Some have forgotten or did not realize that Rowan Williams, current Archbishop of Canterbury, was a block away from the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 recording a church video series at Trinity Wall Street. Here he is in 2010, reflecting on his experiences of that day.
Showing posts with label Anglican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglican. Show all posts
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Having a ho-hum day...
Lately when I hear the word ho-hum, I think not of having a dull or boring time but I think of a recent creation of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. I'm talking about Holy Women, Holy Men...referred to as "Ho-Hum" by its detractors. It is a supplement to Lesser Feasts and Fasts, and is being used on a trial basis until GENCON 2012.
I was in the gallery at GC 2009 the day Sam Chandler, Dean of the St. Phillip's Atlanta and Chair of the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music, called for its approval. At the time, I remember being concerned that many of the new additions to the sanctoral calendar where at best marginally christian. Having had more time to review it, my concern for its continued use in the church has only grown.
I recently came across this critique of the work by Scott Gunn, the new Executive Director of Forward Movement Publications. Here is an excerpt from his blog entry...
There are people on the kalendar (John XIII is one example) who are not Anglican and whose own traditions do not commemorate them as saints. There are others (John Calvin would be one) many of whose contemporary Anglicans would have understood to be heretics.
Others are puzzlingly missing. Where is King Charles I? He is the one person who has been declared a saint (in effect) by the Church of England — and many other provinces of the Communion. There is a devotional society in his honor active in this country. But he doesn’t make the cut. Or where is Bishop Frank Weston? He’s another person with a worldwide following, and who continues to impact preaching and practice in many parishes. He’s not there.
I hope you'll take a moment to read his entire entry located here.
After that, let your local deputy to General Convention know how you feel about, good or bad. It is but one of the interesting items that will come before Convention next summer.
I was in the gallery at GC 2009 the day Sam Chandler, Dean of the St. Phillip's Atlanta and Chair of the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music, called for its approval. At the time, I remember being concerned that many of the new additions to the sanctoral calendar where at best marginally christian. Having had more time to review it, my concern for its continued use in the church has only grown.
I recently came across this critique of the work by Scott Gunn, the new Executive Director of Forward Movement Publications. Here is an excerpt from his blog entry...
There are people on the kalendar (John XIII is one example) who are not Anglican and whose own traditions do not commemorate them as saints. There are others (John Calvin would be one) many of whose contemporary Anglicans would have understood to be heretics.
Others are puzzlingly missing. Where is King Charles I? He is the one person who has been declared a saint (in effect) by the Church of England — and many other provinces of the Communion. There is a devotional society in his honor active in this country. But he doesn’t make the cut. Or where is Bishop Frank Weston? He’s another person with a worldwide following, and who continues to impact preaching and practice in many parishes. He’s not there.
I hope you'll take a moment to read his entire entry located here.
After that, let your local deputy to General Convention know how you feel about, good or bad. It is but one of the interesting items that will come before Convention next summer.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Dormition of our Lady
I can't help but talk about Our Lady. You know, the Theotokos, the God-Bearer, the Madonna...Mary!
This is especially true on one of her feast days. August 15, is the Dormition of the Theotokos...the falling asleep of Mary. The picture on this post is the icon of the feast hanging over the vigil lights in the church I serve.
My devotion comes from Her intervention on my behalf at a time in my life when I needed it the most. And for that miracle, I will always be grateful.
One of the best talks given about this feast can be found by following this link...
What Fr. Hopko says in that lecture is just one more reason why I believe there is something about Mary.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Shared Sacrifice
I’ve been reflecting recently on the word “viability.” I hear it used a lot these days in a wide variety of circles. I hear church administrators talking about the viability of small churches. I hear politicians talk about the viability of continuing to do business as usual where budgets are concerned. And I hear diplomats in the news talk about the viability of countries with significant social programs. All this talk made me wonder what is was all about...the word itself. After searching some online dictionaries here is what I found…The ability to work as intended or to succeed.
The ability to continue to exist or develop as a living being…
The ability to continue to exist or develop as a living being…
Or how about this definition…
Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. Capable of living outside the uterus. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable...
Whether or not we agree on a definition, I think it goes without saying that we all want viability in our lives, in our communities, in our churches and in our schools. The second and harder aspect of viability is how to obtain and sustain it in our lives and in our institutions.
When I think about my own experiences with viability and vitality, they all seemed to share a few things in common.
Clarity of identity...Commitment to the common good…Shared sacrifice
People and institutions function at their bests when they are clear about whom they are and whom they are not. Shakespeare might have been clever when he said, “to thine own self be true,” but the wise person follows the ancient Greek aphorism “know thyself.”
Commitment to the common good is also found in the characteristics of things viable and vital. From the everyday citizen to the President, from the small church to the Fortune 500 company, if you are not committed to the welfare of all people there is no health within you…(hat tip to the connfession in the daily office of the 1928 Prayerbook).
And whether we want to talk about it or not, shared sacrifice is absolutely necessary if we are to live and work together as church and community. There has been so much talk about the mess we are in and so little or no shared sacrifice. It really is a shame we have come to this moment when state and national politicians keep cutting valuable programs, and at the same time walking away from discussion about raising taxes to help share the sacrifice. We can all take a lesson from the staff of one of our local school districts which recently agreed to take an across the board pay cut so no one would loose their jobs.
