davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Stand Firm

articles posted on Stand Firm

Friday, May 09, 2008

Philippi or Corinth: Where is the Anglican Communion? A Response to Graham Kings

As I sit here at the beginning of May, one major question is facing all those who want to uphold the truth of the gospel in the Anglican Communion: should we go to Lambeth? Of course, for most of us that’s an academic question - we don’t have an invitation (although that’s not stopping some). Nevertheless we have an emotional investment in the issue, for the question of how much we associate with those that we disagree with is (or at least should be) a constant dilemma for those who take the Scripture seriously, especially where there is clear evidence of willful unrepentance in the matter of public sin.

That is, of course, one of the considerations that drives many of those clergy and laity who are attending GAFCON but staying away from Lambeth. They are convinced that they must seperate themselves from those who promote the various theological innovations (not just in doctrine but in practise) that are currently tearing our Communion apart. In the first part this is a theological conviction - they look to texts such as these:

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

What is interesting here is that we are called to disassociate with these sorts of people if they “bear the name of brother”. Or, put another way, if Gene Robinson were simply my atheistic bank manager then Scripture’s injunction would not stand. Rather, it is because he “bears the name of brother” and yet wilfully continues in sin that we are called to not associate with him. Division, then, comes about because certain people claim to be Christian.

In the second part, the decision not to attend Lambeth is more pragmatic. There are those that have held out to us a confidence that we can still turn the ship around if we handle Lambeth well. They, too, are concerned with the direction that TEC, the ACinC and others have steered the Communion over the past decades. Nevertheless, others have no such confidence anymore. We have seen the leaders of TEC throw and such attempts to rectify matters back in the Communion’s face. Why should Lambeth be any different? If the month-long conference were even to address these serious matters that now divide us (not that it is really planning to), if they even came up with serious resolutions - what good would it do? What real good did resolution 1.10 in 1998 do as we look back a decade later? It seems to many of us that all it has served to achieve is the crystallisation of our differences.

The orthodox, then, are faced with a difficult decision. To go or not to go.

One self-declared evangelical who recently addressed this question is Graham Kings at Fulcrum. Graham recently wrote an article entitled ”Faith and Fellowship in Crisis”. The Article seeks to make a case for orthodox attendance at Lambeth by framing the current divisions in the context of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. So, with constant reference to the letter to the Philippians, Kings reminds us:

Paul starts his letter with thanksgiving and prayer. Philippians 1:3-4, ‘I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for you all.’

and

In Philippians 1:5, Paul writes of their ‘sharing in the gospel’, which can also be translated ‘partnership’ or ‘communion’. The Greek word is ‘koinonia’ which has become very important in recent ecclesiological and ecumenical concerns.
...
In his video this week, Rowan Williams described the ‘middle sized groups’ of the conference:

We have given these the African name of indaba groups, groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it. This is how we approached it. This is what we heard.

and

In Philippians 1:12 Paul writes, ‘And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that on the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless.’
...
It seems to me, that we could refer this to the concept of core beliefs and to adiaphora which the Windsor Report defines as follows:

As the Church has explored the question of limits to diversity, it has frequently made use of the notion of adiaphora: things which do not make a difference, matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the Church.

and

In Philippians 1:15 -18 Paul writes, referring to his detractors, ‘Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill...What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice.’

In Philippians 2:2, he continues, ‘Make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.’

This is a powerful reminder for our concerns today and Paul uses it to introduce his famous christological hymn in verses 5-11, ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus…

In Philippines 4:2-3 he writes, echoing his earlier language, concerning specific people who are not united in the love of Christ, ‘I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel.’

It seems clear from Paul that humility and unity hang together, while pride and disunity hang down and drag others down with them.

and finally

People usually go to Romans and Galatians for Paul’s doctrine of ‘justification by faith’, but Philippians is also vital. Chapter 3:8-9 runs, ‘that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.’

People in the church at Philippi were probably mostly Gentile, not Jewish, Christians. It is worth remembering, in the context of Lambeth 2008, where nearly all the bishops and their spouses will be Gentile Christians, that justification by faith is crucial - literally - not because it is easier than by the law, not because it is more spiritual than by the law, but because it thereby includes the Gentiles, who do not have the law and only have faith in Jesus Christ.

