Anglican Church in North America

Via anglicanchurch.net

Anglican Church in North America

Archbishop Duncan Issues Statement Responding to Recent Attack on Religious Liberty

Archbishop Robert Duncan released the following statement in support of the Catholic Church’s fight to maintain freedom of conscience in the midst of the U.S. federal government issuing a preventive care mandate in violation of its teaching.

“The Anglican Church in North America stands by our Catholic brothers and sisters as followers of Christ in a nation whose Constitution guarantees ‘the free exercise’ of religion. As Christians, our faith and doctrine are at the very heart of our service to others in our community. Therefore, it is extremely troubling to see our government mandate services contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I call on all members of the Anglican Church to stand by our Catholic brothers and sisters, and pray for our elected officials to have the courage to stand up for religious freedom and overturn this mandate,” said Archbishop Duncan.

Sign the Manhattan Declaration petition to defend religious liberty here.

Open Communion

The Anglican Journal covers this one for us.
My emphases and comments.

Should we invite persons who are not baptized to receive Holy Communion? [all the kewl kids are doing it!] The church is discussing this question today. [in order to be relevant, me thinks!] Anglicans traditionally have believed that the eucharist [editorial warning...this article will never Capitalize the word Eucharist even though it is our central, oldest, and most unifying Sacrament ordained by Jesus Christ] is a family meal, reserved for members of the church through baptism. [...again with these Sacraments not being capitalized, let alone designated as HOLY...I see a pattern (cough, smell an agenda)] Those who are not baptized are not members of the church; therefore, they cannot participate in the family meal.

This exclusive view of the eucharist has a long history. [Damned old traditions again!] St. Paul warns against eating and drinking in an “unworthy manner” (I Cor. 11:27), though he seems to leave the decision whether to partake in the meal to each person’s conscience (I Cor. 11:28). Closed communion is standard practice in some Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic and Orthodox. [and we have no clue as to why--those mean ole bullies! Oh, shoot, my cousin is a Lutheran and they're meanies too, sniff, sniff] However, many Anglican churches throughout the world now practice open communion. There are good reasons, both missional and theological, for doing so. [okay, let's all hold our breath until his discusses the unpleasant (cough, unorthodox) consequences* for doing so...]

The Missional Case
Consider the fact that most Anglican churches now celebrate the eucharist every Sunday at every service. [okay. credit where it's due. this is a great post-conciliar correction.] Yet many people are not baptized. How do we reach them? [Read, "How do we get around that, rather than do anything about it?"] Do we invite them to church for Sunday dinner [pass 'em 'er biscuits, Merle!] and tell them they cannot eat the food? [never mind the wedding garment thingy...no parables about that...so...]

How, in our multicultural and pluralistic society, can our churches be places of hospitality if we exclude table fellowship with the non-baptized? This is not an academic question. [Winning clarification, that!] In Canada, a growing number of the population is not baptized. [No! we shan't do the work of evangelization! that would be exclusivist and bigoted.] Included are people from different religious traditions or people with no religious affiliation at all. Quite likely, some are our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, whose parents neglected or refused to have them baptized. [I knew this paragraph was going down hill]

How can the church effectively minister in a post-Christian world where a significant percentage of the population is not baptized? [chirp...chirp...nope, can't think of a single way] Some Anglican churches are attempting to meet this challenge by becoming open and inclusive faith communities, [OPEN and INCLUSIVE are always good things, right?] ready and willing to support people in their spiritual journeys. [because it's all about the journey] They understand that the Anglican tradition has never been content to adopt a sectarian mentality, to insulate itself from culture or to refuse to connect with an unchurched population. [The word adopt occurs in his narrative...yet no connection to Holy Baptism...how splendidly relevant!]

