The place of the church and the agony of Anglicanism by Stanley Hauerwas

ABC RELIGION AND ETHICS 27 SEP 2012

The rhetoric of Constantinianism and anti-Constantinianism, with which I am often associated, can be quite misleading just to the extent that it can suggest a far too clear alternative.

John Howard Yoder sometimes sounded as if the choice between those alternatives was and is clear. In fact, however, he recognized that even when Rome made Christianity the only legal faith of the Empire there were faithful forms of life that continued to shape the life of the church. Indeed, Yoder observes:

"The medieval church remained largely pacifist. The peace concern of the medieval church was institutionalized by the designation of holy times and places, which were to be completely exempt from the pressure of war."

Yoder understood well, therefore, that you do not free yourself of Constinianism by becoming anti-Constantinian. For him the alternative to Constantinianism was not anti-Constantin-ianism, but locality and place.

According to Yoder, locality and place are the forms of communal life necessary to express the particularity of Jesus through the visibility of the church. Only at the local level is the church able to engage in the discernment necessary to be prophetic. The temptation is to denounce "paganism" in general or to decry the "secularization" of culture as an inevitable process without doing the work necessary to specify what pagan or secular might mean in the concrete. The church's prophetic role in Yoder's words must always be in the "language as local and as timely as the abuses it critiques."

Rowan Williams, I think, has suggested something quite similar to Yoder's understanding of Christology and place. Williams observes that the New Testament testifies to the creation of a pathway between earth and heaven that nothing can ever again close. A place has been cleared in which God and human reality can belong together without rivalry or fear. That place is Jesus. It is a place where a love abides that is at once vulnerable and without protection. It is a place in which human competition does not count:

"a place where the desperate anxiety to please God means nothing; a place where the admission of failure is not the end but the beginning; a place from which no one is excluded in advance."

According to Williams, the role of church is to take up space in the world, to inhabit a place where Jesus's priesthood can be exercised. Such a place unavoidably must be able to be located on a social map so that it does not have to be constantly reinvented. Williams even suggests that the Church of England, a church after having lost much of its substance and which now occupies the shell of national political significance, "is peculiarly well placed to communicate something of the central vision of an undefended territory created by God's displacement of divine power from heaven to earth."

That Williams provides a Christological understanding of place is extremely important if we are to avoid turning the local into an abstraction. Appeals to locality and/or place can be every bit as destructive as the steam roller of universality that flattens all difference. The local cannot only be parochial, but the local can also be demonic.

I am a Texan, which has its own problems, but it is the South which has left its mark on me. I am all too well aware of the perversities of the so-called "local church." But you do not avoid the perversities of place by escaping to some alleged universal. You can only avoid the perversities of place by being the church of Jesus Christ which, as I now hope to show, the Church of England has by God's good grace done.

In Conflict and the Practice of Christian Faith: The Anglican Experiment, Bruce Kaye provides a fascinating account of Anglicanism that puts flesh on Williams's suggestive comments about the relation of Christology and locality by focusing on the Anglican Communion. Kaye's title rightly suggests that he does not mean to restrict his analysis only to the Anglican Communion, but rather he uses the Anglican Communion to illumine what he takes to be the essential character of the church catholic. That character is determined by our belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnate Son of God making possible and necessary the invitation to all humanity, without distinction of race or circumstance, to respond to the gospel.

Those who respond to this invitation do so, according to Kaye, "in the particularities of their personal circumstance." The challenge, therefore, becomes how the personal response to the gospel, responses unavoidably determined by place, can be credited without threatening the church's unity. Kaye develops his account of the place of the Church of England with the current controversies in the Anglican Communion clearly in mind. He explores how a "globalized" form of Anglicanism has emerged from a local form, by which he means England, with the result of deep divisions and conflicts dominating the common life of Anglicanism. He does not think, however, that this is a development unique to the Anglican Communion.

According to Kaye, patterns of life that now characterize Anglican life were present in the New Testament. By fulfilling the hopes of Israel through a crucifixion of universal significance, as well as the call of the disciples, Jesus laid the foundation for a profusion of local diversity and cosmic belonging. Kaye quotes the second century writer Diognetus to give evidence to the necessary relation between Christ's cosmic and universal reality as the background to make locality, not only possible, but necessary. Diognetus puts it this way:

"For Christians are no different from other people in terms of their country, language, or customs. Nowhere do they inhabit cities of their own, use a strange dialect, or live life out of the ordinary. They have not discovered this teaching of theirs through reflection or through the thought of meddlesome people, nor do they set forth any human doctrine, as do some. They inhabit both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot assigned to each. And they show forth the character of their own citizenship in a marvellous and admittedly paradoxical way by following local customs in what they wear and what they eat and in the rest of their lives."

It is important to attend to the language Kaye uses to characterize Diognetus's description of Christians. Kaye refuses the contrast between the universal and particular and instead resorts of the language of the personal as a contrast to the universal to suggest why the gospel can only be received in context. To be sure, the gospel is for prisoners, jailers, magistrates, philosophers, masters, slaves, men and women, but that it is so requires that each person must respond by making the whole of their life subject to the everyday interactions of the community of the church.

