Numbers tell us something, but it’s hard sometimes to know what that the numbers tell us. Changes in the numbers over time tell us more, possibly, than raw numbers.
Comparing my experience in the US with my limited experience in East Africa, it seems to me that…
1. We North Americans are more likely to record precise numbers (we revere statistics) and keep careful records; in the Global South we might be seeing estimates or even wild guesses.
2. In both North America and the Global South there are places where the faith is “an inch deep.” In North America not enough pastors really invest time in making disciples of the few church members in their care. That might be true is some parts of Africa, but in many places there aren’t enough well-equipped teachers to make disciples of the many church members.
3. An Anglican Christian in Africa is more likely than one in the US to care enough about her neighbor to lead him to faith in Christ.
I was interested in the statement that the Latin mass at Clear Creek Abbey is “conducted as it was more than 1,000 years ago.” How does it differ from the Tridentine mass which “Latin mass” Catholics can attend in many dioceses around the country?
“For those who honor me, I will honor.” I Samuel 2:30
The caption is incorrect. The bishop on the right is Oneshpore Rwaje and he is Archbishop of the Province of Rwanda.
Jacob Lupfer’s piece has a number of good pts; I regret that it is largely ruined by an inaccurate, tendentious and sadly predictable headline.
A laywoman gives the gospel truth to “several despondent bishops;” Oh may the Lord raise up more like her in our day.
Well, this all gets thicker. To put this liturgy with its links together mixing Masonic myth with Christian Scripture, Dean Robert Willis must be a very senior Freemason indeed.
Willis’s name came up recently in a web report that Willis had visited the rump Episcopal Church in South Carolina bearing a stone from Canterbury Cathedral last Summer for Grace Church. Over at Virtue, this is also noted; and the Grace Church website also notes “A carved stone cross from Canterbury Cathedral was presented to Grace in April 2016 in celebration of its becoming the newest cathedral in the Anglican Communion. The stone can be found on the wall of the great arch entering the nave.”
In addition to the donation of three hundred thousand pounds to Canterbury Cathedral under Dean Willis from local Freemasons which seems to have secured this service, Virtue also claims that Masonic marks and a record will be mounted in the Cathedral and goes on to say that while Justin Welby was Dean of Liverpool, Liverpool Cathedral accepted another large donation from Freemasons and that various masonic symbols are to be found in Liverpool Cathedral.
Given that faculties are required from the Church to install anything in a church building, were these required and given? It would be surprising considering that in the most recent case, Chancellor Geoffrey Tattersall, QC of the Consistory Court denied a family’s request to mark masonic symbols on a tombstone. How much more for a cathedral?
It also crosses ones mind to ask whether there is a Masonic connection between Dean Willis [and perhaps Welby] and the bishops of the rump diocese? The current bishop of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina is Bp Skip Adams, that noted Mosque-planter from New York. Is there a masonic link in the undermining of the orthodox Christian witness in the Anglican Church?
Is there something you want to tell us Justin?
It would certainly fit with Justin’s authoritarian view of society, including the view regularly expressed by him, including in his latest letter of invitation to the Anglican Primates, that everyone should accept his authority and determination of who is Anglican because he is the leader [a view which apparently does not include following Church Court decisions].
What is up with this rising stench of corruption and impiety in Canterbury?
The Archbishop and Dean of Canterbury would do well to remember what happened to their predecessors:
The thing is, this is the programme set out in the House of Bishops’ Report which General Synod decided not to ‘take note’ of. The subject matter should not return in this Synod under the usual rules.
However, like some take the Brexit vote, we are told that that vote does not matter as it was only a take note motion, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York will just steam ahead regardless.
It is just like Canterbury deals with Communion Primates’ decisions, they are rewritten, spun, told that either they have taken place when they haven’t, or have been observed when they have been clearly disobeyed. Black is white, left is right, and decisions, if Canterbury does not like them are just ingnored, or spun to mean the opposite of what they say. There is no integrity or truthfulness and things are just made up as they go along.
The beatings will continue until morale improves. Its the Iwerne way.