Although in recent times we have convinced ourselves otherwise, you cannot claim the name of Jesus Christ if you are unwilling to participate in shared sacrifice for the needs of others. The Rt. Rev'd. Frank Weston said it best in his closing address to the 1923 Anglo-Catholic Congress...
Whether or not we agree on a definition, I think it goes without saying that we all want viability in our lives, in our communities, in our churches and in our schools. The second and harder aspect of viability is how to obtain and sustain it in our lives and in our institutions.
When I think about my own experiences with viability and vitality, they all seemed to share a few things in common.
Clarity of identity...Commitment to the common good…Shared sacrifice
People and institutions function at their bests when they are clear about whom they are and whom they are not. Shakespeare might have been clever when he said, “to thine own self be true,” but the wise person follows the ancient Greek aphorism “know thyself.”
Commitment to the common good is also found in the characteristics of things viable and vital. From the everyday citizen to the President, from the small church to the Fortune 500 company, if you are not committed to the welfare of all people there is no health within you…(hat tip to the connfession in the daily office of the 1928 Prayerbook).
And whether we want to talk about it or not, shared sacrifice is absolutely necessary if we are to live and work together as church and community. There has been so much talk about the mess we are in and so little or no shared sacrifice. It really is a shame we have come to this moment when state and national politicians keep cutting valuable programs, and at the same time walking away from discussion about raising taxes to help share the sacrifice. We can all take a lesson from the staff of one of our local school districts which recently agreed to take an across the board pay cut so no one would loose their jobs.
Although in recent times we have convinced ourselves otherwise, you cannot claim the name of Jesus Christ if you are unwilling to participate in shared sacrifice for the needs of others. The Rt. Rev'd. Frank Weston said it best in his closing address to the 1923 Anglo-Catholic Congress...
"You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle, if you do not pity Jesus in the slums. . . It is folly -- it is madness -- to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children."
Bishop Weston was as right then as his is today. This is not about economics or politics, this is about the Gospel and the church better start treating it as such.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Nothing New Under the Sun
I came across an interesting review of the condition of The Episcopal Church. It reads as follows...
A sense of weariness and resignation prevailed as the…General Convention of the Episcopal Church convened. Loyal church people were anxious and fearful. Distrust of church leaders was pervasive. Revenues for the previous three years had fallen far short of projections, resulting in the curtailing of ministries and large-scale borrowing.
Prospects…were bleak. Many saw a looming decline facing their church. Even with an increase in diocesan giving of 25 percent (by no means a certainty) and adding money from the United Thank Offering and investment income, revenues….against anticipated expenditures….show a nearly 17 percent shortfall. The Joint Committee on Program and Budget had been meeting all summer to attempt the apparently impossible—the gap seemed unbridgeable and the decline in giving seemed to signal a spiritual exhaustion throughout the church…
Now take a guess at when it was written, then follow this link and read the rest of the article and what followed.
A great reminder that we can overcome all things with God on our side.
A sense of weariness and resignation prevailed as the…General Convention of the Episcopal Church convened. Loyal church people were anxious and fearful. Distrust of church leaders was pervasive. Revenues for the previous three years had fallen far short of projections, resulting in the curtailing of ministries and large-scale borrowing.
Prospects…were bleak. Many saw a looming decline facing their church. Even with an increase in diocesan giving of 25 percent (by no means a certainty) and adding money from the United Thank Offering and investment income, revenues….against anticipated expenditures….show a nearly 17 percent shortfall. The Joint Committee on Program and Budget had been meeting all summer to attempt the apparently impossible—the gap seemed unbridgeable and the decline in giving seemed to signal a spiritual exhaustion throughout the church…
Now take a guess at when it was written, then follow this link and read the rest of the article and what followed.
A great reminder that we can overcome all things with God on our side.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Analyzing Rowan
The sun is out today. Finally! Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury published a reflection on the actions of the 2009 General Convention. Here are but a few words from the larger writing found here....
1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the 'Covenant for a Communion in Mission' as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.
2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.
3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.
Archbishop Williams then goes onto say some very disturbing things about how gays and lesbians ought to be treated in the Church. Things that contradict in very harsh terms the positive statements he has made about the place of gays and lesbians in the Church in the years before he became Archbishop. I will not try to argue or explain the changes he has made--he must do that on his own--but I would like to reprint part of an analysis about +Rowan's statement...
Now again, Williams is a smart man. If he fails to nuance any of this, he does so willingly and willfully. It is not choice that bothers, but what Williams leaves unsaid (the nuance) and what he then goes on to say (the consequences) in drawing his conclusions. No, if he fails to nuance, he does so purposely. I can only conclude that he chooses to tell half-truths about us and our lives. And to justify his own behavior toward us. And that his pitch is meant to denigrate even to lie about us (for that is finally what half-truths do—they lie), throwing about as he does tired themes about gay and lesbian persons that do not fit either the evidence, nor the stereotypes (or even his own former writings and their recognition of such nuance, including that marriage is no guarantor of Christian virtue). That is all to say, Rowan Williams knows better. He knows this is not how we understand ourselves, and neither does the best dispassionate research findings or those who get to know us as persons in relationships. And that makes his words morally culpable, indeed, guilty of Christ's flesh by taking swipes at the lgbt members of His Body--members who are quite vulnerable in most parts of the world, including in Williams' own corner, the United Kingdom, where hate crimes against lgbt persons are a regular feature in lgbt news feeds there. And knowing better, Williams is morally culpable. To use the Lord’s Name to justify all of this, indeed, to suggest that God is on his side in treating lgbt persons like this in the Body, is damnable.