From the beginning, Christianity has struggled to sustain the creative tension between the personal appropriation of the gospel and the gospel's universal reach. The result has been the creation of a politics that sought not to overthrow the old political order, but to build a new order manifest in each church's peculiar circumstance.

The current divisions and controversies arising from locality that beset Anglicanism, from Kaye's perspective, are nothing new. Local diversity has always characterized Christianity and conflict is thereby inevitable. Kaye, for example, reminds us that Western Christianity is a local tradition within which other local traditions developed creating continuing disputes. That Western Christianity names a "locality" is a nice reminder that all claims to place depend on contrast with another place.

Kaye, therefore, suggests that Anglicanism became identifiable as a place with a distinct history because Bede wrote his ecclesiastical history. For it was Bede's history that created what would become the idea known as England. Kaye contends that Anglicanism is best understood as a regional form of Christianity not unlike the church in Gall.

Without becoming any less insistent on the cosmic lordship of Christ, the church in England developed a distinctive way to be church by maintaining a resilient call to personal discipleship to Jesus. From Kaye's perspective, Henry VIII is but a later expression of the resistance of Anglicanism to the attempt of Rome to develop an imperial conception of catholicity. Kaye identifies Anglicanism, therefore, as the attempt to maintain catholicity without Leviathan.

The fundamental character of our faith means an extensive diversity is required not only within local community, but between communities. Each person and community must respond faithfully to the particularities of their situation; yet they must seek, if they are faithfully to be Christ's body, to remain interconnected. The necessity of such interconnectedness is called "catholicity." To be "catholic" is to recognize that my particularity must serve to build up the whole.

Such building up has always been a challenge. Kaye, in particular, calls attention to the ambiguity created by the attempt to impose order on the Anglican reality through the 1662 Act of Uniformity. From Kaye's perspective, the Act of Uniformity was an attempt to impose conformity on the church without respecting the diversity of gifts found in the parishes of England.

"the Act of Uniformity did not serve well the tradition of Anglican Christianity. It narrowed the focus and failed to move the ecclesiastical structures in a direction that served the new social and political realities of the Christian citizens of England."

Some seem to think that something like an Act of Uniformity is required in response to the current controversies in the Anglican Communion. Kaye thinks such a response would be ill advised. It is ill advised because it would deny the Anglican commitment to live faithfully in their local circumstance even though doing so creates diversity that creates difficulties for those in other places.

Kaye is not suggesting that truth does not matter, but that truth demands that those whom we do not understand not be cast beyond the pale of fellowship. Anglicans have been committed to the local expression of the faith, which means that the challenge confronting its reality as an international fellowship of churches should not be how we can enforce uniformity, but rather how we can be known through our love of one another.

Catholicity is, therefore, that name we give to the priority of the local for the determination of faithfulness that can only be sustained by engagement with other local expressions of the faith, as well as engagement with the whole. As Rowan Williams reminded us at the 2008 Lambeth Conference:

"The entire Church is present in every local church assembled around the Lord's Table. Yet the local church alone is never the entire Church. We are called to see this not as a circle to be squared but as an invitation to be more and more lovingly engaged with one another."

Such engagement, moreover, is crucial if the church is to be an alternative to the forces that threaten to destroy locality in the name of peace. We are in danger of confusing the universality of the cross with the allegedly inevitable process of globalization. We are in the odd situation of needing one another in our diverse localities in order not to be subject to the power of false universals.

Kaye calls attention to Rowan Williams's claim in the final address at the 2008 Lambeth Conference as an expression of this understanding of catholicity. Williams said:

"The global horizon of the Church matters because churches without this are always in danger of slowly surrendering to the culture around them and losing sight of their calling to challenge that culture."

The culture that inhabits us - and by us, I mean Christians - is a subtle and seductive one. It tempts us to believe we are free of place. It tempts us to believe that we do not have the time to do what needs to be done, so we must constantly hurry. These temptations are often assumed to be congruent with the gospel imperatives to have no permanent home. But in the process we lose the visibility necessary to be witnesses to the One who made it possible to be Christians.

Stanley Hauerwas is Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University. His most recent book is War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity. You can hear Hauerwas on the two-part Encounter series, God, Good and Evil and Saints, Stranger and Enemies.

DOWNING STREET IS GETTING AMERICAN HELP TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE

from VirtueOnline

DOWNING STREET IS GETTING AMERICAN HELP TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE

www.anglican-mainstream.net
September 28th, 2012|

Campaign for Marriage reports that Downing Street has held a meeting with American activists, asking for their advice on how to win the campaign to redefine marriage. David Cameron's aides admit they are losing the argument and they've asked American activists to help them fight back.