Thanks Kendall for posting this piece by Bishop Festo. A pertinent reminder that Good overcomes me Evil as it clearly was demonstrated in the murder of Abp Luwum by Idi Amin. A great encouragement. I pictured that memorial service as I’ve worshiped in St Paul’s Cathedral in Kampala
So is this like the White Buffalo?
There are a number of these articles. Any church which is in the church business simply to grow is wrong. I have never seen such a church but assume they must exist. However, healthy things grow and sick or failed churches do little to witness to the Christian gospel.
A most unusual Church that settles disputes by taking its members to court.
Deja vu - Having listened to the last 20 minutes of the debate I am sure I heard the Archbishop say exactly the same thing as this statement… BEFORE the vote.
The bishops’ report is dead: long live the bishops’ report, or so it would seem.
Haley opines the suit will easily be moved to NY.
I am curious about the venue question of whether the NY corporation can be sued in Alabama. This may raise the issue as to whether TEC is doing business there and what a fun fight this could be. Sauls has a lot of experience with this issue but who knows what an Alabama court might do. Has the supreme court of Alabama ever addressed this?
Speaking of applying for position as rector, +Sauls, when in the Diocese of Lexington, reversed the traditional practice enjoyed by his parishes since time immemorial by no longer allowing a parish to find a priest and then present the priest to the bishop to pass on.
Instead, he insisted on first reviewing the resumes generated by 815’s computer, and passing on to the parish only those resumes he selected.
One such that came to our parish turned out to be that of a priest who, as a result of having suffered from a serious illness, had left the priesthood two years earlier, as we learned when we telephoned to talk.
Needless to say, both the search chair and the retired priest expressed surprise that such a situation could have arisen.
“Revd Dr Vaughan Roberts”
Really? What’s that all about? Otherwise, mainly the usual suspects and their friends.
So, do they have an outpatient operating room on site so they can perform the lobotomies right there? That’s the only explanation I can come up with off the top of my head.
First, one should know what the reality is, rather than the hype. Then one should know the context. Then one should know the history of the situation. You may find all of that here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria .
E.G., “The Syrian Civil War touched off in 2011. Here are the Syrian-refugee admissions to the U.S. until Obama decided to admit more than 13,000 in 2016:
Fiscal Year 2011: 29
Fiscal Year 2012: 31
Fiscal Year 2013: 36
Fiscal Year 2014: 105
Fiscal Year 2015: 1,682”
Facts are so annoying, aren’t they? But one should try and account them.
And, it is clearly apparent, manipulation of the numbers has happened very recently. They have not been the norm.
Pageantmaster, your list of events looked so believable that it took me a moment or two to spot your tongue in your cheek.
If the March 12 event is at all real, may God bless you and your journey.
Luke, you could also look in at Anglican Ink. That site posts articles by George Conger and others, and I note this blog links to it from time to time, and Mr. Haley posts there occasionally too.
“A spokesperson for the Archbishop of Canterbury declined to comment and referred queries to the Cathedral”
A weak response from a weak man. Rowan would never have permitted this to happen.
I just now noticed the line saying 4 Comments…seemingly without a connection to a post, article, or subject. Being curious, I tapped in.
My exposure to Anglican blogs is limited, by choice, to Mr. Haley’s Curmudgeon, and T 1,9.
Haley’s space offers links to numerous others, as most of us know, but there is such a choice, that even with his guidance, for me it’s over complicated.
I used to read David Virtue, but don’t anymore, for a couple of reasons I won’t express here.
That pretty much leaves me T 1,9 for my news source on Anglicanism. I look at it nearly every day to see what’s new here, in the UK, and in Africa, and I’m happy with it as a source. Long may it continue.
As an 84 year-old cradle Episcopalian originally, and truly uneducated in church history or background (of course I remember Spong, Pike, and others), since 2003, I/we have followed the path that has led us to found a tiny ACNA parish in a small town in Kentucky -formerly Stacy Sauls territory, in which we were some of his victims. As an aside, isn’t it iironic that ECUSA now has to defend itself against Sauls’ Alabama-filed law suit? Haley is convinced this will end up being handled in NY.
Anyway, thanks to our priest and his family, and what we have attained through our membership in +Bill Atwood’s ACNA; Int’l Diocese, we are much happier.
If a viable Anglican blog appears, and I become aware of it, perhaps I shall follow it as well. For now, I’m just grateful for T 1,9.