This is a must read if you are interested in what has gone on at General Convention and global reaction to it. Christopher's reflection is a powerful piece 0f writing, and it can be read in its entirety here...
1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the 'Covenant for a Communion in Mission' as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.
2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.
3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.
Archbishop Williams then goes onto say some very disturbing things about how gays and lesbians ought to be treated in the Church. Things that contradict in very harsh terms the positive statements he has made about the place of gays and lesbians in the Church in the years before he became Archbishop. I will not try to argue or explain the changes he has made--he must do that on his own--but I would like to reprint part of an analysis about +Rowan's statement...
Now again, Williams is a smart man. If he fails to nuance any of this, he does so willingly and willfully. It is not choice that bothers, but what Williams leaves unsaid (the nuance) and what he then goes on to say (the consequences) in drawing his conclusions. No, if he fails to nuance, he does so purposely. I can only conclude that he chooses to tell half-truths about us and our lives. And to justify his own behavior toward us. And that his pitch is meant to denigrate even to lie about us (for that is finally what half-truths do—they lie), throwing about as he does tired themes about gay and lesbian persons that do not fit either the evidence, nor the stereotypes (or even his own former writings and their recognition of such nuance, including that marriage is no guarantor of Christian virtue). That is all to say, Rowan Williams knows better. He knows this is not how we understand ourselves, and neither does the best dispassionate research findings or those who get to know us as persons in relationships. And that makes his words morally culpable, indeed, guilty of Christ's flesh by taking swipes at the lgbt members of His Body--members who are quite vulnerable in most parts of the world, including in Williams' own corner, the United Kingdom, where hate crimes against lgbt persons are a regular feature in lgbt news feeds there. And knowing better, Williams is morally culpable. To use the Lord’s Name to justify all of this, indeed, to suggest that God is on his side in treating lgbt persons like this in the Body, is damnable.
This is a must read if you are interested in what has gone on at General Convention and global reaction to it. Christopher's reflection is a powerful piece 0f writing, and it can be read in its entirety here...
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Messin' Around with the Saints...
I am reprinting John Robison's recent blog entry here...(I pray he doesn't mind as I haven't asked permission.) Hopefully our mutual Portsmouth connection will put him in a forgiving mood for this liberty on my part. His comments about the proposed "Holy Women, Holy Men," coming before General Convention is a must read before this is considered...Please take time to read it all....Blessed feasts of blessed martyrs,
holy women, holy men,
with affection’s recollections
greet we your return again.
Worthy deeds they wrought, and wonders,
worthy of the Name they bore;
we, with meetest praise and sweetest,
honor them for evermore.
12th-century Latin text,translated John Mason Neale
#238, The Hymnal 1982
The 2006 General Convention, meeting in Columbus, voted to approve an "A" resolution from the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music (SCLM) to substantially revise the Lesser Feats and Fasts book, the "sanctoral" or "Book of Saints" the Episcopal Church uses for it's, well Lesser Feasts. They then produced (as one member put it a tad condescendingly put it) what "General Convention wanted." They have proposed a massive reorganization of the Book, complete with a new name "Holy Women, Holy Men," based off of the lyric quoted above. It is comprised of 112 additions, several adjustments, but no subtractions. I was surprised by and then a bit turned off by the size of the change, but decided to focus my thoughts into one or two spots. I also kept many of my reflections to myself as I watched the discussion unfold on the blogosphere and the HoB/D list.
The response has been mixed. The Establishment Left of TEC has received this, predictably, with open arms. The Conservatives were equally predictable in their rejection. Apparently, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" has been amended to end with "in a predictably automatic way according to camp." The rest of us, many of whom you will note over at the side of your screen, were mixed in our reactions. I had several little things that stuck in my craw, some of that will be below. Other people had other issues. So, after a while, I went through and I googled a few of the names I was unfamiliar with. I was underwhelmed by most but one or two stood out as particularly good and others as bad. What kept coming to me was the question of why so many, and why some of the people chosen. Rather than indulge in to overly wrought a discursive essay, I'll simply list and briefly explain some of my problems.
1. Saint John of the Cross: This is the most complicated of my objections, so I list it first. I'll start with my general queasy feeling towards "San Juan de la Cruz" being listed in the book. If we were to take the time to list any other saint by their native name it wouldn't bother me as much. As it is, it is just a precious little addition to make the whole mess more "multi-cultural." Second, the date, November 24th, given on the Calendar for John is unexplained. Admittedly, back in the mists of time that was the date for John's commemoration. His death date is December 14th, that is his commemoration in the Roman Catholic and other Western Churches. In the 19th century his day interfered with the octave of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and so was moved to the day that he joined the Carmelites as John of St Mathias. In the 1950's Rome saw that as silly and moved him back to his first date of commemoration. Why then do we put him there? Even the Church of England commemorates him in December. I would guess that this date matches Ye Olde Kalendar in the Anglican Breviary, one of the many Anglo-Catholic books which has enshrined the 19th Century as the epitome of the Churchs' life and history. No doubt that was one of the reasons, but I'll not lay money on it. Now, there is a perfectly good person in HWHM, Henry Budd, one of the first Anglican Religious in the US, if not the Communion. My question would be though, why not commemorate him on a date of "event" and not put John in his place with the rest of the Church? This isn't just a question of being picky for it's own sake, but rather for the sake of continuity, or dare I say, Catholicity. (I'll also add that I think the collect is trite and precious.)