Open communion increasingly is seen [just allow us to show you...yawn] as a way to build a bridge [bridge? I'll leave the Latin word for that alone] between the church and the unchurched. [because, of course, there really is no other way] If people are “spiritual but not religious” as several sociological studies indicate, then the desire for transcendence experienced in sacramental worship may well draw them to church. [unless the un-capitalized 'church' has quit being The Church. In which case they might just fly home to experience private sensations without other individuals interfering with the reception]

There is a pattern here:[oh, you see one too, do you?] experience, community, and faith—in that order. [and ALWAYS in that order...money quote if there ever was one] In this organic process, experience is foundational to faith. I term this “experiential evangelism”—offering people an experience of God that draws them into the Christian community and leads to faith in Jesus. There is precedent for this model. Solomon Stoddard, the father-in-law of Jonathan Edwards [notable Anglican worthy...not] and himself one of the great New England Puritan pastors, referred to Holy Communion [kudos on the dignified attribution] as a “converting ordinance” in which the experience of receiving communion served to transform the heart of the recipient. [which is just what Edwards meant, you see]

We now live in a post-modern world that places heart over head, feeling over thought, intuition over logic and image over words. [Oh thank heaven we've all grown up and cast off those nasty nannies--head, thought, logic, and words] “We have a generation that is less interested in cerebral arguments, linear thinking, theological systems,” observes Leith Anderson, author of Dying for Change. Instead, they are “more interested in encountering the supernatural,” he says. It is by an experience with the supernatural that people enter into community. It is through community that people come to faith. [contra Anselm it's the new way to come to church]

To be sure, this is a significant shift in the way Anglicans usually have thought of Christian formation. The traditional model holds that believing leads to belonging—you believe the faith of the church in order to belong to the church. In this model, the church made confirmation a prerequisite to communion. However, an emerging model reverses the order, and holds that belonging leads to believing. Insofar as people belong to a Christian community, they come to believe in the faith of that community. [each and every time this is true!...funny there is no footnote or quote from a trusted authority that has performed actual research into this] In this model, communion leading to baptism may complement the still normative practice of baptism leading to communion. [sure, it just may. let's all wait and see]

This new model of Christian formation is consistent with church growth methodology. “The old paradigm taught that if you have the right teaching, you will experience God,” writes Leith Anderson. “The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching.” [I promise I'm not making this up!]

Open communion played a major part in the rapid growth of my parish in Southern California. I saw the same scenario repeated many times—non-Christians receiving Holy Communion and experiencing God in a powerful way, leading to a desire to be baptized. Therefore, I ask: might we not see the experience of receiving communion as a way of drawing people to faith in Jesus?

The Theological Case

There is, however, another consideration. Who is the host of the Lord’s Supper? God is. God welcomes us. Even before we ask for food, God spreads a table before us. God’s all-embracing hospitality is a hallmark of the meal we call eucharist. [hey, he's capitalizing God, if no one noticed]

One of the most powerful witnesses of God’s inclusive love is the welcoming table, so prevalent among southern black churches in the United States. At these fellowship dinners, held on church grounds, a large meal is prepared for anyone who might come: rich and poor, black and white, stranger and church member. [taking nothing away from these events which I love, that is not a Eucharist] In the days of the segregationist south, when legal measures were ruthlessly enforced to prevent different races from eating together or even sharing a water fountain, the welcoming table was a powerful witness to God’s inclusive love. [?]

Might not the Lord’s Table in Anglican churches be understood as a welcoming table? Is it possible for us to see the altar as a symbol of inclusion rather than exclusion? Anglican biblical scholar John Koenig and reformed theologian Amy Plantinga Pauw have argued separately that the most pervasive image in the Bible is the banquet table, with God serving as a generous host. Salvation is feasting in the kingdom of God, where people will come from north and south, east and west to sit at table together. In Isaiah 25:6−9, for example, the banquet is a symbol of salvation, with the invitation extended to “all peoples” and “all nations”—not just Israel.

This table fellowship is at the heart of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus welcomed all kinds of people to his table: rich people, poor people, good people, sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes, you name them, and they came to eat and drink with Jesus (Mt. 9:9−10; Luke 14:12−23;19:5). [how many of them were at the first Eucharist? how unjust and exclusivist of our dear Lord!] United Methodist Bishop William Willimon has said that Jesus’ open invitation “manifested the radically inclusive [not just inclusive, but radically inclusive] nature of his kingdom, a kingdom that cuts across the barriers we erect between insiders and outsiders, the saved and the damned, the elect and the outcast—barriers often most rigidly enforced at the table.”