Thanks, Katherine, I’m quite sure you do, just as we do each Sunday…but, I think you understand my meaning.
Here is the Canterbury Cathedral Programme of Events:
2016: Canterbury Cathedral Welcomes Back Roman Catholics
High Mass at the High Altar - Celebrant the Papal Nuncio - Dress, Order of the Knights of Malta [as reformed] and Mantillas please. Please note that Anglicans are kindly requested to not present themselves for Communion to avoid giving offence.
February 11th 2017: The Cathedral Welcomes Back Gnostics
Meeting of the Canterbury Lodge in the Sanctuary [rites redacted] - Celebrant the Grand High Priest, the Dean. Reading: Sura 18-20. Dress, Aprons. [Note service closed to Christians to avoid giving offence]
February 18th: The Cathedral Welcomes Back Heretics
A Service of Reconciliation and Staying together led by Archbishop Dick Dastardly and Canon Muttley to introduce bishops from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to bishops of the Global South followed by blessing of remains of foundation stones from the Cathedral to be broken up and given to departing North American bishops. Mitres may be worn in the Cathedral.
February 25th: The Cathedral Welcomes Back Expensively Educated Youth
‘Cathedral Seat’ - Service of Repentance and Sacrament of Reconciliation. Choir and Servers [under 18’s members of the Cathedral and pupils at Clarendon Schools only please] should meet in the Palace Potting Shed after Lunch for Godly Instruction from Prelate Whippy and Canon Cain-Porter. Trousers need not be worn.
March 5th The Cathedral Welcomes Synodically Noted Prayergroup
Would you like Prayers in a Liturgical Setting [not official you understand] after your Civil Partnership? Come along afterwards to have pastorally accommodated prayers said for you and your guests ‘attended’ by the Reverend Charmaine Bannister-Tutu in the Sanctuary accompanied by accidental slipping on of rings on fingers, confetti and all the works. Applications to the Dean’s secretary as soon as possible.
March 12th Celebration of the departure of Pageantmaster for GAFCON
I admit I did wonder what had started Fraser on his path to becoming the typical public school rebel. How awful - just shows the value of not judging before ‘walking a mile in another man’s mocassins.’
May he find peace, assurance, healing and joy in the hands of Him who never lets us down, and couldn’t be further away from the description of the false deity of Fraser’s abuser.
The thing is, it is not that simple. Lytton Strachey in his ‘Eminent Victorians’ wrote of Dr Arnold of Rugby, the reformer who was the model for many public school headmasters into the middle 20th Century:
when Dr. Arnold considered that a flogging was necessary, he administered it with gravity. For he had no theoretical objection to corporal punishment. On the contrary, he supported it, as was his wont, by an appeal to general principles. ‘There is,’ he said, ‘an essential inferiority in a boy as compared with a man’; and hence ‘where there is no equality the exercise of superiority implied in personal chastisement’ inevitably followed.
He was particularly disgusted by the view that ‘personal correction’, as he phrased it, was an insult or a degradation to the boy upon whom it was inflicted; and to accustom young boys to think so appeared to him to be ‘positively mischievous’.
‘At an age,’ he wrote, ‘when it is almost impossible to find a true, manly sense of the degradation of guilt or faults, where is the wisdom of encouraging a fantastic sense of the degradation of personal correction? What can be more false, or more adverse to the simplicity, sobriety, and humbleness of mind which are the best ornaments of youth, and offer the best promise of a noble manhood?’
One had not to look far, he added, for ‘the fruits of such a system’. In Paris, during the Revolution of 1830, an officer observed a boy of twelve insulting the soldiers, and
‘though the action was then raging, merely struck him with the flat part of his sword, as the fit chastisement for boyish impertinence. But the boy had been taught to consider his person sacred, and that a blow was a deadly insult; he therefore followed the officer, and having watched his opportunity, took deliberate aim at him with a pistol and murdered him.’
Such were the alarming results of insufficient whipping.
Dr. Arnold did not apply this doctrine to the Praepostors, but the boys in the lower parts of the school felt its benefits, with a double force. The Sixth Form was not only excused from chastisement; it was given the right to chastise. The younger children, scourged both by Dr Arnold and by the elder children, were given every opportunity of acquiring the simplicity, sobriety, and humbleness of mind, which are the best ornaments of youth.