2. John Muir: He was an agnostic if not an atheist. To be more exact he was raised in the Church of Scotland then in one of the Cambelite sects because his father didn't think that the CoS was keeping it real enough. Later in life he would reject the concept of God all together "as purely a manufactured article as any puppet of a half-penney theater." How is he an example to the Faithful? He is rammed rather uncomfortably in with Archdeacon Hudson Stuck who was an old time social reformer type and outdoors-man. He helped climb Mount McKinley and was active in passing labor laws and teaching discipleship as caring for one another. I haven't found much that identifies the good Archdeacon as an Environmentalist, but my research is incomplete. What I find objectionable is that a faithful Christian is given second billing to a man who had no such faith, no matter how admirable he may be otherwise.
3. Charles, King and Martyr: This is a reverse objection to the one above, but they are connected. Why, after all this time, do we not include him on our calendar? He is present as a feast on the calendars of many of the other Anglican Churches in the World, and he was a Christian faithful to the catholic faith he had received. He died, in no small part, because he refused to compromise on the good order of the Church and was executed by the Puritans because of it. That there is no room on our calendar for him, but there is for Muir is I indicative of part of the trouble. You see Muir is popular with the "cool kids" of the Establishment in TEC, but Charles II is not.
4. The Amazingly Elastic Standards: Here are the standards of inclusion on the Calendar as outlined in 2006. Here they are for the new book. Now, using the standards as given there why would, say Muir, a Cambelite Agnostic/Atheist get recognized when Charles II isn't? I'm being deadly serious here. Are we to assume that the Sierra Club is now a devotional society of TEC? Are we to discount the Anglican credentials of Charles and the fact that he has a devoted society that has lobbied for him, as well as a well defined devotion dedicated to his memory? This is just one example of the "cool kids" making a decision and roling with it. I could list Barth, Fannie Crosby, or Kierkegarrd as example of other faithful Christians who seem to not fill in all the criteria for the calendar but are there and people like Laud, Church, Charlotte Young, or Auber are not.
5. Those Who Have Left Us: HWHM adds three names that stood up and slapped me when I saw them. John Henry Newman, GK Chesterton, and Elizabeth Anne Seaton all left the Anglican faith for "greener pastures" in the Bark of Peter. I am deeply ambivalent about this, in particular with Chesterton who could be very sardonic about Anglicanism. Newman requires his own post.
A bit later I'll expand upon what I mean by "The Cool Kids" and my feelings about the elitism that runs around in our Church.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
All Saints' Sister leave TEC
This news makes me sad....
After an intensive, years-long period of prayer and discernment, the order of All Saints Sisters of the Poor will be received into the Roman Catholic Church by the Archbishop of Baltimore on Sept. 3.
“We are very sorry for any pain that this move might cause our friends,” said the Rev. Mother Christina, superior of the order, told The Living Church. “But everyone must try to follow where they feel God is leading them.
The All Saints Sisters of the Poor are the American Branch of a society founded in England, according to information on a website maintained by the order. They were invited to Baltimore in 1872 by the rector of Mount Calvary Church, Baltimore, a congregation which has continued to maintain strong ties to the sisters. The Rev. Jason Catania, rector of Mount Calvary, said he was aware of the impending move, and that the congregation would “continue to consider them part of the extended church family.”
“We tried to be faithful in The Episcopal Church as we understand scriptures, but we seem to be drifting farther and farther apart,” she said. “For the past two years in particular we felt as if we were no longer making a difference in this church. We felt as if we no longer belong.”
I know the sisters are being very prayerful in this decision and I wish them all the best. But for me, this is another example of how the modern cultural tendency of viewing relationships in a consumerist way (i.e. if relationships are not meeting my needs they are disposable) has co-opted the church in matters of settling internal conflicts. We are becoming too comfortable with the habit of walking away when we disagree...and worse yet viewing fellow Christians with suspicion if they are not exactly in agreement with us. My conservative friends will call me naive for this, countering that docrtinal purity is one of the most important concerns of the modern Church. Oh well. In the end, I think God will judge us just as much on how we conduct ourselves when we disagree as He will on what doctrine we hold.
Read the whole story here.
After an intensive, years-long period of prayer and discernment, the order of All Saints Sisters of the Poor will be received into the Roman Catholic Church by the Archbishop of Baltimore on Sept. 3.
“We are very sorry for any pain that this move might cause our friends,” said the Rev. Mother Christina, superior of the order, told The Living Church. “But everyone must try to follow where they feel God is leading them.
The All Saints Sisters of the Poor are the American Branch of a society founded in England, according to information on a website maintained by the order. They were invited to Baltimore in 1872 by the rector of Mount Calvary Church, Baltimore, a congregation which has continued to maintain strong ties to the sisters. The Rev. Jason Catania, rector of Mount Calvary, said he was aware of the impending move, and that the congregation would “continue to consider them part of the extended church family.”
“We tried to be faithful in The Episcopal Church as we understand scriptures, but we seem to be drifting farther and farther apart,” she said. “For the past two years in particular we felt as if we were no longer making a difference in this church. We felt as if we no longer belong.”
