by means of this letter - and your posting it publicly - you have differentiated yourselves from the American Anglican Council in a way that at least seems asymmetrical in terms of differentiating yourselves from the unfaithful direction of The Episcopal Church."

Okay, Todd, I think I know where you're coming from. My asking you the follow up questions was just my way of making sure you weren't suggesting some kind of Yin-Yang approach on my part was necessary to balance out the forces of good and evil...like, say, if I disaffiliated from something on the conservative side of the spectrum then I must act in a reciprocal fashion against the liberal side to keep things in balance.

Feel free to correct me where I may be misreading you. You seem to understand that it was necessary for my parish to disaffiliate from the AAC. Yet, nonetheless, you think that posting the letter publicly was a bad idea because (I presume) you think such a letter might potentially cause a rift between conservatives who should be working together. I think I also detect in your "asymmetrical" language a hint of skepticism on your part that I take the problems in TEC seriously enough, or perhaps you perceive a measure of apathy on my part to the obvious misdirections of TEC.

Well, sure, I'll concede that I'm not as venomous or knee-jerk reactive towards revisionism as are the folks over at Stand Firm (nor do I have as much time to blog as they have). But that doesn't mean I'm apathetic or that I'm only too willing to turn a blind-eye to obvious heresy. On the contrary, I am a firm supporter of the Covenant Process as the way forward for the Anglican Communion and for TEC. But this requires patience on the part of those willing to see the process through, and I suspect that this patience is what is being misunderstood by you and others as tolerance for evil.

Moreover, as a supporter of the Windsor Process I view the federalist approach of the GAFCON/FOCA/ANCA crowd not only as counterproductive to the process, but also as potentially destructive of the Anglican Communion. In fact, I view GAFCON federalism as more of a threat to the fabric of the Communion than any other challenge facing the Communion at present, including TEC's innovations. (I suspect that this is where you'll demur, but demur if you must.)

To my way of thinking, the GAFCON crowd has "disaffiliated" from the Windsor Process. In so doing, GAFCON has essentially forsaken the Communion itself. Thus any pretense of there being two parallel strategies working together towards the same ultimate goal -- one "inside" and one "outside" -- is, IMO, a total farce; and I have precious little time, and precious little patience, to pretend otherwise. So while I don't necessarily see myself as "out of communion" with the federalists, I certainly don't see myself working together with them either.

So, yes, if you detect that some of my greatest criticisms are directed towards fellow conservatives, then I take this as a fair assessment. However, I don't view this as indicative of a fundamental "asymmetry" in my approach. Indeed, it is perfectly consistent with everything I've said up to this point.

Answering Fr. Jeffrey's Questions

2009-04-11T14:43:00.005-05:00

Despite the fact that I posted it almost two months ago, my last entry - "My Parish's Disaffilication with the ACC" - generated quite a lot of discussion of late. I thought I might see if we could continue the discussion in a new thread. My friend and former student, Fr. Jeffrey Steel, SSC entered the dialogue rather late in the game, and he has seen fit to take his old teacher to task. What follows are the questions he asked in his last response:

"Has heresy only become for you anything that is substantially denied in the Creeds?"

No, and I'm not certain where you got this idea. Certainly not from anything I have said on this blog or anywhere else. But note the distinction that I made in my last response to you between heresy and apostasy. In light of that distinction, perhaps a better question to have asked me is whether I think it possible for a church to be tolerant of heresy or even be formally in error at certain points of its teaching and STILL be regarded a true church. I think the self-evident Anglican answer to that question is: YES. This is essentially how Anglicans, since John Jewel and Richard Hooker, have regarded the Church of Rome, and in recent times, how those who deny the ordination of women somehow manage to remain in the Church of England.

"What sort of theological criteria do you use to define something as heretical?"

My theological criteria are very much like yours, I'm sure. My first appeal is to the consensus fidelium. This has been my approach for years, and is what I taught you in the classroom. In one of his responses to my earlier entry, Andy B. went so far as to issue a call for me to return to my "roots." Ironically, I've never left them.

"How far do the goal posts need to be moved before one is on another pitch?"

This is where that heresy/apostasy distinction comes in. I have stated on many occasions that something along the lines of a formal denial of the Trinity would indicate an irreversible departure from the faith and an indication that TEC was no longer a Christian church. It may not be an answer that satisfies you or Andy B., but it is an answer, and it's logically consistent with everything I have ever said on the matter.

But here's the rub: I at least have given an answer with a theological rationale. Apart from hearing the rhetoric that TEC has finally "gone too far," where are the goal posts for those who have or are anticipating leaving TEC?

Is apostasy merely a matter of how much heresy one is willing to tolerate before it becomes unbearable? Is TEC apostate because it has a gay bishop? Or because those who have left over Bishop Robinson simply cannot live in a church that has a gay bishop? Is TEC apostate because some heretical elements have gone so far as to endorse and/or authorize blessings of same sex relationships? Or is it that some simply cannot live in a church that is tolerant of those who endorse and/or authorize such blessings?

And when did/will the Church of England fall into apostasy? Over women priests? Over women bishops? Over gay priests/bishops? Over the official policy of the CoE that turns a blind eye to homosexual lay people who live in committed relationships? Over priests who undergo surgery for a sex-change? Over priests and bishops who are allowed under law to enter into "celibate" same sex unions? When? Where are your goal posts, Jeff?

+++++

NOTE TO READERS: Be sure to visit Father Jeffrey's excellent blog De Cura animarum.

My Parish's Disafiliation with the American Anglican Council

2009-02-16T21:24:00.003-06:00

The Rt. Rev. David Anderson, President and CEO
C/o The American Anglican Council
2296 Henderson Mill Road NE
Suite 406
Atlanta, Georgia 30345-2739

Dear David,

This letter is to inform you that, after prayerful consideration, the vestry of The Episcopal Church of the -------- at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 2009 voted unanimously to disaffiliate with the American Anglican Council (AAC).

Over the years, -------- parish has valued its longstanding affiliation with the AAC, as a support to its own commitment to orthodox faith and practice in The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Communion. However, certain recent actions and events have caused us to reconsider this relationship, particularly your organization’s collaboration in parish and diocesan realignment efforts, inevitably leading to the formation of the self-styled “Anglican Church in North America,” of which your organization is listed as a “founding entity.”

These efforts demonstrate that the AAC has moved substantially beyond the purposes of its original mission, and thus is no longer able to be an advocate for, or represent the interests of, parishes that are committed to remaining in The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Communion, such as --------.

We respectfully request the AAC to remove The Episcopal Church of the -------- from its list of affiliated parishes.

Sincerely yours,

The Acting Rector

Note: The names have been removed to preserve my loosely-guarded anonymity. Some of my readers might recall that a nuisance attack some months ago caused me to go semi-anonymous on this blog. It's also one of the reasons I haven't been very active of late.

N. Michigan Set to Elect a "Christian-Buddhist" as Bishop

2009-01-27T10:39:00.002-06:00

Over at Stand Rigid, they are reporting that Northern Michigan's only nominee for Diocesan Bishop, the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, has actually received "Buddhist lay ordination." Of course, one can always count on Stand Rigid to add its own knee-jerk reaction to any news story, and Greg Griffith's commentary in this case is no exception. But I thought the following comment left by "A Senior Priest" to be most intriguing. I guess I'll file this away in the "For What It's Worth" folder.

Despite the unfortunate choice of words of the late bishop, I’d reserve judgement on this one (apart from the likelihood that Mr Forrester is a theological revisionist). At present the Roman Catholic Church has several respected priests who are not only clergymen but also hold legitimate ‘inka’ or the status, not of mere lay vows, as Mr Forrester has, but fully ordained Zen Masters (Roshi)! As well, there are several nuns and priests who old the rank of ‘Sensei’, or ‘teacher’, just short of full Inka. And this is with the permission of the hierarchy. No doubt you all remember, as well, that Fr. Bede Griffiths (Benedictine Camaldolese) founded Shantivanam, a RC Ashram in India which is a part of the Benedictine Camaldolese Order. Also, you all remember Pere Henri Le Saux, who became, with the explicit blessing of the Roman hierarchy, a Christian renunciate in the Indian tradition by the name of Abhishiktananda, and who wrote several notable books on the intersection of Christian and Hindu spirituality. While I depore the facile and stomach-churning shallowness of most TEC syncretic ‘interfaith’ rubbish, there is, dear friends, an authentic meeting which monastics of all religions experience, as Thomas Merton pointed out very forcefully in his Asian Journals.

A New "Province" in North America: Neither the Only Nor the Right Answer for the Communion

2008-11-20T13:45:00.002-06:00

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/

Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

A new “province” for North American Anglicans is now promised to be “up and running” in the next month or so. It will comprise the 3-4 dioceses that have voted to leave TEC; the associations of various congregations that have left TEC (e.g. CANA) and those started outside of TEC from departing groups; it will also include congregations and denominations within the Anglican tradition that have formed over the past decades in North America. All of these groups now form part of an association called Common Cause.

The formation of this new “province” appears to be a fait accompli. It will presumably provide formal stability for the congregations and their plants who have left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as some kind of more easily grasped relationship with some other parts of the Anglican Communion. It is important to note, however, that such a new grouping will also not solve the problems of traditional Anglicans in North America , and that it will pose new problems to the Communion as a whole. As a member of the Covenant Design Group, committed to a particular work of providing a new framework for faithful communion life in Christ among Anglicans, I want to be clear about how the pressing forward of this new grouping within its stated terms poses some serious problems:

1. The new grouping will not, contrary to the stated claims of some of its proponents, embrace all or even most traditional Anglicans in North America. For instance, the Communion Partners group within TEC, comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below.

2. The new grouping, through some of its founding members, will continue in litigation within the secular courts for many years. This continues to constitute a sad spectacle, and is, in any case, practically and morally unfeasible for most traditional Anglicans.

3. The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible. The argument can be made that this is no different than historic Anglican comprehensiveness as a whole; but under the circumstances of a new structural distinction and the challenges this brings, the incoherence constitutes a burden that not all traditionalists believes is prudent to assume. This warning bell has been sounded repeatedly by traditionalists.

4. There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination, representation, consent, and so on that is included among the members of this new grouping. Some of these are both understandable and inevitable under the circumstances. But they nonetheless constitute barriers for future reconciliation with other Anglican churches.

5. Will the new grouping actually be a formal “province” within the Anglican Communion, whatever name it assumes? Surely, it will be recognized by some of the GAFCON Primates. However, it will probably not be recognized at the Primates’ meeting as a whole or even by a majority of its members, and will be yet another cuase for division there. Nor will it be recognized at the ACC. Thus it threatens to be yet another wedge in the breakup of the Communion, even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.

6. Such division on this matter among the Primates and the ACC will likely strengthen the position of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. They will move forward as continuing and undisciplined members of the Communion. All of this will merely hasten the demise of our common life, even among Global South churches themselves.

In the light of these clear downsides, it is unclear what is gained for Common Cause by seeking a self-styled “provincial” status.

Gafcon leaders dismiss 'futile" Covenant draft

2008-10-30T10:40:00.007-05:00

Here's the crux of the article that follows below:

Both Dr Thompson and Prof Noll argued that the exclusion of theologians and leaders of the Gafcon movement weakened the credibility of the document. "If the Covenant Design Group truly wishes to be inclusive, it needs to sit down with the leadership of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and seek to incorporate the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration into the Covenant," Prof Noll said. "Any hope" for the future of the Anglican Communion, Dr Thompson said, "lies with those faithful bishops and other leaders whose voices could not be heard at Lambeth because they had chosen to gather in Jerusalem.

Interpretation: Gafcon wants to run the whole show. Any Covenant that falls short of imposing a "confessional standard" on Anglicanism will never meet their demands. (There! I summarized the whole article in two sentences!)

+ + + + +

October 30th, 2008 Posted in Anglican Covenant, Global Anglican Future Conference | By George Conger, CEN

THE PROPOSED Anglican Covenant is an "exercise in futility," theologians affiliated with the Gafcon movement tell The Church of England Newspaper, and the current draft is beset with "a considerable degree of theological confusion."

On Oct 22, the Anglican Covenant Design Group chaired by Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies (pictured) released a commentary on the proposed pan-Anglican agreement drawn from comments made by bishops attending this summer’s Lambeth Conference. The 33-page "Lambeth Commentary" has been distributed to each of the Communion’s 38 provinces, with the request that they offer their comments on the commentary as well as the underlying draft of the Covenant by March 9, 2009.

The Design Group said it hoped the Lambeth Commentary "will stand alongside the St Andrew’s Draft [released in February 2008] as a critique and as a stimulus for study and response."

The Covenant Design Group will meet in March 2009 to develop a new draft based upon the provincial responses and submit the final report to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) at its May 1-12 meeting in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The Lambeth Commentary suggests the Anglican Communion adopt a form of alternative dispute resolution to resolve its divisions over doctrine and discipline, citing the examples of conflict mediation, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Chinese community centres,’ and the racially segregated Anglican churches of New Zealand.

The Commentary also urged the Design Group to permit dioceses to endorse the Covenant. During the Lambeth Conference, ACC Deputy Secretary General Canon Gregory Cameron said the St Andrew’s Draft did not envision dioceses being the primary signatories of the Covenant. However, the Lambeth Commentary urged a reconsideration of this view, noting if "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."

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told members of the church’s Executive Council on Oct 21 that she would "strongly discourage" consideration of the Covenant at the July meeting of General Convention. "The time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church and I’m therefore going to strongly discourage any move to bring it to General Convention. I just think it’s inappropriate to make a decision that weighty," she said. However, critics note the 2003 decision by General Convention to affirm the election of Gene
Robinson was made in less time.

This week the Sydney theologian Dr Mark Thompson, Dean of Moore Theological College, argued the covenant process would not resolve the problems before the Anglican Communion.

The actions of Bishop Schori and New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham since Lambeth "have made clear that the covenant idea simply will not deal with the real issues."

The "Lambeth Commentary itself refuses to deal with the real issues," he noted, observing that the Covenant was "entirely irrelevant" and would "make no difference to the current situation and will be unable to prevent future challenges of the same magnitude," Dr Thompson said.

The present draft of the Anglican Covenant made a "simplistic appeal to the biblical covenants" in support of its agenda, yet the biblical covenants "were instituted by God as a gift which provided a framework for understanding Israel’s relationship with him. At the heart was hearing, believing and obeying God’s word. They ought not be confused a covenant between human beings," he said.

The Lambeth Commentary was also unclear as to what it understood the Covenant to be, describing it both as a "central text" while also "speaking about it as a ‘foundational document’." Dr Thompson added that there was an "ecclesiological confusion when the ‘local church’ is described as ‘that portion of God’s people gathered around their bishop, usually in the form of a territorial diocese’," —- a description of the church not supported by the Articles of Religion.

It was "simply untrue" to say that the Windsor process and the Anglican Covenant were the "only game in town," Dr Thompson said. "It is the unwillingness of the current leadership of the Communion to deal directly and biblically with the crisis created by the American and Canadian revisionists, its prevarication and personal compromise that has radically deepened the crisis and ensured that the covenant as it is proposed simply will not work."

Prof Stephen Noll, Vice Chancellor of Uganda Christian University told CEN the "most important requirements of a workable covenant are doctrinal substance and disciplinary efficacy. The drafts to date have fallen short on both counts." Both Dr Thompson and Prof Noll argued that the exclusion of theologians and leaders of the Gafcon movement weakened the credibility of the document. "If the Covenant Design Group truly wishes to be inclusive, it needs to sit down with the leadership of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and seek to incorporate the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration into the Covenant," Prof Noll said. "Any hope" for the future of the Anglican Communion, Dr Thompson said, "lies with those faithful bishops and other leaders whose voices could not be heard at Lambeth because they had chosen to gather in Jerusalem.

"The St Andrews Draft of An Anglican Covenant, and the Lambeth Commentary on that draft, are institutional responses to a situation that can only be resolved by much, much more," he concluded.

Ch-ch-changes

2008-10-24T10:49:00.007-05:00

So where have I been and what's been going on in my life? Well, as you can imagine, Hurricane Ike threw us off course for most of the month of September. The seminary was closed for nearly two weeks, and generally speaking the city of Houston was a mess -- one big traffic jam for the better part of a month due to the fact that many of the traffic lights were out. My neighborhood was hit pretty hard, with downed trees and fences, but, of course, nothing like what happened on the coast. We were without electricity for two weeks. Fortunately the weather cooperated for much of that time, giving us some unseasonably cool and refreshing days and evenings. On the bright side, my electricity bill was low.

So what are these ch-ch-ch-changes afoot? Well, it may come as a surprise to some of you, but I've put in my notice -- January 15 being my last day at the seminary. Yes, I'm weary and need a change. And I'm really looking forward to going back into parish ministry. No doubt my relationship with the seminary will continue for quite some time, both as a self-study consultant and as an adjunct faculty member. But my days of being a full-time academic administrator are coming to a close, and my days as a full-time parish priest are drawing nigh. I'm excited, because I might actually have time to write and do some research for the first time since completing my doctoral dissertation in 2000. Ironic isn't it? My advice for young, promising academes: If you like teaching and writing, don't be lured into academic administration. Stick to the classroom. You'll be much happier.

Fascinating Article over at Preludium

2008-09-02T17:10:00.004-05:00

Be sure to check out Mark Harris' article entitled "Charting the Anglican Elliptic: The Churches and the Communion as foci."

Cantuar: sic et non? Reflections on the "Canterbury-centeredness" of the Anglican Communion

2008-08-29T17:00:00.004-05:00

What I find troubling about the whole "Cantuar sic et non?" debate is that the focus has been improperly placed on the man who currently resides in the office, with the result that disatisfaction and frustration with +++Rowan Williams (much of it justified) unfortunately morphs into questioning the wisdom of recognizing Canterbury as primas inter pares in the Communion at all.

From my perspective, any debate on whether or not the Communion should remain "Canterbury-centered" is really a secondary matter. So for instance, if, in its common life, the Anglican Communion were one day to decide upon instituting a "rotating primacy" or an "elected head" for itself, then so be it. I'd have no theological objection to this at all. (However, I suspect that if this were to happen Canterbury would still be afforded a symbolic figurehead role, such as that enjoyed by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Eastern Church, but I digress.)

Maintaining our "Canterbury-centeredness" is not about maintaining ancient prerogatives of an historic see, per se, but about keeping the Communion -- in the present -- from fracturing. Right now, for better or for worse, the Communion has four Instruments of Unity, one of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury. This will not change in the near future short of a schism in the Communion (and then only for those folks that actually go into schism).

Thus any "common-life solution" to the present crisis in the Communion must work within the structures of the Communion itself and with the Instruments of Unity that we presently have. Those who choose to work outside these structures, or through parallel structures that effectively veto the decisions and actions of the Instruments, are not working within the common life of the Communion. Period. In fact, I suspect the only reason we are hearing so much anti-Cantuar rhetoric these days is because such rhetoric serves to rationalize or justify actions from outside the common life of our Communion.

Fr. Will Brown Comments on "A Word in Time"

2008-08-28T09:15:00.002-05:00

I don't typically link to the comments from other blogs, but I thought this entry by Fr. Will Brown (a Covenant contributor ) over at Titus OneNine was brilliant.

+++++++++++++

I think, to shuck it down to the cob, we should not start a new group. Part of what it means to be an Anglican (perhaps the biggest part) is our commitment to discern these kinds of things (blessing same sex relationships, etc.) with our brother Anglicans. That’s what, in part, 1998.1.10 is all about. But the disciplinary stuff (e.g. what happens when a diocese doesn’t want to be part of its provincial structure but does want to be part of the Communion?) is no less a task for common discernment. In short: to be Anglican means to look for Anglican answers to these questions. Who enunciates Anglican answers? Well, over the past century and a half, the common life we lead as Anglicans has kind of indicated that we look to the ABC, Lambeth, the Primates Meeting, and the ACC to answer these kinds of questions. The problem is that the answers aren’t binding, because hitherto they haven’t really needed to be binding. Now the task is to mutually (as a Communion) discern a way to agree to be bound by Anglican answers (the answers of the Instruments). In other words, the task in front of us isn’t just for the Communion to tell TEC that TEC is wrong. The Communion has done that already… repeatedly (cf. 1998.1.10 and the various statements ever sense, most recently at Lambeth). We have to go back a step further and figure out a way to agree to be bound to one another more tightly. THAT’S what takes time. And rightly so. Its a sea change in the common life of Anglicans. And many of us think its a change for the better, because it will be the foundation not only for the solution to the current problems, but for future problems too. There will be not merely a resolution, but a MECHANISM for coming to a resolution. The lack of the mechanism is Anglicanism’s Achilles’ heal—i.e. the fact that there really is no legitimate way for the Communion to speak to TEC with authority. TEC is correct in pointing out that provinces are largely autonomous. But we now see that this kind of autonomy is disastrous. (That should be no surprise to anyone—autonomy literally means being a law unto oneself, and that just SOUNDS, prima facie, terrible unGospel—and it is.)

To recap: being an Anglican, at this point in time, means being willing to invest the time and psychic (aka “soulish") energy necessary to lay a foundation for a renewed Communion with stronger and deeper trans-provincial (aka global) relationships—deepening our koinonia, our fellowship, our communion with one another. And concomitantly relinquishing some of our (unChristian) autonomy. In short: finding a way to live into the truth that “what effects all should be decided by all”. Above all else now this means patience and a willingness to endure the birth-pangs. But the result, if we can just endure to the end, could well be a deepened, renewed, and sanctified Anglican Communion, able to carry the Gospel to the unbelieving world all the more effectively precisely in virtue of our visibly deepened and renewed love for one another. The world will see that we are committed to one another, that we patiently bear one another’s burdens, that we willingly forego advantage and individual “success” for the sake of one another. And the world will find that compelling, because people want to LIVE, and because the world only knows self-seeking, isolation, violence and exploitation: which all lead to death.

A Word In Time: An Open Letter to the Anglican Communion

2008-08-26T11:59:00.005-05:00

August 25, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We the undersigned contributors to Covenant-Communion.com believe that “a word in time” is now needed in order to assist the Communion to move forward in a constructive manner following the Lambeth Conference. We would like to speak such a word by specifically addressing the points Bishop Bob Duncan raises in his email to Bishop Gary Lillibridge, which has now been made public with Bp. Duncan’s permission. Our reflections are offered with all due respect for Bishop Duncan as a dear friend to some of us, and one whom those of us who know him personally admire as a stalwart in the faith. Bishop Duncan’s words are quoted in italics with our reflections following.

Read the rest of this important and timely letter and/or download a pdf version of it over at Covenant.

Interesting Quote

2008-08-10T16:15:00.001-05:00

"It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children -- those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own -- being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty."

--Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839)

Going Incognito

2008-08-10T12:40:00.004-05:00

My readers may have noticed that I've removed most of the personal information from my profile -- not that any mediocre sleuth couldn't figure out who I was if they wanted to. While I don't want to go into details, let's just say that a more subtle profile is needed at this time. I don't want to shut down this blog to protect my privacy. Hopefully, this will be enough.

What is REALLY needed is a new Lux Mundi Movement

2008-08-08T20:15:00.005-05:00

I realize that this won't resonate with many Anglican Catholics or "Anglo-Catholics" (if you like), out of fear of liberalism or suspicion of compromise, or what have you. I suspect that this is particularly true of those calling for a new "Oxford Movement" of late, like my friend over at De Cura Animarum (more power to them!). However, what is really needed is a new Lux Mundi Movement. Some have wondered why I call this blog "Catholic in the Third Millennium." Well, what follows is in part the inspiration behind the name.

The following was taken from Charles Gore and the Lux Mundi School.

We have here . . . to consider another aspect of the work of the third generation of the Revival, that associated with what might well be called the second Oxford Movement, the famous Lux Mundi group. It was this group which succeeded in doing that which the Tractarians has failed to do, viz. the relating of the Church's claim for the primacy of the spiritual to the new circumstances of a democratic age. Lux Mundi was in fact the foundation of a new apologetic in which Catholic thought no longer stood on the defensive against the thought of the age, but incorporated it and made it a vehicle for its own doctrine. The guiding principle was found in the Johannine doctrine of he Incarnate Logos, the Word entering to redeem the world of which He was already the Creator -- a world which included the historically-developing social order . . . Newman and Manning [had] sought to revive and give practical effect to some such idea of the world and of man. But on the whole the theology of the Movement had remained within the old Evangelical circle of thought -- the soul, sin, and redemption. To this it had added the thought of the Church as the sphere, the sacraments as the means, of Redemption, but still only the redemption of the soul, not the redemption in the full sense of man, nor the redemption of the world. Lux Mundi looked back behind redemption to creation. Evolution was accepted as the work of the Logos through whom all things were made. It followed, among other things, that man's historical development, including that of the present age, is part of the creative movement of the Word, and therefore manifests His Light. Democracy, which characterises the present era, can thus be seen as interpreting the worth of personality and the brotherhood of men. Socialism, again viewed as an existing tendency, illuminates the idea of authority in so far as this involves a rightful claim of the whole upon the part. But only the Incarnation, the fact, that is, of the Word personally become flesh to fulfill and redeem the world order which He had originally created, but which had fallen away from Him, is adequate, together with its extension in the Church and the sacraments, to interpret and validate the life of the individual and of society . . .

Naming New Archbishops of Canterbury

2008-08-05T20:33:00.006-05:00

From The Times

August 5, 2008
Arch appointment
Naming new archbishops of Canterbury

Sir, As Archbishops’ appointments secretary at the time of the selection of Archbishop Rowan Williams to Canterbury, I was disappointed to note Archbishop Orombi’s misleading description of the selection process as “appointed by a secular government” (August 1).

The fact is that the Prime Minister was presented with two names elected by the Crown Appointments Commission (CAC), of whom he was obliged to choose one for recommendation to the Queen. The CAC (now the Crown Nominations Commission, CNC) is an electoral college, with clerical and lay representation from the General Synod and the Diocese of Canterbury.

The commission was informed by a substantial process of widespread consultation. The Archbishop may not recall that I personally attended a meeting of all the Anglican primates, at which support for Rowan Williams was manifest. While not at liberty to disclose details of the CAC meeting itself, I can say that I have never attended a meeting where the presence of the Holy Spirit was so clearly and movingly in evidence.

Orombi must surely be aware that a process of “election by his peers” is not always beyond criticism. And of course this was precisely the method by which Bishop Gene Robinson was selected.

Anthony Sadler
Former Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments
Ars-en-Ré, France

Comment: Touché!

Lambeth Post-Mortem by Fr. Dan Martins

2008-08-03T23:10:00.003-05:00

Thank you, Fr. Dan, for this hopeful assessment!

In his 1999 book Plato, Not Prozac!, Lou Marinoff contends that a substantial proportion of human mental and emotional suffering stems not from the actual events of our lives, but from our expectations about the actual events of our lives. The ants at the picnic didn’t ruin our afternoon; our expectation that the picnic grounds would be free of ants ruined our afternoon.

