RECENT COMMENTS
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 1:33 am [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
Look on the bright side of 1662 - with the departure of over 2,000 ministers, Charles II realised that danger levels were being reached. At first the moderate Puritans had been welcomed, then there had been the requirement to assent to infant baptism (and little else), then the requirement for the oath. The moderates like Baxter counselled conformity to these things.
But in 1662 the bar was set higher, and some moderates like Baxter wouldn’t go any further. Many still did of course, and that was the point Charles II understood - if he permitted Laudian practices to be made mandatory, he risked alienating many more within the Church of England. And behind most of these ministers was a congregation, so it wasn’t just a few thousand.
1662 really represents part of the settling process where each side started to draw back from further confrontation (not that I would push that analogy too far of course!)
Charles II above all was determined never to go to the block like his father. He understood that ‘divine right of kings’ was dead, and his main value was as a balance point between disparate forces. To illustrate: Many years later Charles went out to calm rioters in London. His brother expresssed fear that someone might shoot at the king. Charles responded: “never fear James, no-one will ever shoot me to make you king”!
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 1:25 am [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
“After ++Laud’s and King Charles the First’s executions, I don’t fault the CofE one bit for coming down hard on the Puritans.”
Some of us don’t shed any tears over Laud and Charles I. One was a fool and the other corrupt. Laud through ineptitude almost lost episcopacy from the Church of England, and Charles cared for no point of doctrine so much as extending the power of the monarchy to the limits (or lack thereof) it had enjoyed in the time of Henry VIII. The English Civil War could have been avoided by a smarter and more honest King.
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 1:19 am [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
“Second, even stranger is the claim buried in the final paragraph, where in describing the United Reformed Church to Anglicans, this misleading statement is made:
“Worldwide, more than 80 million Christians are members of the Reformed family of Churches, making it the largest Protestant tradition.””
Good point, however I doubt that the Baptists and Pentecostals are shaking in their shoes. Nor should Anglicans be worried – Anglicanism has always held that there is more than one manifestation of the Catholic Church on earth, so the prospect of 80 million Anglicans, 80 Million Reformed thingys (‘Reformites’? ‘Reformwegians’?) and many more Baptists and Pentesis cause only for praise. It all works to the greater glory of God.
“Think of poor John Bunyan, as a young Baptist pastor, languishing in jail for years (and writing his immortal classic tale Pilgrim’s Progress there), all because he conscientiously refused to conform to the ways of the CoE.”
You must admit though that the result was very edifying. :o)
“What was wrong was to ban all rival forms of church organization, doctrine, and worship by throwing rival preachers into jail, fining people for non-conformity, requiring subscription to the 39 Articles in order to get a degree from Oxford or Cambrige or hold a public office, etc.”
Yes it was wrong, but more importantly, it was ineffective. 1662 laid the groundwork for what we see today, where the adherents of those ejected ministers far outnumber the adherents of those who stayed.
Not to worry, the Lord calls us to work for His kingdom, not our denomination!
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 12:52 am [comment link]
From the entry: Rowan Williams pays tribute to both the Queen and her father at General Synod
“At the forefront of our minds here are the Christmas broadcasts in which Her Majesty has spoken of her own faith in the importance of Jesus Christ for the world.”
Yes, a lot of people noticed them! I am glad to see that her own bishops have noticed them also.
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 12:50 am [comment link]
From the entry: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori invited to Anglican Provinces throughout Asia
I remember her great tour Down Under in 2010. She was invited to preach at ONE rather obscure parish in Brisbane.
There are five metropolitan Archbishops in Australia and none of them asked her to speak at their cathedrals or any major event. The Primate (++Aspinall) in his mercy gave her one small gig and then bundled her on her way. She’s just an embarrassment.
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 12:44 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Telegraph) Peter Mullen--Let us pray for those against women bishops
A courageous article by Rev. Peter Mullen.
A liberal himself, he understands that the victory which the extremist liberals in CofE are pushing for will rebound on them. I suspect ++Williams understands this also.
As Rev. Mullen points out, this current movement for women bishops in CofE adopts a ‘take no prisoners’ approach. The problem with doing that, is that you force your opponents to be resolute. If the liberals will not permit any compromise, then eventually neither will the orthodox.
Either the liberal activists will be entirely rooted out of the Church of England, or they will gain complete control, but with another Anglican polity alongside. Unfortunately no compromise that will allow both to co-exist in the same church is possible, and that is not our choice but theirs.
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 12:32 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
At least its good to see that these issues are being placed in the public eye. It is becoming evidence to everyone involved that there is no compromise possible between liberals like Ms Hudson-Wilkin and the orthodox.
I agree with those above that she is clearly not fit to be a bishop, even if female bishops were permitted.