Jesus welcomed all sorts of people to his table. [He was invited to their tables in the book I read] Might we also welcome people with the same openness and acceptance as he did? [oh, why not?, nothing is sacred anymore!] After all, it is the Lord’s Table, not ours. Who are we to exclude the very people that Jesus includes in his ministry? [while we're at it let's teach the unbelievers to serve this Holy Group-Meal and clean up afterward]

The Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi is the rector at St. James Westminster Anglican Church in London, Ont.

*edited from reasons.

Predestination and Grace

A friend of mine posted here and here recently on the issue of Eastern Orthodoxy's stance on Predestination and Grace. Click through to read his full posts.

I find it hard to agree with him, but he puts things out for everyone to examine.

He quotes from a gathering of Eastern Patriarchs that issued a statement [though not a conciliar statement]. From this Synod came the Confession of Dositheus.

“We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause.”“But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.”“And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace.”“This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated.”“But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.”“We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ.”“But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious.”

No one wants to be called a Heretic. Nobody likes it because it sounds like a denial of genuineness or scholarship or sincerity or that the said Heretic is not actually a Christian. I am reposting his stuff here because the ACNA has been challenged by the OCA, via His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah, to eschew our Reformed Heresies. This will most likely be the very last one to drop...if it ever does.

I simply cannot read the Anglican Collects from the Book of Common Prayer without feeling the strong tap on the shoulder from Orthodoxy and Catholicism....Synergy!

Can Anglicans be Catholic?

thanks to the VeritasSeminar from Sydney AUS.

Catholic Chant Done...Anglican Style?

File under Patrimony!

Thanks to Sonitus Sanctus!
**********************************
Catholic Chant Done...Anglican Style?: "So this is a bit embarrassing. Some of the finest free Catholic chant on MP3 I've found is here, on an Anglican website. Awkward!
Here's a sample, but hit the jump for the rest:

• Kyrie eleison, Mass in G - Franz Schubert: Download
• Gloria in excelsis, Mass in G - Franz Schubert: Download
• Credo, Mass in G - Franz Schubert: Download
• Sanctus, Mass in G - Franz Schubert: Download
• Benedictus, Mass in G - Franz Schubert: Download
• Agnus Dei, Mass in G - Franz Schubert: Download
• Motet, Panis angelicus - César Franck: Download
• Motet, O Salutaris Hostia - César Franck: Download
• Motet, Tantum ergo Sacramentum - Maurice Duruflé: Download
• Motet, Laudate Dominum - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Download

Very nice. Enjoy!

"

Cœtibus

As you probably know, the Vatican announced last month that it was preparing a document in response to Anglicans wanting into the Roman Catholic Church. That document, called Anglicanorum Cœtibus, was released yesterday. This has also been called the Apostolic Constitution for an Anglican Personal Ordinariate. Yes, you may need a dictionary.

I offer some initial thoughts, not simply on the document and its prospects, but on the responses from several Anglican commentators. Several men have quickly commented that certain points of Cœtibus, being "crucial to me [them]," do little to improve upon what is already in place with the Pastoral Provision, aka the Personal Prelature. Some further point out that this new structure is not an "ecumenical advance."

First, this offer from Benedict XVI is not up for me to scrutinize on an individual level. There will be no revision to the arrangement except from within. It is fruitless to point out key statements that don't satisfy our aggravation that Rome still does not recognize us for what we claim to be. I think that many misapprehensions were due to the misguided hopes that Benedict would create a Uniate Anglican Church with an Anglican Rite liturgy. He has done neither. Those who accept the offer will become Roman Catholics allowed to retain much, definitely not all, of their Anglican heritage within the structure of the Roman Rite. It is different than the Personal Prelature, but I'll leave that do another post to describe.

Second, this offer is not directed, in the case of nearly every detractor, at those who never longed to be Catholic. In other words, this offer is a response to those that HAVE wanted [including numerous appeals to the Holy Father] to be Catholic but chose not to convert for several reasons. The offer is surprisingly wide enough to include some detractors, but is primarily directed at those that have made appeals to Rome for a structure rather than converting individually. Here is a short list of their reasons for not converting yet. Please tell me if there are other substantial reasons for them not converting [albeit desiring so], and whether the new offer doesn't appease them.