The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops has now concluded after three weeks, and if the blogsphere is any indication, there is a palpable degree of human mental and emotional suffering floating in its wake. It’s certainly not suffering on the order of that experienced by those who are punched by a tsunami or a hurricane, but it’s nonetheless important to those who are feeling it at the moment. Perhaps Marinoff’s book should have been required reading for anyone with a horse in this race.

A couple of weeks ago, I took inventory of my own expectations, hopes, and wishes for this Lambeth Conference. This seems an appropriate time to audit that list and reflect on its relationship to subsequent developments:

Read the rest of this article over at Covenant.

My Thoughts on the Fr. Kimel Kerfuffle

2008-08-02T13:31:00.003-05:00

To quote myself:

I came to the conclusion some years ago that "Anglicanism" was not primarily about doctrine or formularies, but about connection to and continuity with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as mediated through the Church of England. So it seemed foolish to me to identify with Anglicanism on this level while aligning myself with a church or movement that almost entirely identified Anglicanism with doctrine (39 Articles) and formularies (1662 BCP). ("Why I Migrated to The Episcopal Church," Entry: July 30, 2007)

At least one constructive thing has come out of the recent dialogue (charity compels me to call it such) between Fr. Al Kimel and myself. It has reminded me of my own words above. Indeed, it was Fr. Kimel himself who linked the article which contains the above quote to his most recent critque of my article "Personal Reflections on Why I Remain in TEC".

As I hinted in the "trailer" of a previous entry, Fr. Kimel has asked the wrong question, (or, perhaps better, an inadequate question) in the title of his article, "Is The Episcopal Church Truly a Catholic Church?" In so doing, he has unwittingly pigeon-holed himself into answering the question in terms of the relative orthodoxy of TEC's adherents, and thus comes across not as a Roman Catholic apologist debating the catholic claims of Anglicanism as much as he does a former Episcopalian displaying his disappointment and disenchantment with his former church's continuous flirtations with erroneous teaching (the pan-sexual agenda), or, in some cases, embracing of innovative positions (e.g., women's ordination). His arguments in this respect are not much different than those who have thrown their lot in with CANA or the AMiA, or the GAFCON movement for that matter.

Now, I'm not about to engage in a debate over or defend various recent actions of TEC. I should think that Fr. Kimel and I agree for the most part about these matters, and so these hardly need rehashing. My point, however, should not be missed: To argue against the catholicity of a particular church based on a point-in-time snapshot of the relative orthodoxy of its adherents, whether a majority or a significant tolerated minority, is to subject every church at every point in history (including one's own) to the same standard.

But does Fr. Kimel really want to go down that road? Does he really wish to uphold the relative orthodoxy of the adherents of Roman Catholicism throughout its long and less than exemplary history as the standard by which all others are judged catholic? Or is he claiming for Rome and its adherents an "abosulte orthodoxy and orthopraxy" by which all other catholic claimants are judged? (The recent comment from the Anglican Scotist about how Fr. Kimel wants "to make a clean, binary distinction in terms of esse sufficient to completely unchurch Episcopalians" is right on the money here.)

If that is the route Fr. Kimel would like to pursue, then perhaps we should begin our discussion with the sins of simony and nepotism, or the sale of grace through indulgences in the sixteenth century. Or perhaps we should bring the discussion into modern times, and talk about the "Ted Kennedys" and "Nancy Pelosis" of the world. Should we discuss the American Roman hierarchy's complicity in covering up the recent sex scandals and child molestations which some of her priests have perpetrated? I, for one, would rather not go down that road.

So, Fr. Kimel, let's not go there, because, unless one wishes to assume the foolish position of an absolute orthodoxy, there are no winners in such a contest. Instead, let's engage in a debate about the nature of catholicity itself. And I think a good place to begin would be with my quoted statement above. Show me how my "connection to" and "continuity with" the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as mediated through the Church of England has been severed or interrupted by my remaining in The Episcopal Church.

The Anglican Scotist's Comment on the "Kimel Kerfuffle"

2008-07-31T17:12:00.002-05:00

I grabbed this from the comments section of my entry that links to Fr. Al Kimel's "Is the Episcopal Church a Truly Catholic Church"(Click Here). As I've come to expect from him, the Anglican Scotist concisely gets right to the heart of the matter:

It seems [Kimel] will have to speak without contradicting Vatican II's ecclesiology, which might be difficult, given that he seems to want to make a clean, binary distinction in terms of esse sufficient to completely unchurch Episcopalians.

He may also have to ignore the significance of the distinction between (a) Christ being with the Church always, and (b) Christ chastising the church because he loves it. That is, it seems Christ may remain sufficiently present in the church he punishes, which implies deserving punishment--say for material heresy--does not alone entail abandonment.

Anyhow, let's hope he says something new soon; summer is draining away.

Interesting Take on the "Kimel Kontroversy"

2008-07-31T16:41:00.004-05:00

Room With A View has weighed in on the latest from Al Kimel (see entry below). Doug Martin, a former Anglican and now a Roman Catholic convert, provides an interesting perspective.

"Is The Episcopal Church Truly a Catholic Church?" Fr. Al Kimel's Response to My Article

2008-07-30T14:12:00.005-05:00

In the interest of fairness, I'm posting a link to De Cura Animarum so that my readers may read the ongoing dialogue between Fr. Al Kimel and me. He is invited to post directly to my blog if he so wishes.

By way of a trailer to my counter-response, I'll simply say that Fr. Kimel is asking the wrong question.

Postscript: It is interesting to note that Fr. Kimel did not actually choose to respond to my article "Al Kimel's Comments on My Recent Entries," but rather chose to continue his critique of my original article "Personal Reflections on Remaining in TEC," which obviously was not intended to be anything more than a brief rationale for staying in TEC and the Anglican Communion rather than throwing my lot in with GAFCON. Quite frankly, I think my response to Kimel provides much better material for a debate between a Roman and an Anglican. But perhaps there are issues that I raised in that article that he would rather not address.

CT Interview with +Tom Wright

2008-07-29T13:27:00.004-05:00

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Tom Wright, offers some reflections on the Lambeth Conference so far and how he thinks the Anglican Communion can move forward after the three weeks of prayer and discussion draw to an end on Sunday.

Read the whole CT interview over at Fulcrum.

CT: You must have had some kind of expectation before you came to Lambeth of what it was going to be like. Have those expectations been fulfilled?

TW: I did have various mental pictures of what it was going to be like before I came and I keep on being surprised now because it has not been at all like I expected. I am not quite sure now what it was that I was expecting. It is wild and wacky and there is so much going that I have only heard about three days after they happened by reading them on somebody’s blog or whatever.

CT: Some conservatives were anxious in coming to Lambeth and some here have actually said they don’t feel any hope towards the future of the Anglican Communion. Do you share those feelings?

TW: I always tell my staff at home to distinguish between feelings and thinking because your feelings will come and go if you are tired or in a meeting perhaps and then you will feel like all hope is lost. You have to go back and pray and think.

The situation is still extremely complex. The Archbishop of Canterbury said when he invited us all that if you accept this invitation you are accepting to work with the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. The Archbishop reiterated that on Sunday afternoon and has reiterated it publicly several times.

If the Windsor Report is properly followed through and if the Covenant process actually gets somewhere where it is designed to get then things can happen which will give hope to a lot of people who are at present in danger of losing hope. I say that in general terms because I am not in charge of the process, I’m not on the group for taking forward either of those things. So I am not entirely sure what will happen with either of them and to put it devoutly I am not sure how the Holy Spirit will lead those who are working on those things.

A Fifth Instrument of Unity: Proposed Anglican Faith and Order Commission

2008-07-25T19:22:00.003-05:00

Some hopeful rumblings from Lambeth. See commentary and links over at Fulcrum.

My Conversation with Stand Firm's Sarah about GAFCON

2008-07-25T13:02:00.005-05:00

My readers may view the full discussion (including Roland's entry) here: Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy.

Sarah writes:

Oh, I certainly believe that the Communion will break up -- but not for anything that Gafcon did or didn't do.

I think that Gafcon is merely the consequence of the Communion's inability -- and I believe it to be unable -- to discipline itself.

For example, you state that setting up the Gafcon Primates Council undermines "the authority and relevance of the already-established Primates' Meeting" -- but of course it was already undermined and ignored and appears to have no authority at all, as Dar has now well-demonstrated.

It seems that we are debating the *causes* of the inevitable breakup of the Communion and I just can't see that Gafcon will have had much to do with it. I think that Gafcon's eventual -- and I think it is eventual in a long-term sense -- separation from the Communion will be a *consequence* of the fracture and dissolution of the Communion and not its cause.

There will be a long long long list of causes of the dissolution of the Communion and I don't think that history will record Gafcon as a major one, if at all.

Roland, you say "If conservatives had maintained a united front and lined up behind +Rowan's covenant proposal, they could easily have isolated the North American revisionists" and I have to laugh at what seems to me to be breathtaking naivete about the process.

Conservatives could have maintained a "united front" till the cows come home but again -- it is the ACC and the Covenant Design Group that determines what the Covenant actually is and whether it will be effective.

Of course -- there is still time. The Design Group meets after Lambeth for its next draft, and the ACC will get its mitts on the Covenant some time in early April of 09. It will then proceed to the provinces' for their individual approvals.

I personally believe that *all* the provinces, including TEC and Sydney, will sign on to the Covenant.

And so, by the end of 2009, we will be in the exact same place as we were in December of 03, with all the provinces of the Anglican Communion staring at one another, completely opposed in their two gospels, and with no discipline.

And a signed, approved Covenant -- with *all* the conservatives approving it -- won't, of course, solve any problems at all.

Someday, I'll probably leave the Communion. But saying that Gafcon is "causing the breakup of the Communion" sounds very similar to a person saying "when Sarah left the Communion, she caused its breakup."

I guess if you are operating under the assumption that if all conservatives, including Gafcon members, simply sat in the Communion and never did anything, that *then* the Communion would never break up, then I can see your point. But in that case, you seem to be advocating for all of us to simply sit still -- and the Communion will survive.

Sarah

+++
Dear Sarah,

You're correct that the Communion is currently unable to discipline itself, but this is because the structures were never in place to do so. No one denies this, and in fact this is precisely what the Windsor Commission originally reported.

So the question at hand is NOT, nor has it ever been, why hasn't the ABC (or the some other instrument) done anything to "discipline" TEC? There is no process to discipline. Rather, the question is what structures must evolve over the next few years to bring the Communion to the point where it can live together in "autonomy with accountability"? (As the Windsor Continuation Group has recently said). This implies that the Communion is working towards the accountability structures that will provide for discipline. We're simply not there yet.

GAFCON effectively is already a schism -- "Methodist-style" as I have argued in the past. Never in history has the "church within a church" strategy ever worked for reform, but has always ended in separation via estrangement.

The essential problem with GAFCON (as evidenced by the Jerusalem statement itself) is that its major movers and shakers (e.g., Akinola) are federalists. No less than a federal (and confessional) solution will please them. Akinola made his move long before GAFCON by changing his province's constitution to write Canterbury out of the definition of what it means for his province to be Anglican.

I think you know me better than to suggest that I advocate sitting still. I actually think we need a "refuge" of some kind for the disaffected in our province. However, this should be set up as an extraordinary "safe space" for conservatives, not as a first step towards "realignment" or separation (i.e., schism).

Indeed, I'm sure that this is precisely where you and I differ in our estimations of GAFCON. You see what has been done as essentially what I advocate in the paragraph above (i.e., safe spaces). I see these so-called "safe spaces" as hopelessly compromised (and dominated) by federalists who don't give a rat's ass for saving the so-called Canterbury-centered Anglican Communion (Noll and Rodgers for instance).

So if you wish to talk about causes, well there are plenty to choose from, indeed. But it's naive to give GAFCON a "get out of jail free card" on this one. The intellectual engine behind GAFCON is compromised by federalism, and there is nothing stopping that train now that it's rolling down the track.

GAFCON and the Anglican Covenant by Andrew Goddard

2008-07-22T12:17:00.003-05:00

Check out this analysis of the recent GAFCON response to the Covenant Process. This is brilliant.

Covenant

"Anglicans and Orthodoxy" from the Land of Unlikeness Blog

2008-07-21T15:04:00.004-05:00

Published by DWMon July 17, 2008 (See link below).

Cynthia at Per Caritatem pointed to a couple blog posts on recent affairs in the Anglican Communion. She also asked for other links to Anglican reflections. Besides my link to NT Wright’s article on GAFCON, there were a couple comments on the state of affairs. I suggest you read the comments yourself as I won’t be quoting directly.

In any case, as an Episcopelian theology student and instructor who considers himself to be practicing orthodoxy, I’m getting a little tired of the straw-man claims that TEC and the Anglican Communion have been possessed by the heresy demons. It seems that there’s an implicit understanding that what constitutes orthodoxy among a communion necessarily includes not only no women in the episcopate, but also, if you will, a “roman” idea of infallibility amongst the decisions makers. So, the reasoning goes something like this: the C of E has necessarily made a mistake in affirming women in the episcopate, and we all know what kind of blunder TEC made with Gene Robinson and their apparent unwillingness to repent and atone for their sins, their resistance to the work of the Spirit via the splinter factions/alternative oversight from the southern cone, and let’s not forget Abp. Williams’ “failures in leadership” as one commentator so charmingly put it. All of this equals a failure of orthodoxy, or again as one put it today, a tolerance of heterodoxy in the name of catholicity.

Yet, this reasoning errs on two levels, I think. First, the church has never been comprised of a 100% orthodox episcopate. Orthodoxy has always resulted from the decisions of councils when faced with risky moves by theologians and by changing demands in the world. This necessitates at least two sides, usually more. One side often gets labeled heretical, and more often the not the winning side even gets chastened a bit. To borrow methodologically from William Desmond, orthodoxy is not a mediation determined by one side at the expense of the other. Rather, orthodoxy is a true mediation of the spirit, and is therefore a truly theological, and therefore is a spiritual/liturgical practice. In other words, Arius and Athanasius were both involved in a community of right spiritual practice (orthodoxy). Both were necessary to the process.

Second, the above view also errs in its omission of the orthodox and often conservative views of Bishops like Tom Wright and many of the southern cone bishops. Often this view acts as if orthodoxy in the communion is an aberance and must come from outside the communion. This fails in seeing that theologians, like priests, bishops, and lay people are all formed by their participation in the communion of practice. They don’t develop their ideas in a vacuum or apart from the church, despite how much they try. And this is not an excuse for heretical theology, but rather a realistic description of the contexts in which both orthodox and heterodox theology is formed. Once we’ve recognized this, it becomes harder to relegate an entire church to heterodoxy or failed catholicity pell mell.

Lastly, this view errs in its ability to locate orthodoxy in anything but polity decisions at a second or third order levels. if we go with a traditional understanding of orthodoxy starting in first order theological issues (Trinity, Christology, etc..), and then second order (soteriology, harmartiology, angelology, anthropology, etc..), and then third order stuff like polity decisions, one fails to see the crisis of orthodoxy in the Anglican Communion. Show me a lack of Orthodoxy among leaders in the communion like Apb. Williams, the Abp. of York, and NT Wright, and maybe then I’ll start to concede to something like Lambethgate. Until then, you Rush Limbaughs of theology, chill out.

The Land of Unlikeness

The Dark Knight a Lapsed Episcopalian?

2008-07-20T19:46:00.004-05:00

The Religious Affiliation of Batman

Al Kimel's Comments on My Recent Entries

2008-07-20T15:13:00.016-05:00

Below is a portion of a post written by Al Kimel over at Per Caritatem. This entry was excised from the discussion of my recent brief essays "Personal Reflections for Remaining in TEC," "The Problem of Confessionalism," and "Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy." Biretta tip to Cynthia Nielsen for bringing these posts to the attention of her readers, and for maintaining the best theological blog in the blogosphere bar none. See link for the discussion below.

+++++++

I don’t believe that most who are really struggling with the present direction of the Episcopal Church will find Fr Daniel Dunlap’s reflections very helpful. Basically he seems to be saying, Episcopalians are all over the place theologically, but the TEC and Anglican Communion still formally retain catholic creeds and catholic orders, so there’s no imperative to break communion. As Fr Dunlap writes, “the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church’s credo, not our individual “credos,” and endeavoring to live into it.”

This, of course, has been precisely the line advanced by most orthodox Episcopalians during the past thirty years. It is a failed strategy, and it ignores the political, theological, and ecclesial and seminary realities now confronting the “orthodox” (however one draws the lines of “orthodoxy”).

+++++++

First, I'll make a concession. Yes, Episcopalians are all over the place theologically, but then so are Roman Catholics. The difference? The Romans have in place a magisterium and a very nuanced rationale for doctrinal development that, when taken together, have so far managed to cover over centuries of theological missteps and still leave room for an infallible definition or two from time to time. However, they also make good hiding places for the "existentialist-expressivists" for whom Fr. Kimel apparently has no liking, and whom Fr. Kimel apparently would rather pretend did not exist within the Roman camp.

Be that as it may, the magisterium-doctrinal development thesis is so ingrained in the Roman psyche that to deny its catholicity (which I do) seemingly places its detractors on a playing field slanted in favor of those who affirm it. Okay, fair enough. I accept the premise that an "Anglican magisterium" would make Anglican life so much easier. But would it make Anglicanism more "catholic"? Would it solve the issues that so divide the Anglican Communion today? Or, rather, would it solidify for all time certain theological innovations in the name of "Anglican doctrinal development"? I believe the latter to be more likely, and I believe that supposedly "infallible" Roman dogmas (e.g., the Immaculate Conception) make the point better than I ever could.

Such a scenario, of course, is nonsensical. An "Anglican magisterium" is about as oxymoronic a term as one can imagine. However, my point should be obvious: the Anglican way of being "catholic" (or living into catholicity) is different than the Roman way. So why is it that Roman apologists (many of them ex-Anglicans, I might add) only come out to play when they have homefield advantage? Obviously it's futile to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Roman terms. So I won't. I will be content to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Anglican terms.

At first, it may appear odd to my readers to hear me suggest that Anglicanism has its "own terms" or definition of catholicity. But it shouldn't. I have argued on a number of occasions that each of the three major apostolic communions (i.e., Roman, Byzantine, Anglican) operate on quite different understandings of what it means to be "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." Romanism and Byzantinism both make claims of ecclesial ultimacy. But their respective claims are mutually exclusive, as the former insists on papal supremacy and the latter on the received faith of the ecumenical councils. Thus, despite whatever superficial similarities Rome and Byzantium may have, they are different ways of understanding what it means to be catholic. In contrast, Anglicanism has never made a claim of ecclesial ultimacy, and so defines itself not as the Catholic Church, but rather as a catholic church, and thus recognizes the other two communions as legitimate branches of "the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Unlike Fr. Kimel, I see this as Anglicanism's greatest strength, not its weakness. And if it survives the present struggles, then it will only be that much stronger.

You see, believe it or not, I still believe in "common prayer catholicity," which, contrary to Al Kimel's reductionism above, is more than just the formal retention of ancient creeds and apostolic orders. Neither is my position merely a "strategy," failed or otherwise, for the orthodox to stay put in TEC/Anglican Communion. I don't need a reason or a strategy to stay in TEC. Indeed, the burden of proof is STILL on those who insist that I should leave! Rather Anglicanism is a way of being catholic, or living into catholicity, that has proven itself very effective and extremely resilient over the last nearly 500 years of this independent Anglican experiment. I still believe that Anglicanism is a movement of God. I may be wrong. But why should I give up on it now?

Per Caritatem

Ephraim Radner's Open Letter to the Bishops Gathering for Lambeth

2008-07-13T15:43:00.003-05:00

Biretta tip to Covenant.

++++++

To the Bishops gathering for the Lambeth Conference:

I write to you personally and openly. I hope that at least some of you will take my words to heart, not because they are mine (which, on their own, would not count for much), but because they represent the mind, I believe, of many in the Communion who are not as vocal in the councils and organs of communication within our church as some.

I write to urge you to prayerful action in the face of widespread concerns that the upcoming Lambeth Conference will prove not only wholly irrelevant to the needs of our common life, but perhaps also the last such conference that our Communion will engage. Yet, in large measure, God has placed these matters in your hands. Although I am not privy to the planning, the intentions, and the ordering of the Conference, there are clear signs that the Conference runs the risk of failing to face and respond faithfully to the needs of God’s people within our Communion and her churches.

Let me outline first what your Conference embodies, as I and many understand it; next, what dangers we are in that your gathering must somehow address; then, what I believe God is calling you to specifically; and finally how you might practically respond.

What is the gathering you are now attending?

1. The Lambeth Conference is the only, the widest, and the most venerable gathering of bishops within our Communion of churches. Within the catholic tradition of our common life, this means quite simply that it is the most representative gathering of our Communion, with all the promise and responsibility that this implies. People have long spoken of the Lambeth’s “moral authority”; there is none greater among the gatherings of Anglicans.

2. I am well aware that the Lambeth Conference itself has long proclaimed that it is not a “synod” in some technical sense, granted the canonical powers to legislate for its member churches. But, with these canonical constraints granted, it remains a fact that the Lambeth Conference is the one gathering of Anglican bishops; and if it is your mind, guided by the Holy Spirit, that is spoken and heard, what we have called a “moral authority” will be understood, and rightly so, by the people as an authoritative voice, equivalent to any synod or council within our tradition. As I have argued before, Lambeth “can be what it wants to be”, that is, if the will of the bishops is joined by a divine grace to speak as one. And you are called so to speak (1 Cor. 1:10).

3. I am also aware that there is a deliberate desire at this decade’s conference to avoid a focus upon parliamentary debate and resolutions, and instead focus upon common discussion, listening, and prayer. This is as it should be: for what council of bishops could ever speak faithfully unless its words emerged from a mind submitted to and brought together in the Spirit of Christ Jesus? And how shall this happen but through the gathering in prayer in the example of the first Apostles?

But if this prayerful reflection does not, in this time, give rise to a common resolution regarding the responsibilities of your own pastoral office and the ordering of our common life, such devoted intentions will have been wasted, perhaps culpably so.

The Moment We Face

1. Your responsibility is shaped, in part, by the times we are in. For we are facing the most perilous crisis in our life as a Communion and as members of it, that we have ever faced. To be sure, this is not the first major threat to our common Christian life as Anglicans. During the first half of the 17th century, the Great Migration saw thousands leave England, and effectively leave the Anglican church, for North America; the subsequent Civil War nearly destroyed for all time this tradition and her gifts, and despite emerging from this, the Anglican Church was long beset with exiles and schisms. These were first made international at the end of the 18th century, with the American Revolution and the Methodist divisions, and the 19th century also saw a long struggle, marked by anguish and departures, one however that was more than compensated by an unparalleled missionary outreach. For all that, nothing in the past compares with the sheer extent of the threat to Anglican existence that we now face, as the Communion looks into permanent and multiple fracture, and local churches do the same in the wake of already grievous divisions.

2. There are those who believe that Anglicanism’s structural dissolution could represent not only a “new thing”, but a “good thing” as God reorders His church during this epoch. And who is to say for certain?

But we should beware of attributing to God’s goodness the fruits of our own failures. For the signs are not good at all: in the West, the Christian witness has flagged, in some places diminishing terribly. Even in the United States, most indicators point to the beginning of a decline in Christian faith that is afflicting all churches in different ways. And in the global context, where growth has been noticeable among Christian churches, we should not fool ourselves: the fastest growing religions are not Christian at all, but often something very different (e.g,. Mormonism). The demise of the Anglican Communion will weaken all Anglican churches; some – among whom are the poorest – will lose the support of their brethren to the hurt of their people; others, in richer nations, will carry on perhaps in shrinking and increasingly irrelevant niches; while finally others will merge into the simple arena of religious competition within their societies, left to the fortunes of politics and the struggle over limited resources.

3. In any of these not only possible, but likely scenarios, Anglicanism will not only have squandered its historic bequest, but we will have failed in our vocation to stand with and serve the larger Church in our single witness to our Lord Jesus Christ. Only 100 years ago, in Edinburgh, we were willing to take the lead in such a common privilege. Now we struggle even to stand upright within the wind.

4. Within the United States in particular – and now I speak of my own church – the future of Anglicanism looks grim. On the one side stands the national office of the Episcopal Church, supported by many bishops and dioceses, that has flouted the traditional teachings of the Church, rejected the pleas and recommendations of the Communion, and engaged in formal and informal processes of bullying, denigrating, and smearing those who disagree. On the other side are traditionalist bishops, dioceses, and congregations, the most formally organized of which (e.g. the Common Cause groups) are moving in a direction of denominationalist marginalization. Whatever GAFCON’s hopes may contain for the broader world, the context and dynamics of American religion mean that any movement determined by autonomous structures will be swallowed up by sectarian identities. What are American Anglicans to do who remain committed to the Anglican Communion’s vocation of unity-in-council for the sake of the Gospel? If the Lambeth Conference cannot take it upon itself to act with clarity and evangelical coherence in the face of the threats to our common life, you abandon us.

What you are called to do

You must pray, you must reflect, you must listen. You must also act. Let me suggest four central actions you must come to a common mind about. In all these cases I use the term “must”, not because I am absolutely certain of these matters, but because I believe that God is indeed calling you to act, and this belief is buttressed by the discernment of countless others around the Communion.

1. You must state clearly that the actions of TEC as an official body, and of certain Canadian dioceses, are unacceptable to you as bishops of the Communion. And you must decide, resolutely, that those bishops from these churches who are in agreement to press forward in ways the Communion has now clearly and consistently repudiated no longer partake in your common councils. I am not eager to state this; but I know of no other reasonable course to take at this point. This is not a matter of punishment, or even “discipline” in any technical form: it is a matter of common Christian sense. TEC (to use this example) has demonstrated clearly, and with increasing hard-heartedness, that it does not wish to respect the common recommendations and pleas and even hopes of the Communion as a whole. Not only that, TEC’s enacted wish to go her own way has caused chaos in our midst.

I do not deny that a part of that chaos has involved reactive responses by other provinces and bishops in the Communion; and that, in a merely pragmatic way, some of these responses have sown an extensive amount of confusion that requires disciplined resolution (see below). But the root cause of all of this has been, without doubt, the uncompromising insistence by TEC’s leaders that they must go their own way. In March of 2007, I was present when a proposal was made to TEC’s House of Bishops that TEC take 5 or 10 years “break” from the Communion; it was a proposal that was greeted with much applause by the bishops. Now is the time to take this proposal up among yourselves, and formally accept it with deliberated application to your own common life.

You can still be friends; you may still choose to cooperate in this or that matter. But the disagreement between TEC and the Communion’s members as a whole has become too great and too destructive, and “walking together” (Amos 3:3) is not only no longer possible; it has long ceased in any substantive way.

2. You must call back into your midst those who have stayed away from this Conference, not simply as a sign of continued fellowship, but in order to meet face to face again to resolve and heal the breaches that are widening among you month by month. There is much speaking of the truth, repentance, and reconciliation that needs to be done among you and with them. But it is not right simply that declarations be made or statements offered or private counsel kept in the face of the present estrangements, irregular episcopal acts, and hostile words. There is scandal on every side: confront it and heal it among yourselves, armed with powers of Christ’s spirit.