Pray that the Lord will guide what happens in His Providence, to work for the good of His people, regardless of the schemes of men.
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 12:25 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Telegraph) Archbishop Rowan Williams: assisted suicide could spell 'disaster'
Good on ++Williams. I have criticised him on various grounds and no doubt will do so again. But when he stands up for the Truth I will proudly stand next to him. Same for +Carlisle and anyone else who spoke against this report.
By MichaelA on February 8, 2012 at 12:10 am [comment link]
From the entry: California Roman Catholic Conference--Response to Proposition 8 Ruling
Well said by the Roman Catholic bishops.
By NoVA Scout on February 7, 2012 at 11:47 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Court Strikes Down Prohibition of marriage between two people of the same sex in California
The Circuit is not so “liberal” as it once was. However, it retains the distinction of a very high reversal rate. I had a spate of constitutional cases in that Circuit a few years ago. I joked with my opponents before oral argument that the reason arguments were so horrible in the Circuit was because both sides were trying to throw the case in order to be the loser when the Supreme Court weighed in.
This is a split decision in that there is a cogent dissent. In such a situation, I think there is merit in an appeal to the Court sitting en banc. It’s not required, but I would not consider it a futile act.
By Jill Woodliff on February 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
I, too, agree that our cultural understanding of Christian marriage as a covenantal vocation is lacking. The divorce rate among Christians is a travesty.
There is a certain irony in quoting Marvin Ellison in providing supportive materials for same-sex marriage.
By Ad Orientem on February 7, 2012 at 8:21 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music
We had something like that… 1500 years ago. His name was St. John Chrysostom.
Liturgy: If it aint broke, don’t fix it.
By Ad Orientem on February 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Court Strikes Down Prohibition of marriage between two people of the same sex in California
James
You beat me to the point of my comment. The 9th Circuit is so notoriously liberal that if the world were flat they would be in imminent danger of falling off the leftward edge. This decision was highly predictable. Point in fact, I would have been shocked if it had gone the other way.
By Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on February 7, 2012 at 7:17 pm [comment link]
From the entry: 11th CAPA Council Meeting - Day 1
Partners and observers from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office, the Anglican Alliance, the Anglican Communion Office, USPG, United Thank Offering, Netsforlife, Trinity Church, TEC, CMS Africa, Christian Aid, and ECoH were introduced.
Mostly the same people with different organisational labels attached. Frankly the fact that CAPA is issuing its bulletins though ACNS tells you everything you probably need to know about the intentions of some for this meeting.
By Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on February 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
I think that the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin misses the point. The reason she does so is that she has not understood the theological problems from the Anglo-Catholic end, instead relying on arguments based on justice and equal rights. Indeed there is no reason why she should have done so - the only reason I have some idea is because I have made the effort to find out what they are. She misses the point that if under the Anglo-Catholic [and it has to be said the Roman Catholic and Orthodox] understanding, if the episcopal authority is itself in question, then delegating that authority really does not help. To understand all this it is worth reading the excellent Rochester Report. I had a discussion of what the problems are in this thread - and it is worth trying to understand even if, like me, you come from an evangelical/prayer book background with no particular objection to women’s ministry at any end [although considerable doubts about those being lined up as the first women bishops].
I hadn’t really intended to comment until after the votes but in case there is anything I can contribute:
1. We are not deciding these matters in isolation. The Ordinariate is here as a direct response to Synod’s actions a while back. Moreover, AMiE is here as well, so Synod’s decisions will impact the future of Anglicanism in the UK in addition to perhaps making people feel unwelcome.
2. The reality is that it will take a 2/3 majority in each house of bishops, clergy and laity for the Measure to come in at a final vote. This level has never to date been achieved in any of the votes on women bishops. If acceptable provision is not provided, the possibility of the measure reaching that bar will prove even more remote.
3. Outside the Church of England, many eyes across the Communion and the wider Christian world are watching us to see how we deal with this. Our position has been damaged in many peoples’ eyes by past votes, and this vote is both a potential difficulty, but also an opportunity for us to show others the best and the most creative that we can be.
4. There is a specific problem with the Code being discussed today which just occured to me listening to the bishop’s answers this afternoon. The bishop suggested that although the code was not enforceable within itself, judicial review by the high court could be applied for in the case of a decision of a bishop not to grant alternative requests for oversight. One or two potential women bishop have in writing said that they regard a request as not to be taken at face value, but rather a starting point for ‘discussion’ with the parish. There are a number of practical problems with this: the cost of judicial review is prohibitive - it will require a parish to brief lawyers and counsel at a cost of not less than £5,000 and possibly in a contested application up to £50,000 - few parishes have such resources even to repair roofs, let alone spend on legal fees; if the parish loses, the bishop could get an award of the bishops legal fees against them; the bishop, although likely to be closely scrutinised on his conduct will almost certainly be entitled to have his legal fees underwritten by the Church Commissioners as his/her decision will be in the course of his office while the parish is left fighting a bishop with a backer with billions behind him; lastly for the church to send its disputes to Court is not only unbiblical, it could have unwelcome and unforeseen results for the whole church through placing such decisions in secular hands if for example current equality legislation or as yet unknown future legislation is applied by the judges to church matters. I think we all should be chary of this as a way forward.