If I convert as an individual from my Anglican Church to a Roman parish I will...

• lose many dear friends because they may not join me
• lose my Priest who has been my confessor and director
• lose my congregation because they might not follow me (in the case of Priests)
• leave my congregation to someone else that could damage their souls (in the case of Priests)
• lose the right to practice as a Priest (in the case of Priests)*
• lose the numinous power of Anglican liturgical patrimony
• lose my wonderful building (still true in many cases)
  

For those who never longed for unity with the See of Rome there really isn't much sense in responding. You did not plead with Rome for a quiet pool to be carved beside the restless waters. That image of the Shepherd is what I believe the Pontiff has done.

*Some will be allowed to be ordained as Catholic Priests

Spirituality for everyone

"What was admirable about their [i.e., the Anglican Caroline Divines] work, and what had such a measure of success that it has endured even until our days…is a Divine Office which is not a devotion of specialists but a truly public Office of the whole Christian people. This Office has some defects…but, in spite of these defects, we must admit frankly that the Offices of Morning Prayer and Evensong…are not only one of the most impressive, but also one of the purest forms of Christian common prayer to be found anywhere in the world." (Bouyer L. Liturgical Piety. University of Notre Dame Press, © 1955. 44, 47 )

ACNA, new Church, new challenge...

Would John Calvin Stay in the Episcopal Church?

This guy says, "yes."

See, the only thing is, well that Geneva issue and all. He points to it in his conclusion. He thinks Calvin would advise you to stay until it kicks you out or it [TEC] rejects the Nicene faith.

Fait accompli.

Jesus Prayer

I am finishing a course on Anglican Spirituality. In this course we are brought up to speed on the history of spirituality and shown how our Anglican context applies proficiency at the parish level. As a future minister this is important. But applying it comes only after living it. It has been well said, "the only way to preserve values is to live them."

Also as a future minister, it is important that I am the example to anyone that I attempt to direct spiritually. This has scared me to death ever since the great fish spat me back onto the shore. I left the pursuit of God's call just after my first seminary experience. When I returned I had picked up some major seaweed! Mostly that was evident in my attitude, but as often it was obvious that I had lost my sense of personal piety. The Evangelical machine caused me to question ALL its results. That was not fair of me. To be a holy man is still expected of all ministers. The Evangelical method may be misguided along the way...but they are still on the way.

The best way to explain this failure of piety is to point out one's language. I have come to regard off-color language quite like body-odor. If a man is a bit skunky, he can easily remedy that...so don't question his piety every time he turns up with b-o. Likewise a man's language is easily curtailed if he is too profane. Don't judge by that alone. I began to apply this to myself liberally. Just ask my wife. She began to hear words from my mouth that don't suit a man committed to following Christ. Jesus' words about the filth coming OUT of us being more important than the food that goes IN seemed to slip my mind. In our culture how do you bring this up to someone?

Guidance and Direction
That is what is missing in the Evangelical Church that I left. If I don't have mastery of Sin then I have no business advising others how to overcome damaging thoughts and behavior. "Blind leading the blind" ring a bell? We all need to live by rules...we all need guidance...we all need direction. We don't need people making up their own rules and foisting them legalistically over others. So I have picked back up another weapon in the fight for my soul. That tool, or weapon, is the Jesus Prayer.

Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Anytime I encounter a tempting thought or image, I now say this prayer. No, that does not make it a talisman nor the foot of a rabbit. I puts me right where I need to be in relation to The King of Glory. In a book I'm reading we are advised, "Whenever Sin knocks, let Jesus get the door." He already proved that He can tackle, trample, repel, overcome, and rid Sin...why not let him help me? By the way, doesn't that quote sound like the cheese you could get from the local Christian bookstore self-help section? Why do I like it so much?

When you begin to struggle (that's opposed to simply wallowing in Sin) against temptation, you are quite wise to take the yoke of Christ and let him pull. Just knowing that you are stuck in a dank squalor is proof that you cannot get out alone. You never could do, and you never will. Also since the tempter is crafty, he will leave you be until you are alone. He don't much like crowds. So temptation is sharper when you are isolated. Who better to call upon than He who is Lord of creation...able to join you at any location, in any situation?