3. You must come to a common and directive mind on how you will recognize and work with those Anglicans in North America especially – bishops, dioceses, congregations, and clergy – who have remained faithful and wish to remain faithful to the common agreements of our life in the past and those upon which you are ready to embark (and yes, this includes many who do not accept the ordination of women; they cannot be forgotten). You cannot, of course, resolve or expel the litigious spirit so deeply and scandalously embedded among Americans of all theological stripes. But you can state clearly what your communion in Christ constitutes and with whom, and you can agree on how you will do this in a single and common way. Do not be afraid to do so, thereby giving hope and a foundation for continued witness in our lands.

4. I pray that you will state clearly your commitment to the expeditious formulation and application of an Anglican Communion Covenant, one that will be faithful, concrete and adaptable to the mission entrusted to us. We have done good work thus far, but there is more to do, and beyond that the daunting vista of how we might put such a covenant in place so as to be both effective and capable of including all who are willing to commit to its common vision. Help show us the way, and do not simply stand on the sidelines and watch this project either float or sink of its own accord. Its purpose and character are yours first of all.

How can you accomplish this?

The grave concern that many of us have is that your conference will come and go without any of these matters being dealt with straightforwardly and positively. We know that there are many among you even who do not believe that your conference should be dealing with such matters, and would like the format of your meeting to exclude any decisions.

I cannot say what formal means are open to you. But I can say this: you are bishops of this church, you are gathering in the great name of Jesus Christ, and you are called to be faithful stewards of the mysteries entrusted to you (1 Cor. 4;1). In such a posture you have no choice but to be courageous and call for the work that needs to be done, and then do it, whether the conference seeks your counsel or not. You are Esthers before the king, come for such a time as this (Est. 4:13-14). And as Augustine notes, it is up to God to change the king’s heart, not you: yours is to witness faithfully. You must find a way to bring these matters before your colleagues; you must press them with vigor, charity, and focus; you must be untiring and hopeful that God will bless your testimony. If not you, who shall it be? The Church of Christ depends upon her Lord; but He has called you to be His servants in His mission.

My good bishops: we pray for you ceaselessly; we seek the blessing of the Lord Jesus upon you; we yearn in the Spirit, often in ways we cannot express, for the healing of our church and the life of our mission together. May God himself be your strength and your guide.

Your brother in Christ,

Ephraim Radner
Wycliffe College, Toronto
Covenant Design Group

Link to Covenant

"Faux Catholic"? Could be the beginning of a new movement

2008-07-11T15:12:00.002-05:00

Check out Haligweorc's blog entry entitled "faux catholic." It's worth a read.

haligweorc

So What Now? By Andrew Teather of "Anglican Wanderings"

2008-07-11T00:15:00.002-05:00

It is almost impossible to collate the information below and produce some sort of commentary, not least because we are still waiting for statements from the Bishops of Beverley and Richborough. So far we do not have a consensus of opinion though. This points to the obvious answer that we are not going to have one, therefore we are, as an ecclesial body of Catholics in the Church of England, divided in this respect. Some of us, like one commentator on these pages, will shift position and say that it is possible to be a Catholic and accept the Ordination of women, a view which, in all fairness, has found some support even in the Roman Church, notably Bishop Conroy of Arundel and Brighton said that he had no objections whatsoever and Cardinal Hume said a number of years ago that there were no theological objections, just those of tradition and ecclesiology. So this is unlikely to be seen as a good enough reason for seeking ordination in Rome, as is being suggested elsewhere. For these reasons, it would seem to me to be far better, as we are divided in our aspirations, if those who wish to swim the Tiber were to do so, for their quicker submission would, I suspect, be received with great courtesy, for there may not be a 'plan' for us, this is still speculation. Many people will claim to have definitive information on both sides, but this is, as I said, speculation.

Others among us, myself in point of fact, will stay, at least until we find out what provision is to be made for us. As Jeremy Paxman pointed out on Newsnight on Monday, we have passed legislation which legislates for us in a way we have as yet not decided. The positive letter from +Chartres is good news. Remember the London Plan is not the same as the act of synod, but a separate entity. If it can be argued that it can continue under the 'code of practice' then I see no reason why the two Archdioceses cannot erect a similar plan, which would leave us with something very similar to what we already have. As for the paying of the Parish Share, those of us who, in our hearts know we wish to remain if we can know that we are remaining in a structure which we hope will support us, therefore I would argue that we must support it in the ways we can, prayer being one and the parish share being another. I know we may not feel as though we want to at the moment, but gloom gets us nowhere, not even a one way ticket to Italy!

Other Diocesan Bishops will issue letters, I hope, which will seek to reassure us, which we can attach more or less importance to depending on what they voted for! All will point out that they wished for a code of practice for us, which is, at least, true. I see no other options, I have had friends who have joined the Orthodox Church, but have been unhappy, I know nothing of it and suspect I never will, so wanting to join because of disillusionment seems difficult and slightly contorted. My antipathy for the continuing churches is well known, and I believe them to be a one way street ending in a cul-de-sac. However, some of us will probably try and resurrect the TAC or a variant on these shores. Some will strive for the Orthodox Faith. Some will just give up, I fear and go home.

As I said, what is clear is that nothing is clear and that there is no firm direction. I do believe that the road to Rome, if it is in your heart to take it, is best taken now. However I think the Church of England will find a lane for us and who knows what will happen in our favour in it in the future. Who knows, with our great Parishes, our common bonds of faith, our peculiar but Godly ways, our prayers and sacraments, who knows what we may be. We can be part of this Church, ministering to the poor and the needy, teaching the word of God and being His witnesses. The order of the Church is not the only thing which ties me to this Communion, the pull of love for the people of God, to whom this is largely an irrelevance, is the stronger bond. What may we be? We may be faithful servants of God, even in what for us are the darkest hours. What we may be then is faithful and not dissimilar, it would appear to me, to our forebears for generations, to Christ, who is with us in our struggle. For what we may be and what every man and woman in this nation and in this Church may be, is redeemed and we may stay and act for that. That is what we may be, we may be children of God, reaching out and ministering in the hardest times, that we may all be what we may be, that we may be redeemed. As Bishop Martyn said to me the other day, 'Our God Reigns'. For Ever.

Anglican Wanderings

Bishop Edwin Barnes: A Message to Anglo-Catholics

2008-07-09T19:27:00.002-05:00

Until July 2008 it was possible for members of the Church of England to claim to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. By the vote in General Synod on 7/7/08 that possibility was removed. Now catholic Anglicans are looking to the future without any real chance of remaining members of the Church of England.

Fifteen years ago, we were told we had an honoured place in that church, and that there would be no discrimination against any of us who believed in conscience that women could not be priests. Now, the majority in General Synod have reneged on those promises. They have sought to cover their naked ambition with the fig-leaf of a 'code of practice' but we are not deceived. The code of practice of the House of Bishops which accompanied the Act of Synod in 1993 has been either ignored or positively undermined by those in authority. The even-handedness which was promised us has been replaced by a determined and successful effort to ensure that no-one who believed women's ordination might be against the will of God would gain any sort of senior office in the church.

For myself, this clear decision that the majority wants to be rid of us comes as a great relief. We can now begin to plan for a future which will not involve us in compromise. Our Fathers in God (the Provincial Episcopal Visitors, and the few remaining orthodox bishops such as Fulham, Chichester and a handful of others) will do their best to encourage us and keep us together, so that we can hold together. We believe our friends in the Roman Communion will do all they can to help us. Meanwhile, we must pray for one another and support one another - and pray for those who despitefully use us and want us gone. It is a sad time for the Church of England; but not for the Church of God. Great is the truth, and will prevail. God bless and sustain you - and in this interim the Church Union will do all it can to help you. Link for Article

On the Actions of General Synod (CoE) to Allow for the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate

2008-07-08T21:10:00.005-05:00

For me, yesterday's vote of the Church of England's General Synod to authorize the ordination of women to the episcopate WITHOUT MAKING ADEQUATE PROVISION for dissenting traditionalists was a bigger blow to the stomach than GafCon. Now I made my peace with the ordination of women some time ago, so in a sense I didn't have a dog in this fight. After all, by my own choice, freely and without reservation, I was ordained into a diocese that ordains women. So I would hardly "qualify" as an Anglo-Catholic by comparison to the 24 karat variety of catholic in the Church of England or in the Continuing Church for that matter. (I don't count my previous ordination in the Free Church of England as valid episcopal ordination since it clearly lacked "intent.")

Still, I'm afriad that the Church of England lost something very precious and unique this week. The English Church has always been a microcosm of the Communion itself, comprehending within her the whole spectrum of Anglicanism. Not anymore. One might say that the Mother Church, if not all of Anglicanism, has suddenly become stingy, if not outright miserly, in what she is willing to present to the rest of Christendom as her "generous orthdoxy."

But who's to blame?

Think back, if you will, to the 1993-94 measure to ordain women as priests. Many moderates and "liberals" also supported a separate measure to keep Anglo-Catholic traditionalists under the same tent by providing Provincial Episcopal Visitors ("flying bishops"). This made sense. The Church of England was bracing itself for a MASS exodus of traditionalists. But the mass exodus turned out to be trickle. Why? Because adequate provision for dissenters of women's ordination was made.

I still recall a chapel sermon given in the Michaelmas term 1993 by Dr. Dick France, then Principal of Wycliffe Hall, who preached vociferously against Anglo-Catholic "bullying" on the issue of women's ordination. I was stunned, especially to find out how different English-style Evangelical Anglicanism was from my own experience of Evangelical Anglicanism in the USA (I was at the time a deacon in the Reformed Episcopal Church). Clearly, it was the moderates who came to the rescue of the Anglo-Catholics in that day.

However, the tide has shifted. Perhaps it is an overstatement to place blame on the "recent unpleasantness" in Jerusalem (i.e., GafCon). Okay, it is an overstatement to blame GafCon. But can there be any doubt at all that the same attitudes and events that led to GafCon also contributed to the cool reception of General Synod towards any measure that would provide "safe space" for traditionalists via a parallel structure in the Church of England? Certainly even before GafCon, the cross-jurisdictional actions of the Southern Cone and other provinces, not to mention Reform's incessant calls for Evangelical "flying bishops," along with the illicit ordinations of Evangelical "presbyters" in London, created a climate of distrust for parallel structures in England. GafCon was merely icing on the cake!

But whatever else may be said, here's what I know from my own experience in England. There is very little love lost between Evangelicals (of any variety) and Anglo-Catholics. A major difference between American Catholics and English Catholics is that the former are more at home with Evangelicals, which is why +Iker, +Ackerman, et al. are quite comfortable working hand-in-hand with them. The kind of cooperation we see over here (in the USA) between parties is not nearly as common as I think we Americans assume it must be over there. That's just the way it is. It would not surprise me in the least if many Evangelicals (the so-called "open" ones) voted in favor of yesterday's measure. Not at all.

That's my take. I'm not infallible and I'm open for critique. So please let me know what you think.

Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy

2008-07-04T13:08:00.004-05:00

Let me suggest that the GafCon response is a case of self-fulfilled prophecy. As ineffective as the Archibshop of Canterbury's leadership has been, it pales in comparison to the resolve of those who seized upon the opportunity of Rowan Williams' “dithering” to force a Protestant structural change upon the Communion in the guise of a Communion-wide solution to the revisionist agenda of TEC. Truth be told, a united conservative front had the voting bloc to make a real difference in the Windsor/Covenant process, despite a “dithering” Archbishop, but now those hopes are seemingly dashed. Impatient federalists have seized the day to take control of the conservative Anglican destiny and re-create it in their own image, and now we are more divided than ever. The recent blasting of N.T. Wright by the federalists is but scratching the surface of just how divided conservative Anglicans are. I said it before, I’ll say it again: In five years, perhaps ten, there will be two distinct communions, neither of which will be recognizably Anglican.

Why Anglican Confessionalism will Undermine the Anglican Catholic Position

2008-07-03T23:17:00.004-05:00

Spinning the 39 Articles to negate the Reformation doctrine behind them is not an honest interpretation. This was Newman’s folly in Tract 90, which even he in time came to understand. GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration will, in time, undermine the Anglo-Catholics who threw their lot in with the new Confessional Anglican Fellowship. Like the Reformed Episcopal Church, where some presbyters push the Protestant confessional envelope with smells and bells, debates over “catholicity” will be reduced in meaning to eccentric tastes in vestments and arguments over funny hats and sacred trinkets, which amounts to how “high church” one can be in worship and still remain a faithful Protestant!

The Problem with Confessionalism

2008-07-03T16:28:00.004-05:00

The problem I have with confessionalism can be summarized in two words: locality and constitutionality. I don't have difficulty with confessions of faith, per se. But we must recognize them as limited by their local nature (i.e., they are not universal), local context (i.e., they address issues at hand at a particular time and in a particular setting) and local perspective (i.e., they cannot anticipate later developments, broadening horizens, or new circumstances). This is particularly problematic when a church or tradition affirms a confession as constitutive of its life and existence, where a confession stands as the unalterable sine qua non of "true" Christian faith and practice.

GAFCON's "confessional Anglican" alternative shifts the balance between "catholic" and "reformed" that presently characterizes Anglicanism dramatically to one side (i.e., the reformed). Hence, the suppression of those Anglicans out of sync with the confessional rationale is inevitable, IMO. This is not a good scenario for catholics. Just ask Jim Packer.

The Real War is Trinitarian

2008-07-03T10:35:00.002-05:00

A long time ago I stated that the real war out there was Trinitarian, not the Bible and certainly not sex, which are but proxy wars. Think of the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan (in the 80s), Nicaragua -- all proxy wars of the Cold War. Proxy wars still need to be fought. They are like moves in a game of chess, but the real war isn't over and won until checkmate. Unless we keep our eye on the real war, we may be distracted and make a wrong move to protect the wrong chess piece and end up losing the whole game. GAFCON appears to be poised to make a wrong move.

If GAFCON results in two distinct communions, neither of which are recognizably Anglican, then at that point the Anglican "knight" on the chessboard will have been extinguished, and many Anglican Catholics will be off to fight the Trinitarian war alongside the Roman "queen."

Personal Reflections on Remaining in TEC

2008-07-01T10:52:00.004-05:00

I can continue to minister in TEC and the Anglican Communion for two overriding reasons. First, TEC and the Anglican Communion are still explicitly catholic, even if many of the bishops/clergy are (in varying degrees) preaching/teaching inconsistently with the Church's credo. Second, I don't believe in the doctrine of "the total depravity of TEC" (sorry folks). In my experience, though things may be bad, even really bad at times, I have not written off every person, every bishop, every priest or deacon that holds (to some degree) "revisionist positions."

If one were to listen indiscriminately to the rhetoric of the GAFCON conservatives, one would conclude that every person, every bishop, every priest and deacon that is in any way identified with "revisionism" is totally void of a living faith. I know this to be an unfair generalization.

In essence, I don't believe that the simple "two gospels" dichotomy is an accurate working description of the way things really are in TEC or the Anglican Communion. Truth be told, people are all over the map. Only the most tenacious folks on the extreme wings are living into the reality of "two gospels" and believe it to be their divine calling to impose one or the other "gospel" on everyone else. That's why the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church's credo, not our individual "credos," and endeavoring to live into it.

GAFCON - Initial Thoughts

2008-06-30T16:32:00.003-05:00

I'm breaking my self-imposed blogging embargo to share my thoughts about GAFCON with whoever still visits this blog.

Essentially GAFCON has tragically redefined Anglicanism in an attempt to force an ineffective Archbishop to do what needs to be done. It's a tragic day for the Communion, with plenty of blame to place on all parties. But to re-create Anglicanism as a "confessional body" along the lines of the Missouri Synod Lutherans, or worse, the PCA, is the biggest blow of all. This is not the way to fix the Communion. It is schism -- Anglican style. If we are not careful, within five years, perhaps ten, there will be two distinct communions, neither of which will be recognizably Anglican.

For those who need proof...

2008-01-19T12:46:00.000-06:00

...that I'm still alive, here is a photo of my recent ordination.

Blessed Christmas to All...

2007-12-24T10:56:00.003-06:00

...And a happy New Year. My family is spending Christmas together at home this year, deciding to delay our travel to the Northeast to visit family and friends until the summer (gasoline prices nothwithstanding).

Not much to update my readers on. It has been a terribly busy and tiring semester for me, and I am glad to be seeing the end of it now, though in just a few weeks a new semester will be starting! Added to the typical stress of academic administration is our institutional self-study for the accreditation visit in 2009, which may seem far off, but really it's not.

The kids are doing great. Our oldest boy has been receiving acceptance letters from various colleges, which means "decision time" for him. He's got some great options, but yikes! Have you all seen how much college is these days! Our daughter is busy as usual. Keeping up with her social calendar, both in school and at church, is a full-time job in itself! Finally, our youngest boy, ten years old, keeps us feeling young. Lately, he's had a sudden interest in football, which of course means less time playing video games!

My wife and I keep plugging away at the daily routine. Yet we're very hopeful of some significant changes in 2008. As they happen, and as I feel free to share them in this context, I will let you know.

Best wishes to all my friends and readers for the holidays. May God's love shine on you this Christmas and in the New Year.

Dan

Announcement

2007-12-22T13:57:00.001-06:00

God willing the Right Reverend Rayford B. High, Jr. will ordain the Reverend DKD, Ph.D. to the Sacred Order of the Priesthood in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on the Feast Day of Saint Adrian of Canterbury, OSB, Abbot, Wednesday, January 9, 2008, Seven-thirty O’clock in the Evening at St. Dunstan’s Episcopal Church, Houston, Texas.

Great Discussion on Anglicanism

2007-09-19T08:22:00.000-05:00

Check out the discussion over at Per Caritatem. Cynthia Nielsen's educated "outsider" perspective is refreshing and the overall quality of her blog attracts quality commentators. Would that the mainstream Anglican blogs were as constructive and as civil! You won't be disappointed.

By the way, I've been taking some time off in Central Pennsylvania (visiting my parents) before heading off to Pittsburgh for an ATS self-study workshop this coming weekend. Then I'm driving (yes, DRIVING) back to Texas in a car that my parents are giving to us. So I won't be back in the saddle for another week. Keep me in your prayers as I travel across the country.

The Formula of Reunion (433)

2007-09-03T14:42:00.000-05:00

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man composed of a rational soul and a body, begotten before the ages from the Father in respect of His divinity, but likewise in these last days for us and our salvation from the Virgin Mary in respect of His manhood, consubstantial with the Father in respect of His divinity and at the same time consubstantial with us in respect of His manhood. For the union (henosis) of two natures has been accomplished. Hence we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In virtue of this conception of a union without confusion we confess the holy Virgin as Theotokos because the divine Word became flesh and was made man and from the very conception united to Himself the temple taken from her. As for the evangelical and apostolic statements about the Lord, we recognize that theologians employ some indifferently in view of the unity of person (hos eph henos prosopon) but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures (hos epi duo phuseon), applying the God-befitting ones to Christ's divinity and the humble ones to His humanity.

The Christological Divide That Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 4: The Formula of Reunion

2007-09-01T11:23:00.001-05:00

In the aftermath of the events at Ephesus in 431, the division between the Antiochene dyophysitic and Alexandrian monophysitic traditions was never greater. But two rays of hope for reconciliation came out of the controversy at Ephesus. First, the Cyrillian synod (i.e., the one subsequently dubbed the Third Ecumenical Council) had neglected to canonize Cyril's Twelve Anathemas. Second, the opposing synod under John of Antioch did not actually rehabilitate Nestorius. These two omissions would serve as the foundation upon which the next attempt at rapprochement would be built: The Formula of Reunion.

Ten More Important Facts Concerning the Christological Divide That Anticipated Chalcedon:

(1) Prior to the events in Ephesus of 431, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andrew of Samosata had been commissioned by John of Antioch to refute Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, which were viewed by the Antiochene party as little better than Apollinarianism. While the literary exchange was fierce, the debate served the purpose of fixing the meaning of the term hupostasis to be synonymous with prosopon. As a result, while neither fully endorsed Cyril's "hypostatic union," both came close in the end to sanctioning the "one hypostasis" formula (on the premise that this was the equivalent of the Antiochian "prosopic union").

(2) The two years following Ephesus proved pivitol, as Imperial pressure was exerted on both sides to heal the doctrinal breach. However, the way to reconciliation was made clear by the death of Pope Celestine in 432. His successor, Xystus III was intent on finding a mutually acceptable accord provided that the decisions of the Cyrillian synod at Ephesus were upheld.

(3) After intense negotiations, in which Acacius of Berea played a leading role, both sides made important concessions. Cyril agreed to furnish an explanation for his Twelve Anathemas that made clear his disavowal of Apollinarianism. Upon acceptance of Cyril's explanation, the Antiochian party then, with considerable reluctance, agreed to the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius.

(4) In 433, John of Antioch sent Cyril a letter that contained the text that would be used, upon Cyril's assent, as the instrument of agreement between the two parties (from henceforth called "The Formula of Reunion"). Ironically, this very statement, undoubtedly re-drafted at pivotal points by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, had been the very formula approved by the anti-Cyrillian synod at Ephesus in August of 431.

(5) The Formula of Reunion admitted to the orthodoxy of the term Theotokos for the Virgin Mary, but only after safeguards were put in place to satisfy Antiochene scruples. The Formula went on to explain that the Christ is "complete God and complete man," but also that "a union of two natures has occurred, as a consequence of which we confess...one Son." Meanwhile, all talk of "two Sons" and a "conjunction of two natures" had disappeared, and the identification of the subject of the God-Man as the Logos was emphasized.

(6) Cyril greeted the new confession contained in the Formula of Reunion with enthusiasm in his famous letter Laetentur caeli. However, his endorsement shocked many of his followers who saw the Formula's notion of a "union of two natures" as a contradiction of Cyril's earlier position on the hypostatic union (i.e., "one nature of the incarnate Word").

(7) Meanwhile, Nestorius' cause was now wholly lost. He was finally banished to Upper Egypt where, just before his death in 450, he completed his Book of Heracleides of Damascus, the definitive defense of his position over against Cyril.

(8) In time, the Formula of Union would prove to be no more than a truce. By 438, Cyril suspected Antiochene duplicity, and began to write against the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (both of blessed memory), who were still held in esteem by the Antiochene signers of the Formula.

(9) The old debate was now renewed, but with political power decidedly in the Alexandrians' favor, since Constantinople, after Nestorius' deposition, was now supporting Cyril's cause in the person of Nestorius' successor, Proclus.

(10) The political situation changed dramatically upon the death of Cyril in 444 and, shortly after, the death of Proclus in 447. Cyril was replaced by the unscrupulous Dioscorus, who had little use for the Formula of Union and was determined to see to the complete victory of the Alexandrian position. Meanwhile, Flavian, a moderate Antiochene and supporter of the Formula, replaced Proclus in Constantinople. The conditions were now set for the next round of open conflict.

Nestorius' Complaint Against Cyril in the Aftermath of the Council of Ephesus

2007-08-29T17:41:00.000-05:00

Cyril is therefore prosecutor and accuser, and I the defendant: is this the council that has heard and judged my words? Is it the Emperor who summoned it, if Cyril was among the judges?

Why do I say 'among the judges'? He was the whole tribunal, for whatever he said was immediately repeated by the rest, and his single personality took the place of a tribunal for them. If all judges had been assembled, and the accusers and accused set in their proper role, all would have had equal liberty of speech, instead of Cyril being everything, accuser, Emperor, and judge. He did everything with arbitrary authority, and after ousting from this authority the Emperor's emissary, set himself up in his place. He assembled those who pleased him both from far and near, and made himself the tribunal. I was summoned by Cyril, who assembled the council, by Cyril, who presided. Who was judge? Cyril! Who was accuser? Cyril!! Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril!!! Cyril was everything. Cyril was bishop of Alexandria and held the place of Coelestine, the holy and venerable bishop of Rome.

--Nestorius, The Book of Heracleides of Damascus.

The Inconsistent Logic of Creationism or Why Creationism is Essentially Deistic

2007-08-24T21:39:00.000-05:00

...At the heart of their anti-evolutionism, the creationists have hidden a stunning inconsistency in their own logic.

Consider this: Creationists would reject any notion that God is unable to act in the world today. Indeed Christianity, like Islam and traditional Judaism, regards the continued, personal activity of God to be an essential element of belief. Now, let's step back a bit and think about this.

As a matter of unshakable faith, they believe that God can act in the world at the present time. And that, presumably, He can work His will in any way He likes -- with power or with subtlety, by works of nature, or by the individual actions of His creatures. The very same people, bowing to the explanatory power of molecular biology and biochemistry, would also agree that life today can be understood as a wholly material phenomenon. None that I know of would reject the proposition that a single fertilized egg cell -- the classic specimen of developmental biology -- contains the full and complete set of instructions to transform itself into a complex multi-cellular organism. Neither would any respectable creationist challenge the assertion that every step of that developmental process is ultimately explicable in terms of the material processes of chemistry and physics. Miracles aren't required -- the complexities of molecular biology will do just fine.

This means that the biological world of today, which we can test and study, analyze and dissect, is one that works according to purely material rules. But this world is also one in which believers, as a matter of faith, accept sincerely the tenet that God can and does work His will. Obviously, they do not see any conflict in the idea that God can carry out the work He chooses to in a way that is consistent with the fully materialist view of biology that emerges from contemporary biology. Neither do I.

But there's the rub. Curiously, they somehow regard those very same mechanisms -- adequate to explain God's power in the present -- as inadequate to explain His agency in the past. For some reason, God acted in the past in ways that He does not act in the present, despite the fact that we assume in the present that he can do anything and everything. This inconsistent reasoning is at the heart of their desperation to show that evolution -- which depends on the material mechanisms of biochemistry and genetics -- could not have created the multitude of new species that have appeared throughout the geologic record of life.

Such reasoning shows a curious lack of faith in the creative power of God. Creationists act as though compelled to go into the past for evidence of God's work, yet ridicule the deistic notion of a designer-God who's been snoozing ever since His great work was finished. They want a God who is active, and active now. So does any believer. But why then are they so determined to fix in the past, in the supposed impossibility of material mechanisms to originate species, the only definitive signs of God's work? If they believe in an active and present God, a God who can work His will in the present in ways consistent with scientific materialism, then why couldn't that same God have worked His will in exactly those ways in the past?

The more sensible and self-consistent position, scientifically and theologically, would be quite different from theirs. The real, actual, working world that we see around us is one that is ruled by chemistry and physics. Life works according to its laws. If God is real, this is the world He has to work in. Therefore any effort to view God's work in light of modern science must find a way to understand how His will can be accommodated at all times, not just in some distant past.

--Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 216-18.