For Kings, then, it seems that we are a “Philippian Communion”. We have disagreement, no doubt, but the letter to the Philippians shows us the beginnings of a framework by which we may yet come together and, in his estimation, Lambeth 08 fits that framework.

So the question before us must be “is the Communion Philippian, or something else?” Where is the Anglican Communion? Philippi, or somewhere else?

Those of us who are familiar with the Epistle will recognise that there were some serious problems bubbling away under the surface in that fledgling church. Paul’s injunctions to “let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1:27), “being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (2:2-4), “do all things without grumbling or questioning,” (2:14) etc. make sense when we finally see him address one of the relational breakdowns in the congregation:

Philippians 4:2 I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. ³ Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

There is some division, no doubt. But note how Paul makes his appeal for unity. Euodia and Syntyche (or “Odious and So-Touchy” as a former pastor of mine nicknamed them) have laboured side by side with Paul in the gospel. They are fellow workers and their names are in the book of life. Simply put, they are gospel people. They love the Lord Jesus Christ and are committed to the Gospel that Paul first taught the Philippians and which he reminds them of in the letter. They are, then, included amongst those of which Paul can say:

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, ⁴ always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, ⁵ because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. ⁶ And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. ⁷ It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

Such people, of course, exist in all our churches. Amongst us there are those who are equally committed to the Gospel and yet find it hard to get along. Some are envious of one another and seek to outdo their rivals in gospelling (1:15 ff.). They may be ambitious or conceited (2:3). Nevertheless they hold to the Gospel and are Gospel people. As Pastors and fellow believers we urge them to be reconciled on the basis of their shared gospel commitment.

And what is this gospel which Paul is convinced reconciles us both to God and to each other? It is centred around the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those great events provide not only the model for a Christian life of humility (2:5-11) but also the basis of Christian confidence itself. Our confidence is in what Jesus has done on our behalf, not what we might do:

Philippians 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- ¹⁰ that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ¹¹ that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is, first and foremost, a Gospel that brings righteousness - a right standing before God. That righteousness could never be attained by the law (and Paul knew, he had tried) but, rather, through faith in Christ.

And that was the Gospel that Euodia and Syntyche both believed and which would be the basis of their unity as, with the grace of God, they sought to overcome their differences.

There were, however, those in Philippi who did not believe this Gospel. They taught another Gospel that appears to have had Judaising tendencies. Paul had stern words for them:

Philippians 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh
...
¹⁸ For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. ¹⁹ Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

At the same time that Paul can call the rivals Euodia and Syntyche to unity, he also warns them to stay well clear of those who do not believe the Gospel that they share. It is interesting in Kings’ article that no mention is made of this injunction, despite the fact that it lays side by side with the calls to unity with other Christians.

So which city is the Anglican Communion? It might be tempting to turn to Corinth - the Scriptural home of sexual immorality. We have seen above the clear call that Paul gives to disassociate with the unrepentant sinners there. Who, either, could forget this stern warning:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? ¹⁵ What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ¹⁷ Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, ¹⁸ and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

It seems, then, that the Anglican Communion should better be expressed as being in Corinth, not Philippi, for the key issues that we are dividing over are remarkably similar to those that Corinth struggled with. The Devil’s playbook has a long provenance. In one sense that conclusion is unavoidable.

But Kings wants me to understand the Communion as being in Philippi.

Well, so be it. If he is calling for those of us who might be called “Conservative Evangelicals” to be reconciled to those such as he who might be known as “Open Evangelicals” then that is a noble call and I would long to join him in it. In his piece (as we have seen above) he affirms the Pauline gospel of justification by faith alone and so we may agree on the gospel that brings us unity. Euodia and Syntyche may, once again, work together.

But that is not the whole story. For amongst our fellowship there are also dogs, enemies of the gospel that he and I agree on, and the same Paul that calls us to unity tells us to watch out for those enemies. They are not welcome at the table.