But there are other warriors ahead of us, ready to instruct. We call them pastors, or shepherds. They are best suited to dispense the grace of God as well as 'reign in' wayward sheep.

I want to blog more about spiritual direction after my last class session.

2009 Anglican Way Institute Conference

All readers are encouraged to spread the word about the upcoming conference.
Thanks!

St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Renewal of the Anglican Episcopate

I found this interesting article today on my favorite Bishop and Martyr for Jesus Christ.

John Calvin's request for a Reformed Episcopacy

Here is the text of Calvin's request to the English Archbishop for the episcopacy. It really is an interesting read. I have preserved most of the original formatting so you can experience the flow from Strype's Lives.
[The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker: The First Archbishop of Canterbury, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth By John Strype Published by Clarendon Press, 1821. vol. 20]
This book can be downloaded from Google Books.

He [Matthew Parker] asked,
" What was it occasioned the Romish writers
" to write against the Bishop of Rome? What was it caused
" Luther, Calvin, and other orthodox Clergymen, to re-
" nounce Rome and her Church, but this thing, called the
" Bishop of Rome's tribunal? That several learned men,
" from the time that the Bishop of Rome begun to demand
" tribute, and to set up a tribunal, had written, that that very
" thing had caused those Bishops to forget their Maker,
" and also their Redeemer: and that they, by their demands
" to us, to own Rome and her tribunal, had forgotten their
" duties to God, with their father the Bishop of Rome : for
" that his usurping of a tribunal to make all nations subject
" to his beck, had caused him and his successors ever since
" to forget the living God.

Anno 1560.

"That they, his followers and acknowledgers, partook of
" this sin also, and had occasioned the Bishops of Rome to
" fall into these errors: for they had made it sacrilege to
" dispute of what he did, and heresy to doubt of his power;
" Paganism to disobey him, and blasphemy against the Holy
" Ghost, to act or speak against his decrees. Nay, that which
" is most horrible, they had made it presumption in any man,
" not to go to the devil after him, without any grudging:
" which was so shameful and so sinful a subjection, that Lu-
" cifer himself never demanded the like from his slaves in hell.
" He bade them consider of these things: and that it
" should be the continual prayer of our Reformed Church,
" to convert them all to the truth of God's word, and to
" obedience to their Sovereign Lady Elizabeth their Queen :
" and in so doing, they would glorify Christ, and the eternal
" God in heaven ; who alone was the chief and absolute Ruler
" of princes." And concluding friendly, subscribed himself, Their faithful brother in Christ. This notable letter was dated March the 26th, 1560.

Calvin writes to the Archbishop about the union of protestants M.Park.MS.Hunt.Rom.Fox.

And this is the account of the Popish Clergy's letter to the Archbishop, and his behaviour thereupon. There was another letter this year sent to him from the hands of a great Divine but of another temper, and for another and a better end; namely, from John Calvin, the great French Reformer: importing,

" how he rejoiced in the happiness of England,
" and that God had raised up so gracious a Queen, to be in-
" strumental in propagating the true faith of Jesus Christ,
" by restoring the Gospel, and expelling idolatry, together
" with the Bishop of Rome's usurped power. And then
" made a serious motion of uniting Protestants together,"
[as he had done before in King Edward's reign.]
" He en-
" treated the Archbishop to prevail with her Majesty to
" summon a general assembly of all the Protestant Clergy,
" wheresoever dispersed; and that a set form and method
" i. e. of public service, and government of the Church]
" might be established, not only within her dominions, but
" also among all the Reformed and Evangelic Churches " abroad." "

This was a noble offer, and the Archbishop soon acquaint-ed the Queen's Council with it. And they took it into con-sideration, and desired his Grace to thank Calvin ; and to let him know they liked his proposals, which were fair and desirable : yet, as to the government of the Church, to signify to him, that the Church of England would still retain her episcopacy; but not as from Pope Gregory, who sent over Augustin the monk hither, but from Joseph of Ari-mathea; as appeared by Gildas, printed first anno 1525. in the reign of King Henry VIII.; and so far agreeing to Eleu- therius, sometime Bishop of Rome, who acknowledged Lucius, King of Britain, Christ's Vicar within his own dominions. All this being before Rome usurped over princes: yet also renouncing the Romish manner, way, and ceremonies of episcopacy, which were either contrary to God's glory, or the English monarchy. This was a great work, and created seri-ous thoughts in the Archbishop's mind, for the framing a proper method to set it on foot. But he had considered but a little while of these matters, when news arrived at Court that Calvin was dead.