Note to My Readers

2007-08-12T22:32:00.000-05:00

I'm on what I hope will be a brief hiatus, perhaps for another week or so. Besides attending to a number of items that need my attention, I'm also dealing with some tough choices that will have to be made in the near future. I can't be more specific on a public blog. But I would greatly appreciate your prayers. Friends, feel free to email me.

The Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 3

2007-08-03T22:58:00.000-05:00

Commissioned by Pope Celestine of Rome to prosecute the judgment of the Roman synod of 430 concerning the teachings of Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria proceeded to write his infamous third letter to Nestorius, to which he appended twelve anathemas (see entry below). This turned out to be ill-judged, as the pope's charge did not envision a new definition of the faith, and the language of the anathemas only served to incite moderate Antiochenes against Cyril in defense of Nestorius.

Ten More Interesting Facts Concerning the Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 3:

(1) Moderate Antiochene thinkers like John of Antioch, Andrew of Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrrus were alarmed by what they perceived to be Apollinarian implications in the Cyrilline Christology.

(2) The teachings of Theodoret can be seen as representative of the mature Antiochene position at this stage of the christological divide. Avoiding the pitfalls of Nestorius' clumsy assertion of two natural prosopa united under one prosopon of identity, Theodoret asserted both the completeness and distinction of the two natures (phusis) while maintaing but one person (prosopon) in which the natures were united. Interestingly, at this point in the history of the debate, Antiochenes like Theodoret were of a mind to avoid Theodore of Mopsuestia's distinction between "the Word who assumes" and "the Man who is assumed."

(3) The essential difference between the Cyrilline and Antiochene christologies lies in the nature of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. The Antiochenes objected to Cyril's "hypostatic union" as implying some kind of necessary union, harkening back to pre-Apollinarian days when Alexandrian christology, using an essentially platonic anthropology as its base, understood the Logos as constituting the "spirit or soul" of the incarnate Christ. The Antiochenes also objected to Cyril's insistence on a genuine communicatio idiomata as implying a mixing or confusion of the two natures.

(4) At the prompting of Nestorius, and the concurrence of the western emperor, Valentianian III, Emperor Theodosius II of the East summoned a general council to meet on Pentecost (June 7) in the city of Ephesus in 431.

(5) Cyril and his supporters were the first two arrive in the city. On June 22, despite the protests of the imperial commissioners, Cyril and sixty like-minded bishops proceeded to hold a synod without the Antiochene delegation. Nestorius, who had arrived earlier in Ephesus, naturally refused to attend.

(6) After the letters of both Cyril and Nestorius had been read aloud, the Cyrillian synod proceeded to condemn Nestorius as "the new Judas." The synod also canonized the symbol of Nicaea (325) as summarizing the orthodox faith and Cyril's second letter to Nestorius as its authoritative interpretation. This all took place in a one-day session.

(7) When the Antiochene delegation finally arrived on June 26, they proceeded to hold their own synod under the presidency of John of Antioch, and promptly deposed and condemned Cyril and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, while also repudiating Cyril's Twelve Anathemas as Apollinarian.

(8) The Roman delegation finally arrived on July 10, and, following the instructions of the pope, joined the Cyrillian synod. At this point, John of Antioch was added to the list of the deposed, and, as a gesture of good will to the western delegation, Pelagianism was condemned. It was this synod that would go down in history as the Third Ecumenical Council.

(9) Amidst the confusion, Theodosius was compelled to intern the leaders of both parties. However, given his own theological sympathies, and helped by the aggressive diplomacy of Cyril's supporters, he quickly restored Cyril to the see of Alexandria and deposed Nestorius, who retired to his monastary near Antioch.

(10) While at this point the two parties appeared hopelessly and irreparably to be more divided than ever before, two important factors pointing toward the possibility of future rapprochement deserve attention. First, the Twelve Anathemas appended to Cyril's third letter, while being read aloud at the Cyrillian synod, were not given its endorsement, being passed over in favor of Cyril's second letter. Second, John of Antioch's synod, while condemning Cyril and Memnon, had nonetheless failed to endorse or rehabilitate Nestorius.

The Twelve Anathemas that Cyril of Alexandria Demanded of Nestorius

2007-08-03T16:08:00.000-05:00

The things which it is necessary that thy Piety anathematize have been annexed to this our Letter:-

1. If any one confess not that Emmanuel is in truth God and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God (theotokos), for she bare after the flesh the Word of God made Flesh, be he anathema.

2. If any one confess not that the Word of God the Father hath been Personally united (kath hupostasin) to Flesh and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.

3. If any one sever the Persons of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a meeting unto Unity of Nature (henosin phusiken), be he anathema.

4. If any one allot to two Persons (prosopa) or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.

5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man (theophoros anthropos), and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son and That by Nature (phusis), in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh [Heb. 2:14], be he anathema.

6. If any one say that the Word That is of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema.

7. If anyone say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.

8. If any one dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, constantly appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with One worship and attribute to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.

9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs upon men; and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom He hath wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.

10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1] and He hath offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that not the Very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart from himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.

11. If any one confess not that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is from God the Father, but say that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as possessed of Divine Indwelling only and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.

12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

Dr. Radner Resigns from ACN -- UPDATED

2007-08-01T09:47:00.000-05:00

LATEST UPDATE (as of August 3): Read Sarah Hey's latest contribution over at Stand Firm.

UPDATE: Ephraim Radner responds to criticism over his resignation. See entry #188.

Dr. Radner's letter is posted at the Anglican Communion Institute.

Written by Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
A Brief Statement of Resignation from the Anglican Communion Network:

It is with sorrow and deep disappointment that I tender my resignation from the Anglican Communion Network. Since the time I assisted in its founding, its leaders, members, and mission have been dear to me, even when I have disagreed with some of its corporate actions. The recent statements by the Moderator of the Network, Robert Duncan, however, so contradict my sense of calling within this part of Christ's Body, the Anglican Communion, that I have no choice but to disassociate myself from this group, whom I had once hoped might prove an instrument of renewal, not of destruction, of building up, not of tearing down.

Bishop Duncan has now declared the See of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference -- two of the four Instruments of Communion within our tradition - to be "lost". He has said that God is "doing a new thing" in allowing these elements to founder and be let go. I find this judgment to be dangerously precipitous and unfair under circumstances when current, faithful, and hard work is being done by many to bolster these Instruments as servants of our common life in Christ. The judgment is also astonishingly self-confident and autonomously prophetic in a mode not unlike the baleful claims to visionary authority of those who have long misled the Episcopal Church. Finally, the declaration in effect cancels out the other two Instruments of Communion that also uphold our common Anglican life - the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. It is the entire Anglican Communion, therefore, that Bp. Duncan is declaring to be "lost". The judgment is far too sweeping.

Bp. Duncan has, in the end, decided to start a new church. He may call it "Anglican" if he wishes, though I do not recognize the name in these kinds of actions that break communion rather than build it up - for such building is what I have long perceived to be the "thing" God was "doing" with the earthen vessel of our tradition. In founding his new church, furthermore, he is, I fear, not working for the healing of our broken Body, but repeating the mistakes of Christians in the past, whose zeal has not only brought suffering to themselves, but has wounded the Church of Christ. It is not only his own diocese that his statements and actions will affect; it is many others, including parishes within them, many of which have worked for faithfulness and peace, truth in love, for some time, and for whom new troubles and divisions are now promised. Enough of this. I cannot follow him in this way. There is great work to be done, with hope and with joy, if also with suffering endurance for the faith once delivered, in the vineyards of the Anglican Communion where the Lord has called us and still maintains His calling; just as there has been in the past, and all for the glory of the larger Church Catholic.

Ephraim Radner (the Rev. Dr.)

+++++

P.S. Brett over at Canterbury Pilgrim posted Peter Toon's prediction of things. I'm no "Tooniac" by any stretch, but this is an insightful analysis of where things may be heading.

Why I "Migrated" to The Episcopal Church

2007-07-30T22:06:00.000-05:00

For as often as I have been asked this question, I'm sure that there are five times as many people who haven't asked but still would like to know. Recently someone emailed me about this question. This was in part my answer:

I came to the conclusion some years ago that "Anglicanism" was not primarily about doctrine or formularies, but about connection to and continuity with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as mediated through the Church of England. So it seemed foolish to me to identify with Anglicanism on this level while aligning myself with a church or movement that almost entirely identified Anglicanism with doctrine (39 Articles) and formularies (1662 BCP).

While this response will surely not satisfy everyone, perhaps leaving more questions in its wake than answers, it is at least a start. Also, I in no way question the commitment to the Anglican Way of anyone or any group that is not part of or connected in some way to the Anglican Communion. These are serious times, and I respect those of serious mind who see things differently than I. I also applaud all efforts to re-connect the various pieces of the Anglican jig-saw puzzle.

I welcome your comments.

The Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 2

2007-07-29T20:16:00.000-05:00

The last segment of this series saw the victory of Antiochene dyophysite christology ("Logos-man") over Apollinaris' extreme version of Alexandrian monophysite christology ("Logos-flesh"), culminating in the condemnation of Apollinarianism at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Ten Interesting Facts Concerning the Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 2:

(1) As defenders of Nicene dogma, the Antiochene school's main concern was to uphold the full deity of the Logos by denying that any human attributes or limitations could be attributed to the divine Son. For this reason, Apollinaris' teaching that the incarnate Logos is a composite nature, and thus the proper subject of both divine and human attributes and actions, was considered blasphemous. Prominent Antiochene representatives include John Chrysostom, Diodore of Tarsus (a participant at the Council of Constantinople), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (a pupil of Diodore).

(2) Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428, bishop from 392) is credited for providing the definitive Antiochene solution to the conundrum of the unity of the Logos with a complete human nature: the theory of "prosopic union." Theodore's account of the prosopic union posits an indissoluble conjunction of the divine and human natures (phusis) that is so complete and intimate as to effect one "person" (prosopon), in the sense of an external functional subject or outward identity.

(3) While Theodore explicitly denied the old Samasotan heresy of two Sons or two Christs, he nevertheless often spoke of the incarnation in terms of the Logos assuming "the man" (homo assumptus), albeit indissolubly and ineffably, at conception. Furthermore, he described the nature of the union in terms of an indwelling of the Logos in "the man" by "good pleasure" (eudokia), whereby the Word in grace confers his own prosopon to the man. On account of the severe criticism his position would receive from Cyril of Alexandria during the Nestorian controversy, Theodore's christological writings would eventually be condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

(4) The leading proponent of Alexandrian Christology in this era was Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378-ca. 444), the nephew of Theophilus of Alexandria, who Cyril succeeded to the patriarchal see in 412. This same Theophilus had engineered the deposition and exile of John Chrysostom from Constantinople in 401. Cyril shared with Theophilus his jealously for the traditional prerogatives of Alexandria, as well as his adroitness at ecclesiastical politics.

(5) Cyril, the latest in the long line of Alexandrian "Logos-flesh" thinkers, understood the incarnation in terms of the Logos adding human flesh (sarx) to his hypostasis, while yet remaining unchanged in his essential deity. The Logos who had existed asarkos (i.e., "outside flesh") had become ensomatos (i.e., "embodied") at the incarnation. Hence, Cyril posited one nature (phusis) "out of two" (eis ek duo). In contrast to the Antiochene "indwelling by good pleasure," Cyril spoke in terms of a "natural" or "hypostatic" union. To express this teaching, Cyril vigorously employed the Apollinarian phrase, "one incarnate nature of the divine Word" (mia phusis tou theou logou sesarkomene), which he mistakenly attributed to Athanasius.

(6) In 428 the Antiochene and Alexandrian christologies collided once again, this time occasioned by the elevation of the Antiochene monk Nestorius to the see of Constantinople. No sooner did Nestorius arrive in the imperial city than he found himself embroiled in a controversy over the use of the venerable title Theotokos ("God-bearer") for the Virgin Mary. Echoing the misgivings of Theodore on the same issue, Nestorius ruled that "that which was formed in the womb is not God," and "God was within the one who was assumed." Hence, Theotokos was judged to be misleading unless qualified with the term Anthropotokos ("man-bearer"), or replaced altogether with the honorific Christotokos ("Christ-bearer").

(7) To make matters worse, Cyril and Nestorius were already at odds over the case of a group of Egyptian monks who had appealed to Nestorius concerning a judgment rendered against them by Cyril. However, Nestorius's disavowal of the unqualified use of Theotokos (a term that had been employed by Athanasius of blessed memory), presented Cyril with tour de force grounds for challenging the authority of the see of Constantinople. Cyril began his attack on Nestorius by writing to the disaffected Egyptian monks in defense of Theotokos.

(8) Despite his reliance on Theodore, Nestorius' articulation of the Antiochene position was deemed innovative and clumsy even by those who were his natural supporters, like John of Antioch. This is because Nestorius spoke in terms of a distinct "prosopon of union," considered by him to be the common prosopon (external identity) of the divinity and the humanity in Christ. This "prosopon of union," not that of the Logos per se, was the historical figure presented in the Gospels. Hence, the truly innovative and heretical feature of Nestorius' position was the coalescence of the two natures, divine and human, into one prosopon that was nevertheless distinct from the prosopa of either the Logos or the man (a genuine tertium quid).

(9) Both Cyril and Nestorius went to great lengths to garner support, writing a series of accusatory letters to each other. Cyril understood the importance of gaining the support of the emperor, Theodosius II, his wife, and his influential sister, Pulcheria, against Nestorius, as well as appealing to the Roman pope, Celestine I. Nestorius also appealed to Celestine, but the latter was already disgruntled by the extension of hospitality in Constantinople to certain exiled Pelagians. A synod held in Rome in 430 called for Nestorius to recant within ten days of the receipt of its judgment and affirm the teaching of "Rome, Alexandria and the whole Catholic Church," or face excommunication.

(10) Cyril, charged by Celestine to execute the sentence, held a synod in Alexandria that confirmed the Roman decision. He then proceeded to write his infamous third letter to Nestorius, to which he presumed to append twelve anathemas that articulated his own uncompromising "Logos-flesh" christology in provocative language and tone. The letter with appended anathemas could not help but alienate prominent Antiochene thinkers like John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who would now come to the support of Nestorius.

To be continued in Part 3...

Inspired by Barth: My Bullets on Election

2007-07-27T20:37:00.000-05:00

Bobby Kennedy probably didn't intend to start a meme, but here's my bullet point contribution to the topic of election:

· The decree of election is God’s eternal (i.e., ever-present) will to give himself in the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ.

· Christ is both the Subject and the Object of election. As Son of God, he is, along with the Father and the Spirit, the electing God. As Son of Man, he is also elected Man; albeit not merely as one elected man, but as the One in whom all others are elected.

· Christ is the all-inclusive election in which we see what election truly is – the unmerited acceptance of humankind by grace.

· The will of the Triune God in electing the Son of Man is the will of God to give himself to humankind in the incarnation of His Son.

· This self-giving is two-fold, both positive and negative (hence, a “double predestination,” if you will). Negatively, God elected himself in Christ to be our covenant-partner, and, as such, bore our merited rejection in his passion and death. Positively, God elected humanity in Christ to be his covenant-partner, and, as such, we are taken up into his glory in his resurrection and ascension.

· Reprobation and election are not two kinds of predestination based on two separate decrees. Rather reprobation and election are the two sides of the same eternal decree of predestination. Reprobation is Christ’s rejection for us that we in turn might not be rejected.

· The election of Jesus Christ includes the election of humankind. This does not mean primarily the election of individuals, but rather the election of the whole of humankind, which is manifested in history in the divine calling of the Church, the elect community, the Body of Christ.

· The Church, the community of the elect, stands in a mediate and mediating role as witness to the truth of God’s will for humankind in Christ. In this way, the elect community mirrors the one Mediator, Jesus Christ.

· The gospel is the declaration of the individual’s election in Jesus Christ, i.e., that Christ bore our merited rejection and gives to us his own glory.

· Individuals begin to live as elect by the event and decision of receiving the promise of Christ as mediated through the witness of, and by inclusion in, the elect community via baptism.

· Those who do not receive the promise of God in Christ live as those rejected in spite of their acceptance (i.e., their election in Christ).

· The relation of free will and grace in predestination is a mystery, yet those who continue to live in the reality of their union in Christ (i.e., those who persevere) are those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Bobby Kennedy's Musings on Election

2007-07-26T17:02:00.000-05:00

I cruised over to In Hoc Signo Vinces to see what Anglo-Catholic blogger Bobby Kennedy was up to. His recent musings on election (with lengthy caption from the 2nd Council of Orange) is quite insightful. Read the whole article here. What follows is his bulleted list.

++++++++++

If I had to create a bulleted list today of what I affirm concerning election then it would include the following points, in no particular order. This is also not exhaustive.

--Election is corporate and concerns a holy people, a covenant community, and not primarily individuals.

--Election of the covenant community is accomplished through its connection to Christ via a sacramental and ecclesiological framework.

--Baptism is the means by which individuals enter the covenant community of the elect.

--Election of the covenant community entails God’s missionary efforts to redeem the remainder of humanity.

--The covenant community is an eschatological community which prefigures the age to come in the here and now.

--Election does not create a class of the elite but rather a class of servants.

--Any pre-creation acts of predestination, on the part of God toward his creatures, seems to entail his choice of a bride for his Son, and not of individuals into that bride.

--Foreknowledge seems to be the fore-loving of the covenant community rather than the fore-seeing of who would ultimately compose such a community.

--Salvation is dependent upon one’s continual perseverance in the body of Christ.

--Election is dependent on God’s faithfulness, and thus we have the best grounds upon which to make our calling and election sure.

Ten Interesting Facts on the Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 1

2007-07-26T00:47:00.000-05:00

(1) The major christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries are directly attributable to the fallout from the Arian controversy, particularly the widening rift between two distinct approaches to christology within the Nicene party -- repectively dubbed the Alexandrian and Antiochene approaches to christology.

(2) Arianism shared a fundamental conception of the incarnation with orthodox Alexandrians (i.e., the Nicene party), wherein the Logos was seen as constituting the real subject of everything that happens to the Christ presented in the Gospel accounts. Consequently, both positions agreed that the Logos in the flesh experienced hunger, thirst, doubt, suffering, and every other limitation known to the human condition.

(3) The Arians appealed to these limitations as proof that the Logos possesses a passible nature, and thus is a creature. In contrast, Athanasius and the Alexandrain party argued that in assuming human flesh the Logos had also assumed a human way of being without forfeiting his divine way of being.

(4) Despite these differences, both the orthodox Alexandrians and the Arians worked from the Platonic premise that the physical body is animated by a spirit or soul that is essentially alien to it. Hence, the Logos, in assuming flesh, constitutes the true life-principle or "ego" of Jesus Christ. The weakness of this approach was that it did not adequately account for a separate created human mind in Christ. This approach is aptly characterized as a "Logos-flesh" Christology, and is fundamentally monophysite in its conception of the incarnation.

(5) In contrast, the dyophysite approach of the orthodox Antiochene school, aptly characterized as a "Logos-man" Christology, emphasized the role of Christ as the "Second Adam," and thus understood the Word or Logos as uniting Himself to a complete human nature, both body and soul. However, the weakness of this position lies in viewing the incarnation as a conjoining, rather than a union, of two complete natures, divine and human, each considered to be the proper subject of its own respective actions and attributes.

(6) Tensions between the two christologies can be dated as early as 352 AD. In 362, a temporary doctrinal accord was reached at a synod held in Alexandria, in which Athanasius himself presided. There Paulinus of Antioch successfully argued that Christ must have assumed a full human nature (both body and soul) in order to save man's body and soul. This argument clearly impressed Athanasius. Yet since he held (in common with other Alexandrians) that the Logos was the very archetpye of the mind or soul, it is doubtful that he actually understood or appreciated the full anthropological implications of the Antiochene position.

(7) Serious controversy erupted a decade later when Apollinaris of Laodicea, an ardent defender of Nicene dogma and a friend of Athanasius, put forward an extreme version of the Alexandrian position. Interestingly, Apollinaris had been the person largely responsible for bringing Basil of Caesarea to the homoousian position.

(8) Anticipating the Eutychian heresy of the 5th century, Apollinaris took the Platonic conception of anthropology to its logical conclusion by denying the existence of a human psychology in Christ and contending that the assumption of the flesh by the Logos resulted in a composite unity of impassible divinity and passible flesh, in which the flesh was considered to be fully absorbed into the divine (flowing from an extreme application of the Alexandrian principle of communicatio idiomata). Incidentally, Apollinaris was the first to employ "hypostasis" (Gr. hupostasis) in a christological setting, a term which he understood to be synomous with the terms prosopon (i.e., person) and phusis (i.e., nature).

(9) For the orthodox Alexandrians, the scandal of Apollonaris' teaching was his admission that Christ's nature was different from that of ordinary human nature, thus rendering Christ immune from human passions, suffering, and limitations. The resulting christology was expressed in the phrase "one incarnate nature of the divine Word" (Gr. mian phusin tou theou logou sesarkomenen).

(10) Pope Damasus condemned Apollinaris outright at a synod in Rome in 377. The actions of this synod were confirmed by synods held in Alexandria (378) and Antioch (379) respectively, and finally at the Council of Constantinople (381). Despite the condemnation of Apollinaris' teaching, the Apollinarian-inspired phrase "one incarnate nature of the divine Word" would eventually become associated with the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the champion of the Council of Ephesus (431).

Pennsylvanian-Anglican moves to Canterbury

2007-07-24T09:36:00.000-05:00

My friend Brett (formerly Pennsylvanian-Anglican) has packed up his blog and moved to a new URL. You can now visit him at A Pilgrim on the Canterbury Trail. I guess Pennsylvania Dutch Country was no match for England's green and pleasant land.

Summer Reading

2007-07-21T22:21:00.001-05:00

My inspiration for posting this list comes from the promising young scholar who I hired to teach theology two years ago. Visit his new blog: What God Reads.

+++++++++

1. J.N.D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978.

--A book I re-read on a fairly regular basis.

2. Kenneth R. Miller. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: Harper Perennial, 2007.

--If my readers haven't figured it out yet, this guy changed my entire perspective on the Intelligent Design / Creationism issue.

3. Matthew Alper. The God Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God. New York: Rogue Press, 2001.

--I haven't started it yet, but plan to soon. The subtitle says it all. I suspect the author is on a spiritual journey and doesn't know it.

4. Nicholas Wade. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.

--If you have an open mind (i.e., your gag-reflex is not set off by evolutionary theory), this is an extremely well-written work. I enjoyed every moment of it.

5. Bryan Sykes. Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.

--I couldn't put it down. Sykes is a world renown geneticist and the author of the groundbreaking Seven Daughters of Eve. Not only does he demonstrate that the Celtic roots of England run as deep as those of Ireland, he also shows how genetics can even serve as the bridge between origin-myths and history.

6. Aidan Nichols. No Bloodless Myth: A Guide Through Balthasar's Dramatics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.

--Nichols is one of my favorite authors, and Hans Urs Von Balthasar one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. The combination of the two makes for an incredible read.

7. Lorna Kendall, Ed. Michael Ramsey as Theologian. Oxford: Cowley Publications, 1995.

--Something that's been on my shelf for years. Archbishop Ramsey was a giant, so this reads more like a devotional to me. His theological insights never cease to amaze me.

Skewed Theologies, Dangerous Movements, and other Bad Ideas that Threaten to Discredit Christianity in the 21st Century

2007-07-19T20:46:00.000-05:00

1. The Evangelical Take on Biblical Inerrancy (e.g., The Chicago Statement)

Any idea or doctrine that must die a death of a thousand qualifications for the sake of plausibility is ... well ... not very plausible. For a better understanding of inerrancy, study Sections 105-107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2. Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement

Lying somewhere between a case of divine child abuse and a gross miscarriage of cosmic justice, it’s high time for this monstrous understanding of the atonement to be abandoned. For a more biblical and patristic alternative, read Gustav Aulen’s Christus Victor.

3. Belief in a Young Earth

Face it, the earth’s years are properly measured in the billions, not the thousands. It is time for Christians to admit and accept this fact as a "given," just like other "givens" once disputed by theologians (such as the fact that our spherical earth rotates on its axis while revolving around the sun).

4. Creation Science

Have you checked out any science reviews lately? Creationist polemics notwithstanding, the fossil evidence is actually mounting in favor of biological evolution. But I predict that Genetics, not Archeology, will pound the final nail into the coffin of Creation Pseudo-science.

5. Intelligent Design (related to, but not the same as, above)

What does it say about the state of contemporary evangelical theology that its best argument against Charles Darwin's century-and-a-half old theory rests on a Deistic rehashing of the age-old “god of the gaps” fallacy? For that matter, what does it say about Darwin's theory? Read Ken Miller’s In Search of Darwin’s God.

6. Dispensationalism and the Modern State of Israel

Where does Scripture teach that Israel has an unrestricted, unconditional deed to prime coastal real estate in the Middle East? There is no telling how much political, domestic, and foreign policy damage has been done by Dispensational theology. Remedy: Study the BIBLE, not Scofield's notes, to show thyself approved.

7. The term "Born-Again Christian"

Redundant, misleading, anti-sacramental, ecclesiologically nonsensical, and much too often a blatant oxymoron.

8. MegaChurches

Rather than challenging narcissism, the MegaChurch embraces and institutionalizes it, thus turning narcissism into a Christian virtue. The resulting paradox is a hugely successful message that is profoundly vacuous of any objective content.

9. TULIP Calvinism

Once upon a time there was Isaac Newton, and then came Albert Einstein. Once upon a time there was Theodore Beza, and then came Karl Barth.

10. The “Imminent” Rapture

It’s been 2000 years folks! The end may be a bit closer, but don’t cash in your pension or stop paying your life insurance premiums just yet!

Ten More Interesting Facts About the Struggle for the Nicene Faith, Part II: The First Council of Constantinople (381)

2007-07-13T18:59:00.000-05:00

(1) After the death of Athanasius (373), the intellectual and spiritual struggle against Arianism was taken up by the "new" Nicene party of the Eastern or Greek Church, consisting of old Origenists and former Homoiousians (i.e., "of like substance" with the Father), who had been persuaded by Athanasius to support the Nicene formula. Early on, the mantle of both organizational and theological leadership fell upon Basil of Caesarea (in Cappadocia). He, along with his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and lifelong friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, would come to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers.

(2) Basil wrote his famous treatise, On the Holy Spirit, to combat the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi ("Spirit-fighters"), a party of former Homoiousians who admitted the divinity of the Son, but not that of the Spirit. Gregory of Nazianzus, known as an orator of great distinction, left behind many homilies defending the cause of the Nicene Faith. Of the three, Gregory of Nyssa possessed the most theological depth, and it was his development of Basil's theology that led to the critical rethink and revision of Eastern Origenist theology that finally brought the "new" Nicenes and the "old" Nicenes together.

(3) Up to this point, the "old" Nicenes had always contended for a single divine hypostasis through which the three Persons -- Father, Son, and Spirit -- subsisted. This explanation sounded suspiciously modalistic to Eastern ears, and, indeed, in some individual cases (like that Marcellus of Ancyra) it frequently was! In contrast, the East had always contended for three individual Hypostases.