First of all, this shows that we have had a massive impact on the issue. We have been absolutely doing the right thing. We have run a disciplined, effective and professional campaign.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

BREAKING NEWS: London Times reports Church of England fails to nominate Archbishop of Canterbury successor

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue Anglican

UPDATE: Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London is reporting that the Crowns Nominations Commission (CNC)has failed to come up with a nominee. She writes:

The body responsible for choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to agree who should be the successor to Dr Rowan Williams. 

Despite a three day session, aided by prayers invoked on Twitter with the hashtage #prayforthecnc, the 16-member committee has been unable to decide on who should take on the job that the present incumbent today implied was “impossible.” 

A source told The Times that a decision on who should succeed Dr Rowan Williams was not expected soon. “A decision is not imminent,” he said.

Message from Bishop David Anderson       Bishop Anderson Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ, It is election season in the United States, and those residing therein are being bombarded with TV adverts and phone solicitations on behalf of candidates of both parties. I for one am disappointed with the quality of many of the candidates running for office, and the fact that while many candidates do have something of value to offer, it seems that many also have other serious issues as baggage that they bring along. I'm not a single-issue voter, but I do wish for candidates of higher moral caliber with a more finely developed sense of ethics, a better grasp of world history and geography, a better appreciation for economics and the things that drive men and women to work hard, defer gratification, and not look to bigger government for all of the answers. Oh well, I can hope. While our campaigns for public office in the USA are quite open, the Church of England's politics are quite closely held and confidential. A small group of people on the Crown Nominations Commission will soon decide, if they haven't already, who the next Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) will be. The name of their preferred candidate, without the affirmation of the rest of the Anglican world or even the pew sitters in the CofE, will go to the Prime Minister for his perfunctory rubber stamp and then to the Queen herself. I understand that the preferred candidate is the one that is to be "chosen" by the Monarch, but there is a backup candidate in case something very untoward were to happen, such as sudden death or disability, previously unknown skeletons falling out of the closet, or some equivalent. The Monarch is expected by custom to freely choose the primary name given to her, but who will that be? Adrian Hilton of the Daily Mail in London has a good analysis that we include with this Update.  Of the names he mentions, John Sentamu and Richard Chartres both seem to be solid choices from an orthodox Anglican Christian standpoint, realizing that anyone put forward has said or done something, sometime, to give others concern. Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, has a number of things to recommend him, and Chartres of London has done a good job and is friendly with the royal family.

The idea of an additional person with title and portfolio to help lead the Anglican Communion, as a President or some other title of top rank, seems to me to be conditionally a good idea. The current Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that at some point this might be helpful and necessary and confesses to having bungled the job himself without this assistance being available. I think the time to begin implementation of such an office is about one year after the new ABC takes office, before he is worn out or has made too many miscalculations. The new position would require more of an executive-type candidate who is a person of profound faith but also gifted in listening, thinking (in the normal sense of the word), speaking and writing in ways that people can understand and appreciate what is being conveyed. This person should not be chosen in the usual manner by a cloistered few, but with as broad a representation as possible reflected in the selection process. It should be someone who can understand the West, but also relate to the East and the South. Should the Anglican Communion Primates elect the President from among themselves? Does the President need to be a primate, or should the skill set required be the determinant? Should all of the Anglican Communion bishops elect the President, and should the President be an Archbishop or Bishop? How would the screening be done and by whom? Much of the present infrastructure wouldn't be trusted to bring forth orthodox candidates that could be viable contenders; if some factions, including the American Episcopal Church, were able to influence the screening and short list selection, anyone acceptable to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) provinces would be screened out before the list saw the light of day. In the new structure, perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury would provide the role that the Monarch provides in the English government, and the President of the Communion could be chosen by and answerable to the entire Anglican Communion. It's an idea that we will hear discussed further in the next few years; let's consider now the possible good that could come as well as the rocks in the water that we might inadvertently dash the ship against. Anglicans throughout the world are asked to pray for the appointment process and then for the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus, +David The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr. President and CEO, American Anglican Council