Calvin for episcopacy
And how Calvin stood affected in the said point of epi-scopacy, and how readily and gladly he and other heads of the Reformed Churches would have received it, is evident enough from his writings and epistles. In his book Of the Necessity of reforming the Church, he hath these words: Talem nobis hierarchiam exhibeant, &c.
"Let them give us
" such an hierarchy, in which Bishops may be so above the
" rest, as they refuse not to be under Christ, and depend
" upon him as their only Head; that they maintain a bro-
" therly society, &c. If there be any that do not behave
" themselves with all reverence and obedience towards them,
" there is no anathema, but I confess them worthy of it."

But especially his opinion of episcopacy is manifest from a letter he and Bullinger, and others, learned men of that sort, wrote anno 1549. to King Edward VI. offering to make him their Defender, and to have Bishops in their Churches for better unity and concord among them : as may be seen in - Archbishop Cranmer's Memorials; and likewise by a writ-ing of Archbishop Abbot, found among the MSS. of Arch-bishop Usher: which, for the remarkableness of it, and the mention of Archbishop Parker's papers, I shall here set down.

Archbishop Parker's account there-of found in his papers by Archbishop Abbot
" Perusing some papers of our predecessor Matthew Par-
" ker, we find that John Calvin, and others of the Protest-
" ant churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had
" episcopacy, if permitted : but could not upon several ac-
" counts, partly fearing the other princes of the Roman Ca-
" tholic faith would have joined with the Emperor and the
" rest of the Popish Bishops, to have depressed the same ;
" partly being newly reformed, and not settled, they had
" not sufficient wealth to support episcopacy, by reason of
" their daily persecutions. Another, and a main cause was,
" they would not have any Popish hands laid over their Cler-
" gy. And whereas John Calvin had sent a letter in King
" Edward the VIth's reign, to have conferred with the Cler-
" gy of England about some things to this effect, two Bishops,
" viz. Gardiner and Boner, intercepted the same: whereby
" Mr. Calvin's offerture perished. And he received an an-
" swer, as if it had been from the reformed Divines of those
" times; wherein they checked him, and slighted his propo-
" sals: from which time John Calvin and the Church of Eng-
" land were at variance in several points; which otherwise
" through God's mercy had been qualified, if those papers
" of his proposals had been discovered unto the Queen's
" Majesty during John Calvin's life. But being not disco-
" vered until or about the sixth year of her Majesty's
" reign, her Majesty much lamented they were not found
" sooner: which she expressed before her Council at the
" same time, in the presence of her great friends, Sir Henry
" Sidney, and Sir William Cecil."

In an post a few years back I called this one of the great "what-ifs" of history. What is more, it seems to be a damning blow to those still supporting a system of elder-plurality within the Church. Their own great figure, John Calvin, repeatedly requested the better system of episcopacy specifically for the cause of unity--never to receive it on the continent during the reformation.

Cranmer's bill

In my office hangs a calendar. March commemorates Cranmer's burning with an image of the burn notice. This austere and terse page represents one of the most chilling moments in English history. It is the original bill for the burning of Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), Matthew Parker's predecessor as Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.
It reads:
"Item chardges layd out and paide for the burning of Cranmer as followeth,"
itemizing kindling, wood faggots and the hire of two executioners. The total, including the cost of upkeep in prison, is ₤63.10s.2d [63 pounds, 10 shillings and 2 pence]. Cranmer was burned alive in Broad Street in Oxford on 20 March 1556.

I hope to post a photo of it on my blog. The whole calendar will become viewable through Stanford library in conjunction with Cambridge. See the links below.