That would have been pretty much the system in most of the public schools as well as state schools in England and much of the Commonwealth from the 1930’s to 1950’s. It was considered a reform compared to the anarchy of the earlier 19th Century where the reign of Keate at Eton was characterised by Strachey:
The public schools of those days were still virgin forests, untouched by the hand of reform. Keate was still reigning at Eton; and we possess, in the records of his pupils, a picture of the public school education of the early nineteenth century, in its most characteristic state. It was a system of anarchy tempered by despotism. Hundreds of boys, herded together in miscellaneous boarding-houses, or in that grim ‘Long Chamber’ at whose name in after years aged statesmen and warriors would turn pale, lived, badgered and overawed by the furious incursions of an irascible little old man carrying a bundle of birch-twigs, a life in which licensed barbarism was mingled with the daily and hourly study of the niceties of Ovidian verse. It was a life of freedom and terror, of prosody and rebellion, of interminable floggings and appalling practical jokes. Keate ruled, unaided—for the undermasters were few and of no account—by sheer force of character. But there were times when even that indomitable will was overwhelmed by the flood of lawlessness. Every Sunday afternoon he attempted to read sermons to the whole school assembled; and every Sunday afternoon the whole school assembled shouted him down. The scenes in Chapel were far from edifying; while some antique Fellow doddered in the pulpit, rats would be let loose to scurry among the legs of the exploding boys. But next morning the hand of discipline would reassert itself; and the savage ritual of the whipping-block would remind a batch of whimpering children that, though sins against man and God might be forgiven them, a false quantity could only be expiated in tears and blood.
They were tough days, and tough people and the school system was designed to produce very determined and disciplined products who would apply the same toughness and determination to administering businesses, the military or the civil service at home or abroad. They had been brutally taught that only the highest standards of work and behaviour would be found acceptable, and the consequences for rebellion would encourage complete conformity. Like the system of Sparta it worked, but left generations emotionally if not physically crippled.
In such a system, those such as Smyth could and did hide in plain sight. However, by the late 1960’s and 1970’s this had been overturned in most schools. It certainly did not describe mine at that time, although speaking to old boys things were much tougher until the late 1950’s. Most schools by the time I experienced them had outlawed corporal punishment for all but offences which would otherwise merit expulsion [and perhaps imprisonment]. By this time, there would have been no place for those such as Smyth to hide among the many and the general system of corporal punishment as they might have done in the general brutality of the earlier part of the century.
I find it very hard to believe that any form of physical abuse would have been tolerated at Winchester College. I have no personal knowledge of it other than having played [Rugby] Fives there a few times, and the Wykehamists I have met have been bright and well adjusted and I am sure had no such experience at school so Smyth’s requests as an outsider would have been well outside the norm.
It is also surprising that as well as being willing to accept such treatment, that those in authority and the boys’ peers with knowledge of Smyth at Winchester or Iwerne had no inkling of what he was doing. Certainly for boarding students, to visit Smyth for Sunday lunch or other activities, students would probably have had to apply for permission to be absent from school premises and have cleared who they were visiting with School authorities. Why did this not raise questions when these pupils asked to visit someone outside the school?
Moreover, in such an environment [much like the Church] it is impossible to keep anything secret - the grapevine is ubiquitous. The experience of child abuse at the BBC and in state hospitals has been that people turned a blind eye to it, and when they did become aware of it, they then moved to protect the institution - those who raise uncomfortable truths are silenced or sometimes got rid of.
ANY institution, where there is access to the young or vulnerable, will attract those who prey upon them, whatever the theology or system. The only protection is constant vetting and vigilence, and a set of rules similar to those male clergy should adopt with female laity or the young, of always keeping doors open, never meeting or travelling alone with them without another responsible adult present, and most especially, ensuring that, most of all, this applies all the way up to the top of the institution.