Finally I would say that we do have a history of balance and of creative solutions, so I am not going to prejudge what will happen this Synod, but will pray that we deal with these matters as Christians, waiting on and for one another, and providing an example of how the CofE and the British can rise to the challenges we deal with.
It is also worth remembering the words, perhaps even instructions, of our Supreme Governor [and whose 60th anniversary of Accession we celebrated yesterday] at the opening of Synod last year, in which HM quoted from the verses which closed the Rochester Report:
I therefore, a prisoner of the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
(Ephesians 4.1-4)
By jamesw on February 7, 2012 at 6:16 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Court Strikes Down Prohibition of marriage between two people of the same sex in California
The Anglican Curmudgeon provides an excellent analysis of the decision. He pens a most apt conclusion to his thoughts:
The Ninth Circuit is the court whose decisions are most frequently reversed by the United States Supreme Court, and Judge Reinhardt is its most frequently reversed judge. But that does not stop him from continuing to try to enact his liberal views into rules that all must observe. This decision surely marks the height of his hubris.
I would guess that the Proposition 8 defenders will seek an immediate appeal to the USSC (not sure if they are required to seek an en banc appeal in the 9th Circuit first) and then this will probably depend largely on Justice Kennedy.
By jkc1945 on February 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Newsweek) Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World
I am curious - - in what possible way is this “an unrecognized battle?” The Muslims have said it out loud, they have declared it through their websites and through bullhorns, they continue to say it, often and firmly. Islam will inevitably rule the world, they tell us, and “the infidel” will die. The Koran says it, several times. Oh sure, so-called “moderate Muslims” tell us that is an unfair reading of the Koran, but for heaven’s sake, how does one ‘unfairly’ read something that is so very, very clear?
Unrecognized? Maybe so, but we had darn well better recognize it, pretty soon, or the day will be upon us.
By Ad Orientem on February 7, 2012 at 5:07 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
Th irony is so thick one could cut it with a knife. The CofE repenting of the Great Ejectment (yes that’s archaic English) even as it lays the groundwork for a new one.
By Ad Orientem on February 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
I would never cheer heresy. But in this case I concur that what we are seeing is creative destruction. Lincoln once observed that a house divided can not stand. Such is the Anglican Communion. That house is now collapsing. All the fudging in the world can paper over fundamental differences on doctrine for only so long.
It will be interesting to see what emerges from the rubble.
By Br. Michael on February 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
3, absolutely. What then is the point of marriage both in the Church and in the state? Why is it important that two (or more) enter into a covenant at all? Both the courts and the Church have dispensed with children has having anything to do with it, so again what is the point?
Why should couples (or more) get any benefits that singles don’t get? Why this discrimination and unequal treatment of singles living together?
By Ad Orientem on February 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Rowan Williams pays tribute to both the Queen and her father at General Synod
God Save The Queen!
By Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on February 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Telegraph) Peter Mullen--Let us pray for those against women bishops
and on Fulcrum here
We would appreciate your prayers for our Synod and our church.
By frreed on February 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
I actually agree with him about the lack of understanding Christian marriage as a covenantal vocation. Sacramental marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. The western (American) marriage has become, as Johnson’s post suggests, a rite of passage at best, but more realistically it has become a fornication license. It relieves the participants of the burden of “living in sin”. Far too many churches marry far too many couples in 15 minute ceremony that meets the legal requirements and provides a nice photo op before the all important reception.
Ask most people if they had any premarital counseling. Most will say no. How many of them were instructed on the nature of Christian marriage, by the officiant before the service? I would guess very few. How many shared the Eucharist as their first act as husband and wife? You know the answer to that.
The nature of marriage as sacrament and covenant has been abandoned by much of western Christianity. Ironically, it is this abandonment that has led us to the point where marriage can mean whatever we want it to mean. When we fail to defend the Truth…
By jamesw on February 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
If marriage is now just about entering into a “covenantal life long relationship”, then why should this be restricted to two persons who are “in love”? Multiple parties can form covenantal relationships, as can siblings, children with parents, employer/employee, etc. Perhaps we can simply do away with marriages altogether and simply add a “Blessing of the Covenants” day to go along with “Blessing of the Animals”.