If the Anglican Communion is to be “in Philippi”, and I agree with Kings that it is, then it is time to obey God fully and send the dogs, the enemies of the gospel, away from the table. The problem with Lambeth is that Euodia and Synthyche would have to share their Sunday roast with wolves despite the Philippian church being told that they should do no such thing.

There is, of course, an alternative. There is another gospel table where the dogs are not invited but Euodia and Syntyche sit side by side. At GAFCON evangelicals and anglo-catholics will set aside their rivalries for the service of a greater agreement. It would be great if Kings would join us, and he rightly notes that Paul would have it no other way. But if he wants to share his meal with wolves, our obedience to what Paul wrote to the Philippians will not allow us to come.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Manchester Report: Women Bishops in the CofE

The Church of England has released the long-awaited Manchester Report - it’s evaluation of what is required to move towards the consecration of women as bishops. At the moment the document is available as a series of word (.doc) files.

The big questions addressed are

What legislative changes are required?
What provisions are necessary for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops, nor those that they ordain?

Women bishops are all but inevitable in the CofE and so the report, in its own words…

seeks to move the debate on from the ‘whether’ to the ‘how’.

Readers can go check out the meat of the report here (.doc file). The legislative changes are pretty standard stuff. The really thorny question which the group has grappled with is how to deal with conscientious objectors. This, however, raises its own issues:

12 ...there was a great deal of perplexity over how this could be done in a way which (a) had ecclesiological integrity; (b) left space within the Church of England for those who in conscience could not accept the priestly or episcopal ministry of women; and (c) avoided any flavour of discrimination or half-heartedness on the part of the Church of England towards women priests and bishops.

And there is the rub. As the group recognised, any move to have special arrangements for those who object may, in some way, indicate that the Church is not wholly committed to the matter. It’s a critical issue for,

22 ... far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses.

As an evangelical who could not accept the ministry of a woman bishop, the question is “do I still have a place in the Church?” And, if so, what does that place look like? We are not a small minority by any means. As the report itself notes the General Synod of 2006 had large numbers disagreeing with the statement:

The view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.

22.5% of bishops, 23.9% of clergy and a whopping 35.6% of laity cannot agree with this move (para. 31, Manchester Report). What is to become of them? What place do they have?

I’m really grateful that the group recognised this massive issue and have made some steps towards solving it. Not least, they have recognised the need to have something for a lack of provision would provide great legal uncertainty (para. 60). Here’s what they suggest:

50. The three broad approaches are as follows:

the simplest possible statutory approach with no binding national arrangements;

legislation that would provide some basis for special arrangements for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops, such arrangements to be made within the present structures of the Church of England; and

legislation that would create new structures within the Church of England for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

...

90. [...] we have decided for the sake of simplicity to focus in this analysis on the structural solution that would involve the least innovation (though it would still involve quite a lot) in terms of the present structures of the Church of England. This is the approach that would involve the creation of a number of new, special dioceses, without a separate provincial structure.

Now, that quote obviously washes over a great deal of discussion of the alternates. The bottom line of the solution is this: not happy with your bishop? You can have another one. The advantage, the Report claims, is that this doesn’t require a new way of doing things, just a new diocese. That is certainly true and would cause the least disruption.

How would this work out for the dissenting portions? The Report makes some suggestions:

100. There are also some question marks arising from the differences between those who have difficulties over women’s ordination for reasons of sacramental theology and those whose position derives from a particular view of headship. For Catholics, issues concerning sacramental assurance and the collegiality of presbyters with their bishop are fundamental. As soon as the Church of England had admitted women to the College of Bishops many of them would find it necessary to be able to look to male bishops who had made it clear that they did not intend to ordain women to the presbyterate or participate in the consecration of women to the episcopate. If special dioceses had been created they would, therefore, petition to be part of it straight away.

101. For many Evangelicals, by contrast, the issues would be rather different. On headship grounds they might not be able to accept a female incumbent or direct oversight by a woman bishop. But, for so long as their incumbent was male, and the bishop providing oversight to them male, they would not necessarily see any compelling need to petition to move from the historic diocese, particularly if the special diocese was seen to have an ecclesial culture far removed from their own reformed convictions. It is perhaps partly for that reason that Conservative Evangelicals have put it to us that it would be crucial for one or more bishops within the new dioceses to be Evangelical. Whether that would in fact be sufficient to make the new structures stable is not entirely clear.