I think at 17 or 18 I would have found it hard to believe that such things went on or anyone would want to hurt a child as Smyth did. Had anyone suggested it to me it would probably have resulted in a robust punch in the mouth; but then if subject to grooming in a cult like isolated set up, I suppose a vulnerable or manipulable person could be and so most of all, institutions must not allow access to their charges by those outside, however exalted or useful they might appear to be. Had this been followed, neither the abuse of Smyth at Winchester nor that of Jimmy Saville at children’s hospitals would have been possible.
I am far from convinced that even with all the bleated protestations of authorities that we now have a better system that we will not be reading such horror stories again in a few years time.
Luke, I prayed for Obama when he was president, and I’m praying for Trump, too. Who needs prayer more than the President of the United States?
Yes, we can pray for that…
And, we can pray for President Trump to think before he acts, too…
I regret disagreeing with #4, I truly do. It’s simply that I think there is no way the “Anglican Communion” can be restored. We should pray for repentance and return to the faith by those who have left it, but we ought not to work any more with structures now being used to undermine the faith.
Perhaps the failure of these efforts might cause +Welby to look clearly at the direction he’s heading and where he’s taking his church. We can pray for that.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery said “A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing in him the image of a cathedral.” Bob Dylan said “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now”.
#4 - some thoughts on your recommendations:
1. Lambeth has proven over and over again that it can manipulate anything.
2. Publicity on proposed agenda items will not force ABC to set up his agenda in any fashion other than how he chooses.
3. There’s no way in God’s green pastures that the ECUSA leader will not be included in the attendees. This is a pipe dream.
5. And if you don’t? What then?
6. Such a motion will be ignored.
7. See #6.
8. Impossible to do if ABC doesn’t want it done.
Lastly, the “official” record will show only what ABC wishes it to show.
“but let us not come up with patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” Lewis
I disagree with the current sentiment here. I think the Primates should go- if only because the ABoC is clearly trying to split Gafcon from the other GS provinces, and weaken the resolve of the other GS primates. Therefore, my recommendation would be:
1. Make agenda recommendations in the form of public rather than private communications- so that the Lambeth functionaries cannot manipulate it.
2. Item 1 on the agenda should be the task force report.
3. The next item on the agenda should be the immediate removal of Michael Curry from the Primates meeting, as this is required by the previous agreement and communique, as doctrine, polity and order will be on the balance of the agenda. And because he made a personal commitment to “walk together,” which included abiding by the “consequences” enumerated in the communique, and then reneged on the agreement.
4. Discuss the task force report, if there is one.
5. If the task force report has not recommended an acceptable solution, vote on a motion similar to the one put forward by ++Uganda at the last “gathering” and see if you do not get more than 15 votes this time around.
6. Whether that succeeds or not, put forward a motion to limit Lambeth invitations of bishops in TEC, ACoC, Wales and Scotland (and elsewhere) to those who have not allowed gay marriage in their dioceses, with the understanding that if the ABoC reneges again, an alternate, simultaneous meeting will be held in the Global South.
7. Consider a votes of “no confidence” in the ABoC for “misrepresenting” his willingness to enforce the previous agreement, and in the ACO, for their manipulation of facts and misrepresentation of TEC and ACO compliance.
8. Require that the minutes and votes within the “gathering” are made public by including them in the addenda of the communique.
Now, is most of that symbolic? Yes, it is. But if they go this route, at least it cuts through the Anglican fudge. The Primates will be on record, with a vote on whether TEC goes to Lambeth, and there is no way to fudge that- either the TEC bishops get invited, or they don’t. They might also include a recommendation that suffragan and retired bishops be limited, because in the past, this has been an openly racist method of overloading Lambeth with a bunch of liberal caucasians. TEC has more bishops per Anglican than any other province- Its HoB is the size of Nigeria’s, with 1/10 the number of active members.
It was such a rare period of detente that it came and went without being noticed.
I agree with Jeff Walton. They went last year, and their decisions were not implemented. There is no reason to expect Canterbury to respect them more this time around; in fact, if they go, it will be a sign that they accept being played.
Good statement. While I favored the GAFCON primates participation in the last Canterbury gathering, I hope they don’t participate in the upcoming one. There is no reason to go and deliberate, when you know that Abp Welby has absolutely no intention of implementing whatever is decided upon.
So, are they going to the meeting?
A nit to pick at, eh? Well, it is Anglican.