By Undergroundpewster on February 7, 2012 at 3:38 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
Whenever many words are needed to describe a simple concept, watch out.
I thought I used to understand what marriage was, but I must have been young and foolish. Having read all the Episcobabble on the subject produced over the past several years has made me realize that I am not supposed to understand what they are talking about when the word marriage or vocational convenantal relationship comes up.
I am much better off now that I am confused.
I’ll agree to anything now.
Thank you Episcopal church.
By Archer_of_the_Forest on February 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm [comment link]
From the entry: (Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Blog) Jay Johnson--Called into Relationship
Oh, is that what we mean when we take wedding vows.
#facepalm
By New Reformation Advocate on February 7, 2012 at 3:14 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
P.S., just again to clarify my stand for the record, lest I be misconstrued. I think that Richard Baxter and John Bunyan were two of the greatest Christian leaders that England has ever had. And I think that the venerable old Westminster Confession of Faith (on which I was raised as a Presbyterian in a devout Calvinist family) is admirable as one of the greatest creeds or confessions of all time, i.e., admirable in its clarity and comprehensiveness, even if woefully wrong on crucial points (like double predestination, etc.). I admire and find comendable the zeal of the Puritans, and I’m sure that Baxter was a much better disciple of Christ and a much more effective pastor than the vast majority of non-Puritan Anglicans. Furthermore, Tom Righmyer’s compalint about Puritan intransigence is double-edged, for I freely grant that the Laudian party was virtually as intransigent. So who really started the fight? Who landed the first blow? Or does it not really matter??
The point is that Broad Church or Latitudinarian Anglicans love to point to the extreme turmoil and even bloodshed involved in the English Civil War as Exhibit A as to why religious “enthusiasm” or dogmatism and zeal is a “horrible, awful, no good, very bad” thing. Now as a passionate advocate of what I love to call “3-D Christianity,” i.e., evangelical, catholic, and charismatic, I too am opposed to any mindless, oversimplistic approach to Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship. I’m in fact highly paradoxical in my zeal for combining the evangelical or Protestant and the catholic dimensions of Christianity in a genuine synthesis that is greater than the sum of its parts. But in choosing to also endorse the charismatic dimension of Christianity, and by implicitly replacing the Broad Church party or tendency with the Pentecostal/charismatic one, I am indeed very deliberately taking an implicit stand against the anti-dogmatic strand in Anglicanism. I admit that I personally have no sympathy at all for Latitudinarianism, or the dogmatic opposition to dogmatism.
Just for the record and clarity’s sake. IOW, divisions are inevitable, but bitterness is optional. And resorting to persecution by the powers of the State is inexcusable today.
David Handy+
Unashamedly dogmatic and as fiery as ever
By New Reformation Advocate on February 7, 2012 at 2:52 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
Thanks as alwasy, evan, for the kind words (#3).
Tom (#4),
Well, you can never really turn the clock back, of course. Charles II couldn’t bring his father back to life, nor restore the status quo back around 1640 when Parliament invited him to return as monarch in 1660. Anglicanism itself had changed during the Interregnum, arguably for the better, by being forced into a minority position for a short while. That separated the sheep from the goats, so to speak: those genuinely committed to the Prayerbook tradition and episcopacy from those who supported Anglicanism for something other than religious reasons. Or to rephrase it another way, 1662 marks the final defeat of the Puritan attempt to remake the CoE in the style of the continental Reformed tradition.
But the fact is that the dissenters weren’t in agreement among themselves. Some of the revolutionaries who overthrew the monarchy and episcopacy were Presbyterians, like the illustrious group that drafted the Westminster Confession of 1646 and the associated Shorter and Larger Catechisms. Some were Congregationalists and yet believed in an established national church, and some Separatists or Baptists who opposed any kind of state church. After all, it was the great Puritan poet John Milton who fiercely objected to the new Presbyterian dominance with his devastating and scathing critique that:
“New presbyter is but old priest writ large.”
Tom, I wouldn’t agree that intransigence by one party justifies intransigence by the opposing party in return, but it does make it quite understandable, even predictable. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it’s certainly true that, historically speaking, Intransigence breeds intransigence. Oliver Cromwell was a brilliant general and an astute politician, but a lousy theologian. After he died in 1658, the deep fractures within Puritanism couldn’t be glossed over and ignored. His coalition fell apart without his heavy hand being there to sustain it.
As you know, Tom, as a good church historian, people who are willing to go off into exile and suffer signficantly for the sake of their religion tend to be zealots who make for bold and rather uncompromising leaders when they can return from exile and come to power. It was true with John Jewel, John Knox, and the early CoE leaders who sought refuge in Geneva, Strasburg, and elsewhere from bloody Queen Mary in the mid 1500s. It was also true with Jeremy Taylor and other “Caroline divines” who chose exile rather than conform to the militant Puritan order under Cromwell and Parliament in the mid 1600s. In both cases, the returning exiles weren’t prone to let their suffering be all in vain, but they were naturally determined to see their holy cause succeed, no matter what the cost (to others).