(4) By carefully distinguishing between the terms ousia and hupostasis, Gregory successfully contended that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct hypostases (i.e., concrete, subsistent realities) that shared a single, identical being or nature (thus properly considered homoousios). What sets the hypostases apart is not activity, but how each hypostasis relates to the others and to the whole, as Source, Offspring, and Procession.

(5) The political and theological turning point for the Cappadocian cause was the defeat of the eastern Augustus, Valens, by the Visigoths at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The surviving emperor in the West, Gratian, promptly appointed Theodosius I ("the Great") as Augustus in the East, who, unlike Valens, was committed to the Nicene faith. Together, Gratian and Theodosius issued a decree that the whole empire should practice the religion of Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), effectively establishing these sees as the "senior churches" and guardians of orthodoxy. The Nicene faith was now the official religion of the entire Empire.

(6) Theodosius summoned the council of Constantinople in 381 to deal with the Macedonian issue. Consisting of only 150 eastern bishops, the council had not been intended as an "ecumenical" council at all, but would gradually and eventually be recognized as such.

(7) The council, in contending for the deity of the Spirit, naturally confirmed the original symbol of Nicaea. It also considered another formula based on a baptismal creed in which key Nicene terms and phrases were inserted, and including a phrase declaring that the Holy Spirit is "worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son."

(8) The council never actually adopted the new symbol, ironically due to the desire of some and the reluctance of others to insert the term homoousios in reference to the Spirit. Nevertheless, the creed would always be associated with its name and work. Because of its increasing popularity and use as a liturgical symbol, the creed eventually achieved universal acceptance. It was finally confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which solemnly declared it to be the faith of the 150 bishops assembled under Theodosius at Constantinople. This creed, rather than the original symbol of Nicaea, is the one we know and recite today as the "Nicene Creed."

(9) Far from being free of contention and controversy, the Council of Constantinople became the source of further tensions between the East and the West: first, by bypassing Rome and Alexandria's choice for president of the council -- Paulinus , a prominent leader of the "old" Nicenes -- in favor of Meletius, a "new" Nicene supported by the majority. Meletius, however, died in the course of the meeting, and the council proceeded to appoint another "new" Nicene, Flavian of Antioch. Gregory of Nazianzus, who had been elected at the beginning of the council to replace the Arian bishop of Constantinople, quickly resigned his see in protest to the council's failure to conciliate Rome. The council then elected Nectarius to be bishop of Constantinople.

(10) The council's Second and Third Canons served to further alienate Rome and Alexandria by declaring (i) Constantinople to be a patriarchal see, and (ii) the bishop of Constantinople to have "the primacy of honor" after the bishop of Rome on the grounds that Constantinople was "new Rome." This not only set up a new source of friction between East and West, but also a new rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria

TOP FIVES: My Rock Music Favorites

2007-07-12T19:32:00.000-05:00

Favorite Rock Groups / Favorite Songs:
1. Pink Floyd / Echoes
2. Beatles / My Guitar Gently Weeps
3. Yes / Revealing Science of God
4. Led Zeppelin / No Quarter
5. Rush / Working Man

Favorite Male Vocalists:
1. Steve Walsh (Kansas)
2. Paul Rodgers (Free, Bad Company)
3. Freddy Mercury (Queen)
4. David Gilmore (Pink Floyd)
5. Van Morrison

Favorite Female Vocalists:
1. Anne Wilson (Heart)
2. Annie Lennox (Eurythmics)
3. Stevie Nicks (Fleetwood Mac)
4. Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane)
5. Chrissie Hynde (The Pretenders)

Favorite Rock Guitarists:
1. David Gilmore (Pink Floyd)
2. Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin)
3. Steve Howe (Yes)
4. Eric Clapton (Cream, etc.)
5. Jimmy Hendrix (Jimmy Hendrix Experience)

Favorite Rock Keyboardists:
1. Rick Wakeman (Yes)
2. Keith Emerson (ELP)
3. Richard Wright (Pink Floyd)
4. Kerry Livgren (Kansas)
5. Ray Manzarek (Doors)

Favorite Rock Drummers:
1. Neal Peart (Rush)
2. John Bonham (Led Zeppelin)
3. Bill Bruford (Yes / King Crimson)
4. Stuart Copeland (Police)
5. Carl Palmer (ELP)

Favorite Rock Bassists:
1. Chris Squire (Yes)
2. Sting (Police)
3. Geddy Lee (Rush)
4. John Paul Jones (Led Zeppelin)
5. Jack Bruce (Cream)

Favorite Rock Albums (from different groups):
1. Led Zeppelin IV (Led Zeppelin)
2. Aqualung (Jethro Tull)
3. White Album (Beatles)
4. Are You Experienced? (Jimmy Hendrix)
5. Let It Bleed (Rolling Stones)

Favorite Progressive Rock Albums (from different groups):
1. Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd)
2. Close to the Edge (Yes)
3. 2112 (Rush)
4. In the Court of the Crimson King (King Crimson)
5. Masque (Kansas)

Athanasius on the Semi-Arians: De Synodis, ca. 359 AD

2007-07-10T16:54:00.000-05:00

Those who deny the council (of Nicaea) altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Co-essential (i.e., homoousios), must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from another subsistence, and that he is not a creature nor work, but his genuine and natural offspring, and that he is eternally with the Father as being his Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase Co-essential. Now such is Basil of Ancyra, who wrote concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence' (i.e., homoiousios) is very far from signifying 'of the essence', by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuine relationship of the Son to the Father is signified....This is sufficient to show that the meaning of the beloved ones, that is, the Semi-arians, is not foreign nor far from the 'Co-essential' (Athanasius, De Synodis, 41, 43).

Ten Interesting Facts About the Struggle for the Nicene Faith

2007-07-07T15:58:00.000-05:00

1. Constantine's initial solution to the Arian controversy was to send a letter (in 324) to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius stating that the issue being debated amounted to a minor difference over a point of detail.

2. The idea for dealing with the Arian controversy in an "ecumenical" council came from Hosius of Cordova, who on his return from dropping off Constantine's letter, presided over a council in Antioch which installed Eustathius, an anti-Arian, and issued a rather clumsy confession of faith that proclaimed the Logos "begotten not from non-existence but from the Father, not as made but as properly an offspring."

3. In 325, Constantine invited every bishop of the empire to convene at Nicaea, over 1800 in all, at the empire's expense. However, only about three hundred (the traditional number is 318) actually attended, and only six from the West.

4. Three disparate parties were represented at Nicaea: (1) Arius' supporters, the most prominent being Eusebius of Nicodemia; (2) Alexander's supporters, such as Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra; and (3) those holding a "conservative" subordinationist position (as taught by Origen), by far the largest contingent, among them Eusebius of Caesarea. Many from this last party were at the time, or would eventually become, sympathizers of Arius.

5. All but two bishops signed the creed, wishing to keep the emperor happy. Yet many expressed suspicion that the creed's language -- particularly the term homoousios -- implied or outright taught the error of modalistic monarchianism. And, indeed, the views of at least one of the creed's prominent fervent supporters, Marcellus of Ancyra, were implicitly monarchian.

6. Eusebius of Nicodemia was exiled shortly after the Council of Nicaea for communicating Arius, but was recalled by Constantine in 328 to become bishop of the imperial capital and Constantine's principle advisor in the process. From this position, he labored to reestablish the dominance of the Eastern subordinationist position, undermining the Nicene formula (under Constantine's nose). Eusebius managed to depose and exile Alexander's successor, Athanasius, on trumped up charges, and Marcellus of Ancyra.

7. After Constantine's death, the depositions of Athanasius and Marcellus would lead to a schism between the East and the West when both bishops appealed to Julius of Rome. Eastern bishops gathered in Antioch in 341 to repudiate Arianism, disavow Rome's right to act as a court of appeal, and assert a subordinationist view of the Logos over against the alleged monarchianism implied by the Nicene symbol. The Latin church convened a separate council at Sardica, from which the Greeks withdrew when Athanasius and Marcellus were invited to sit, where they insisted that there is but one hypostasis of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (ousia and hypostasis were not yet distinct terms).

8. The efforts of Emperor Constantius (Constantine's son) to enforce a non-committal imperial orthodoxy led to the Council of Sirmium's (357) prohibition of terms such as ousia and homoousios, effectively repudiating the Nicene formula. This made room for a revival of "Arianism" in various forms, such as the Homoean party (from homoios, asserting that the Son is "like" the Father), the Anomoeans (who held that the Son was "unlike" the Father), and, lastly, those who insisted that the Son was not only "like" the Father, but "like in respect of substance" (the Homoiousian party).

9. The efforts of Athanasius from 359 to achieve reconciliation between the Homoousian and the Homoiousian parties opened the way to a fresh reappraisal of the Nicene symbol. The pro-Arian policies of Constantius II (and fifth and final exile of Athanasius) further encouraged the budding alliance between the two parties. From this alliance a "new Nicene party" would emerge, eventually finding worthy leadership in Basil of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) and Miletius of Antioch. Basil's brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, would also contribute their theological acumen to the Nicene cause. (These three would come to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers.)

10. Differences between the "old" Nicenes (West) and "new" Nicenes (East) continued to persist for a time, including uncertainty as to the divine status of the Holy Spirit. The differences would be resolved by the Cappadocians' ingenious distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis in their articulation of the Trinity. The Council of Constantinople in 381 marked the final triumph of Nicene orthodoxy. Intriguingly, while condemning the Pneumatomachi ("Spirit-fighters"), the council did not insist on using homoousios to describe the Holy Spirit's relation to the Father, in deference to the few remaining Homoiousians.

"Reappraisers and Reasserters": A Re-Working of Balthasar's Statement in Light of the Present Struggles of the Anglican Communion

2007-07-03T11:53:00.000-05:00

See the earlier entry below for the original quote.
++++++
They are either fanatically "come of age" (the "reappraisers") or fanatically immature (the "reasserters" who clamor for a strict enforcement of confessional standards, as interpreted by them, and seek to move the Communion away from its Canterbury-centeredness toward a federalist scheme). Just as the fanatics (i.e. Puritans) who insisted on a more thoroughgoing reform of the Church of England were condemned, by an iron law of the philosophy of history, to bring about the very opposite of what they intended and thus fall prey to the schizophrenia of dialectics, so today the elements on the fringe of the Anglican Communion, reappraisers and reasserters, are forever metamorphosing into each other, dialectically provoking each other into existence.

"Progressives and Integrists" by Hans Urs von Balthasar

2007-07-01T19:07:00.000-05:00

The last sentence is the money statement...
LINK

They are either fanatically "come of age" (the progressives) or fanatically immature (the integralists who clamor for the tangible exercise of papal authority and elevate to the status of dogma things that are not, such as Communion on the tongue and all kinds of apparitions of the Mother of God, etc). Just as the fanatics who insisted on the soli of the Reformation were condemned, by an iron law of the philosophy of history, to bring about the very opposite of what they intended and thus fall prey to the schizophrenia of dialectics, so today the elements on the fringe of Catholicism, progressivism and integralism, are forever metamorphosing into each other, dialectically provoking each other into existence.

Confession is Good for the Soul

2007-06-30T19:21:00.000-05:00

Here is my contribution to the Theological Confessions Meme. Biretta tip to Per Caritatem.

I confess that if I were ever given the opportunity to rewind my life and career, and to start over, I would probably enter the Dominican Order. I also confess that when I look at my wife and children, I am grateful that I will never be tempted with that choice.

I confess that I really enjoy having teenage children. I confess that still having a pre-teen in tow makes me feel younger than I am.

I confess that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has been a more formative influence on my life than Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer.

I confess that Karl Barth has irrevocably changed the way I do theology, and that, along with him, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Paul Tillich, and, lately, Hans Urs von Balthasar, are among my favorite dialogue partners in theology.

I confess that I wish my theological seminary had encouraged me to read modern theology rather than to avoid it.

I confess that those who have hurt me most in life are those who have used the pretense of orthodoxy to secure my trust.

I confess that theological liberals have often been more gracious to me than I have been to them.

I confess that C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Paul II, and Mother Theresa are among the reasons that I remain a Christian.

I confess that I have given very serious consideration to becoming a Roman Catholic twice in my life.

I confess that Sacred Heart devotion, gawdy statues, St. Christopher medals, scapularies, and other cheap trinkets are among the reasons that I doubt I'll ever become a Roman Catholic.

I confess that the virtues of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer more than make up for its deficiencies.

I confess that George Harrison is my favorite Beatle, that Pink Floyd's Echoes is the perfect musical composition, and that the end of Yes's Gates of Delerium sometimes brings a tear to my eye.

I confess that some of my most profound spiritual experiences occur while listening to Yes's The Revealing Science of God. I also confess that I find more spiritual value in listening to Rush's 2112 CD than in a MegaChurch service.

I confess that Christian fundamentalism leaves me cold.

I confess that I am in the distinct minority among orthodox thinkers in believing that Interfaith Dialogue is not only beneficial, but also necessary.

I confess that I don't exercise nearly enough for my physical health, nor drink nearly enough for my mental health.

I confess that I sometimes resent that, given my choice of career and my own aspirations, I would have gotten much further in life as a woman and/or an ethnic minority.

I confess that Charles Darwin poses the most serious challenge to the faith of many Christians, mainly because he was correct.

I confess that my disenchantment with Intelligent Design theory rests entirely on my commitment to Theism.

I confess that I am convinced that life exists in other places in our universe, perhaps even in our own solar system, and that the eventual discovery of non-terrestrial life will inspire the most serious re-think of Christian theology since Copernicus. I confess every intention of staying ahead of the curve on this one.

I confess that local orthodoxies (i.e., confessions of faith), while serving a certain usefulness, often become "household idols" that stifle theological inquiry, stall ecumenical progress, and stunt the faith of many. I also confess that I am often impatient with Anglicans who revere the 39 Articles as such.

Why the Articles Must be Interpreted in Light of the Creeds, and Not the Creeds in Light of the Articles: Article I

2007-06-30T11:30:00.000-05:00

ARTICLE I: There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The shortcoming of this article is that it does not follow the creedal pattern. It starts out correctly: “There is but one living and true God...” but it should continue thus, “...the Father almighty,” as do the catholic creeds. Article I thus falls short of a truly catholic (ecumenical) articulation, as many western articulations do. This is not to say that the article is incapable of supporting an orthodox reading, only that it is capable of supporting an unorthodox one, which constitutes its major flaw.

As it stands, Article I could be read to imply that there is a “Godhead” or “God-stuff” or some supra-personal “God” that is above the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are subsumed within or beneath It (or Him). Yet the universal creeds (Apostles, Nicene) teach that the Father, not the "Godhead" (however that is understood), is the ground and hypostasis of unity. Thus the unity of the Godhead is grounded in the Father's monarchy: the Son and the Spirit derive from Him, for the Father is the source of their essence. This is the faith of the Church Catholic.

My Mugshot

2007-06-29T18:05:00.001-05:00

Y'all can check out my mugshot at my parish's website, where I will be serving out my diaconate until my ordination to the priesthood in six months. My diocese considers my place of work, (the seminary), as my official placement.

Namárië

2007-06-29T09:54:00.000-05:00

Not exactly breaking news...but for those readers who may not have heard, Fr. Al Kimel of Pontifications is now retiring from the blogosphere. Read his departing entry here.

Here is an excerpt:

Becoming Catholic has brought many blessings, but it has not healed the sorrows of my heart. Indeed, in some ways it has intensified these sorrows. But this is all very private. All I need say is that I often find them overwhelming. God is silent. I am reduced to silence.

I think many of us can relate to this on some level. I know that I can. Fr. Al, you will be missed.

Praying Saint Patrick's Breastplate with Anglican Prayer Beads

2007-06-28T12:24:00.000-05:00

The Cross:
I bind unto myself today the strong Name of the Trinity, by invocation of the same, the Three in One, and One in Three. Of whom all nature hath creation, eternal Father, Spirit, Word: praise to the Lord of my salvation, salvation is of Christ the Lord.

The Invitatory:
Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me, Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me. Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love me, Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

The Cruciforms:
I bind unto myself today
the strong Name of the Trinity,
by invocation of the same,
the Three in One, and One in Three.

The Weeks:
1. I bind this day to me for ever, by power of faith, Christ’s Incarnation;
2. his baptism in Jordan river;
3. his death on cross for my salvation;
4. his bursting from the spicèd tomb;
5. his riding up the heavenly way;
6. his coming at the day of doom:
7. I bind unto myself today.

1. I bind unto myself the power of the great love of cherubim;
2. the sweet "Well done" in judgment hour;
3. the service of the seraphim;
4. confessors’ faith, apostles’ word,
5. the patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls;
6. all good deeds done unto the Lord,
7. and purity of virgin souls.

1. I bind unto myself today the virtues of the starlit heaven,
2. the glorious sun’s life-giving ray,
3. the whiteness of the moon at even,
4. the flashing of the lightning free,
5. the whirling of the wind’s tempestuous shocks,
6. the stable earth, the deep salt sea,
7. around the old eternal rocks.

1. I bind unto myself today the power of God to hold and lead,
2. his eye to watch, his might to stay,
3. his ear to hearken, to my need;
4. the wisdom of my God to teach,
5. his hand to guide, his shield to ward;
6. the word of God to give me speech,
7. his heavenly host to be my guard.

The Closing Prayers:

Invitatory Bead:
The Lord’s Prayer

The Cross:
I bless the Lord.

Or, in a group setting:
Let us bless the Lord
Thanks be to God.

Anglican Prayer Beads: A Form of Contemplative Prayer

2007-06-28T12:13:00.000-05:00

From the King of Peace website.

Anglican Prayer Beads are a relatively new form of prayer, blending the Orthodox Jesus Prayer Rope and the Roman Catholic Rosary. The thirty-three bead design was created by the Rev. Lynn Bauman in the mid-1980s, through the prayerful exploration and discovery of a contemplative prayer group.

The use of the rosary or prayer beads helps to bring us into contemplative of meditative prayer—really thinking about and being mindful of praying, of being in the presence of God—by use of mind, body, and spirit. The touching of the fingers on each successive bead is an aid in keeping our mind from wandering, and the rhythm of the prayers leads us more readily into stillness.

Symbolism of the Beads

The configuration of the Anglican Prayer Beads relate contemplative prayer using the Rosary to many levels of traditional Christian symbolism. Contemplative prayer is enriched by these symbols whose purpose is always to focus and concentrate attention, allowing the one who prays to move more swiftly into the Presence of God.
The prayer beads are made up of twenty-eight beads divided into four groups of seven called weeks. In the Judeo-Christian tradition the number seven represents spiritual perfection and completion. Between each week is a single bead, called a cruciform bead as the four beads form a cross. The invitatory bead between the cross and the wheel of beads brings the total to thirty-three, the number of years in Jesus’ earthly life.

Praying with the beads

To begin, hold the Cross and say the prayer you have assigned to it, then move to the Invitatory Bead. Then enter the circle of the prayer with the first Cruciform Bead, moving to the right, go through the first set of seven beads to the next Cruciform bead, continuing around the circle, saying the prayers for each bead.

It is suggested that you pray around the circle of the beads three times (which signifies the Trinity) in an unhurried pace, allowing the repetition to become a sort of lullaby of love and praise that enables your mind to rest and your heart to become quiet and still.

Praying through the beads three times and adding the crucifix at the beginning or the end, brings the total to one hundred, which is the total of the Orthodox Rosary. A period of silence should follow the prayer, for a time of reflection and listening. Listening is an important part of all prayer.

Begin praying the Anglican Prayer Beads by selecting the prayers you wish to use for the cross and each bead. Practice them until it is clear which prayer goes with which bead, and as far as possible commit the prayers to memory.

Find a quiet spot and allow your body and mind to become restful and still. After a time of silence, begin praying the prayer beads at an unhurried, intentional pace. Complete the circle of the beads three times.

When you have completed the round of the prayer beads, you should end with a period of silence. This silence allows you to center your being in an extended period of silence. It also invites reflection and listening after you have invoked the Name and Presence of God.

Science and Eastern Orthodoxy

2007-06-21T18:16:00.000-05:00

LINK

LIGHT FROM THE EAST: Theology, Science and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition
by Alexei V. Nesteruk
Fortress Press (2003)

In the non-Orthodox world, a lively dialogue between science and theology has been taking place for decades. Among Orthodox, however, the theological response to modern scientific theory has hitherto been extremely muted. It has therefore been with great anticipation that they have awaited the study by Alexei Nesteruk which has now been published. For Nesteruk, as well as being a member of the Orthodox Church, is also a researcher at the University of Portsmouth, and, as such, he is someone who can speak of the scientific enterprise from within.

As a mathematical physicist, Nesteruk has clearly decided to stick to those aspects of science that he knows well. Some might regard this as a pity, since it leads him to ignore almost entirely the theological questions arising from some of the aspects of modern scientific theory that Christians tend to find the most disturbing, such as neo-Darwinism. This is, however, less of a problem that might appear at first sight, since Nesteruk’s approach is far more subtle than that of those Western theologians, who – through a methodology of beginning with questions about the perceived dissonance of science and theology – often by-pass important and necessary questions about the nature of the two disciplines.

His fundamental thesis is, in fact, not that theology and science can be interpreted in terms of some surfacelevel consonance, but rather that both can be “reinstated to their proper relationship to the Eucharist,understood in cosmic terms as the offering of creation back to God through art, science, and technology.” In this context, he goes on, scientific activity can be treated as a cosmic eucharistic work (a “cosmic liturgy”). Science can thus be seen as a mode of religious experience, a view obvious to those scientists who participate in ecclesial communities, but as yet undemonstrated to those outside such communities, (p.2).

To illustrate this view, Nesteruk provides, in the second half of the book, a number of extremely interesting but scientifically complex arguments. This scientifically informed argument is, however, based on a more general attempt, in the first half of the book, to develop a patristically-oriented rationale for seeing the sciences as an important aspect of our contemplation of divine realities. To expand on this he provides an extremely thought-provoking analysis of the patristic use of apophatic and cataphatic language in relation to God. He links this way of using theological language to the way in which God must be seen as immanent in the cosmos and yet as utterly transcending it. Like many Orthodox commentators, he sees the witness of St. Maximus the Confessor – especially in relation to the concept of the logoi of created things having their origin in the Logos himself – as central to the development of a contemporary understanding.

A recognition of the importance of this book does not, of course, imply that it is beyond reproach. Being both ambitious and complex, it inevitably has many features that raise critical questions. Some, for example, may wonder whether the concept of hypostasis can really carry the weight that Nesteruk makes it bear. Others,perhaps, will wonder whether a modern Orthodox theology really requires a utilizing of neo-Platonic categories of the sort that is attempted here (and, even if it does, whether modern cosmology can be used to underpin this usage in the way Nesteruk suggests). Perhaps more important than any of these questions, however, is one that arises from the way in which Nesteruk has – as he candidly admits – “been deeply influenced by the ideas of [the Presbyterian theologian] Thomas Torrance” (p. 2). These ideas are, admittedly, themselves deeply influenced by patristic (and especially Alexandrian) perspectives. They are also, however, rooted in important strands of continental Protestant (‘neoorthodox’) theology, and it is far from clear that Nesteruk has taken this adequately into account.

To recognize that such questions are posed by Nesteruk’s approach is not, however, to diminish the importance of what he has done. On the contrary, it bears witness to it. For, by setting off trains of thought of this kind, Nesteruk has surely done an invaluable service, both to his fellow Orthodox – who can now begin to see the sciences in a new and positive light – and to non-Orthodox, who can now see a way in which their own ongoing dialogue of science and theology can be expanded and deepened by Orthodox perspectives.

Nesteruk himself is modest enough to recognize (p. 12) that his efforts represent no more than “first steps ... with no pretensions to completing the enormous task” that lies ahead. It is, however, the first steps in any journey that are the most important, and for this particular journey Nesteruk has arguably not only pointed us in the right direction, but also provided us with many of the vehicles that we shall need as we progress. Our long term judgements of some of his specific arguments may, perhaps, turn out to be negative ones. Even if this is so, however, this will not prevent him from being remembered, in the history of the Orthodox Church, as the pioneer of a new frontier that had for too long remained unexplored. As the first clear expositor of the view that science is a cosmic eucharistic work and a mode of religious experience, he has begun a phase of Orthodox theological reflection which may have truly momentous consequences.

Christopher C. Knight
Condensed from SOUROZH:
A Journal of Orthodox Life and Thought, 2003, N 94, pp.45-49
Also reviewed in ESSSAT News, 13.4

The Master Stroke of Quantum Indeterminacy

2007-06-17T00:21:00.000-05:00

To be sure, there is nothing about quantum indeterminacy at the base of our existence that proves it was the work of God. Or of a design to the universe clearly put there by an intelligent force to accommodate living things. However, if there is a God, consider what a master stroke quantum indeterminacy was. To create an orderly material world that didn't require constant intervention, the Creater had to make things obey defined laws. But if those laws were to run all the way down to the building blocks of matter, they would also have denied free will. They would have made it possible for His creatures (eventually) to figure out that all past events and all future ones could be inferred from a single reading of the state of the physical world at any given time.

Remarkably, what quantum indeterminacy does is to deny us the possibility of that ever happening. We cannot uncritically extrapolate the details of the present backwards to learn the past; and the future is what we make of it. Were this not the case, the future would be what our particles make of us. Instead, we are inextricably locked into the present, with our thoughts, words, and deeds helping to construct the future, a future that remains open to our own choices, to a world of possibilities.

Once He had fixed the physical nature of our universe, once He had ensured that the constants of nature would create a chemistry and physics that allowed for life, God would then have gone about the process of producing the creatures that would share this new world with him. He could have created anything He wanted, of course, by any means He cared to use. But He had already decided that the living world would be physically independent of direct divine intervention, and that life would find its support in the physics and chemistry that He was careful to create.

--Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God, pp. 251-2.

One week away from the "Midas touch"

2007-06-16T14:33:00.001-05:00

Just an update on my status, for those who may not be "in the know": I will be ordained to the diaconate by Bishop Don Wimberly of the Diocese of Texas next Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. This will take place at Christ Church Cathedral in downtown Houston. I will, however, continue in my present position as Dean of the Faculty at an ecumenical seminary.

Do Positions on Evolution Really Matter in 2008?

2007-06-12T15:35:00.000-05:00

Believing in evolution and God is fence-sitting??
+++++++

Do Positions on Evolution Really Matter in 2008 Race?
By DeWayne Wickham

During a televised debate among GOP presidential candidates last month in California, Sen. John McCain of Arizona was asked whether he believes in evolution. McCain first answered with one word: "Yes." Then he quickly added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

That bit of fence walking might remind some people of what comedian W.C. Fields, a life-long atheist, said when he was discovered reading a Bible shortly before his death. When a friend asked incredulously what he was doing, Fields responded: "Looking for loopholes."

But a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests McCain's attempt to have it both ways is not an uncommon view. One-quarter of Americans think evolution, a scientific theory on the origins of life, and creationism, the biblical description of how life began, are both likely explanations. But in the world of politics, reality is too often shaped by what it takes to win over the relatively small number of voters who take part in a political party's selection process — not the thinking of a wider group of people.