A Message from Canon Ashey

Canon Ashey AAC to Host Ecumenical Leadership Summit Dear Friends in Christ, For several years, The American Anglican Council has been working with other mainline churches and Christians in North America who have also been under attack from leaders within their own denominations - leaders who have pressed and continue to press an agenda that is unbiblical.  Serious divisions over the authority of scripture, the uniqueness of Christ, the nature of revelation and human sexuality are just some of the issues plaguing our respective denominations - Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans alike. In the course of these discussions, a longing has emerged to develop a more robust partnership around common convictions and common action. And so I am pleased to announce that the American Anglican Council will be hosting an Ecumenical Leadership Summit of 30 Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian leaders on October 22-25 in Dallas, Texas.  This October ecumenical summit will gather leaders from Lutheran Core, the Presbyterian Lay Committee, The Institute on Religion and Democracy, the Anglican Church in North America, the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the Good News Methodists and the North American Lutheran Church. The group of 30 leaders, representing almost 600,000 evangelical and orthodox Christians in North America, is seeking convergence on common theological grounds for partnership and action together in areas of theology, engaging North American culture, mission, church planting and social witness. Over the last six months, I have been working with the leaders of these groups to come together for common action that will build up and defend Great Commission followers of Jesus Christ in each of our denominations.  Already we have discerned at least two areas of mutual action: (1) sharing of resources/seminaries to prepare candidates for ministry in locations where they are unavailable to some of us, and (2) sharing of worship space when one of our congregations is displaced due to litigation with revisionist mainline leaders. The Rev. Carmen Fowler LaBerge, president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, says the drift from orthodoxy in our denominations is a collective failure with severe impact. "We've lost a generation of Christians and we've all failed to faithfully help people connect the Word of God with everyday life....When people in the pulpit and people in the pew feel entitled to replace the Word of God with their own ideas and equate Jesus with other prophets, the Church has shifted off its foundation. Those challenges are not unique to Presbyterians." The Rev. Mark Chavez, General Secretary of the North American Lutheran Church, will also be present at the fall meeting. "My hopes for the gathering are that orthodox Christians from the four historic traditions will find ways to cooperate in clearly and boldly witnessing to the only Savior for all of humanity, Jesus Christ, in an increasingly secular culture, and support each other in the challenges from secularism. I also hope that we can mutually support the upbuilding of the body of Christ in our congregations so that they thrive and grow in making disciples of Christ." Though all of us have experienced a tumultuous decade within our denominations, we are all excited about the future and about what Jesus will do through us and through opportunities like this as we seek to remain faithful to Him.  Please pray for us as we come together to lay the foundations for Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians to come together around the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of all, engaging North American culture with a Christian worldview, planting churches and doing social witness and mission together - and all under the lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of his word! Yours in Christ, Phil+ The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey Chief Operating and Development Officer, American Anglican Council

Terms in the new social order

France to ban ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in all legal terminology

from anglicansunited.com by cherie

[Ed. Note:  As "equality" issues span Europe, Canada and parts of the United States, this required change in language usage will become the norm.  With gay issues resolved through civil litigation in the courts, instead of at the ballot box, it seems to me that even slowing this advance is improbable.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated last week that she expects the gay marriage issue to be tested in the U.S. Supreme Court this coming judicial year.  That decision will bring an end to all local contests.  Cheryl M. Wetzel]

Hilary White

Thu Sep 27 16:22 EST

PARIS, September 27, 2012
LifeSiteNews.com

As with most of the jurisdictions that have adopted “gay marriage,” France will be changing the language of its laws and regulations related to marriage and parenthood to eliminate the terms “mother” and “father”. All references to mothers and fathers, the government has said, will be changed to “parents”.

The new socialist government has promised to bring forward a law by the end of October. They have already said there will be no provisions granted for conscientious objections from state marriage ministers.
The bill, being drafted now, will create identical marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners as for natural marriages. French media reports that the bill calls marriage “a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.

It will also grant adoption rights to homosexual partners.

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”

“What is certain is that the interest of the child is a major preoccupation for the government,” she continued.

The alteration of language in all laws related in any way to marriage has become standard for all jurisdictions that have adopted “gay marriage” or even civil unions.

In the Canadian province of Nova Scotia in 2007, following a human rights complaint by homosexuals, the provincial government approved regulations allowing birth certificates to register a lesbian “spouse” of a birth mother as the “other parent”. In the same year, the state Senate of California approved legislation substituting the term “two persons” for “man and wife” in all state references to marriage.

Immediately following the passage of same-sex “marriage” legislation in Spain, the government ordered that the terms “mother” and “father” were to be replaced in the State Civil Registries Family Book with the headings, progenitor A, and progenitor B.

Similar actions have been taken by governments in Ontario and Prince Edward Island, the US state of Massachusetts and the Australian state of Victoria.

Ontario banned “mother” and “father” as well as the terms “wife”, “husband”, “widow”, and “widower” from all statutes. In 2005, in Prince Edward Island, the Conservative government proposed to amend the law to remove all references to husbands and wives in favour of the gender-neutral “spouse.”

In Scotland in 2007, at the request of the homosexualist lobby group Stonewall, nurses were told by the National Health Service that “mother” and “father” were homophobic. They were to be replaced with “carers” or “guardians.” The terms “husband”, “wife”, and “marriage” must be replaced with “partners” and “close friend.”

Episcopal Church finances

from Episcopal Cafe by Ann Fontaine

by George Clifford
The Economist recently featured a scathing indictment of how the Roman Catholic Church manages its finances (“Earthly Concerns,” pp. 19-23, August 18, 2012). Settlements in child abuse cases totaling $3.3 billion over the last 15 years, which have averaged more than $1 million per case, and the bankruptcies of several U.S. dioceses combined to pique the authors’ curiosity about the Roman Catholic Church’s finances.

The Roman Catholic Church has 196 dioceses in the U.S., divided into 34 metropolitan provinces with 270 bishops and about 100 million members. They comprise approximately 18,000 parishes, served by 40,000 priests and 17,000 married deacons.