The remarkable thing, really, is that the bitter reaction against Puritanism within the CoE didn’t lead to more dramatic changes than it did in 1662. That is, there is not the slightest doubt that John Cosin and the high church party favored by King Charles II (following the example of his devout father who clearly favored ++Laud and his party) wanted to go much further in revising the BCP in a re-catholicizing fashion than they did. As it was, they were forced to accept rather minor revisions as a political and economic necessity. As a result, the classic 1662 book represents a rather incoherent compromise, essentially being the venerable old Cranmerian text, with Laudian, recatholicizing rubrics.
That motley mix bequeathed to us the ambiguous or paradoxical, but precious and rather balanced BCP that has endured as the Anglican standard to this very day, 350 years later. As the old (Puritan) adage goes. in his divine providence and inscrutable wisdom,
“God writes straight with (our) crooked lines.”
In closing, just for the record and as a follow up to my provocative earlier post, let me be clear about my rather over-heated, incendiary rhetoric above (i.e., about voting liberals off the Anglican Island, etc.). I wouldn’t be embarrassed or annoyed at all if my vehement and even violent language above were to be cited with glee by hardcore revisionists on such blogs as those run by Mark Harris, Elizabeth Keaton, Susan Russell, the HoB/HoD listserv, Tobias Haller, etc. As extreme, fanatical, and divisive as my controversial remarks may seem, I’m happy to stand by them. There are no problems in Anglicanism today that couldn’t be solved, or greatly diminished, by a replay of the Great Ejection of 1662, and by casting out the diehard advocates of an unbiblical and immoral relativist gospel of inclusivity that is no gospel at all. I am utterly unrepentant in taking such a brash and offensively dogmatic and exclusive stand.
But I still regard the Great Ejection as a tragedy, albeit, like the Reformation itself, “a tragic necessity” (to borrow Jaroslav Pelikan’s famous and apt phrase).
David Handy+
Proudly and fervently Anti-Antidogmatism
By evan miller on February 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Rowan Williams pays tribute to both the Queen and her father at General Synod
++Williams doesn’t do much that I approve of, but I heartly concur with the sentiments he so excellently expresses here.
By TomRightmyer on February 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
Dr. Robert Bosher, _Making of the Restoration Settlement_ at General used to say that the Restoration was the only case in history when the returning exiles were able to turn back the clock. All the others including the early 19th century French Bourbons had to make peace with the revolution. I’m going to reread Bosher but as I recall it was the intransigence of the Puritans that led to the Ejectment.
By evan miller on February 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
Well said as always, Fr. Handy. I heartily concur with all you say here. I too think the Great Ejectment was completely justified and did the church much good. After ++Laud’s and King Charles the First’s executions, I don’t fault the CofE one bit for coming down hard on the Puritans.
By Matt Kennedy on February 7, 2012 at 11:57 am [comment link]
From the entry: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori invited to Anglican Provinces throughout Asia
A related story:
Day of Shining Star to Be Commemorated in Foreign Countries
Pyongyang, February 6 (KCNA)—Events to mark the 70th birth anniversary of General Secretary Kim Jong Il (the Day of the Shining Star) were held in different countries.
They included a meeting and film show in Pakistan on Jan. 28 and a lecture in Benin on Jan. 30.
The chairman of the Pakistan Association for Self-Reliance Studies and other speakers highly praised the exploits performed by Kim Jong Il for the noble cause of ensuring the prosperity of the country and wellbeing of the people and peace and security of the world, adding that it is quite natural for progressive humankind and Juche idea followers to commemorate his birth anniversary.
He would be always alive in the hearts of the Korean people and global progressive humankind forever and his exploits in the international working class movement and global independence would shine forever, they noted, and continued:
The chairman and secretary general of the Benin National Committee for the Study of General Kim Jong Il’s Works said Kim Jong Il pursued original Songun politics, putting forward the Korean People’s Army as a mainstay of the defense capability for self-defence and a main force for building a thriving nation. He was, indeed, a peerlessly illustrious commander of Songun.Socialism has won victory after victory in the DPRK and the invincibility of the Juche idea has been strikingly demonstrated worldwide despite the U.S.-led imperialist allied forces’ persistent moves to stifle the DPRK for several decades thanks to the treasured sword of Songun provided by him.
The revolutionary cause of Juche is sure to triumph as long as the dear respected Kim Jong Un follows the Songun politics, they concluded.