Whatever the reason, three of the GOP presidential wannabes standing with McCain that day gave a much different answer. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado answered with a show of hands when a reporter asked, "Is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?"
This month, during a GOP debate in New Hampshire, Huckabee was asked about his rejection of evolution. "To me, it's pretty simple," the Baptist minister answered. "A person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own."

In politics, few things are described so simply. But for many members of the religious right — an influential bloc in the GOP's presidential candidate selection process — answers to questions of faith have no middle ground. This is especially so in the long-running debate over the beginning of life.

Faced with such intransigence in 1925 on the eve of the trial of John Scopes — a man charged with violating a Tennessee law that prohibited teaching evolution — H.L. Mencken, a columnist for Baltimore's The Sun, wrote, "Enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed." Mencken would be surprised to know that when it comes to debate over the origins of life, enlightenment is now in greater supply.

Many Americans think the theories of divine creation and evolution can coexist. And why not accept the Bible's story of God's creation of life as a metaphor, and the evolutionist's version of how life started as a more detailed account of the same event? Isn't it possible the "Big Bang" theory of the universe's beginning is just science's explanation of what happened when God said, "Let there be light?" Why worry about where presidential candidates of either party stand on this issue?

At one point in the New Hampshire debate, Huckabee bristled at being asked about his position on the origins of life. "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States," he said.

But with that job comes significant influence over public education, as we have seen with the Bush administration's imposition of teaching standards. The Oval Office job also plays a role in defining the nation's response to harmful atmospheric changes that many scientists say are man-made, and in determining government's response to calls for expanded stem cell research, which could alter lives afflicted with disease.

Putting a religious absolutist in the White House might sharply reduce the role of science in our national life — and distance the next president from the thinking of a lot of Americans.

DeWayne Wickham writes on Tuesdays for USA TODAY.

NEWS FLASH: "Fed-cons" unite in resolve to scupper Cantuar

2007-06-09T10:48:00.000-05:00

Well, folks, Matt Kennedy and Stephen Noll are finally on the same page. Actually, truth be told, they always were, but there was this little issue of the upcoming Lambeth Conference to resolve between these two "fed-cons." For details, catch the latest over at Stand Firm.

Someone, somewhere along the way, coined the terms "federal conservative" and "communion conservative" to describe the differences between two rather nuanced and (up to now) ambiguous, i.e., hard-to-define, positions within what Kendall Harmon dubbed the "re-asserting" camp.

However, what divides so-called "conservatives" (I hate that term too) has never been so clear as it is today. The issue is CONCILIARISM, and we can thank Ephraim Radner and the ACI for articulating this difference beyond any question (See Dr. Radner's excellent article below).

"Fed-con" and "Com-con" are messy, imprecise, and outmoded designations. They should be put to rest. The real division is between non-conciliarists and conciliarists. Obviously, Noll and Kennedy are non-conciliarists, and Radner, Seitz, et al. are conciliarists. It should be obvious where Catholic in the Third Millennium stands.

Let's call 'em what they are.

A MUST READ: Ephraim Radner's "Lambeth Can Be What It Wants to Be"

2007-06-06T10:25:00.000-05:00

Read the entire article at the Anglican Communion Institute website. Here's the Link

++++++

The charismatic character of conciliar authority

In light of all this, I would emphasize that the real basis for the authoritative nature of the Church’s conciliar vocation is not, therefore, the entity of a “council” in itself. Councils are not Scripture. Councils themselves are not the Holy Spirit. Councils guarantee nothing. Just because one has a council – local or wider – does not mean that what it decides has any authority in Christian terms. Rather, the basis for the authoritative nature of the Church’s conciliar vocation lies in the faithful perseverance of its members in common over time, that is, in their willingness to live the Christian life together “for the Lord” and “in the Lord”. Since the authority of councils derive from their place in a historical series, it is grasped only retrospectively, and it is possible to do this only because one has carried through with the conciliar life together long enough and through a perseverant life of faithfulness on such a path that the truth is apprehended together. A synod may indeed come to a decision that is “true” in the sense of conforming to and displaying the truth of Scripture, but that council may never gain “authority” in the Church because it never took place within the extended conciliar life of the Church in such a way that its truth was apprehended.

The place where the Holy Spirit “authorizes” a council, therefore, is not first in the abstract nature of its decisions nor even in the juridically-defined and defining shape of a given gathering. It is in the ongoing Christian life of those making decisions and receiving them. Councils are authoritative when they are perceived, that is, as being “holy”, enacted by holy people and received by holy people, conformed to the Scriptural shape of God’s will. True councils are “charismatic”, in the qualification used by Orthodox theologians. Councils are authoritative, not only when they speak the “truth” (this is not a sufficient condition for conciliar authority), but when they are filled with and give rise to the gifts and fruit of the Spirit – faith, generosity, and so on, and “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Rom. 12:6ff.; Gal. 5:22f.). This should not be a surprise, Scripturally speaking: for it is the “gathering in my Name (cf. Mt. 18:20), in its rich and profound sense of the Spirit’s common life, that is promised the presence of Jesus. The Church “over time”, and hence as a truly conciliar reality, exists as Christ’s Body only as she embodies the Holy Spirit’s gifts and fruit in this sense that allows her to gather at all (1 Cor. 12).

The necessary and essential link between council and Holy Spirit, understood in the sense above, underscores a paradoxical reality: the Church’s councils need not be wholly “pure” in their make-up to be valid and authoritative. Rather they require only that some of their members be holy and, more importantly, that such holiness persist in the midst of the Church’s errors and sin. For the Spirit is “sent”; the Spirit does not constitute. The Spirit inhabits; the Spirit does not embody. This is the model of the apostolic church of Jesus, at the Last Supper and Passion: the holiness of the Church – and her councils – is given in the means by which her saints demonstrate the Spirit’s fruit within the Church’s fallenness, by the exercise of truthful witness, mercy and charity with and among her corrupted members, as Jesus did not only towards his persecutors, but towards his own followers who would and who did eventually abandon Him.

In light of this discussion, we can answer a number of questions currently being raised about attendance at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops. We can do so by observing the character of the Church’s first great councils – e.g. Nicea and Constantinople – and seeing how in fact they conform to the outline of conciliar life suggested above, and how they clarify current concerns. Although these two councils represent something “new”, from the perspective of history, they were not in fact “primordial”. They emerged from and took their place within an existing and long line of previous councils, some of considerable significance and weight. As “councils”, they are “general”, not de novo.

Does one sit in council with those with whom one is out of communion?

Nicea answered this question affirmatively: present were not only the Novationist schismatic bishop Acesius, but also Arians (including Arius himself!) who had previously and formally broken with bishops of the (finally decided) “orthodox” party. One does not need to share the Eucharist with another Christian in order for the counsel of the Holy Spirit to be authoritatively pursued among them.

In the midst of disputes within the Church, including ones that cut deeply and that burden us today, this reality (more fully demonstrated below) cuts in all kinds of directions.

Does one sit in council with heretics?

Invited to Nicea, as we know, were Arius and his friends and supporters (e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who ended up causing so much trouble for the orthodox after Nicea, despite signing on to the final agreement).

The first Council of Constantinople, over 50 years after Nicea, had to revisit with much anguish and conflict the very matters already decided at Nicea. This means that the later council, by definition, was one engaged with known “heretics”, established as such by a previous council. Yet that did not prevent the council’s gathering and its engagement of orthodox and heretic together.

Does one sit in council with the excommunicated?

As the previous question and response show, “heresy” can already be conciliarly defined and still be engaged subsequently on a personal level at another council. Hence, Arius, along with at least two African bishops, Secondus and Theonus, had been formally condemned and excommunicated by a formal Alexandrian synod, some time before Nicea convened. Yet Bp. Alexander (and Athanasius, his then-secretary) met with them at Nicea. Both Nicea and Constantinople gathered bishops who had, at various times, been excommunicated and even exiled by opposing parties.

One of the questions to be asked in the context of the above is, “does not counsel with heretics and the excommunicated threaten the corruption of the council itself and of the church subsequently?”. This question has been posed within the Anglican Communion currently in terms of TEC being a liberal “heresy” similar to a “gangrene” or “cancer” whose presence cannot be tolerated in council for fear of contamination. Clearly this was not the view of those participating in the first councils of the Church, including the first two Ecumenical Councils. It was not so because the nature of Christian conciliarity, as we have explained, is founded on the power of the Holy Spirit within the lives of those taking council, not uniformly, but simply really – just as Jesus’ authority in the Church is based on His own pneumatic life, not on His members’ uniformly.

Certainly, there are a variety of responses given in the New Testament church to heresy or immorality within the Christian community. In all cases where possible, discipline is exercised. But discipline within the New Testament is not uniform – as Paul’s experience with the “false apostles” at Corinth makes clear – and is often set aside in favor of the “power” of the Spirit’s “demonstration” in the lives of the Church’s saints, regardless of the failures of others around them. Indeed, the one text in the New Testament regarding “gangrene” (2 Tim. 2:17) is not about complete disengagement with heretics, but about the proper kind of engagement, based not on drawn out controversy but on a particular kind of charismatic posture and example as a teacher (2 Tim. 2:24ff.) that leads the erring person to “repentance”.

The point here is that a council may choose to invite or not, on the basis of discipline or not – none of this validates or invalidates a council. These are prudential decisions, not matters of faith (see below).

Does one sit at council with those who have betrayed previous councils?

Following Nicea, an entire array of Arians and related “heretics” continued to agitate and in fact often “triumph” ecclesially through episcopal establishement and numerous new councils, both local and wider. Many, although not all, of these subsequent councils were attended by “orthodox”, who knowingly came to gatherings in which they were outnumbered, deceived, and mistreated. Their attendance, where possible, was based on the courage, calm, and faith granted them by the Holy Spirit, not on juridical realities. Such councils were often later judged to be invalid; but not because of their initial gathering, but rather because of their fruit. I personally believe it to be the case that, at certain point, if one can no longer trust the word of certain members of the Church, their presence at the Church’s councils do indeed become problematic. But again, to what degree is a prudential decision, not one based on principle.

Does non-invitation of potentially worthy attendees invalidate a council?

The Bishop of Rome was never invited to (nor did he or his formal representative attend) the Council of Constantinople (and he was, at the time, out of communion with the Council’s president, Melitius, as well as with others present). Yet, in time – and not a long time either – the Council of Constantinople was recognized by the Pope as a valid “ecumenical” council, despite not even having a formal papal representative present.The conclusion here, to restate a point made before and well-grounded in conciliar theology, is that councils are authoritative in their historical reception, not in their immediate form. The form, however, points to the character of the council in an initial way, and eventually reveals that inner character over time: one comes to council, and God does His work.

--The rest of the article.

Gerald Bray on Augustine's Conception of the Spirit as Love

2007-06-05T17:59:00.001-05:00

The link between the Trinity and human salvation is clearer in Augustine than in any other ancient writer, and it has indelibly marked the entire Western tradition. The belief that God is love is now such a commonplace that we seldom realize what a new and powerful idea it was to Augustine. Unfortunately though, Augustine formulated his belief in a way which leaves it open to serious question. As he understood it, the essence of God was both spirit and love. Despite serious hesitation, Augustine eventually argued himself into believing that spirit and love were the same thing, with the result that the Holy Spirit must also be the personification of holy love.

The basis for this equation come from a comparison of John 4:24 ('God is spirit') with 1 John 4:16 ('God is love'). Today we would say that the word 'spirit' refers primarily to the nature of God, whereas love is the way in which God functions. To tie the two together as Augustine eventually did is to unite essence and function in a way which distorts the biblical data. This conjunction later became a standard feature of Western theology, which to this day likes to claim that pure being is the same as pure act. During the centuries when the emphasis was ontological, however, love tended to become a remote abstraction. Now that the emphasis has shifted to the functional, the opposite tendency has asserted itself, and love tends to be regarded mainly as a subjective feeling, which is then somehow identified with the very being of God.

In fairness to Augustine, it must be said that he himself never went anything like as far as that. He did not regard 'Spirit' as the personal name of the third person of the Trinity, but only as a designation of the divine nature. As such, the word could and did refer equally to the Father and the Son. On the other hand, Augustine toyed with this question of finding the personal name of the Holy Spirit, but never really came up with a satisfactory answer. At one point he suggested that it might be 'gift' (donum), although that is hardly a personal name in the sense that we would understand it. Later on, he put forward the view that the Spirit's personal name was Holy. this was slightly better than 'gift', but it suffered from the fact that, like Spirit, it was a term which could be applied to the other persons of the Trinity as well.

Augustine's difficulty here is symptomatic of his whole approach, which locates the unity of the Father and the Son in the person of the Holy Spirit. But because the unity of God is expressed at the level of nature, there is an inescapable tendency to think of the Holy Spirit as a personification of the impersonal qualities which constitute the being of God. Admittedly, this tendency is helped to some extent by the impersonal name which is given to the third person, even in the Scriptures, although of course he is also called Comforter (Paraclete). Augustine was aware of this, but neither he nor his successors made much of it when discussing the names of the Trinity in their writings.

--Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God (Intervarsity, 1993), pp. 171-2.

Latest from the Anglican Communion Institute

2007-06-05T10:27:00.000-05:00

The whole article is well worth reading. What follows below is the conclusion. Here's the LINK.

++++++

Given the fact that the Primates have been assigned "enhanced responsibility" by the Lambeth Conference itself, and given the fact that no one with the authority to do so has withdrawn their proposal to address the threat of fracture our Communion now faces, and given the fact that the claim made that these proposals do not accord with the Constitution and Canons of TEC remains no more than an unsupported assertion, we ask four questions:

1. The Primates still have warrant to make their appointments to the Pastoral Council. Why have they not done so?

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury still has the authority to make his appointment to the PastoralCouncil. Why has he not done so?

3. The Presiding Bishop of TEC still has authority to make her appointment to the Pastoral Council. Why has she not done so?

4. The Windsor Bishops still have warrant to make their nominations for Primatial Vicar. Why have they not done so?

We believe that the credibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Meeting of the Primates, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and the Windsor Bishops depends upon a speedy answer to these four questions. Some may think us naïve for continuing to think these instruments of unity still have credibility. We have, however, considered the alternatives-all of which portend the end of Anglicanism as a communion of churches. We pray, therefore, that those in whose hands Providence has placed responsibility for the peace, faithfulness, and unity of the church will respond publicly and speedily to these questions that rest so heavily upon the minds and hearts of all who care about the future of the Anglican Communion.

Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner

Officers of the Anglican Communion Network

A Blast from the Past: What did Augustine and Arius have in common?

2007-06-02T23:07:00.000-05:00

--Originally posted on June 26, 2006. I'm reposting this in view of Trinity Sunday.

Answer: Both Arius and Augustine defined deity in terms of divine causality, thus understanding causality to be the essential attribute of deity rather than the hypostatic (i.e. personal) feature of the Father's monarchy.

In this confusion of Person, nature and attribute, Arius went on to assert that only the Father was truly God, for the Logos was begotten of the Father. Thus Christ could not be fully divine in that he was "caused by," and in no way the "cause of," the Father. Divine causality and essential deity are inextricably mixed.

In his argument against the later heresy of semi-Arianism, Augustine conceded this point, but went on to employ it in favor of the essential deity of Christ by positing the filioque doctrine. Thus Augustine saw the Son as the "cause," along with the Father, of another divine Person: the Holy Spirit. "For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him" (De Trinitate 15:26:47). In other words, the Son receives divine causality from the Father and thus is fully divine, for the Holy Spirit proceeds from both.

At this point the inconsistency in Augustine's view of the Trinity becomes apparent, for where does this leave the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit is a fully divine hypostasis then wherein is manifested the attribute of causality?

From the Telegraph: Church Call on Intelligent Design

2007-06-02T01:02:00.000-05:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/02/ndarwin02.xml

By Graeme Paton

The Church of England yesterday suggested that schools should teach the controversial theory of intelligent design in science lessons.

The Rev Jan Ainsworth, the Church's head of education, said that the belief - that man was created by an intelligent being, such as God - should have a place in the national curriculum.
The comments come despite warnings from academics that intelligent design and creationism are "anti-science" and a veiled attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into teaching.
It also places Mrs Ainsworth on collision course with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Government ministers, who have told schools to keep strict Biblical interpretations of life out of school science lessons.

Speaking at a seminar on faith schools, Mrs Ainsworth, who is responsible for almost 5,000 primary and secondary schools, said: "While it is not something I would subscribe to, it is a recognition that there are different ways of looking at the evidence."

Intelligent design is often seen as a more "acceptable" version of creationism, the strict Biblical theory that God created the world in six days 6,000 years ago.

Its proponents argue that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own, suggesting that there was a hidden hand behind the creation of man.

Over at Stand Firm: Hospitality and Heretics

2007-06-01T12:37:00.000-05:00

Stand Firm's Matt Kennedy recently wrote an article of interest entitled, Hospitality and Heretics: The Necessity of Discipline in the Anglican Communion. The article itself is what I've come to expect from Matt: a well-written, impassioned argument for the federal conservative view. But the comment section reveals the essential flaw in the fed con view, and why a presumed Communion set up in the fashion that fed cons envision will never work.

In the providence of God, the Church used councils to deliberate controversial matters, and, yes, actually to DEFINE dogma, not merely to reiterate scriptural teaching, as Matt seems to be saying in his remarks (one commenter does a good job challenging Matt on this point). Conciliarism as a process for discerning what the Spirit is saying to the churches is often messy, political, and (in the ancient world) has even been violent. And in the aftermath of a council (i.e. the period of reception for a council's teaching), things could even be worse. As unholy as it sounds, like or not, orthodoxy triumphs by virtue of being the "last man standing" after a conflict has subsided.

The Anglican Communion is a very young community of churches, ever inching their way to a conciliar model of community life and discipline. We are not there yet, and the present struggle is by no means the first or last challenge that will threaten its very existence.

In short, I think Matt should have started with Acts 15 rather than with Matthew 18.

Prayer for the Departed

2007-05-31T17:56:00.000-05:00

Why does the Church pray for the departed? Simple: because they, like us (or, better, along with us), have not yet experienced the full redemption of their beings, which will take place at the resurrection. The Church on earth, entrusted with the care of souls of all the faithful, pleads the mercies of God in solidarity with all of its members, both living and dead. This implies nothing at all about the "state" of the dead before the resurrection apart from the acknowledgement that BEFORE the resurrection neither they nor us have reached the goal, and reaching that goal depends completely and utterly on the mercy and grace of God.

Non-specificity characterizes the Church's prayers for the departed; that is, the Church does not pray for temporally-bound "needs." Rather, the Church prays for the departed within the general intercessions for the whole Church, that they, along with us, may share with all God's saints in his eternal kingdom. Someone might ask, what profit lies in such prayers for the departed? But one might just as well ask, what profit lies in such prayers for those of us who still live here on earth? One will find the same answer for both questions.

Darwin's Pope?

2007-05-28T17:41:00.000-05:00

Darwin's Pope?"
by Kenneth R. Miller

"Intelligent design," the notion that living things are too complex to have been produced by evolution, has gotten a cold shoulder in the scientific community. Not so in the popular imagination, where its advocates have convinced much of the public and even an Austrian cardinal that it deserves a place alongside Darwin in science classrooms.

The public-relations successes of what's being widely called "ID" reflect the skillful way in which its proponents have framed the debate to place God and Darwin in direct opposition. As Phillip Johnson, the movement's most respected leader, has candidly described it, the principal strategy followed by the "design" movement "is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God." That, the ID folks are convinced, is a winning argument, at least in the United States.

Unfortunately for ID, for years there has been a dramatic, highly visible, well-known contradiction to this claim—the Roman Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution as being entirely consistent with Christian teachings. From Pius XII's first cautious but positive words in 1950, in Humani Generis, to John Paul II's recognition that evolution was now "more than just a hypothesis" and was supported by "discoveries in various fields of knowledge," in a 1996 address, the Church has made it clear that the scientific conclusions of evolution need not contradict the core teachings of the Christian faith. Indeed, reflecting on the broad scientific support for Darwin's theory, John Paul II stated flatly that "truth cannot contradict truth." The "truths" he had in mind were the empirical scientific truth of evolution and the eternal truths of faith. Powerful stuff.

Why, then, did Benedict XVI, on the day of his coronation, preach a homily saying: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." And echoing Benedict's words, on July 7, 2005, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn wrote in The New York Times that "neo-Darwinian" theory is not "compatible with Christian faith." Incredibly, his essay bore the provocative headline "Finding Design in Nature."

In the United States, those words caused hearts to leap in the breasts of the anti-evolution movement. To hear the ID folks tell it, it's just a matter of time before the new pope places the influence of the Catholic Church squarely into the fight against godless Darwinism. A few have even suggested that Benedict will invite the champions of ID to the Vatican for a private audience.

While no one should be foolish enough to state categorically what the Holy Father will or will not decide on any issue, I'd urge the ID crowd to wait a while before booking those first-class tickets to Rome.

Although Benedict is widely viewed as a theological conservative, with respect to science, his conservatism fits squarely into the mold of Augustine and Aquinas, and follows the long Catholic tradition of respect for scientific rationalism that shaped John Paul II's 1996 endorsement of evolution.

So, what are we to make of his assertions that we are not the "casual and meaningless products" of evolution? We can start with Benedict's own writings, and in particular, I'd point to his book In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
After describing the scientific elements of neo-Darwinian theory, then-Cardinal Ratzinger asked: "What response shall we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error."

Ratzinger, like John Paul II and Puis XII before him, is not at all concerned about the emerging evolutionary account of humankind's material origins. As he makes clear, "this is not a matter for faith." However, he draws the line at any suggestion that we are the mere products of "chance and error," and the reason is the Christian teaching that humanity is not here by accident, but as the intentional result of a Divine plan. As he explains later, the point is: "Human beings are not a mistake, but something willed; they are the fruit of love."

Does this rule out evolution, with its emphasis on chance and necessity, and leave room only for the intentionality of "design"? Cardinal Schönborn certainly seems to think so. But to find the true answer, we need only to look at "Communion and Stewardship," a 2004 Curia document produced under Ratzinger's watch by the International Theological Commission. Paragraph 63 of this document carries a ringing endorsement of the "widely accepted scientific account" of life's emergence and evolution, describes the descent of all forms of life from a common ancestor as "virtually certain," and echoes John Paul II's observation of the "mounting support" for evolution from many fields of study. But just like Ratzinger, it draws the line at any theory of evolution that might "deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life."
I don't doubt for a second that the advocates of ID would be tempted to pencil in their "designer" for the "causal role" that the document reserves for God. But that would be a great mistake, as the document points out a few paragraphs later. Specifically addressing the arguments made to support ID, the commission writes that the argument between ID and evolution concerns "whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation."

As the late Stephen Jay Gould was fond of pointing out, evolution is indeed a truly contingent natural process. To a nonbeliever like Gould, the inherent unpredictability of a contingent process was proof that the result of the process could not be the handiwork of a gracious God. But Gould, like many in science, seriously underestimated the philosophical depth of religious thought. As Aquinas wrote: "The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency."

The key insight, which sits at the very heart of Benedict's thoughts on the matter, is that "neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science."

Precisely. The point of the pope's homily was not to take issue with evolution itself, but with the philosophical view that humans are nothing more than the casual and meaningless products of that process. Schönborn's ill-considered op-ed made the same point, but erred in its mistaken assertion that these philosophical views are an inherent part of neo-Darwinian theory. The authentic lesson to be stressed is that "divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided," a process like evolution.

Pope Benedict may never be seen as "Darwin's Pope," but his writings and homilies place him squarely in the tradition of scientific acceptance established by his predecessors. The Holy Father's concerns are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan, while "evolutionist" philosophies that deny the Divine do not. That was the point of the pope's coronation homily.
Despite claims to the contrary by the ID camp, a careful reading suggests that the new pope will give quarter neither to the enemies of spirituality nor the enemies of evolutionary science. And that's exactly as it should be.

--Kenneth R. Miller is Professor of Biology at Brown University, and author of the book Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Harper).

The Word of the Lord? Indeed, yes, thanks be to God!

2007-05-28T10:29:00.000-05:00

Should one ever end a first lesson reading from the Apocrypha (sic) with "The Word of the Lord?"

For much of my time as a teacher of liturgy I would have answered this question firmly in the negative, appealing to Article VI (39 Articles of Religion). And for pastoral reasons I still do prefer the optional acclamation, "Here ends the first lesson," (or simply, "The first lesson," which goes better with the response "Thanks be to God"), when reading from the Deuterocanon (as I prefer to call it). However, I no longer hold that opinion so firmly. Why? Simply put: the Church should rightly affirm the deuterocanonical books as belonging to the Canon of Scripture.

Before I proceed with my argument, I will caution the reader to keep in mind that "canon" and "inspiration," though obviously related theological concepts, should not be confused or equated. Christians affirm that God inspires the writing of scripture. However, God does not canonize scripture; rather, the Church does. Canonization means the process of recognizing and authorizing those books for public worship where the Church has heard, and continues to hear, God speaking to his people. Hence, the Canon includes those books that the Church confidently affirms (defines) as those where it hears the voice of God. These in turn are authorized for public worship.

Historically, the debate centers around two competing views of canonicity with regard to the Old Testament, and consequently two understandings of scriptural inspiration: what I term the "narrow vs broad" and the "hard vs soft" views respectively. Each understanding employs different, though (I would argue) not necessarily conflicting, criteria.

Those who affirm the narrow canon position reckon as canonical only those OT books that (1) the Jews receive as scripture, and thus (2) no one in the Church disputes. Naturally, then, the Church confidently employs these books for the confirmation of doctrine (a la Jerome), which fact tends to harden (or restrict) inspiration to only those books that meet these criteria.

The broad canon view uses a different criterion to determine an OT book's canonicity: authorization for use in public worship. Thus, in practice, this broad canon view recognizes the Septuagintal Old Testament tradition, both in form and content, as canonical scripture. However, this view does not preclude an important distinction within the Old Testament between the Hebrew (or "Proto") Canon and what Article VI refers to as the "other books" (i.e., deuterocanon). Advocates of this position have ranged from those who recognize no or very little distinction in degree of inspiration between the "protos" and the "deuteros" (e.g., Trent), to those who give first place of honor to the Hebrew Canon and second place to the deuteros. Naturally, those who hold this latter position favor "softer" or less restrictive categories of scriptural inspiration. Throughout history, the broad canon (along with the soft view) has been the predominent position, commended by the continuous and unbroken use of the Septuagintal tradition in the worship and devotion of the Church.

Interestingly enough, Jerome's distinction between those books used to confirm doctrine (protos) and those books read only for edification (deuteros) has co-existed comfortably within the broader canonical view (despite the fact that Jerome argued for a narrow canon!). Cardinal Cajetan (yes, Calvin's nemesis) sums up the matter quite succinctly when he states: "...these books (or any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of the faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose" (Comments on Esther).