Estimates for 2010, the latest year for which data is available, show that the Roman Church spent $171 billion. Healthcare institutions, colleges, and universities spent almost $150 billion of that total. Only $11 billion went to parish ministry and a relatively paltry $4.7 billion to charity, although Catholic Charities provides important services and is the nation’s largest charitable organization. Altogether, the Catholic Church has about 1 million employees in the U.S. By way of comparison, General Electric’s 2010 revenues were $150 billion and Wal-Mart employed 2 million people that year.

The Roman Church routinely comingles funds, mixing operating, pension, endowment, and other accounts. Dioceses facing bankruptcy move funds offshore, beyond the reach of claimants and creditors. The Roman Church provides no public accounting of its funds; a corporation sole holds all of the assets of each diocese, over which the diocesan bishop has complete authority, subject only to the Vatican.

The recent Vatican scandal over leaks from the Pope’s butler suggests that financial problems extend across the Roman Catholic Church. No for profit entity could legally manage its finances using the unorthodox methods, accounting principles and secrecy upon which the Roman Catholic Church routinely relies.

The secrecy is counterproductive. The lack of transparency discourages donor support, a conclusion ample anecdotal evidence supports. The lack of transparency also promotes a culture of deceit and tacitly suggests that laity, clergy, and members of religious orders lack the spiritual maturity and intellectual ability to comprehend ecclesiastical finances.

Evil flourishes in the dark; light dispels the darkness and brings health. The Roman Catholic Church, of all institutions, should understand this basic spiritual concept that is so deeply rooted in the Christian faith. Financial management and use of funds express values and beliefs more powerful than can any amount of verbiage.

So, how well does The Episcopal Church manage its finances? Errors in budget proposals for the next triennium that were published before this year’s General Convention implicitly raised questions about the competence of our financial management. From my review of national documents, reading several dioceses’ financial reports, and hearing complaints about a lack of financial transparency in at least some TEC congregations, I know that our financial management is much better than what happens in the Roman Catholic Church (e.g., we require regular audits) but leaves room for significantly improving transparency.

No good reason exists to keep TEC finances shrouded in mystery. Shadows invite, even encourage, wrongdoing. Dioceses should publish a full accounting of their income and expenses – with three exceptions. First, financial reports rightly aggregate assistance provided to individuals into a single line item. Identifying the individual recipients of such aid demeans the recipients’ dignity and provides no essential information to donors or other interested parties. Annual audits and appropriate oversight can ensure that the funds do not benefit the wrong people.

Second, financial statements rightly aggregate staff salaries and benefits – except for key employees. Donors and other interested parties do not have any legitimate need to know how much an office assistant or receptionist earns. Budget committees, managers, and auditors appropriately manage such matters. Organizations with salary scales or wage guidelines will usefully publish that information to promote transparency, demonstrate good stewardship, and model paying living wages with benefits.

However, financial reports should specify salaries and benefits for key employees, e.g., bishops, canons to the ordinary, etc. Making this information public helps to ensure that leaders do not manage the institution for personal benefit. I have served in key leadership positions where donors knew my pay. Although I’m an intensely private person, I knew of no other way to establish appropriate accountability and transparency. Conversely, religious organizations that have not followed this policy have too often experienced shattering scandals.

Finally, the diocese should report aggregated unrestricted gifts from individual persons without identifying the individual donors or the amount each gave. The diocese should identify donors and amounts of restricted gifts because the donor’s restrictions, when the diocese accepts the gift, impose a form of control on the diocese and its operations. Similarly, a diocese should identify any grants, loans, or other funds received from foundations, corporations, or other entities because acceptance of these funds almost always entails an obligation to spend the funds in a particular way or use them for a particular program.

These same principles apply to TEC’s national offices, its provinces, and all of its congregations. Most people will ignore published financial reports. Some will read the reports and find the reports uninteresting or too difficult to understand. But making a full public reporting of ecclesiastical is an essential step in establishing the transparency and accountability that God's people deserve. TEC and its constituent components have no “proprietary” or “trade” secrets to hide from the competition. We do have an obligation of full disclosure to our various stakeholders.

Full accountability and fiscal transparency are essential elements of good stewardship. Thankfully, TEC, its dioceses, and its congregations have had relatively few documented instances of financial wrongdoing. Regular audits help to ensure fiscal integrity and to encourage sound accounting methods and financial management.

Promptly acting to meet the standard of good stewardship through greater financial openness is the right thing to do, will proactively reduce the opportunity for fiscal abuses, promote healthy conversations about mission, and avoid both attempts to circumvent our democratic decisions making processes and ill-informed conflict about who has access to what information.

George Clifford is an ethicist and Priest Associate at the Church of the Nativity, Raleigh, NC. He retired from the Navy after serving as a chaplain for twenty-four years and now blogs at Ethical Musings.