I know the sisters are being very prayerful in this decision and I wish them all the best. But for me, this is another example of how the modern cultural tendency of viewing relationships in a consumerist way (i.e. if relationships are not meeting my needs they are disposable) has co-opted the church in matters of settling internal conflicts. We are becoming too comfortable with the habit of walking away when we disagree...and worse yet viewing fellow Christians with suspicion if they are not exactly in agreement with us. My conservative friends will call me naive for this, countering that docrtinal purity is one of the most important concerns of the modern Church. Oh well. In the end, I think God will judge us just as much on how we conduct ourselves when we disagree as He will on what doctrine we hold.
Read the whole story here.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Holy Thursday
Having no oil aumbry at All Saints', I have been keeping the sacred chrism in the Tabernacle with the consecrated host...I haven't thought much about this until this afternoon when I discovered an article by Fr John Hunwicke, who is Priest-in-Charge of St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House. His article has nothing to do really with why I should or should not continue the practice, but I thought it interesting nonetheless...In antiquity, the Bishop of Rome used to send a fragment of the Host, each Sunday, to each of the presbyters of the Roman title churches as a sign of his Communio with them ... and of his own Eucharistic presidency. It was commingled with the chalice at the Fraction; the origin, in fact, of the Commixture which has bravely survived Bugnini and still exists even in the Ordinary Form.
A little while ago, Bishop Andrew reminded us that it is not good enough just to have any old validly consecrated Chrism around; the Chrism in fact functions now as a expression and diagnostic of Communio. The C of E never has had proper incardination; the Tudor Establishment preserved the old medieval bureaucratic legalities (Gregory Dix liked to point out that the Church of England is riddled with more unreformed medievalisms than any other body in Christendom). But whose oils one uses in the radically liminal rites of Initiation shows which Bishop one is a presbyter of.
Sometimes our Traditionalist English bishops refer to their clergy as "Clergy who look to me". Perhaps a crisper, more theological, more sacramental, formula would be "Clergy who receive my Chrism".
I think it's a good point. 'Whose Chrism' is so much better an indication of a presbyter's ecclesial location than legal pieces of paper like licences. Chrism, after all, is not about lawyers but about the sacramental structure of Christ's Church.
On Tuesday past, Priests from all over the diocese received chrism from Bishop Breidenthal to take back to the parishes and missions...Just got me thinking on this Holy Thursday when we talk about being connect in the Eucharistic feast...
Monday, April 06, 2009
Bishop of Bethlehem PA on Northern Michigan
Bishop Paul Marshall responds to the election in Northern Michigan...
As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock. Not because we welcome lesbian and gay people, and carry on social ministries that enact the sacrifice of Christ on a corporate basis, and certainly not because of our latitude and the conversation it engenders. We are a laughing stock because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core, words as simple as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
Increasingly it seems that the Cross has become foolishness in the Church, and our former hallmark teaching of the Incarnation is seldom heard, and less seldom heard to matter. If our embarrassment is going to end, the voices of bishops as clear, traditional, and powerful evangelists need to be raised in the churches and in the market place. Many bishops find a number of techniques that come from the social sciences useful in their ministries, and have significant investment in Eastern meditation -- their qualification to be bishops, however, is as the chief confessors of the creeds and presidents at the sacraments. They are to be unambiguously ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through them...
Read it all here...
As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock. Not because we welcome lesbian and gay people, and carry on social ministries that enact the sacrifice of Christ on a corporate basis, and certainly not because of our latitude and the conversation it engenders. We are a laughing stock because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core, words as simple as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
Increasingly it seems that the Cross has become foolishness in the Church, and our former hallmark teaching of the Incarnation is seldom heard, and less seldom heard to matter. If our embarrassment is going to end, the voices of bishops as clear, traditional, and powerful evangelists need to be raised in the churches and in the market place. Many bishops find a number of techniques that come from the social sciences useful in their ministries, and have significant investment in Eastern meditation -- their qualification to be bishops, however, is as the chief confessors of the creeds and presidents at the sacraments. They are to be unambiguously ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through them...
Read it all here...
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Bishop Breidenthal's response to the Northern Michigan election
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I am writing to inform you of my decision not to consent to the consecration of Kevin Thew Forrester as Bishop of Northern Michigan. I did not want to make a public statement before I shared my concerns with the Standing Committee. I was able to do this at their meeting last Friday, March 27.
Two subjects have arisen as matters of concern in the wider discussion of consent for this Bishop-elect. I want to be clear that these matters have not contributed to my refusal of consent.
First, the internal process which led to Bishop-elect Thew Forrester's election. In my view, it violated no canons, and, although I have questions about it, these have not entered into my decision to withhold consent. Second, some have voiced concern that Bishop-elect Thew Forrester has been recognized by the Zen Buddhist community as one who practices Zen Buddhist meditation in an exemplary fashion and accepts the basic ethical principles of Buddhism. I have no problem with this. Many Christians have deepened their own faith through Buddhist prayer practices, and in my view the moral framework of Buddhism is largely consonant with that of Judaism and Christianity.
But obviously I do have concerns. These concerns lie closer to home. My own reading of Bishop-elect Thew Forrester's sermons over the last year (these sermons were available on the website of his parish church, St. Paul's, Marquette, Michigan, as of March 16, but are no longer posted) reveals an understanding of the Christian narrative that is troubling to me. I have spoken about this with the Bishop-elect on the phone, and he has followed up with e-mails, but I remain troubled.