I do realize, however, that the Protestant mind seems hardwired to think only in terms of either/or categories of scriptural inspiration: i.e., either a book is inspired or it is not. Indeed, for many, the whole notion of sola Scriptura stands or falls on this very consideration. However, the ancients quite comfortably and aptly thought in terms of degrees of scriptural inspiration and/or importance. For instance, Jews to this day venerate the Torah (i.e., Pentateuch) in a manner that underscores their belief that only the books of Moses constitute the immediate Word of God; relegating the Prophets and (even to a lesser degree) the Writings to the lesser status of books where God spoke mediately through human beings. In similar manner, many church fathers (e.g., Augustine) readily accepted the deuteros into the ranks of canonical scripture, while admitting their inferior status, or lesser degree of inspiration. Even the "hardliner" Athanasius did not hesitate to afford the deuteros a certain level of scriptural dignity.

In the final analysis, in an Anglican context, I think how one defines the Canon boils down to preference. I can happily accept the assertion that Article VI does not admit to the canonicity of the deuteros, because I know the Article employs the narrower definition that limits the term to only those books within the biblical corpus that are used for the confirmation of doctrine. However, in liturgical praxis, I would argue that the Anglican tradition fits more comfortably in the broader canonical tradition, which would admit into the Canon of Scripture all the books of the biblical corpus that are authorized for publich worship. The crucial distinction between those books used for the confirmation of doctrine and those books read only for purposes of edification remains operative in both understandings. But to my way of thinking, God inspired both the protos and the deuteros, albeit for different purposes and to different ends.

Thanks be to God!

P.S. - The illuminated text above pictures Tobit being blinded by the droppings of a sparrow - an apt metaphor for many contexts.

Emerging from the depths of despair...

2007-05-27T20:31:00.000-05:00

...Actually, just emerging from a long hiatus, an even longer soul-searching, some honest reappraisal of my priorities, and some annoying health issues. Nuff said.

Over at Stand Firm, frequent contributor Sarah Hey articulates the Anglican state-of-affairs quite well when she states: "There are only two real options for the Anglican Communion: discipline, and thus a restored, clear, boundaried identity, or fracture and an incoherent, undisciplined identity for what remains of the Anglican Communion."

I very much concur with this statement (though not very frequently with much else over at Stand Firm, I should note). I also have to admit that, of the two options, our present struggles will probably yield the latter outcome. If so, then (personally speaking) I will have to prepare for an existence in "what remains of the Anglican Communion," for (at this time) I cannot see myself joining the much anticipated Nigerian-led exodus!

Despite my hiatus and soul-searching, I wish my readers to understand that my essential understanding of Anglican Catholicity has not changed. I believe the Church Catholic always lives within the tension between its struggle to maintain fidelity to its creedal commitments and the need for the application and adaptation of those commitments to the unique set of contextual pressures that face the Church of every age and in every culture. Into this tension we are obliged to mix the advances of learning (theological, scientific, societal, hermeneutical, etc.), along with the scholarly reappraisal of time-honored formularies and traditions that inevitably takes place in each age. Sometimes such inquiries prove harmful and end up hindering progress (like mutations in the genetic code). Much of the time they prove benign. But sometimes (and I believe ultimately) the process of inquiry, testing, and affirmation produces the very theological adaptations necessary to articulate and communicate the "faith-once-delivered" from generation to generation. In short, the Church Catholic must inevitably experience conflict, often tumultuous conflict, as it balances out these factors. We live in just such an age.

P.S. - Written diligently in "E-Prime".

Hello? Is there anybody in there?

2007-04-17T21:27:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I stole that line from Pink Floyd. "Comfortably Numb" -- great song. For those who may still come by to read this blog, be on the lookout for the resumption of my blogging come this weekend. I spent much of last weekend (Thurs.-Mon.) in the hospital. I had a little chest pain scare, and went through a number of tests over the weekend, including the dreaded stress test...not fun. Heart seems okay. I'm still having chest pains, but at least I'm not stressed about it. Ha! That's ironic since stress seems to be the problem!

Ephraim Radner on the Communion Covenant and the Primate's Communique

2007-03-02T16:08:00.000-06:00

If it hasn't been obvious to my readers yet, I'm taking a bit of a Lenten break from blogging; not an absolute "fast" mind you, just a rest. Meanwhile enjoy this article by Ephriam Radner, of whom I am a big fan. Biretta tip to T-1-9.

+++++++++++++++++++

(Based on a talk to the clergy of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, February, 2007).

The Proposed Covenant recently commended by the Primates to the Communion for study and response deserves serious discussion, not only with regards to its particulars, but more importantly, with regard to its larger purpose and character. However critical may be the recommendations of the Primates with regard to TEC in their Tanzania Communiqué, it is essential to see these as but the outline for an “interim” arrangement until the Covenant itself will be finalized and accepted or rejected by individual churches. It is possible, of course, that Lambeth ’08 will choose a different path forward, but I believe this is unlikely. For the present it appears clear: the Covenant frames the Communiqué. This is crucial to understand, because it tells us something about how we are invited to approach the entire calling as a Communion that we have been given in this difficult time.

My hope below is to bring some of the contours of this calling into profile through a reflection on the Proposed Covenant that is now before us all. Although I was personally party to its drafting, my remarks – except where purely descriptive of working details or others explicit on the matter – explain my own views, not some grand vision now formally ensconced in the Communion’s articulated self-identity. The Covenant is “before” us; it is not yet accepted. However, one of my main hopes here is to argue that it is before us because, in a real sense, it is “already” beneath us, upholding much of our life and directing many of our struggles now for some time. I will therefore talk about the Covenant primarily in its general meaning and historical context, and only secondarily in its details. The details follow, I believe; they do not lead this process.

The Covenant: something new?
A brief article on the recent Dar es Salaam Primates’ meeting appeared recently in The Tablet, the weekly British Roman Catholic paper. It was written by William Franklin, former General Seminary professor, Dean of Berkeley Divinity School, and now associated with the Anglican Center in Rome. Franklin’s piece was entitled, “Winds of Change”, which sets the tone of his evaluation of the Primates’ Meeting. For Franklin claims positively that, out of this gathering, there has now emerged a “different kind of Anglicanism” for “21st century”, one that moves “towards a greater interdependence than would have been imagined even a decade ago”, and that “reflects” the koinonia [or “communion”] ecclesiology of the agreed statements of the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue” in far deeper ways than might have been expected only recently.

Something new has come into view, then. Something unexpected, perhaps even amazing. And although he doesn’t address it directly, I imagine that Franklin would want to say that the proposed Covenant itself, commended by the Primates at their meeting, also represents this “new koinonia reality”, visible in its proposals for structural interdependence and common catechetical, missionary, and disciplinary commitments.

While I share Dr. Franklin’s enthusiasm for the Communiqué, by and large, in its communion-orientation even as it informs the Covenant, I wonder about the way he discerns its character in terms of novelty. Certainly, this has been the source of many criticisms of the proposed Covenant in its very identity: it is somehow an innovation within Anglicanism, some have said, an alien element whose introduction will further just the kinds of “curial” re-orderings of the Communion that will undercut the traditional autonomies the buttress Anglican ecclesial life and witness. So how new is the Covenant’s purpose and form in fact? My main argument below is that it is not new at all. It is, rather, who we already are and are called to be more and more.
Local realities

Everyone, of course, has their own take on what “Anglicanism” really is all about. And the possibility that a Covenant might actually define this for the first time in a way that would transcend personal views is, in the face of our idiosyncratic arguments, somewhat threatening. One response to the threat is simply to say that definition is itself idiosyncratic with respect to Anglicanism. The “covenant type” of Anglican, in this reading, is analogous to the Ritualist and the Metaphysical and the Coleridgean or Evangelical: each has an experiential niche out of which their claims to Anglican identity are made; they speak only for themselves and dare not speak for others. I suppose that this claim is true to an extent. But not in the end.

Are “covenant Anglicans” merely idiosyncratic? Obviously, I came to my own intuitions and finally convictions about this from within the limited context of my own learning. That Anglicanism has not only a common “character” but also a substantive ecclesial and historical profile was something that was deeply impressed upon me from my time at Yale Divinity School, in the midst of a thoroughly interdenominational formation. In the late 1970’s, at any rate, one of the theological disciplines common to our education there was a program through which each student, from whatever tradition he or she came, was rigorously encouraged to discern and analyze differentials and specifics of our particular tradition in an ecumenical context, not just in a local or even national one. That was not easy in a place where Presbyterians and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and Congregationalists and others were always ready to challenge and subvert presuppositions to exceptionalism on each other’s part, doctrinally and historically. Far more explicitly and demandingly than in the setting of a denominational seminary – it is interesting to see some of the most “provincial” arguments derive from, literally, provincial seminaries — Episcopalians among others were forced to go beyond the catch-phrases of local identity; after all, the UCE was our position of default in Connecticut, and claims to a special “American” character to our Episcopal heritage struck most of our colleagues as rather lame. At any rate, I remember being assigned (by our Lutheran professor in comparative doctrine) a long paper on the 39 Articles, and being pressed to confront the history – pre-Newman – of Catholic re-interpretation of the Articles by the likes of Cosin, Montgomery and Richard Davenport. Certainly, I had to face the elasticity (not “wax nose”) of these founding documents within a reality of common life and mission, and come to grips not simply with the personal theological quirks of their authors but with the substantive realities that genuinely allowed them to think and pray in the ways they did; and the result was to lead me to a search for the deeper way in which Scripture and community functions and asserts itself in our life as Anglicans.

But this kind of peculiar theological education would have been meaningless without its testing and molding by the actual shape of churches called “Anglican” in the world. For the search for a deeper ecclesial identity bore fruit in the face of the lived reality of communion as an interdependent international and trans-cultural fact in my first work as a clergyperson in Africa (Burundi). Whatever the Anglican Communion was, it came to form me deeply according to a range of realities whose character we are now being forced to articulate and confront as a much larger body – theological intuitions, however localized, cannot escape the press of the lived church.

For instance, it was obvious to me that the Anglican Communion meant at least a mutually recognized ministry and sacraments (I was ordained priest in Burundi, with trans-ecclesial permissions—something, I might add, that could not happen today with someone from the Diocese of California, which had sent me); I was allowed and encouraged to teach and form ordinands, even though I was a foreigner from another church, nation, and culture, whose stewardship could be accepted merely on the word of the Episcopal Church. It is almost impossible to imagine such trust today.

But I came to see that the Anglican Communion also moved beyond the common habitation of ecclesial structures. It meant, much further, that I depended in literal and life-providing ways upon my African Anglican brothers and sisters (from food, care when I was seriously ill, political protections in the midst of danger, guidance in the midst of confusion and error), just as they depended on my person, mind, heart, and money. We were one church, obviously, but not without challenge and even sacrifice: to live and work together, we needed to give up defining intellectual categories, habits of thought and reaction, forms of humor, even deep-seated personal commitments of various kinds; give them as a kind of offering for the sake of something more. The “more”, of course, is what is key to begin to understand, even if, at the time, it was not clear.

Again, what I discovered (albeit slowly and also retrospectively even today) was the foundational reality of what I call “formative scripturalism” within the stable community of self-giving believers as the basis for the Body of Christ’s historical energy and life. To read the Scriptures together with the presupposition of their gifted authority on our common life, even when we disagreed in our starting points, to stay in that place of receipt and subject oneself to the ultimate guiding clarity of that Scripture as it worked upon us all together – this proved the purpose of mutually recognized ministries, of common prayer, and the sharing of our hearts and hands, for these things set the parameters of our embrace by the truth of God in Christ, not surely its fullness.

To live in this kind of church was not an interesting feature of cultural choice or habit. It is simply not possible to label this a “niche” reality of a certain kind of Christian “life-style”. It was the assumption underlying being the Church of Christ, even for those who never had the chance of experiencing it in these terms. And it has underlain the life of the Church for centuries. And, far from being idiosyncratic, what I have seen emerging in our churches and Communion most recently is therefore not so much a limited agenda to be achieved to which I happen to be committed in my own personal experience, as much as it represents a confirmation of this intuited grace that I first tasted long ago precisely because I was privileged to live within the larger church itself. And particular elements of this emergent vision, like the Windsor Report, exemplify such a confirmation, not as theological creation, designed by committee under duress, but as the uncovering of a pre-existing reality.

However surprising to many, what has been emerging over the past few years in the Anglican Communion and has now been made bluntly real in the Primates’ meeting, including in the Proposed Covenant – all this is not “new” at all, but rather something only newly articulated and brought to expression. Yet, articulating exactly what? What underlying reality, divine or otherwise is now coming into view, in the Covenant in particular, even if somehow always there?
Steps towards and worries derived from the Covenant

So let me briefly say something about the Covenant’s origins in a practical sense. As most of us know, the proposal for an Anglican Covenant derives almost exclusively from the Windsor Report itself (see e.g. par. 118-120). The proposal came in the context of the Report’s recommendations to enhance the unity of the Anglican Communion: “This Commission recommends, therefore, and urges the primates to consider, the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion” (118). Several things about such a covenant were noted in the Report, and the “draft” of a possible covenant was included in the Report as an appendix and, in a sense, a “discussion-starter”.

When the primates met later at Dromantine (2005) and received the Windsor Report, they affirmed the general idea of an Anglican Covenant (as did Gen. Convention in June, in Resolution A166). In the course of the next year, some initial work, in an ad hoc way, was done by gathering some local people in Britain to think about general aspects one might have to deal with if this idea were to go forward.

The big push for the Covenant came in June ’06 with the appearance of Abp. Rowan Williams’ piece “Challenge and Hope of Being and Anglican Today”. In this essay, disseminated as a general letter to the “faithful” of the Communion, Williams lifted up the idea of a common Anglican Covenant as “the best way forward” for the Communion’s restored integrity and future. He suggested, furthermore, that the Covenant could act as the main element by which the Communion would be ecclesially reordered (into “constituent” and “associate” church membership) through a mechanism by which churches could choose to adopt the Covenant or not.

Although the Covenant idea, first broached by the Windsor Report, had evoked some marginal discussion, it was Williams’ essay that drew out into public debate two major concerns:
i. Some have argued that any Covenant formulated in the present circumstances of the Communion would be the product of conflict and a response to conflict: hence it would inevitably prove a kind of juridical document both limited in its real powers to specific “case” problems of the moment (e.g. sexuality), and would thereby also prove time-constrained (and quickly out of date). Such an attempted solution to disagreement would, in any case, prove impossible within and contradictory of the national/cultural provincial autonomies associated with Anglicanism since the 16th Reformation of the Church of England. A Covenant born of and in response to conflict is therefore neither workable nor desirable. “Communion” rightly refers to “bonds of affection”, which is a deliberately flexible and practically loose reality inimical to formulated and “binding” agreements.

ii. Second, others argued that if the conflict-oriented juridical model were to be avoided, a Covenant would necessarily end up being a “confessional” document. The problems here are at least twofold: either its confessional commitments would be too robust and detailed, and a Covenant would become intrinsically unacceptable to the wide diversity of opinions and practices within the Communion (and hence proves fragmenting in a major way); or these commitments would be so broad that the Covenant’s “comprehensiveness” would become useless definitionally, and would end up simply mimicking the condition of the Communion today as it proves itself incapable of standing for anything evangelically. In any case, Anglicanism (one group says) was never “confessional” in the first place, and a confessional Covenant would be a betrayal of its character.

Rowan Williams’ piece, it needs to be said, attempted to deal with these potential criticisms up front, by describing the juridical and confessional character of Anglicanism as historically explicated by the present demands of communion within the world. It is not enough, he writes, simply to say “we have never done it this way”; rather, one must seek a “way” for today that organizes the historic trust of the church for ongoing life. In this context it is worth citing a very important paragraph from his essay: “There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other.” It is clear that Williams didn’t manage to persuade everyone here, but the direction of his thinking is significant.

iii. A third view, however, sought to take up Williams’ discussion positively, and aim it in a certain direction. This perspective argued that an Anglican Covenant would be useful to the degree that it was understood “relationally”, as the expression – lived and real – of how the churches of Anglican Communion “live with one another”. Many saw this as the Windsor Report’s own desire, at least insofar as the Report was received in the subsequent discussions of the Communion, and as it morphed into something called the “Windsor Process”, a reality that implied something less concrete and articulate, or less static and formulaic, and more dynamic and engaged than did the categories of “juridical” and “confessional” appear.

In any case, the Covenant proposal moved forward. A good number of responses to the idea now came in from around Communion (indeed, they had already begun to appear after the Windsor Report’s initial publication). Some were critical of the idea altogether, others were cautiously encouraging of it, others offered general suggestions, and finally some provided fully-tailored proposals. In the Fall of ‘06 a Covenant Design Group of 10 persons was chosen by Abp. Williams, with nominees having been solicited from all the provinces. The members of this group included Primates, clergy, and laypersons, men and women, from around the Communion. They were charged with meeting, reviewing the entire question of the Covenant idea in any way they chose, and reporting to the Primates’ Tanzania meeting in February.

The Design Group met over four days in January of ’07, and from this meeting proceeded a surprising outcome: after one day of intense discussion and prayer, common agreement about a way forward was reached. We agreed, in fact, that an Anglican Covenant was desirable on a certain basis, and that it was doable in terms of its articulation, again, on a certain basis. After another three days of actual drafting, the Design Group wrote a report and a complete draft Covenant that they presented to the Primates. This report and draft was commended by Primates, and it is this document that they have offered to the Communion for discussion and response.

A theology of Covenant: the Already of God’s “Yes”
What theological perspective informed the Design Group’s work? What follows is my own interpretation of that perspective, based on our discussions and on the actual documents we produced and that the Primates themselves articulated.

The last paragraph of the Report’s prologue describes the fundamental working orientation of the group: it states firmly that the Covenant proposal we would offer would not be an “invention”, but a “restatement” and “assertion” of something already “received”, and a “commitment” to an “interdependent life” already (“in theory”) and always “recognized”, that is, a commitment to a kind of life “already lived”. Likewise, the Primates themselves, in the Communiqué (29), speak of the Covenant as a “making explicit” of something already “meant”, and an “articulating” of something already lived.

Here we are given the heart of the Proposed Covenant’s form: something already received, something already lived. And before examining some of the particulars of this “already”, it is important to understand – from my perspective – that this “already” is precisely the meaning of “covenant” in a basic sense, a meaning that provides, I believe, a profound response to the worries originally raised and still held about having an Anglican Covenant at all. For unless we get straight the theological meaning of the “already” in this context, we cannot understand the particulars and their weight within the actual text of the Proposed Covenant itself.
What is a “covenant”? On a basic level, it is simply a promise, made between two or more parties. Within the specifically religious context of the Christian Scriptural faith, however, this promise is bound up with God. But because this promise is bound up with God—the God who names himself as “I am who I am” or “I will be and I will do what I will be and do” (Exod. 3:14) — we are talking not simply about a “content” to a promise, a set of propositions upheld, but with a reality that continues to be and to act. God does not say to Moses, “I believe this and therefore so should you” or “I stand for this and you also must uphold it”, but rather, “I am this and will do this”. God’s “promises”, that is, are actions over time that are joined to God’s very being. When we speak of a “promise” with respect to God, we speak of Someone promising. By the same token, promises made to God and with God are also actions lived out in the course of time and history by particular people.

My point here is that a covenant in Christian terms is about an active way of existing as a person; with respect to “promising” a covenant is, therefore, about “trustworthiness”, a reality that includes character, action, form, and purpose. And this reality takes in not only the keeping of promises, within all the changing situations of life; but also the lived reality of constantly returning to promises made, of reasserting them and (from our human side) of suffering consequences and seeking restoration for falling from our promises. Covenant, from a human side in short designates the action born of faithfulness and of ongoing “conversion”. God is constantly proving trustworthy; and human beings who seek God are constantly renewing their trust, through God’s trustworthy grace, in a process of conversion. This is what makes the reality of covenant something that snags, promotes, re-orients, and molds. Covenant is a subjecting reality across time, that catches up the people involved and sends them somewhere.
The Introduction to the Proposed Covenant makes a strong theological claim, in this regard, one to which Franklin is accurately sensitive in his judgments about the central koinonia thrust of the most recent Primates’ Meeting: the fundamental promise of God is that of “communion”, communion with the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ (1 Jn. 1;3); a communion that is based on God’s “faithful calling” (1 Cor. 1:9). This communion or fellowship is the promise – the calling – and it is trustworthy, because God is ‘faithful”. Furthermore, this trustworthy promise of communion is at the foundation of all of God’s purposes, for God’s good will and pleasure is to “gather all things in heaven and on earth” together in in Christ (Eph. 1:9f.).

The reality of covenant therefore derives from this communion purpose: the fundamental trustworthiness of our lives as Christians flows out of the very promises of God, that is, God’s faithfulness in calling us into communion with Him. When Jesus says, “let your yes be yes and your no be no” (Mt. 5:37), he is reflecting the reality that our word – our life lived according to our will’s desire – flow out of the “yes” that is God’s promise to us: “For the son of God, Jesus Christ who was preached among you by us, was not yes and no, but in him there was only yes, for all the promises of God in him are yes” (2 Cor. 1:19).

This may seem very abstract. 2 Corinthians 1:19 was in fact the base verse that informed the entire Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on Authority (The Gift of Authority). At the time, a guiding appeal to this Scripture verse seemed to many people unclear in the context of discussions of authority in general. But perhaps the implications of God’s positive promises, fulfilled in Jesus, have now found a more palpable ecclesial setting in which to illuminate our lives as churches. For in the reality of covenanting that has been proposed to the Anglican Communion, we can grasp more clearly how the exercise of “authority” does indeed enact the “Yes” of God: authority is embodied in our trustworthy words, words that always respond to God’s own faithful promises.

For the “already” that is implied in the Proposed Covenant is precisely the already of God’s promises, of what God has done and is doing, of the “Yes” God has spoken to us in Jesus Christ, his Son, and in the utter trustworthiness and faithfulness of this. And what is this Yes, what is this promise, what is the very act by which the promise is not only upheld but takes its flesh within the world and its time? Is it not this: that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for it (Jn. 3:16)? That this is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and gave his Son for us as a sacrifice? (1 Jn. 4:7,10). Is this not the Yes to the promise of communion that God has made? What then, in this light, is a “covenant”, a promise, a trustworthy response to this “already” that is God’s? We must answer this question clearly for ourselves, for our discernment, decision-making, and lively discipleship as churches take their proper form only in this responsive posture and set of practices.

I had occasion recently to sit with a group of clergy in another diocese who were listing on a board what “communion” has meant within Anglicanism. It is not a difficult task or even a long list, much as I began earlier to describe my first ministry in Burundi: shared mutually recognized ministries and shared sacrament. But does this come close to describing the fullness of “communion”? It certainly does not explicate “communion” in the sense of the Anglican Communion’s fullness of life together, because mutually recognized ministries and shared sacraments are things we already share with other denominations, like the Lutherans and Moravians, and probably soon the Methodists. We may call these relationships “full communion”, but they are nothing of the sort. For if you were to push on in speaking about the communion of Anglicans, you would have to add more things: shared counsel, for instance (something realty held with Lutherans); shared money in a regular and committed fashion– here you are going even more deep (and money is always the mark of true communion!). Where is this heading? Is it not heading in the direction of what we might call “offering”, even “sacrifice”? The offering finally and even of our very lives? “Greater love has no one than this, that a man should lie down his life ” for his friends (Jn. 15:13), and I have called you friends (14), and, of course, “love one another as I have loved you” (13:34).

This is where communion leads. It leads to the laying down of life – this is, after all, the very shape and reality of God’s “Yes”. Nothing else. And the communion of the Anglican Communion is precisely that her members have said “yes” to this reality amongst ourselves. That is the profoundly missionary reality of communion, and I submit that it is precisely why and how Africans among others, have reacted so strongly within the present turmoil – they are bound to the missionary martyrs and confessors of their founding and foundation, both foreign and indigenous, and it is this “Yes”, this promise, this trust and trustworthiness – the “already” of their history and blood-line — that is their life. Because God’s trustworthiness – according to John (1Jn. 1:3) – is enacted, is lived out, in the reality of the world’s history, and in the Church’s history, in terms of a “communion” or “fellowship’ among Jesus’ followers, that communion is “full” and complete and integral only to the degree that it “goes and loves to the end” (Jn 13:1f.). This is why all covenants are “sealed with blood” (cf. Heb. 9[:18]).

So we can define covenant in this way: it is “relational” to the degree that it expresses the self-giving of God’s promising, the historical reality that “at the very time we were sinners, God demonstrated his love for us by His own Son’s death” (Rom 5:8) – this is what God does to and for and with us in time; it is “juridical”, in that it expresses the Law of God’s promising, the “commandment” of loving as God loves in His son’s own self-giving (Jn. 15:10ff.); it is “confessional” in that it articulates precisely this love – this is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and sent his Son – and hence it lays out the very contours of our belief, as John himself writes, that the “message” and “confession” of Jesus coming in the flesh (cf. 1 Jn 1:5; 4:3) is at the heart of communion (2 Jn. 1:7ff.). All dogma is contained herein.
And covenant is “expressive” of an already rather than “inventive” of something new, because it is in all these aspects simply — ! – a saying “Yes” to what God has already been saying “Yes“ to from the foundation of the world in the mystery of His purposes. If there is anything “new” involved, it is in the “conversion” of our lives, over and over again, like Israel, to God’s promise and promising that has given us life (cf. Rom. 12:2; Col. 3:10).

To covenant with one another, therefore, cannot possibly contradict Anglicanism. Otherwise it contradicts God himself. I cannot put it more strongly. Any canonical law, any provincial property, any theological program can only bow before this fundamental reality. That does not speak to particulars, but it does speak to what we are about.

We should also note in this light how any covenant ought therefore properly to function. I mention this, in particular, in response to those criticisms that the Proposed Covenant is too “bland” and has no “teeth”. The active character of any covenant is, as I have said, “trustworthiness”; it is about keeping promises. The notion of “teeth” is, in a sense, ill-suited to such a context. Obviously, there are consequences to promise-breaking. The main consequence is a loss of trust – something that the Primates themselves spoke to in their Communiqué (9), following the Windsor Report, as the “illness” that has infected the Communion. And with a loss of trust comes a host of other consequences. But you cannot “make” people either enter into promises or “make” people keep them. One can only acknowledge promise-keeping and promise-breaking, and live with the outcome of their choices, where trust has either strengthened a life together or its loss has torn it apart. The consequence of all good is the fruit of righteousness; the consequence of all evil the envelopment by the sinner of sin itself.
A key question in this regard, and one that is more limited, that some have raised is this: would the Proposed Covenant (or any other version of a covenant) in and of itself have prevented the current “illness”, if you will? Certainly, it would not have done so in the sense that no covenant can prevent people from breaking their word, in one way or another. A mechanism of the imposition of “sanctions” within a covenant makes of it no longer a covenant; and furthermore, sanctions themselves do not beget a change of will or engender trustworthiness. It is true that the Windsor Report made it clear that a covenant was in fact needed in order to avoid future “crippling” conflicts. But how did they mean this? What a covenant can do is to make explicit that to which one is committed, and to which one makes a promise and to the character of that promise, and therefore the character of the consequences to be expected if promises are broken. Here, I think, the Proposed Covenant is clear enough, and fair enough, both positively and negatively (as section 6 spells it out). When covenants are made and then broken – and this the Proposed Covenant describes – the fruit and reality of trustworthiness and the conversion to which it leads are squandered and slip into the waters of isolated drift. The Covenant provides a way of describing this and articulating – judging – when this has taken place. To this degree, it lays out a method of adjudication.