HE’LL BE HERE ALL WEEK

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Olympia Episcopal Bishop Greg “Don’t Call Me Travis” Rickel tries out some new material for his stand-up comedy act:

Rickel, who has served since 2007 as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, which includes all of Western Washington, presents a quite different faith perspective.

“Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts — but especially in relation to two people in marriage — fidelity to be our value,” Bishop Rickel writes.  “Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments, and also in our life as Christians.”

“It seems to me we have held our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in a Catch-22.  We say they cannot live up to our value because they cannot be married, or even blessed in their union.  While many of them have begged for this, it is still not possible.”

“If one would think about this carefully, it would be clear what they ask of us, the church and their government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them, as any loving heterosexual couple.”

Know why that’s funny?  Meet Barry Beisner, currently the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Northern California.  Or Third-Time’s-The-Charm as I’ve taken to calling him.

Want to know why I call him that?  Seems Barry’s been divorced twice and married three times.  While I’m certainly not in favor of kicking guys like Barry out of the church(all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, etc.), it just seems to me that giving Barry a pointy hat and a hooked stick sends…mixed messages.

Actually, that’s not quite right.  Making a guy working on his third wife into a bishop clearly communicates to any honest person that the Episcopal Organization doesn’t have any genuine beliefs or standards at all.
If the Episcopalians had the reverence for fidelity in relationships that Greg Rickel claims they do, Northern California would have been told, “Look.  Old Third-Time’s-The-Charm may be a great guy and a wonderful minister.  But since we value fidelity in marriage, we can’t possibly let this one go through.  Take another run at it.”

Of course, you and I both know that Greg Rickel is talking out his narthex.  You can stand up in one of their churches, make a marriage vow before God and do it again three years later if you’ve been tapping a Kim Kardashian lookalike and your wife happens to catch you and the young lady in flagrante delicto.

I’m not saying that TEO should adopt the entire Roman Catholic position about marriage.  I am saying that the Episcopal attitude toward marriage needs to be WAY more serious than its current “Oh well, crap happens” stance before I’ll even start to believe that the Episcopal Organization really values marital fidelity.

Transgendered Episcopal Chaplain at Boston University

from VirtueOnline

New Episcopal Chaplain a Role Model
Cameron Partridge, first openly transgendered chaplain

By Rich Barlow
http://www.bu.edu/today/2011/new-episcopal-chaplain-a-role-model/
Sept. 27, 2012

The Rev. Cameron Partridge says his Episcopal Church is evolving its acceptance of transgendered people. Photo by Kalman Zabarsky

You probably aren't aware that November 20 is the national Transgender Day of Remembrance. Cameron Partridge is. The observance began after the 1998 murder of a transgendered Boston woman. November 20 also happens to be Partridge's birthday (he turned 38 in 2011), and BU's new Episcopal minister, the University's first openly transgendered chaplain, once shuddered at a birthday that reminded him both about his own mortality "and that you could be killed."

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

Orthodox Anglican Leaders Enabling Wolves, Endangering the Flock

from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy 

I’m re-reading Fr. Tory Baucum’s blog post written, apparently, as a kind of defense for his “reconciliation” efforts with Bishop Shannon Johnston of the Diocese of Virginia.

Fr. Baucum leads off with a series of quotes from orthodox Anglican leaders around the world who support his endeavors. The first is one of the most depressing:

We are so looking forward to welcoming Bishop Shannon Johnston and Tory Baucum to our Leadership Conference in London. Our prayers are with them –and all our brothers and sisters at Truro Anglican Church and throughout the diocese of Virginia – as you work together to bring peace, unity and healing.

Nicky Gumbel
Vicar, Trinity Brompton

Nicky Gumble is the creator of the wildly successful “Alpha” program. It’s a shame he’s lent his name to this.

But Gumble’s is just the first. Fr. Baucum produces quote after quote from prominent orthodox Anglicans including Bishop Richard Chartres and Bishop Justin Welby (both of whom are in the running, Fr. Baucum hastens to tell us, for the Archbishop of Canterbury) falling over themselves to praise Fr. Tory. Bishop Graham Cray writes:

I warmly applaud the deep and patient commitment to peacemaking, and a continued relationship, that Truro Church and Bishop Shannon Johnston of the diocese of Virginia have made. When Christians profoundly disagree they are still to relate to one another as Christians. Rector Tory and Bishop Shannon, and all those who have worked with them during this painful and demanding process, have set a vital example of what this can mean.

I will certainly agree that they have set a vital example but that is as far as my agreement goes.
I’m not sure what exactly Fr. Baucum believes these quotes accomplish. Does the support of prominent men mean that his efforts are necessarily correct? Is it an effort to marginalize those who oppose him?
Here’s what Fr. Baucum says about them:

These quotes represent not only our most orthodox leaders in Anglicanism but those who are evangelistically effective leaders, the ultimate test of orthodoxy.  (Those on the right and left who remain coiled for action and are riven in spiritual sterility are seldom as orthodox as they claim.)  But these leaders walk the talk of obedience to Jesus. 