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
By Cennydd13 on February 7, 2012 at 11:56 am [comment link]
From the entry: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori invited to Anglican Provinces throughout Asia
Well, it appears that she’s merely visiting the provinces that are friendly to her, so at least her heresy will be contained within their borders.
By Archer_of_the_Forest on February 7, 2012 at 11:43 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
The sound you are hearing the Ordinariate cheering.
By Archer_of_the_Forest on February 7, 2012 at 11:38 am [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
I know when I was in Cambridge, there was a lot of joint stuff done by the local United Reform Church and a few of the Anglican parishes in Cambridge. They seemed to get along pretty well, at least with the Mainline Liberal Anglican parishes.
By Sarah on February 7, 2012 at 11:16 am [comment link]
From the entry: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori invited to Anglican Provinces throughout Asia
You know she’s desperate to rid herself of the taint of “anathema” when you’ve got people news releasing tea with Primates of Provinces!
Note how carefully this is phrased too. We are informed that KJS “has accepted the invitations of Primates of Anglican Communion provinces in Asia to visit, address diocesan gatherings, celebrate Eucharist and preach during February and early March.”
But . . . but . . . where precisely will she be addressing “diocesan gatherings,” and where precisely will she “celebrate Eucharist and preach”?
Ah . . . perhaps that is answered by the list of four Anglican Communion provinces in the third paragraph: the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong.
But no . . . because we are told that what she will be doing in those four provinces specifically is “visit and meet with the Anglican Primates” there.
Now—it may be that our Presiding Bishop will “address diocesan gatherings, celebrate Eucharist and preach” in all four of those Anglican Communion provinces and if so, that’s an achievement . . . for her.
But we don’t know that from this news release.
So.
We know that she is having tea with the Primates of four Anglican Communion Provinces. And we know that she will “address diocesan gatherings, celebrate Eucharist and preach” . . . somewhere or other . . .
But the most important thing we know is that Katharine Jefferts Schori needs to announce publicly that she is invited to go to some Anglican Communion provinces.
By New Reformation Advocate on February 7, 2012 at 10:13 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
Let the CoE learn from the disastrous mistakes made by TEC, and the ACoC, or made in Australia and New Zealand. The end doesn’t justify the means, as “progressives” so often seem to suppose.
I support WO in principle, even including the possibility (in an ideal world) of having women bishops. However, I fully support the ACNA’s stand of restricting the episcopate to men, in the spirit of Romans 14 and not exercising our legitimate spiritual freedom in a way that causes brothers and sisters to stumble. Moreover, I freely grant that overall, the ordination of women to the priesthood as well as the episcopate in North America has been nothing short of disastrous. It’s an open secret that female clergy are not just more liberal than male clergy, but overwhelmingly so. That’s the real problem.
There are some female priests I know who would probably make excellent bishops (again, in a utopian world). My shortlist would include Alison Barfoot+ (now serving on ++Orombi’s staff in Uganda) and Mary Hays+ (canon to the ordinary in Pittsburgh). And there are actually a few, a very few, female bishops who have done a credible job, including +Geralyn Wolf in Rhode Island, and Canada’s +Virtoria Matthews (now Bishop of Christ Church in New Zealand), and not least, +Ruth Urban, the one and only orthodox woman made a bishop in a conservative Anglican breakaway group (All Nations Anglican Church, led by a schismatic Kenyan, +John Githiga).
But overall, women priests and bishops have been a catastrophe for Anglicanism. It’s not just what decisions that get made that are important; it’s no less important that crucial decisions be made properly, and for the right reasons. The “irregular” and totally uncanonical ordination to the priesthood of 11 progressive American women in Philadelphia back in 1974 was the epitome of the WRONG way to do it. And the usual justifications offered by pro-WO advocates, based on secular notions of gender equality and with little attempt to ground those notions of social justice in the Bible, is emphatically promoting WO for all the WRONG reasons.
David Handy+
By Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on February 7, 2012 at 10:00 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Telegraph) Peter Mullen--Let us pray for those against women bishops
For anyone interested in following the debates, there is an audio feed here. Podcasts of the debates are being posted here.
The first of four sessions on women bishops is being held this afternoon and has started. The key amendment to make provision for those with a traditional understanding of episcopacy will be on Wednesday Afternoon [subtract 5 hours for Eastern Standard Time].
The agenda, timetable and other links have been posted by AM here
By A Senior Priest on February 7, 2012 at 9:48 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
She is a thoroughly political animal, with a very bad attitude, and completely unfit, not only to hold any office in the Church, but also unfit to even comment on things spiritual or pastoral. It’s people like her who destroyed TEC.