I receive this calendar from a European book vendor called Harrassowitz. They have been sending calendars to their customers for many years highlighting medieval manuscript illuminations. This year the concentration is on the library of Matthew Parker (1504-75). He
was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1559-1575, and also an avid book collector. He salvaged many English treasures about to be dispersed at the dissolution of the monasteries. He gave them all to Cambridge's Corpus Christi College in 1574.

http://www.harrassowitz.de/documents/Parker_Library_on_the_Web_Brochure.pdf

http://parkerweb.stanford.edu/

Spiritual Disciplines

Okay, here are my three spiritual disciplines for Great Lent.

First to offset the desserts I will exercise. I had once developed the habit of jogging, but we'll see just what I settle on. Maybe I'll go for a variety of choices.

Second to counter the Facebook infatuation I will read and prepare better for my upcoming class. I love to read, but lately I just haven't been very disciplined to log off Facebook long enough to get a page in edgewise! This should make the efforts of my upcoming class better. I will be composing papers on William of Saint-Thierry's and the Oxford Movement's contributions to Western [primarily Anglican] spirituality.

Third, another admission. In order to combat the tendency to watch too much sport on the telly, I will engage in a better routine with the Daily Offices. I have let that one slip I'm afraid. Clergy are generally expected to keep this as proficient as possible. In case you're lost on this one, Anglicans have a daily lectionary to read through scripture and a daily prayer 'office' that was handed down from the medieval monastic Book of Hours. Anglicans have a Daily Morning and Evening prayer 'office' that leads us through an Old Testament reading, select Psalms, collects, a New Testament reading, a Creed, and several confessions and prayers. Clergy should practice this as a daily habit, lay people should also keep the discipline as often as possible.

Richard Dawkins points out the 'departure' of a UK Bishop from the foundations of Christianity!

This is the video from YouTube.




LISTEN TO HIM ASK, "WHY EVEN STICK WITH CHRISTIANITY? [SINCE YOU AGREE WITH ME--A HUMANISTIC ATHEIST ON HOMOSEXUALITY]"

Wow!

Children at Church

I was startled by a sign I recently saw in the dentist's office. Here it is...

"You don't have to floss ALL your teeth...just the ones you want to keep!"

Brilliant. By way of analogy let me announce my philosophy of children in Church. All parents should keep this in mind when struggling to muffle the outcries of their little ones during worship.

"You don't have to teach ALL your children to worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness...just the ones you want to keep!"

After all, family is our first vocation. Our children are the litmus test of our parenting. We have a responsibility that is beyond our ability.
LORD have mercy!

Convince Me

Fox recently began a new series called Lie to Me. I've been a big Tim Roth fan so tried this new show. Its premise surrounds Roth's character, a man that has made a science of body language. His research finds that your facial expressions, twitches, nervous ticks, mannerisms...all your quirks tell whether you are being honest or not. He has studied uncivilized cultures to prove that his thesis is universal to humankind [except perhaps himself, but we're only two shows into the season]. It's a cool kind of show where he comes off looking like a magician because he can tell whether you are lying in any situation. Your body will not let you lie without visible protest. It's just a certain as not being able to hold your eyes open during a sneeze! He observes those protests to prove that you lie.

That got me thinking. Bear with me a moment. I have a handful of friends and such that seem content to go down with the TEC ship. I have always puzzled over this. For me, the Episcopal Church really never drew me more than it repelled me. I simply never envisioned myself there. But I know loads of folk that are content to remain for whatever reason. Why do you do this? I'm not saying that you shouldn't, I know you have enough pressure on you. But I do have an unsettled feeling about your stance.

So let me put it this way. Pretend I am just where I was 5 years ago [& I'll note that I most certainly am not]. Back then I was not happy with my Church nor it's views of doctrine and worship. I was looking not only for a place to raise children, but a place to seek vocation to life-long ministry. Convince me that you are happy and fulfilled and genuinely convinced that there is a future for your Church. Describe that future to me. Convince me that I should go no other direction but to bind myself to the Episcopal Church. I really want to know what you'd tell a recruit to the ministry.

You may say, "Well, noting how you came to this question through a TV show call Lie to Me, I already think you'll try to pick apart everything I say and call it a lie!" Not true. Roth's character exonerates just as many people as he exposes. I just wonder what you'd tell me about such a monumental decision.