So “evangelistic effectiveness” is the ultimate test of orthodoxy? Really? What does he mean by that? Numbers? Is that his measure? If so, then Jesus’ earthly ministry was perhaps the most “sterile” of all. He preached to crowds of tens of thousands for a year in Galilee and only managed to cobble together a hundred or so disciples at most. But when he preached sermon a referring to himself as the true bread from heaven, even the tiny band of one hundred melted away and he was left with only the Twelve…one of whom was a traitor. So much for our sterile Messiah. He does not meet Baucum’s “ultimate test” of orthodoxy.

The real measure, as Fr. Baucum should know, is not evangelistic effectiveness but biblical faithfulness. The test for orthodoxy is the Berean test. And by that measure Bishop Johnston is shown to be wolf. And by that measure Fr. Baucum’s own actions are shown to be dangerous and deadly to the flock.

As we’ve noted at Stand Firm in the past, Fr. Baucum’s “reconciliation” initiative involves far more than merely befriending +Johnston. Reconciliation means, opening doors for mutual ministry with Bishop Johnston, seeking ways to cooperate with him “across the aisle” . The fact that Bishop Johnston remains a strong advocate for same sex blessings and the ordination of priests in same sex relationships is described as a disagreement. He is a “brother”.

The effect of all this reconciling and mutually ministering and healing is to push the question of faithfulness to biblical norms for human sexuality into the realm of adiaphora…a “non-essential” disagreement.

How does this effect the Church? Fr. Baucum, Fr. Nicky Gumble and all those who support this initiative legitimize and enable the ministry of an unrepentant false teacher. They believe they are effecting reconciliation. In reality they welcome a wolf into the fold. Fr. Baucum may enjoy his mutual ministry with Bishop Johnston and the accolades he receives but he endangers the souls and lives of the flock of God. Those who are struggling with homosexual attraction at Truro and Trinity Brompton are now confronted with the confused and confusing image of known orthodox pastors who believe homosexual behavior to be sinful embracing and calling brother a leader who believes it is blessed.

Sin is deadly to the soul but Baucum makes peace with this purveyor poison and calls it healing and unity.
This precisely what St. John warned about in his second epistle.

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works.”(2 John 9-11)

There can be no dialog with false teachers. I pray that Fr. Baucum will heed John’s apostolic warning and turn back from his present course. His actions represent a participation in Bishop Johnston’s wicked work and theyopen the door to ecclesial chaos and dissolution.

I also hope that those with influence and authority will intervene. Truro Church is under the authority of Bishop John Guernsey who has, in the past, indicated support for Fr. Baucum’s version of reconciliation. I pray he will change his mind. Unwillingness to defend the flock is precisely what led the Episcopal Church to ruin.

Revisiting the Three Streams - Gillis Harp

from VirtueOnline

Revisiting the Three Streams

By Dr. Gillis Harp
http://pbsusa.org/
Sept. 27, 2012

The September/October 2009 issue of Mandate printed an article that explored some concerns about a historical and theological paradigm that was fast becoming a popular way to explain the peculiar genius of Anglicanism.

Since then, this Three Streams model has become very fashionable in some circles. Although versions of the paradigm vary considerably, most iterations contend that Anglicanism can best be understood as synthesizing the Evangelical (or Protestant), the Catholic, and the Pentecostal (or Charismatic) traditions within Western Christianity.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

SEATTLE: Episcopal bishop: Gay marriage is a 'conservative proposal'

from VirtueOnline

SEATTLE: Episcopal bishop: Gay marriage is a 'conservative proposal'
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

By Joe Connelly
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/26/gay-marriage-conservative-proposal-bishop/
Sept. 26, 2012

Legalizing same-sex marriage is "a conservative proposal" consistent with basic Christian teaching and the Christian life, Episcopal Bishop Greg Rickel argues in a statement to be released on Thursday.

The bishop's statement will be read during an afternoon news conference, at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, at which Protestant and Jewish leaders from the faith community - and Catholics for Marriage Equality - will argue for passage of Referendum 74 on the November ballot.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

Breaking: Mass. priest accused of child sex abuse found dead

from Episcopal Cafe by Jim Naughton

From The Boston Globe:

An Episcopal priest who was arraigned earlier this month in a Somerville courtroom on charges that he repeatedly sexually assaulted a child who was a former parishioner has died, his lawyer and the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts said on Wednesday night. ....
LaCharite, 65, had pleaded not guilty on Sept. 10 to charges that he sexually assaulted the former parishioner, who is now 26, over a ten-year period at the St. James Episcopal Church in Somerville, where the priest had been assigned from 1989 to 2005.

“This is an unspeakable tragedy,” said David Meier, a lawyer for LaCharite, who was found dead on Wednesday night in Boston. “Father Paul LaCharite was truly an innocent man who was driven to the depths of despair by a false accusation.”

Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts released the following statement:

With sorrow I received news this evening that the Rev. Paul LaCharite has died, an apparent suicide. This is a shocking tragedy, and I've asked our diocesan community to pray for everyone concerned.

I agree with Fr. Kennedy

A Brief Open Letter to Stephen Kuhrt and Tory Baucum

from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy

Editor's Note: Tory was a classmate of mine at seminary.  I have been puzzled by his efforts to find common ground with the same bishop that has sued his congregation out of their properties.  Loving your enemies doesn't mean embracing those who embrace heresy.  Turning the other cheek doesn't mean giving aid to those who are intent on destroying the church by their actions and teachings.  ed.

Dear Stephen Kuhrt and Tory Baucum:

Pastors and/or church leaders who advocate blessing same sex unions and ordaining ministers in same sex relationships are not our “brothers with whom we disagree”...they are purveyors of “another gospel” (Gal 1:6-9). They are false teachers who lead people away from repentance and the redeeming work of Jesus. They are wolves to be driven out of the fold…not brethren to be given a platform or an opportunity to spread their spiritual poison.

“Recant and repent or face discipline and expulsion.” That is the only opportunity for dialog these leaders must be given.

And this is not because we are mean but because we have a flock to protect and that flock cannot and must not be set at risk to make room for those purported Christian leaders who want to use the pulpit to embark upon self-indulgent theological journeys to nowhere.

By giving false teachers a platform and a voice, you are giving aid and comfort to the Enemy. You are undermining the Gospel you claim to uphold.

For the sake of the Church Jesus loves and died and rose again to save: proclaim Jesus Christ, defend the Faith, or step down.

Yours in Christ
Matt Kennedy

More unifying? Really?

(Reuters) Anglican church chooses new leader to weather storms

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

"It'd be hard to find somebody more unifying than Rowan Williams, and yet he hasn't managed to hold it together," Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times newspaper, told Reuters.

"Under him, there have been two significant changes: one is the growth of secularism ... and the other is greater division in the church over issues like women bishops, women priests and gay weddings."

The arcane process of selecting the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury is wrapped in layers of protocol perhaps unsurprising for a role with roots going back 1,400 years.

Read it all.

Unintended consequences of "cool" youth ministry

from The Lead by Kurt Wiesner

Matt Marino, Episcopal Priest and Director of Youth and Young Adults for the Diocese of Arizona writes the blog post: "What so uncool about cool churches?"
In the blog, Marino argues that the focus on building big youth group and getting kids to make "decisions for Jesus" is failing to make disciples:

In an effort to give people something “attractive” and “relevant” we embraced novel new methods in youth ministry, that 20 years later are having a powerful shaping effect on the entire church. Here are the marks of being market-driven; Which are hallmarks of your ministry?1. Segregation. We bought into the idea that youth should be segregated from the family and the rest of the church. It started with youth rooms, and then we moved to “youth services.” We ghettoized our children! (After all, we are cooler than the older people in “big church”. And parents? Who wants their parents in their youth group?) Be honest: Have you ever thought you know more than your your student’s parents? Have you ever thought your youth group was cooler than “big church”?
2. Big = effective. Big is (by definition) program driven: Less personal, lower commitment; a cultural and social thing as much as a spiritual thing. Are those the values that we actually hold?
3. More programs attended = stronger disciples. The inventers of this idea, Willow Creek, in suburban Chicago, publically repudiated this several years ago. They discovered that there was no correlation between the number of meetings attended and people’s spiritual maturity. They learned the lesson. Will we?
4. Christian replacementism. We developed a Christian version of everything the world offers: Christian bands, novels, schools, soccer leagues, t-shirts. We created the perfect Christian bubble.
5. Cultural “relevance” over transformation. We imitated our culture’s most successful gathering places in an effort to be “relevant.” Reflect on the Sunday “experience” at most Big-box churches:
Concert hall (worship)
Comedy club (sermon)
Coffee house (foyer)
And what about Transformation? Is that not missing from these models? Where is a sense of the holy?
6. Professionalization. If we do know an unbeliever, we don’t need to share Christ with them, we have pastors to do that. We invite them to something… to an “inviter” event… we invite them to our “Christian” subculture.
7. “McDonald’s-ization” vs. Contextualization: It is no longer our own vision and passion. We purchase it as a package from today’s biggest going mega-church. It is almost like a “franchise fee” from Saddleback or The Resurgence.
8. Attractional over missional. When our greatest value is butts in pews we embrace attractional models. Rather than embrace Paul’s Ephesians 4 model in which ministry gifts are given by God to “equip the saints” we have developed a top-down hierarchy aimed at filling buildings. This leaves us with Sunday “church” an experience for the unchurched, with God-centered worship of the Almighty relegated to the periphery and leading of the body of Christ to greater spiritual power and sanctification to untrained small group leaders.
Does not all of this work together as a package to leave us with churches full of empty people?

Marino concludes that this market driven "youth ministry of preference" leads to the later absence of young adults in churches. Do you agree?