But this is not the whole of the matter. For how are clergy to relate to one another as women bishops begin to be ordained?

136. For many supporters of women’s ordination the crux of the current dilemma is whether any special arrangements for those who in conscience cannot receive the ministry of women bishops and priests would be tantamount to acknowledging a doubt on the part of the Church of England over the decision to ordain women as priests and bishops.

137. Moreover, since - irrespective of Canon A 4 - mutual recognition of orders has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of a Church, would it be tolerable to contemplate having within the Church of England people who retained doubts about each other’s orders? These have, of course, already been acute questions since 1994 in relation to women priests. They would assume even greater importance in relation to women bishops who would themselves be ordaining men and women to the priesthood.

This is, for me, the key issue. If I refuse to recognise the innovation then what will happen? Can I be considered truly Anglican? What will happen to my license, my orders?

138. This is undoubtedly one of the most difficult circles to square. Having pondered the matter carefully, we believe that any possible solution needs to incorporate the following elements:

a. A clear statement by the Church of England that, in admitting women into the episcopate, it is now fully committed to opening all orders of ministry to men and women;
b. An acceptance on the part of those who, theologically, cannot receive the ministry of women priests and bishops or those ordained by them that the Church of England has decided to admit men and women equally to holy orders and that those whom the Church has duly ordained and appointed to office are the lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and lawful obedience;
c. An acknowledgement by those in favour of women’s ordination that the theological convictions of those unable to receive the ordained ministry of women are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition and that those who hold them should, therefore, be able to receive pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with their convictions.

The Report goes on to be very clear what it means by “lawful”:

142. A formulation along these lines would go some way, we believe, to dispelling some of the confusion that currently exists in relation to the “validity of orders.” The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England does not admit any distinction between the lawfulness of an ordination and its validity. Thus, an ordination conducted fully in accordance with the various requirements of the Church of England as to matters such as qualifications of the candidate and of the ordaining minister and the rite employed, will take effect for all legal purposes.

143. It is not, therefore, open to any person, whether or not a member of the Church of England, to question the validity of the ordination in legal terms. The fact that some may doubt whether women may, sacramentally, be priests and bishops and/or exercise headship is a separate matter from calling into question whether, as a matter of law, the ordinations are valid.

Here, I think, is the great problem. The Report wishes me to recognise a distinction between the “lawful” and “sacramental” (whatever we understand by that word, and Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will have some disagreement). I’m not sure that I can. Rather, it seems to me that for an ordination or consecration to be “lawful” it must also be “sacramental”. We would not (and do not) agree to this distinction with respect to Gene Robinson’s consecration. It is a stretch to suggest that since it was carried out in good order and according to the laws that I must, even in a limited way, recognise it as valid.

Now, this does not mean that we cannot respect those persons. I can well imagine having a diocesan bishop who is a woman and being very happy to abide by her administrative requests and procedures, to have her round for a meal to get to know her better, and so on. But I could not recognise her as a “bishop” in any sense other than as a courtesy and, surely, the proposed canons will require more of me.

Now, granted, the Report would make a provision for me to become part of a new diocese. I would in effect, have 2 bishops, albeit with 2 different relationships. Nevertheless,

149. We believe that an essential part of the effort “to maintain the highest degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops” is to be accommodating on the subject of the duty and oath of canonical obedience and to provide for two separate duties, and possibly two oaths, one to each of the bishops in respect of that bishop’s functions.

150. We regard this dual allegiance as important both in substance and symbolically, and we recommend that if one of the approaches canvassed in this chapter is adopted, then work should proceed on the formulation of two distinct duties and oaths with consequential amendments to the relevant Canons.

So here is my dilemma. Even if I were to join a new diocese, what oath would I be required to swear in substance to my former diocesan? Surely not one that bent my conscience? But the Report, unless I have misread it, insists that I must recognise the canonical validity of the consecration.