I can’t read behind the paywall, but want to note that this change in how things get done has been the business model of the military and naval forces of the United States since the late 1980s. Training and other specialized services were often provided by civilian experts (usually retired NCOs and officers) during the Cold War, and there have always been some civilian contingents for building and public work-type services as well as yard and depot work. But starting in the late ‘80s in reaction to the decrease in manpower due to the end of the draft, many basic functions such as base security and “routine” maintenance of systems (rocket and communications, for example) have been done through contractors.
How well this works, what it does for preparedness and effectiveness, and whether it saves money have been argued in service journals since then. But, like trying to pin down the actual benefits of BRAC closures and property transfers, real figures and real impacts are unrecognizable in the fog of layers of reports and for whom the reports are meant to serve. In a sad sense, we won’t know what is wrong or broken until we really, really need to rely on some part of the system.
So we are going to separate further doctrine from practice and end up with an admitted fiasco like the Roman Catholics on birth control. This will contribute to both sides finding something to like? The reason many Christians do not understand the church’s teaching on marriage is that they have never heard it. I found little to like about this article.
I get the overall big picture of the theology of marriage, and I believe in the doctrine. I still don’t get why a couple who can’t have children need to sign a declaration that they are entering into marriage for the purpose of procreation. Couldn’t ACNA let common sense prevail instead of being pointlessly dogmatic? If we insist that couples sign a declaration, then why can’t it say “we believe in the basic theology of marriage” rather than saying they are marrying for a reason they aren’t? My personal preference would be for the Rubric to say the phrase can be omitted when not appropriate, then you get good theology and common sense all rolled into one.
Like the 1662 BCP, the Preface states the God-ordained norm for marriage. The Prayers make provision for the various conditions whereby the norm may not be fulfilled: “Bestow upon them, if it be your will, the gift and heritage of children, and the grace to bring them up to know you, to love you, and to serve you.” Older or infertile couples - take Abraham and Sarah, for example - still enter into Holy Matrimony with the acceptance of its comprehensive design.
(He ponders the compatibility of Western political philosophy with Islamic law and thought.) Don’t you dare try this.
Well, I see that ACNS has now re-edited the article to include a sentence saying that NOBODY voted on matters of polity or doctrine, all those matters were decided by “consensus.” They did not note the “correction” as a correction, and have made it appear to have always been there.
Sorry for the poor grammar, better would be…
...Within a few hours of the release of the ACNS statement, the TEC delegates to ACC-16 released their own statement categorically denying the ACNS account…
Well, somebody has to point this out, so it might as well be me.
According to the linked ACNS press release (at least, as I post this, will not surprise me if ACNS doesn’t edit it shortly):
“Members of TEC participated in ACC-16 in Lusaka, but none took part in formal votes on issues of doctrine and polity – another stipulation of the Primates’ communiqué.”
Within a few hours of the release of this statement the TEC delegates to ACC-16 had issued a statement categorically denying this statement, and reiterating (as they and others stated immediately after the meeting) that the TEC delegation voted on every single issue, including those of polity and doctrine, put before ACC-16.
Is ACNS so completely incompetent that editors don’t read what they post, or are the TEC delegates fabricating a story? Frankly, I was under the impression that several ACC officials had confirmed TEC’s “full participation.” Given the amount of rancor over TEC participation, one would have thought that if they had acted in accordance with the Primates Communique that would have been made public at the time. Certainly there were numerous Global South delegations present, so posting false information on purpose (whether ACNS or TEC) makes no sense, since GS Primates and officials have ready access to the accounts of their own delegations and therefore know what actually happened.
Well, I just went and looked on the ACNA website and this is the only one. The writers might want to rethink that. Certainly, in global terms marriage is all the things the declaration says it is, but there are different circumstances. Obviously an older couple, but also a younger person, someone who is unable to have children due to things like having to have a hysterectomy due to cancer. I am not saying we need to be like TEC and make everything optional, but for most older people this will be a big chuckle and for some younger ones it could be an impediment to being a married in the Church.
Is this declaration the declaration the only one? With all due respect to Sarah and Elizabeth, what if two people in their 60s or 70s (or older) were marrying—I doubt it would be “for the procreation of children”!
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)