According to Thew Forrester, Jesus revealed in his own person the way that any of us can be at one with God, if only we can overcome the blindness that prevents us from recognizing our essential unity with God. The problem here is that the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so. As I read Thew Forrester, nothing stands between us and God but our own ignorance of our closeness to God. When our eyes are opened, atonement (not for our sins, but understood as a realization of our essential unity with God) is achieved. Thew Forrester's rejection of salvation understood as an atonement for sins we cannot procure for ourselves is not an idea he is merely exploring. In a very consistent manner, he is developing this idea. In materials he submitted to the House of Bishops earlier this month, he has shared with us his own revision of the Prayer Book rite for Holy Baptism, in which references to salvation are replaced with references to union with God.
Why is Thew Forrester's teaching troubling to me? Because it flies in the face of what I take to be the conviction at the heart of our faith tradition, namely, that we are in bondage to sin and cannot get free without the rescue God has offered us in Jesus, who shouldered our sins on the cross. Our tradition certainly declares God's closeness to us and God's love for us, but insists that this is solely due to God's gracious initiative, made known to us in Jesus. In other words, Jesus in his singular closeness to God is as much a reminder of our alienation from God and from God's ways as he is God's word to us that we are loved despite our collective wrongdoings.
I would not worry about this so much if Thew Forrester were merely speculating about alternative ways of understanding the Christian faith. I would not even worry so much if it were simply a matter of the content of a number of sermons (although I think we should expect to be accountable for what we preach). But, as his revision of the Baptismal rite makes clear, he appears to be settled in his conviction that our relation to Christ is not about salvation from a condition of objective alienation from God, but about a more realized union with God.
Some may say, "So what?" Should the Episcopal Church not allow as much latitude as possible when it comes to theological reflection on the meaning of Jesus in our lives? Yes, of course. We are a church that values a broad range of opinion on practically every subject. Yet our (unrevised) Baptismal liturgy (Book of Common Prayer, beginning at p. 299) is extremely clear about what it means to be a follower of Jesus: we are to turn to him - the same Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified and rose again and continues to invite us into a personal relationship with him - and accept him as Savior. Whatever else we have to say about Jesus follows from that (even though different people may end up saying quite different things).
I cannot emphasize enough that clarity about our relationship to Jesus through our baptism is especially important as we move on from the Lambeth Conference, where the bishops of the Episcopal Church pointed repeatedly to our Baptismal rite as evidence of our commitment to Jesus as Lord.
I write this with a heavy heart. Kevin Thew Forrester served as an assistant in the parish where some years earlier I was ordained a priest and served as an assistant. He has been raised up by a sister diocese in our own Province V, and I know how highly he is regarded there and what a blow it would be to the people of Northern Michigan if he were not to receive the requisite consents to be consecrated. But I also know that the Episcopal Church needs at this crucial juncture in the life of the Anglican Communion to be clear that all our hope is founded in the cross.
Faithfully,
+Tom Breidenthal
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio
I am writing to inform you of my decision not to consent to the consecration of Kevin Thew Forrester as Bishop of Northern Michigan. I did not want to make a public statement before I shared my concerns with the Standing Committee. I was able to do this at their meeting last Friday, March 27.
Two subjects have arisen as matters of concern in the wider discussion of consent for this Bishop-elect. I want to be clear that these matters have not contributed to my refusal of consent.
First, the internal process which led to Bishop-elect Thew Forrester's election. In my view, it violated no canons, and, although I have questions about it, these have not entered into my decision to withhold consent. Second, some have voiced concern that Bishop-elect Thew Forrester has been recognized by the Zen Buddhist community as one who practices Zen Buddhist meditation in an exemplary fashion and accepts the basic ethical principles of Buddhism. I have no problem with this. Many Christians have deepened their own faith through Buddhist prayer practices, and in my view the moral framework of Buddhism is largely consonant with that of Judaism and Christianity.
But obviously I do have concerns. These concerns lie closer to home. My own reading of Bishop-elect Thew Forrester's sermons over the last year (these sermons were available on the website of his parish church, St. Paul's, Marquette, Michigan, as of March 16, but are no longer posted) reveals an understanding of the Christian narrative that is troubling to me. I have spoken about this with the Bishop-elect on the phone, and he has followed up with e-mails, but I remain troubled.
According to Thew Forrester, Jesus revealed in his own person the way that any of us can be at one with God, if only we can overcome the blindness that prevents us from recognizing our essential unity with God. The problem here is that the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so. As I read Thew Forrester, nothing stands between us and God but our own ignorance of our closeness to God. When our eyes are opened, atonement (not for our sins, but understood as a realization of our essential unity with God) is achieved. Thew Forrester's rejection of salvation understood as an atonement for sins we cannot procure for ourselves is not an idea he is merely exploring. In a very consistent manner, he is developing this idea. In materials he submitted to the House of Bishops earlier this month, he has shared with us his own revision of the Prayer Book rite for Holy Baptism, in which references to salvation are replaced with references to union with God.
Why is Thew Forrester's teaching troubling to me? Because it flies in the face of what I take to be the conviction at the heart of our faith tradition, namely, that we are in bondage to sin and cannot get free without the rescue God has offered us in Jesus, who shouldered our sins on the cross. Our tradition certainly declares God's closeness to us and God's love for us, but insists that this is solely due to God's gracious initiative, made known to us in Jesus. In other words, Jesus in his singular closeness to God is as much a reminder of our alienation from God and from God's ways as he is God's word to us that we are loved despite our collective wrongdoings.