"Silence of the Apostles"

Several bloggers within the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox faith have similar posts challenging the Protestant notion of tradition and history. Since I am a protestant I have delineated the issue farther out to the Radical Reformers...[cough, deFORMERS].

This came to my mind while preparing the next post on Blessed Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Martyr for our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. It is a serious challenge too. I really want to know how a convinced Baptist/Presbyterian scholar [or any Christian that operates outside of the Apostolic Tradition] deals with the question. Here's the question.

If the Incarnation of Jesus Christ began the new Humanity into which we are all Baptised, and if the Son of God succeeded in His promise of granting the Church and the Apostles His gift of the Holy Ghost, and if the missionary activity of the Apostles and their disciples is in fact evidence of the Lord expanding His Kingdom and His Church [I'm trying not to be prolix]...
then when and HOW did they botch the job thereby losing the 'true' teaching of Scripture somehow recovered during the reformation?

If they did not lose it, then why should anyone remain separated from the Body for which Jesus died, and which Body is the mystical company of those that have kept the Apostolic Tradition of Sacraments, creeds, three-fold orders under the Bishop, and liturgical fidelity [to name a few]?

Yes, I am reading Pelikan's The Vindication of Tradition.

To meet a King

Here follows the story of a poor humble steward of the realm called Palsted that got a summons to meet the King.

[I like to think he sounds like C3P-O from Star Wars]

"Oh, I don't know what I will do," he said. "I've never met a king and I want to be sure to address Him, approach Him, and greet Him properly."
Not knowing how to prepare he called upon the wisdom of other stewards and merchants that he knew. Surely they'd help him get ready for this privileged meeting.
Some say "address him as if you are his equal and he will honor you. Stand up straight and give him a firm handshake. That way he'll know that you are worthy of the occasion. Be a 'man' because the king is looking for good sturdy men upon whom to grant favor."
Others to the contrary, "you must bow low to gain His inestimable favor. You are dirt and He is priceless gold--be sure you get that straight. You don't want him to have you arrested for audacious presumption in royal company!"
Perplexed, he went to the library and blew the dust off a book entitled, How to behave in the presence of Royalty. Splendid! A book that will tell me just how to pull it off. Page after page he could be heard sighing, "Deary me, those fellas have never read this book," and "Oh my word, I think I shall have to practice several times a day to get all this straight."
And that he did. Everyone he knew suffered through the fate of playing the king whilst poor Paslted practiced his approach. He stumbled quite a bit on the instruction concerning the proper bow to execute whilst kissing the signet ring. One note read, "the proper way to bow is to bend at the 3rd or 4th vertebrae of your back." No matter how hard he tried he could never seem to bend at the right spot. Making the most of his time, Palsted poured himself into the instructions that would surely meet the King's approval.

The Day finally arrived and Paslted was dressed for the occasion [another fable tells of his travails about picking out the correct vestments to don for this meeting]. Among the fanfare and pomp, Palsted began to feel his knees quiver. "Oh, I hope I don't look a fool and forget something really important!" he cringed. "But worse I hope I don't offend His Majesty with the appearance of being ignorant and unprepared." Just then the King's right hand came into Palsted's view. No time to think now, he simply reacted.
[story pans to a dreamy state in which we've all turned up to school or work in our underpants only]
"So sorry about that 6th-7th vertebrae thing. I guess I must have practiced to much. You know, I am nervous, your Grace."
"As you were, lad. It's good to meet you," the King replied.
"Since I have your company, could you direct me properly upon whether I smooched your signet ring correctly. I mean, is it the fourth facet from the left...or the right, clockwise or counter-clockwise?" On and on Palsted stammered over questionable minutiae until the guards had to escort him away from the celebrations.

I'm sure the King felt very flattered indeed when the poor guy stumbled over the procedure. But after a while don't you think His Grace had had enough of this foolish pandering.

This fable is my witty response to those that insist on "no more-no less" than what the BCP allows for in celebrating either Holy Communion or the Daily Offices. It's what comes to mind whenever I encounter what I can only dub rubrical fundamentalism.

Do let us know when you've removed all the fly scat from your pepper shaker.