Finally, we can see how, in light of the trustworthy promising of covenant that binds communion, the actual “content” of a covenant, at least as I have outlined its meaning, cannot be primarily propositional, although it is full of implications that can indeed be put in propositional form (although that is the task for bishops, pastors, and catechists). Rather the content of the Covenant has to do with articulating a way of embodying the truth of God’s promises and of our Yes to them. The question is not first of all “can a liberal or a conservative sign on to this set of doctrines”—and thereby, can we test whether the doctrines are orthodox or progressive or this or that. Rather the question is “can this church keep its word in its life in communion as it says ‘yes’ to the gift of God’s own life given in the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins, that is to God’s actual love?”

The shape of the Proposed Covenant
So let us return to the Proposed Covenant itself. It is meant, as I have argued, to be expressive of a reality “already” present. And therefore, the Design Group adopted (informally and often implicitly) two principles to govern our deliberations and drafting: first, that nothing should be formalized that was not already at work – either doctrinally, missionally, or structurally – in our common life as a whole; and second, that the very formulations of these articulated realities should be drawn from existing documents within the public realm of the Anglican Communion, either in a longstanding fashion, or more recently. These adopted principles are the major reason why it was possible to formulate something in what surprised many people as being a remarkably, and in some minds unadvisedly, quick fashion. It is important to understand this, practically and in terms of the theological basis for it, as I have explained it, so as not to misjudge the meaning of the Design Group’s expeditious labors.

The way this worked concretely can be categorized as follows:
a. The general template for the draft was an existing proposal, carefully composed over the previous year by representatives of the Global South. It had been circulated publicly for some months, and to this we added elements of the Windsor Report’s Appendix and the Province of Australia’s publicly disseminated Covenant proposal.
b. The actual content of the proposal – its specific elements and their formulation — made use of a range of material, including the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, constitutions of various provincial churches, Lambeth Conference resolutions, Communion commissions (cf. the section on Mission), Primates’ statements, etc..
c. As for the ecclesial structures and order proposed for discernment and decision-making, we made an attempt to articulate what has, in an ad hoc way, already emerged in our common life over the past few years. This is key, especially in Section 6 of the proposal which deals with an ordered process of conciliar life that gives the Primates a particular role. This proposed structure and order is not an invention at all, as some have claimed, but an attempt to lay out how in fact (and with responsible deliberation, to be sure) affairs have been sorting themselves out. One can read Section 6 as a “history” of the last decade of the Anglican Communion’s life in counsel. This history, and its encompassing larger history, of the Anglican Communion as a whole, is, we believe, “providential”, in that it marks the articulation in time of God’s promising act. If one cannot accept this, then of course one will have a problem with the thrust of this aspect of the document as a whole. But we believe it is consistent with the very reality of what covenant is all about: God proves faithful, and our attempts, marked by repeated conversionary movements of our councils, at responding in faith embody the shape of our own growing faithfulness.

It is possible, from this vantage finally, to touch on the particulars of the Proposed covenant now only briefly, in large measure because, as I have been arguing, they are not controversial precisely in their status as “already” given and passed on. They represent a remarkable convergence of Global South ways of articulating their commitments and more Western ones, for they articulate the common spring.

There are three main topics (somewhat obscured by a faulty enumeration in the text): which could be denoted in terms of teaching, mission, and order. Each of these topics is subdivided in terms of “affirmation” and “commitment”.

i. Thus, Section 2, “the life we share”, follows an affirmation of the Quadrilateral, elaborated by the addition of an affirmation of common mission and of the foundational and guiding place of the classical “Anglican formularies (the latter of which is a part of the constitutions of a large number of provinces in the Anglican Communion). These are not listed here so as to establish a renewed Protestant confessionalism so much as they are forthrightly acknowledged as a historically accepted standard for common discernment and order, particularly with respect to the Scriptures.

On the “commitment” side of this topic, several elements are listed that range from engagement with Scripture and its authority, moral teaching, Eucharistic fellowship, leadership formation, and common life. These phrases derive from Lambeth conferences, ecumenical dialogue statements (cf. that on morals), the Windsor Report, and other sources. In many ways, this is a crucial section that cannot afford to be overlooked, for, with its earlier set of affirmations, it actually provides a framework within which the discernment of truth is to take place with the Communion, and provides a set of touchstones by which that discernment is to be measured. It is not as if the presenting quarrel over sexuality could be immediately settled within such a framework; but it would, I believe, have altered the way such a quarrel was approached some time ago had the framework been explicitly embraced. One will note, for instance, that the oft-appealed to (and only locally embraced anyway) triad of “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason”, so confusing to so many in practice, does not appear here, not because its elements are not in fact in play, but because they are ordered within a more focused trajectory of discernment and authority.

ii. The next section (4) on shared life and vocation, contains within it both the affirmation and commitment aspects of the church’s missionary existence. Here, a providential understanding of the growth of the Anglican Communion as a communion is affirmed – obviously a central claim for a notion of an Anglican Covenant to make any sense at all; and through it, the historical characteristics of the previous teaching framework are filled out on a large canvass: primitive undivided church, British origins, Reformation, and global growth through mission. This providential history was carefully noted, and its markers listed here are meant to inform the previous sections’ “confessional” affirmations and commitments.
Much of the rest of the section, along with the list of commitments, derives from existing work by e.g. the Inter-Anglican Study Commission on Mission and Evangelism, and other groups. The ecumenical context for the Communion’s mission is also straightforwardly affirmed, a fact that deserves attention.

iv. The last set of affirmations and commitments – on Unity and Common life – have already proved the most controversial. The first section basically lays out the Four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury having been restored to this position!), all under a guiding affirmation of our Communion’s episcopal leadership (something coherent with our own Prayer Book’s ordination liturgy, not to mention the Quadrilateral). By and large, the descriptions of the Instruments of Unity derive from existing proposals, especially Australia’s (which, in turn, derives from other sources). The attempt here is to render somewhat more coherent the particular roles of each Instrument as they function together. There has already been some concern expressed that the ACC’s role has somehow been slighted; however, we believe that the descriptions given are accurate, fair, and finally helpfully integrated.
The real place of challenge for many, it appears, lies in Section 6 on the practical elements that a commitment to unity would demand. In some sense, this was the one section where the Design Group was required to write “from scratch”. But, as I have emphasized earlier, that would finally be a misleading characterization of what we did; for our goal was to articulate “explicitly”, as the Primates themselves said, what has in fact taken place in practice already over the past few years as the Anglican Communion has grown and faced challenges to its common witness. Our task was one of apprehending this reality, not constructing it. If one looks carefully at the order of discernment, counsel, and decision, one will see a process that matches fairly closely with actual workings of the Communion over the past decade, say, with the dispute over sexuality – from Lambeth’98 (and before, of course), through to the Primates response to General Convention ’03, the Lambeth Commission, Primates, Canterbury and ACC responses, General Convention ’06 and now Dar es Salaam.

While this process has been challenged by some as to its integrity, one of the major sources of anxiety over the past few years has less been the actual incoherence of decision-making as has the fact that this ad hoc process was, as it were, unknown in advance, and hence in itself difficult to “trust”, to find “trustworthy”. What covenanting does to this is to resolve that need, and thereby provide a common “Yes” to a way of discerning that will indeed make “time” and patience less a threat to stability, but a gift for seeking the truth in love. “We know what we have committed ourselves to, of the path it must follow, and we will be faithful in following it together.”

We are well aware, of course, that just this ordering of discernment is disputed as being somehow providential. Why, some are already asking, should the Primates be given the role of the party of appeal and the final gateway of decision-making? There are at least three answers one might give to this perfectly valid question. First, there is a practical response: someone must do this, and of all the Instruments of Unity, the Primates most effectively (in logistical terms) combine world-wide representation and coherence of council. Second, there is the response of deliberate precedence: Lambeth ’98 (building on ’88) requested that the Primates take on this role quite explicitly (Res. III.6), by “intervening in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces”; and this request derives from actual attempts in other cases where the Instruments of Unity did in fact intervene (e.g. the first Lambeth Conference, and, more recently, Canterbury’s intervention – upheld by the ACC – in Rwanda in the mid-‘90’s). Finally, there is the simple ecclesiological response: given the episcopal ordering and leading of the Anglican Church – and, despite claims to American exceptionalism here, it is enshrined in our own Prayer Book (cf. pp. 517f.) – the Primates represent, in themselves, the unity affirmed and upheld – the “yes” of the Communion – to which the Covenant itself witnesses.

This does not mean that the Primates should or would constitute some super-decision-making power, a “curia” for the Communion as some of claimed. Far from it. A careful examination of the process of discernment proposed in the Covenant makes clear the conciliar character within which the Primates would operate in a special manner in limited and exceptional circumstances. And it is this conciliar context and character, as well as their representative and episcopal roles, that distinguish the Primates’ exceptional calling from curial models of decision-making and authority.

Although there have been fears and indeed accusations that the Primates have been “maneuvered” and “manipulated” over the past few years, I believe that an even-handed examination of the actual history of our struggles will show that, despite the real passion and heat in these struggles (some of it coming from the Primates themselves), there has been a remarkable restraint and subtlety to the Primates’ own decision-making – one that actually reflects, rather than imposes upon, the diversity and discernment of the larger Communion. The Proposed Covenant merely seeks to give speech to this deeper reality.

It is the task of the Communion, through its varied processes of discussion, to comment not only on this larger shape to the Proposed Covenant, but also to the particulars that provide its content. My hope here is to have shown how both this larger shape finds its contours within a specific theological vision; and that this vision is what should inform the particulars as they are articulated.

Concluding directions
The Primates themselves have commended the Proposed Covenant for study and response within the Communion as a whole. In doing so, they have responded to the Report’s request that they affirm the draft as a “concise expression of what may be considered as authentic Anglicanism”. This is a significant action, and signals that the Proposed Covenant in its general aim, at least, is not off the mark.

On the basis of comments received through the course of this year, the Covenant Design Group will prepare a revised draft to be presented to Lambeth ’08, where it may be considered – and probably amended – for dissemination to the Provinces of the Communion. This process and timetable is important, among other things, for the way that it provides the markers for the “interim” recommendations offered by the Primates in their Communiqué.

I want to end simply by citing some words from William Franklin’s article, with which I began: “contrary to inaccurate press reports of this past week that the holy See seeks some accommodation with disaffected Anglicans, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the Vatican has now spoken of the value of the Anglican Communion remaining as one communion, as indicated in this statement: ‘It is our overwhelming desire that the Anglican Communion stays together, rooted in the historic faith which our dialogue and relations over four decades have led us to believe that we share to a large degree’” [a 2004 statement republished by the Catholic Church in a recent official summary of dialogue statements]. And I would ask, Why would Rome desire such a thing? What hope does this express that, to a large extent, we are party to, driven by, and nourished in? Is it not the hope that God’s promises are indeed shown forth before the world as being trustworthy? Not that the Anglican Communion is the single, or even primary vehicle for that demonstration; hardly – is has a calling only in relation to others. But rather, do we not all recognize that, “in a world and time of instability, conflict, and fragmentation” (Proposed Covenant Introduction), this demonstration must come and be received in the places of our failures, of our “no’s”, of this church and that church, of this communion, if ever we are one day to say “yes” to the great calling of our God in Christ Jesus to bring us into the Father’s bosom as ‘one flock with one shepherd” (Jn. 10:6)?

–The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is rector of Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado, and a fellow of the Anglican Communion Institute

Craig Uffman Nails It! His Analysis of the "Gang of Four" Committee Report

2007-02-16T14:51:00.000-06:00

Kendall Harmon posted the following piece over at T-1-9. I think when the dust settles, and the realignment crowd has exhausted its rant, this article will stand above the rest as the most reasonable analysis. Well said, Mr. Uffman.

+ + + +

Craig Uffman–In Defense of Rowan Williams: An Alternative Explanation for the Infamous Gang of Four Committee Report

Emotions ranging from grief to nearly hysterical anger characterize the response of orthodox Anglicans to the report of the committee tasked with monitoring the response of The Episcopal Church (TEC) to the Windsor Report. The committee report concludes that TEC responded sufficiently to two out of the three demands of the Windsor Report. Archbishop Aspinall of Australia summarized the conclusion succinctly, “Two out of three requirements were met, but more work is needed.” But in the eyes of the orthodox and liberals alike, the report gives TEC a clean bill of health.

The most common target of orthodox outrage is Archbishop Rowan Williams, whose name is on the report. “He sold us out!” claim some. “His greatest moment of shame!” declare others.
However, those who know ++Rowan’s work and character find those claims difficult to accept. There must be some other explanation. I believe that explanation can be summarized in one word: “overaccepting.”

Overaccepting is a term popularized by Rev. Canon Dr. Sam Wells (dean of the Duke Chapel and Research Professor of Christian Ethics at Duke Divinity School) in his book, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Brazos and London: SPCK, 2004). Wells looks to the genre of improvisation in the theatre to describe the kind of ethical behavior for which disciples should be trained. In improvisation, the most important goal of actors is to keep the play going. No matter what kind of outrageous behavior one improv actor “offers,” her colleagues must respond in such a way that continuity with her actions is maintained so that the drama continues. In other words, their response must not “block” the “offer” of the colleague or the drama stops.

Wells explains that a good improvisationist always “accepts” the offer of the colleague in order to keep the action going. Indeed, they “over-accept” it by receiving that which is offered and then re-direct the action in a way continuous with the offer but perhaps oriented in a different direction. Those familiar with the TV series, “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” are familiar with this pattern.

Wells shows that “overaccepting” is the way of Christ. I’ll refer those interested in that proof to the book. But Wells’ key point is that Christian actors improvise by overaccepting the offers of others in such a way that the action is reoriented in the Way of Christ. When offering pastoral care, a Christian actor overaccepts in order to help the lost re-locate themselves rightly in God’s drama.

I propose that the best way to understand Rowan Williams’ role in the committee report is through the lens of “overaccepting.” As the orthodox claim loudly, the “offer” made by TEC was plainly unsuitable in that it fell short of the requested language of repentance and promises to cease the behaviors that tore the bonds of affection. Rather than “blocking” that response by rejecting it and ending the conversation with TEC, ++Rowan continued the action by “overaccepting” the offer and redirecting the action in such a way that TEC must relocate themselves rightly in God’s drama. That is, ++Rowan accepts as satisfactory the feeble response of TEC, but reinterprets it in such a way that TEC commits itself to cessation of the offensive behavior. TEC is thus offered the opportunity to continue the story along a direction it did not expect, or to stop the drama.

I suggest that “overaccepting” more adequately explains ++Rowan’s role in the committee report than claims of perfidy. By overaccepting TEC’s offer, he continues the conversation so that TEC may remain in the Anglican drama at least until the covenant offers the opportunity for voluntary and peaceable re-structuring of the communion. Overaccepting thus redirects the drama, in spite of TEC’s communion-tearing actions, in the direction of unity. And focus on unity is consistent with ++Rowans’ theology, character, and the office entrusted to him. As Wells demonstrates, although it is often frustrating behavior to those of us who long for a martial conqueror, overaccepting is the way of Christ.

–Mr. Craig Uffman is an Anglican who resides in Raleigh, NC, and is a student at Duke Divinity School

Weather Report from Britain

2007-02-05T23:01:00.000-06:00

I really miss English weather. Really, I do. It's not just the oppressive heat of Texas summers that gets me down; it's the fact that only the Brits know how to report on the weather with a little "class." Have a listen to this SAMPLE.

P.S. My friend, Jeff Steel in Durham, England, gets to wake up to this every morning. Imagine that! ;-)

One Book Solution, Part 3: A Table of Contents

2007-01-28T18:22:00.000-06:00

KEY:
1662 = Revised along the lines of the Church of England’s 1662 BCP
1928 = Revised along the lines of the American 1928 BCP
1979 = As it appears in the current BCP of the Episcopal Church
1979*= Slight revision of current BCP of the Episcopal Church
ASB = As it appears in the Anglican Service Book (Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA)

The Daily Office
Morning Prayer (1928)
Evening Prayer (1662)
Noonday Prayer (ASB)
Compline (ASB)
A Contemporary Daily Office (1979*, combined MP and EP)
Table of Suggested Canticles

The Great Litany (1928)

The Collects: Traditional (1979)
Seasons of the Year
Holy Days
Common of Saints
Various Occasions

The Collects: Contemporary (1979)
Seasons of the Year
Holy Days
Common of Saints
Various Occasions

Proper Liturgies for Special Days: Traditional (ASB)
A Penitential Order (1928, w/ imposition of ashes)
Palm Sunday
Maundy Thursday
Good Friday
Holy Saturday
The Great Vigil of Easter

Proper Liturgies for Special Days: Contemporary (1979)
Ash Wednesday
Palm Sunday
Maundy Thursday
Good Friday
Holy Saturday
The Great Vigil of Easter

Holy Baptism
Rite One (1928)
Rite Two (1979*)

The Holy Eucharist: Rite One
An Exhortation (1979, ASB)
The Decalogue: Traditional (ASB)
A Penitential Order: Traditional (ASB)
The Holy Eucharist (1928)
Alternate Eucharistic Prayer (1662)
The Proper Prefaces (ASB)
Prayers of the People: Traditional (ASB)
Offertory Sentences (ASB)
Communion of the Sick (ASB)

The Holy Eucharist: Rite Two
An Exhortation with Decalogue (1979)
A Penitential Order: Rite Two (1979)
The Holy Eucharist (1979, Eucharistic Prayer A)
Alternate Eucharistic Prayers (1979, Eucharistic Prayers B & D)
The Proper Prefaces (1979)
Prayers of the People: Contemporary (1979)
Offertory Sentences (1979)
Communion under Special Circumstances (1979)

Pastoral Offices
Holy Matrimony: Traditional (1928)
Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage (1979)
Thanksgiving for the Birth or Adoption of a Child: Rite One (ASB)
Thanksgiving for the Birth of Adoption of a Child: Rite Two (1979)
Reconciliation of a Penitent: Rite One (ASB)
Reconciliation of a Penitent: Rite Two (1979)
Ministration to the Sick: Rite One (ASB)
Ministration to the Sick: Rite Two (1979)
Ministration at the Time of Death: Rite One (ASB)
Ministration at the Time of Death: Rite Two (1979)
Burial of the Dead: Rite One (1928)
Burial of the Dead: Rite Two (1979)

Episcopal Services
Confirmation (1928)
Ordination of a Bishop (1928)
Ordination of a Priest (1928)
Ordination of a Deacon (1928)
Litany of Ordinations (1928)
Celebration of a New Ministry: Rite One (ASB)
Celebration of a New Ministry: Rite Two (1979)

The Psalter, or Psalms of David (Revised Standard Version)

Prayers and Thanksgivings (ASB, 1979)

A Catechism (1928)

Historical Documents of the Church (1979*)

A One Book Solution? Part Two

2007-01-26T08:51:00.000-06:00

In Part One, I stated that the Green Book was yet another attempt at (what I consider to be) a flawed strategy, and thus will fail to satisfy most Anglicans. People will continue to use whatever they’re accustomed to using: traditional folks will continue to use one version or another of the classic BCP, and contemporary folks will continue to use (in most cases) services from the 1979 BCP. Whether the AMiA leadership envisions the Green Book project to be a bona fide first step in producing a credible "Book of Alternative Services," or whether, following Toon, the Green Book is viewed more as an "interim measure" (the "bait and switch" strategy – see my earlier post), is difficult to say. However, in the final analysis, this particular “two-book” solution will simply be unable to live up to its design.

Now here's my radical idea: rather than starting with the template of the 1662 or 1928 BCP as the basis for new contemporary Cranmerian rites, why not instead start with the template of the 1979 BCP as the basis for restoring the traditional Cranmerian rites for a truly one-book result? Now hear me out, this is not as crazy as my readers may think. This plan would involve the following rather simple steps:

(1) Perform "restorative surgery" on the 1979 Rite One services (Daily Offices and Holy Eucharist) so that they reflect more accurately the text and spirit of the 1928 rites. (I would also remove the current alternative Eucharistic Prayer in Rite One, and replace it with a 1662-style alternative.)

(2) Include "Rite One" services that are not currently provided in the 1979 BCP, e.g., Baptism, Confirmation, Compline, Noonday Prayer, and the Pastoral Offices. (The Anglican Service Book – produced by the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA – is a great resource here since nearly everything of value in the 1979 BCP has been rendered in traditional language.)

(3) In the interest of keeping the size of the new BCP manageable, a revision committee working on such a project perhaps could consider excising some superfluous services and/or placing some services (e.g. Consecration of a Church) into a “Book of Occasional Services.”

(4) Redress the traditional/contemporary language balance (currently heavily weighted toward the contemporary). So, for instance, some offices (e.g. the Daily Offices and the Great Litany) are perhaps best left in their traditional (1928) forms and some contemporary (Rite Two) offices either conflated (e.g. Daily Offices) or discarded altogether. I'd also replace the Psalter with the RSV.

(5) Keep only two or at most three of the alternative Eucharistic Prayers in Rite Two. (My preference would be simply to remove Eucharistic Prayer C. Whatever is done, do not discard Eucharistic Prayer D!)

(6) Make other changes as deemed necessary to bring the new BCP in line with Anglican consensus, while continuing to maintain its comprehensiveness. (For example, include an introductory paragraph to the "Historical Documents" section that clearly states that the Church is NOT relegating these important statements to the dustbin of history.)

A radical plan? Yes, probably too radical for those who hate the 1979 Book. But it is a VERY doable plan and I think the best chance for a “one-book” solution currently being proposed.

In my next installment, I will provide a sample Table of Contents that will shed further light on what such a BCP would look like.

Is there a "one-book" solution for American Anglicans?

2007-01-25T00:49:00.000-06:00

Once upon a time, unity around a common liturgy was a "given" for Anglicans... and then came the 1979 BCP of the Episcopal Church (USA), which, for many Anglicans, marked the end of "common worship" as a distinctive characteristic of the Anglican tradition, and the beginning of the end for Anglican unity overall. The end.

At least that's how many traditionalists tell the story. Those who support the new BCP contend that the inclusion of traditional "Rite One" services is enough deference paid to the old BCP to lay claim to continuity with it, and to satisfy traditionalists at the same time. Obviously, the detractors do not see things this way, and have ever since waged open warfare against it, and against modern rites in general, which makes the recent introduction of the AMiA's new Trial Liturgy (henceforth called "the Green Book") all the more intriguing.

However, do not think for a moment (despite my recent remarks) that the Green Book -- essentially the 1662 BCP in modern idiom -- necessarily represents a significant concession of defeat, or an acknowledgement of the need to modernize the idiom of worship, on the part of Dr. Peter Toon (the guiding hand behind the Green Book) and his followers. It is not even an admission that traditional and contemporary rites could (or even should) exist together within the same cover of some future BCP. Indeed, Dr. Toon has gone on record many times that, at most, the move to contemporize Cranmer should be viewed as an interim measure -- what I like to call the "bait and switch" solution. The ultimate goal is merely to wean contemporary Anglicans away from the 1979 BCP (and other "defective" modern rites). The beauty and the theological soundness of the Cranmerian liturgy, even as found in the Green Book (the "bait"), will do its magic by eventually winning the hearts of modern Anglicans and others back to Cranmer's liturgy and to its traditional Elizabethan era idiom as well (the "switch"). But will this tactic work? I think not, and here's why:

(1) The Green Book is not the first attempt to contemporize Cranmer's liturgy. In fact, many such projects have been attempted, and each one has produced less than stellar results -- ranging from the banal to the sophomoric. Simply put, the strategy to woo folks back to the classic BCP by introducing a contemporary version of it does not seem to work, at least not very well. This begs at least two questions: first, why hasn't it worked? And, second, why add one more alternative liturgy to the plethora of alternatives already out there?

(2) In part, the first question can be answered by noting that the strategy is built on two faulty premises: first, that taking the "thees, thous, and vouchsafes" out of the Cranmerian rites will remove a stumbling block to those Anglicans who, due to years of disuse and/or non-exposure to proper Prayerbook language, are put off by such archaic words. Second, the assertion is made that modern Anglicans only use the 1979 BCP because no better alternative is available to them. Provide a Cranmerian alternative in modern English (e.g. the Green Book), or so it is argued, and modern Anglicans will drop the '79 Book like a hot potato. Both premises are faulty if only for the fact that the "thees, thous, and vouchsafes" are not the only archaicisms, and probably not even the most imposing ones, in the traditional BCP. Issues of lengthiness, cadence, complex sentence structure, complicated parallelisms, rubrical rigidness, inflexibility, overdone didacticism, dearth of celebration, and obscure terminology certainly play their roles in the general lack of appeal to the modern liturgical palate. Yet these issues are typically ignored in attempts to contemporize Cranmer's liturgy.

(3) But there is another, more important reason: many Anglicans, even conservative ones, actually like the 1979 BCP, despite some of its flaws, even if they are somewhat hesitant to admit this to the more vocal opposition. For years we've been hearing about how baaaaad the 1979 BCP was, that folks have been somewhat hesitant and intimidated to defend it in the face of fierce verbal assault. But in actuality, as the practice of many Anglicans bears out, the '79 Book turns out to be a very versatile liturgy with many laudable features. The scholarship behind it is really quite outstanding, even if it is also quite broad. There is much in it that is appealing to modern Anglicans: its "shape," the restoration of ancient forms and rites, its "patristic eclectisim," and its pastoral tone. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Book doesn't have flaws and deficiencies; only that the '79 Book does not come close to being the demon-possessed tome that its detractors make it out to be.

Finally, let me end by humbly suggesting that the future course of American Anglicanism should strive to achieve two worthy goals. First, I firmly believe that it is a good, right, and appropriate thing for Anglicans to seek to preserve Cranmer's liturgy, and to promote the frequent use of it, in its original idiom no less. (Despite what my readers may unduly conclude from this article, I defy anyone to demonstrate a love for Cranmer's liturgy that surpasses my own. After all, I would never dream of dishonoring Cranmer's liturgy by "translating" it into contemporary idiom.) The second worthy goal is to preserve what has proven to be laudable and edifying in the contemporary Anglican liturgical experiment, many of the features found in the 1979 BCP. Can this be done? And can it be done within one cover? Is there a "one-book" solution? I don't know. But I will lay out for my readers some idea of how a "one-book solution" might look in my next two installments.

Until next time.