By New Reformation Advocate on February 7, 2012 at 9:47 am [comment link]
From the entry: Joint Cof E / URC service of reconciliation recognises 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment
I welcome this development. It’s long overdue. This year is indeed the happy 350th anniversary not only of the classic 1662 BCP, but the sadder anniversary of the “Great Ejection” of some 2.000 Puritan ministers from the CoE, when they refused to give the “unfeigned assent and consent” to that BCP required by the king and Parliament in the Act of Uniformity.
Two minor nitpicks, however, with this ecumenically-minded report on the CoE website. First, it seems odd to refer to this event as the “Great Ejectment” instead of ejection. Is that an archaic survival of the term used way back then?
Second, even stranger is the claim buried in the final paragraph, where in describing the United Reformed Church to Anglicans, this misleading statement is made:
“Worldwide, more than 80 million Christians are members of the Reformed family of Churches, making it the largest Protestant tradition.” I added the italics there, to highlight that dubious claim that the Reformed tradition is the largest one in the Protestant world.
I guess that all depends on how you reckon churches to be part of an ecclesial tradition. Certainly both Baptists and Pentecostals would make very plausible counterclaims that their traditions are not only larger than the Reformed tradition, but MUCH larger. However, it’s also true that since both Baptists and Pentecostals have a congregationally-based polity, they are far less well-connected and less unified denominationally.
More interesting is the question of what impolications this claim has on an official Anglican website. Depending on how you count “members” (i.e., how you define “inactive” ones and whether you count nominal or former members or not), it certainly could be argued that there are more Anglicans than Reformed Christians in the world. If that point were to be granted, and let’s assume just for the sake of argument that it is true for a moment, then we are left with the curious and significant conclusion that the CoE does not consider itself part of the Protestant tradition, since this CoE report says that the 80 million Reformed Christians constitute “the largest Protestant tradition” in the world.
Now personally, I have no problem with that at all, since I don’t claim to be a Protestant, only an Anglican. I don’t see Anglicanism as “the English form of Protestantism” (as is so commonly thought, and as was certainly historically the case before the Catholic Revival began in 1833). No, I much prefer to see Anglicanism as a Protestant-Catholic hybrid, owing much to both parents, but which is very much a whole new, third kind of Christianity altogether.
If our Reformed brothers and sisters have much to confess and repent of in terms of persecuting faithful Prayerbook, episcopal Christians in England (execution of ++Laud and King Charles I, and the proscribing and banishmnet of the BCP and episcopacy, etc.), it’s just as true that we Anglicans have at least as much to confess and repent of in terms of our much longer period of persecuting and harassing our rivals among the “Dissenting” or Non-conformist churches. Think of poor John Bunyan, as a young Baptist pastor, languishing in jail for years (and writing his immortal classic tale Pilgrim’s Progress there), all because he conscientiously refused to conform to the ways of the CoE.
In many ways, the failure of the 1662 Act of UNIFORMITY to enforce uniformity in religion in England led almost inevitably to the later 1689 Act of Toleration, when the more “mainline’ sorts of Protestants were finally granted official toleration (but still not Baptists, Quakers, and certainly not Roman Catholics, who had to wait until about 1830 to get similar freedom and public recognition).
Finally, on a more feisty note, sad as it may have been, I actually think it was commendable and a good thing that the CoE was able to set real boundaries and enforce its classic Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship back in 1662. It’s just unfortunate (and disastrous) that the CoE relied on the coercive powers of the State to enforce its own standards. It was entirely right and proper for the CoE to cast 2000 Puritan ministers out of office and deprive them of their living for failure to conform to Anglican ways. What was wrong was to ban all rival forms of church organization, doctrine, and worship by throwing rival preachers into jail, fining people for non-conformity, requiring subscription to the 39 Articles in order to get a degree from Oxford or Cambrige or hold a public office, etc.
Even more controversially, I don’t hesitate to make a very radical and inflammatory claim that will doubtless make Kendall wince: We don’t have any problems in worldwide Anglicanism today that couldn’t be solved by a replay of the Great Ejection and throwing several thousand liberal clergy out of Anglicanism. It’s high time to banish theological and moral relativists from Anglicanism. Vote them off the Anglican Island for good, until they repent and conform to the classic Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism!!
But don’t use the powers of the State to do the dirty work. Maintaining healthy boundaries isn’t the same thing as persecuting dissent. The proposed Covenant doesn’t go nearly far enough to suit me.
David Handy+
Feisty as ever
By Clueless on February 7, 2012 at 9:36 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Zenit) Father John Flynn--Low Fertility and the Economic Crisis
Two points. The world’s population is still rising (though it will likely begin to fall in 40 years). Ergo, the problem is not too few births, it is unevenly spread births.