I would not worry about this so much if Thew Forrester were merely speculating about alternative ways of understanding the Christian faith. I would not even worry so much if it were simply a matter of the content of a number of sermons (although I think we should expect to be accountable for what we preach). But, as his revision of the Baptismal rite makes clear, he appears to be settled in his conviction that our relation to Christ is not about salvation from a condition of objective alienation from God, but about a more realized union with God.
Some may say, "So what?" Should the Episcopal Church not allow as much latitude as possible when it comes to theological reflection on the meaning of Jesus in our lives? Yes, of course. We are a church that values a broad range of opinion on practically every subject. Yet our (unrevised) Baptismal liturgy (Book of Common Prayer, beginning at p. 299) is extremely clear about what it means to be a follower of Jesus: we are to turn to him - the same Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified and rose again and continues to invite us into a personal relationship with him - and accept him as Savior. Whatever else we have to say about Jesus follows from that (even though different people may end up saying quite different things).
I cannot emphasize enough that clarity about our relationship to Jesus through our baptism is especially important as we move on from the Lambeth Conference, where the bishops of the Episcopal Church pointed repeatedly to our Baptismal rite as evidence of our commitment to Jesus as Lord.
I write this with a heavy heart. Kevin Thew Forrester served as an assistant in the parish where some years earlier I was ordained a priest and served as an assistant. He has been raised up by a sister diocese in our own Province V, and I know how highly he is regarded there and what a blow it would be to the people of Northern Michigan if he were not to receive the requisite consents to be consecrated. But I also know that the Episcopal Church needs at this crucial juncture in the life of the Anglican Communion to be clear that all our hope is founded in the cross.
Faithfully,
+Tom Breidenthal
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
In Response to Northern Michigan...
This is just for the folks in the Diocese of Southern Ohio. A few of us are going to encourage the Bishop and Standing Committee to vote no in response to the confirmation of Rev’d Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as the next Bishop of Northern Michigan. This is not meant to be snarky or mean spirited but an honest attempt to live in a community that is called to accountability one to another. If you agree with the contents of the letter and wish to be a signatory, please do so under the comments link at the bottom of this post.
February 24, 2009
To the Bishop Ordinary and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Southern Ohio
Rt. Reverend Sir, ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee,
We hope you will prayerful consider voting no to the confirmation of the Rev’d Kevin Thew Forrester as the next bishop of Northern Michigan. Our reasons for asking you to vote against this confirmation are rooted in two concerns; the process used in selecting candidates by the Diocese of Northern Michigan and the suitability of the candidate himself.
In regard to the process by which nominations were made, the committee charged with this task presented one candidate for election. On the surface, presenting a single candidate raises immediate issues about the transparency of this process. Why was a single candidate presented? Was no one else seen as qualified to stand for election? And of course the perception of this makes one wonder whether there is a small group of people trying to control the process.
Is there any precedent for requiring more than one candidate? Had the Diocese asked the House of Bishops to elect a bishop for them in lieu of holding a diocesan election, which is provided for in Canon III, paragraph 11, section 1b, the House of Bishops would have been required by national canon to present a minimum of three persons to stand for election. This begs the question, “if it is appropriate for the House of Bishops, why is it not appropriate for the Diocese of Northern Michigan?”
Regarding Rev’d. Forrester’s suitability, he is on record as being both a practicing Zen Buddhist who received lay Buddhist ordination and a Christian. Whereas these two faith traditions may not be mutually exclusive to one another in the life of a lay person, the vows required of a Bishop in Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church exclude a person from being beholden to any other faith tradition save Christianity—no matter how complementary to Christianity other traditions might seem.
In the liturgy for the ordination of a Bishop, the candidate is first required to state their belief that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain all things necessary to salvation, and that they will conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church. If one takes this question seriously, does a person holding dual religious allegiances forswear themselves upon making this declaration? Later in the service, the candidate is required to affirm, “Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.” Again, is this possible if one holds to two faith traditions simultaneously? Finally, the candidate is asked if they will the guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church. Can this be done with integrity when one qualifies their response to the affirmation by claiming to also follow another religious tradition?
We hope you keep this information in mind as you prayerfully consider voting no to the confirmation of the next bishop of Northern Michigan.
Your fellow servants,
Rev'd. Jeff Queen, Rector of All Saints', Portsmouth
Rev'd. Dave Halt, Rector of St. James, Westwood
Rev'd. Dr. David Bailey, Rector of St. Stephen's, Cincinnati
David Kern, Christ Church, Glendale
Lee Daily, All Saints', Portsmouth
Vicki Daily, All Saints', Portsmouth
Adelaide Leitzel, Christ Church Glendale
Shannon Walker, St. George, Dayton
February 24, 2009
To the Bishop Ordinary and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Southern Ohio
Rt. Reverend Sir, ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee,
We hope you will prayerful consider voting no to the confirmation of the Rev’d Kevin Thew Forrester as the next bishop of Northern Michigan. Our reasons for asking you to vote against this confirmation are rooted in two concerns; the process used in selecting candidates by the Diocese of Northern Michigan and the suitability of the candidate himself.
In regard to the process by which nominations were made, the committee charged with this task presented one candidate for election. On the surface, presenting a single candidate raises immediate issues about the transparency of this process. Why was a single candidate presented? Was no one else seen as qualified to stand for election? And of course the perception of this makes one wonder whether there is a small group of people trying to control the process.