Second, the main reason the world’s population is rising is not because people are breeding like rabbits (as noted, population is declining) but because (thanks to sanitation, food delivery changes and health care) people are no longer dying like flies. (That is a good thing).
Third, the arbitrary distinction of “worker” versus “retiree” with the obviously unsustainable 1.3 workers per retiree is only a problem if you define “retiree” as anybody over 65. Previously people got medicare at 65 and were expected to die at 63, two years before they got it, and those 60 year olds of 70 years ago were pretty darn frail in an era of heavy labor and no back, knee, hip or shoulder surgeries or heart stents. If people live to be 87 (pretty much the norm now) they should expect to work very much longer. Resetting the retirement age to 75 would essentially solve this problem.
As to simply encouraging Europe to breed faster, their unemployment crisis is a YOUTH unemployment crisis. They have 50% unemployment of people under 30. Adding a bunch more unemployed “workers” will not help them. They need to cut benefits and expectations of the older generations.
By Jill Woodliff on February 7, 2012 at 9:28 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Telegraph) Archbishop Rowan Williams: assisted suicide could spell 'disaster'
God bless them.
By David Keller on February 7, 2012 at 8:39 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
Br. Michael—You are absolutely correct. Every priest I have ever known who coveted being a bishop was basically a egomaniac nut job.
By tired on February 7, 2012 at 8:36 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
But Jamaica-born Ms [Rose] Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman chaplain to the House of Commons, told The Times that this was unacceptable. “If we are going to have women as bishops then we need to have women bishops… I am not happy with anything but full excommunication of the trads.”
Meanwhile, synod commemorated the 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment with a healing service.
By Br. Michael on February 7, 2012 at 7:41 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Newsweek) Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World
From the article:
[blockquoteIn recent years the violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania. In some countries it is governments and their agents that have burned churches and imprisoned parishioners. In others, rebel groups and vigilantes have taken matters into their own hands, murdering Christians and driving them from regions where their roots go back centuries.
Right, so Christians are doing this to Muslims and Atheists through out the Western and non-Islamic World.
Don’t feed the trolls.
By Br. Michael on February 7, 2012 at 7:26 am [comment link]
From the entry: ([London] Times) Would-be woman bishop hits out at Archbishops
But Jamaica-born Ms [Rose] Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman chaplain to the House of Commons, told The Times that this was unacceptable. “If we are going to have women as bishops then we need to have women bishops. We need to stop moving the goalposts. I am not happy with anything that only begrudgingly makes women bishops.”
By all means demand your rights. By all means tell God what He has to do for you, because it’s your right after all and He owes it to you.
No Bishop who ever wanted the job should have it.
By MichaelA on February 7, 2012 at 7:05 am [comment link]
From the entry: (SavannahNow) Christ Church Episcopal files for Contempt of Court Order Against Anglican Parish
“Sorry, but I am not trying to argue there is no way the USSC will take this case. I said the possibility was remote, not impossible; which is true.”
If you mean “remote” in the sense that every case in the USA’s chance of being granted cert. is remote (even if jurisdiciton exists), then I agree.
“My point was I do not understand your agument that this case somehow has a better chance of being selected because ” the same facts are being litigated in many States at the same time.””
Since that was not my point, you can save the effort. You asserted that this case had less chance of being selected because it was ä “decision based on state property law”. That is obviously incorrect as far as jurisdiction goes - there is either a basis for 1257 or there isn’t (and I express no opinion on that). I therefore assumed that you were talking about the prospects of a case in which jurisdiction existed attracting sufficient interest from four judges to be granted cert., and I pointed out that there is no intrinsic reason why such a decision would be less likely to get it. I agree that where the outcome of an appeal is only going to be relevant within one state, it is in practical terms less likely to be granted cert., but that would not necessarily be the case here.
By Skeptic on February 7, 2012 at 7:01 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Newsweek) Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World
Wow, a Dutch atheist defending the rights of Christians in the Muslim world ... what’s next? Christians defending the rights of Muslims? Of atheists? Waiting ...
By Creedal Episcopalian on February 7, 2012 at 6:50 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Newsweek) Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World
Secular western governments have made common cause with the moslem world; They both share an view promoting a hierarchical totalitarianism (even if for dramatically different reasons) as ideal. The surprise will come if this union ever bears fruit. There will be a disagreement over who gets to run the hierarchy. The leaders of the secular left will be the first martyrs.
By Br. Michael on February 7, 2012 at 6:12 am [comment link]
From the entry: (Newsweek) Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World
Secular Western governments, like our own, judged by their reaction (doing nothing) are probably quite happy to see Muslims kill Christians. As the secular West becomes evermore anti-Christian the Muslims get rid of a common enemy and allows the secular governments to keep their hands clean.
Page 1 of 3702 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)