Is there any precedent for requiring more than one candidate? Had the Diocese asked the House of Bishops to elect a bishop for them in lieu of holding a diocesan election, which is provided for in Canon III, paragraph 11, section 1b, the House of Bishops would have been required by national canon to present a minimum of three persons to stand for election. This begs the question, “if it is appropriate for the House of Bishops, why is it not appropriate for the Diocese of Northern Michigan?”
Regarding Rev’d. Forrester’s suitability, he is on record as being both a practicing Zen Buddhist who received lay Buddhist ordination and a Christian. Whereas these two faith traditions may not be mutually exclusive to one another in the life of a lay person, the vows required of a Bishop in Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church exclude a person from being beholden to any other faith tradition save Christianity—no matter how complementary to Christianity other traditions might seem.
In the liturgy for the ordination of a Bishop, the candidate is first required to state their belief that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain all things necessary to salvation, and that they will conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church. If one takes this question seriously, does a person holding dual religious allegiances forswear themselves upon making this declaration? Later in the service, the candidate is required to affirm, “Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.” Again, is this possible if one holds to two faith traditions simultaneously? Finally, the candidate is asked if they will the guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church. Can this be done with integrity when one qualifies their response to the affirmation by claiming to also follow another religious tradition?
We hope you keep this information in mind as you prayerfully consider voting no to the confirmation of the next bishop of Northern Michigan.
Your fellow servants,
Rev'd. Jeff Queen, Rector of All Saints', Portsmouth
Rev'd. Dave Halt, Rector of St. James, Westwood
Rev'd. Dr. David Bailey, Rector of St. Stephen's, Cincinnati
David Kern, Christ Church, Glendale
Lee Daily, All Saints', Portsmouth
Vicki Daily, All Saints', Portsmouth
Adelaide Leitzel, Christ Church Glendale
Shannon Walker, St. George, Dayton
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A Good Sermon
Take the time to listen to this sermon on the healing of Simon Peter's mother-in-law from the Very Rev'd. Kelvin Holdsworth, Provost of St. Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow.
...Notwithstanding the fact that I believe in a progressive society, we still have our demons. The demon of Sectarianism still stalks this city and I suspect may be on the rise. The demon of anti-Semitism rears its head hanging on the coat-tails of an ugly war against the people of Gaza. The demon twins Xenophobia and Racism are nothing new and not too difficult to recognise – but I fear the danger that they will grow stronger and fitter as they feed off the bitter pickings of economic recession and fiscal gloom.
Notwithstanding the fact that I work in an open, inclusive congregation, I know that the demon Homophobia is still so fit and well in the church that we have learned to live with it as though it is normal. Anti-gay attitudes and prejudices are the unwelcome guests at every Anglican table and have been promoted even this week by the international meeting of Primates of the Anglican Communion. Such things have become so familiar that we are in danger of learning how to live with them. Such accommodation is an accommodation with evil....
Read or listen to the sermon here.
...Notwithstanding the fact that I believe in a progressive society, we still have our demons. The demon of Sectarianism still stalks this city and I suspect may be on the rise. The demon of anti-Semitism rears its head hanging on the coat-tails of an ugly war against the people of Gaza. The demon twins Xenophobia and Racism are nothing new and not too difficult to recognise – but I fear the danger that they will grow stronger and fitter as they feed off the bitter pickings of economic recession and fiscal gloom.
Notwithstanding the fact that I work in an open, inclusive congregation, I know that the demon Homophobia is still so fit and well in the church that we have learned to live with it as though it is normal. Anti-gay attitudes and prejudices are the unwelcome guests at every Anglican table and have been promoted even this week by the international meeting of Primates of the Anglican Communion. Such things have become so familiar that we are in danger of learning how to live with them. Such accommodation is an accommodation with evil....
Read or listen to the sermon here.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Primates gather in Egypt...
The first day of the Primates Meeting in Alexandria has ended with the dedication of St. Mark's pro-Cathedral and the installation of new dean, the Very Revd. Samy Fawzy Shehata.In an often moving service the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by dean Samy who translated the Sermon in Arabic, spoke of the importance of recognizing the God’s presence in the St Mark’s.
"As we dedicate this cathedral we ought to be praying that this is a place where Jesus is alive. When we step into this church and experience Jesus' life of prayer, it changes the way we see things.
The Archbishop also spoke of the importance of recognizing the holiness of prayer in others.
"The person praying next to me is a person in whom Jesus is praying….try to see the force of energy of Jesus' life in them. When I diminish them, I am in danger of destroying Jesus' voice in them."
"The person praying next to me is a person in whom Jesus is praying….try to see the force of energy of Jesus' life in them. When I diminish them, I am in danger of destroying Jesus' voice in them."
Read the enitre article here.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
New Bishop on YouTube
Although this is not local, I thought it was an interesting way to meet a new Bishop in the Church. Take a look and see what you think about a new purple shirt from across the pond.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Always a current crisis
We often suffer from the tyranny of the immediate in the Anglican Communion. This is the case in most institutions when they either forget or ignore the central mission. They lose focus and suddenly become consumed in what ever is immediate. Our current crisis surrounds the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church. And this crisis is often divided into the liberals versus the conservatives. Mark Oakley offers another way to look at what is going on in a recent article in the Church Times...
The division, however, is not really between conservatives and liberals at all. It is much more serious than that. It is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case.
Read the entire article here.
The division, however, is not really between conservatives and liberals at all. It is much more serious than that. It is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case.
Read the entire article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)