And what if I don’t want to join a new diocese? What if I love the diocese that I’m currently in? Why must I move when others have changed? I don’t want to appear picky here but it really does seem that, ultimately, I will be forced to move in some way - once again finding that despite my theological position having not changed one iota, the playing field has and I am no longer on the centre spot where I thought I stood but somewhere near the touchline.

And there is another issue that the Report nodded to but didn’t address:

24 ...Full communion and collegiality within the House and College of Bishops has up to now been a central plank in Anglican ecclesiology. The prospect of a House of Bishops where there would no longer be full communion and collegiality between its members does, therefore, raise new and difficult issues.

As we noted above, almost a quarter of the House of Bishops could not agree to the measure. What is to become of them? Must they now be forced to acknowledge the validity of the consecration of their women colleagues? Collegiality is a big thing for the English House of Bishops, moreso certainly than TEC at this current time. Who do bishops go to for alternate arrangements? Will they be allowed to not recognise the place of the female bishop opposite them? There is certainly more work to be done here.

The Report closes:

165. Nevertheless, as will have been clear from this report, the Church of England now faces some very serious decisions. They go to the heart of what sort of Church it wishes to be. Far better that those issues are faced calmly, honestly and prayerfully now than that the Synod should set off down a road which may, ultimately, fail to command sufficient consensus.

The problem is that the Church of England does not have sufficient consensus. It is gratifying that the Report calls us all to take this very seriously but more than contemplation is required to make this work. It could be that those of us who protest are the main problem. But then, it could be that the real problem is requiring orthodox Christians to accept an unbiblical move. It may be that the innovation itself is what has brought us to this point of division.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

A Very Special Tent - more audio!

Friday, April 04, 2008

Virginia dissenting parishes win first round of legal battle

judgement day Some great news just in from the States. A group of dissenting parishes in the Diocese of Virginia who have named themselves ”Anglican District of Virginia” (ADV) have won the first round of a legal battle with their former Diocese.

The Diocese, at the instigation of the Presiding Bishop of TEC, had sued the parishes for their property. The parishes had responded that they were entitled to split with their property under a law particular to Virginia called “57-9” that allowed such organisations to keep their property where there was a recognisable division in a religious body. The law case, then, hung on whether TEC and the Diocese of Virginia was such a religious body and whether such a division had occurred. TEC and the Diocese argued they weren’t and it hadn’t, ADV suggested that it was common sense that they were and it had.

We’ve got the full text of the judgement up [pdf] at Stand Firm and comments are picking up.

The judgement is excellent in that the judge (the magnificently named Randy I Bellows) is slightly incredulous at the position taken by the Diocese and TEC. Here’s what he says in his conclusion:

...it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude, especially given the involvement of numerous churches in states across the country, the participation of hundreds of church leaders, both lay and pastoral, who have found themselves “taking sides” against their brethren, the determination by thousands of church members in Virginia and elsewhere to “walk apart” in the language of the Church, the creation of new and substantial religious entities, such as CANA, with their own structures and disciplines, the rapidity with which the ECUSA’s problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world, and, perhaps most importantly, the creation of a level of distress among many church members so profound and wrenching as to lead them to cast votes in an attempt to disaffiliate from a church which has been their home and heritage throughout their lives, and often back for generations.

In laymans terms, he’s saying that the level of observable disruption and distress in ECUSA/TEC is so great that you’d have to be shutting your eyes not to see it. Which is, of course, what TEC have been doing since day one. Pretending it’s not there.

Now, of course, they’ll appeal and this will drag on but it’s great to have it on the record.

click here to leave a comment

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Bishops and the Bible

What is it with some of them? They just don’t want to do the job they signed up to do.

Take, for example, Michael Ingham - bishop of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in Canada. There he is on the right in his nice bishop clothes. When he’s not picking on Christians, he likes to rip chunks out of the Bible.

In his recent Easter message, ”First death, then resurrection”, he writes this:

God is a God of Resurrection. This is the truth we celebrate as Christians. But the sequence of events is that crucifixion and death happen first.

All true, but he does not say what you think he’s saying for in the previous paragraph he tells us this:

It’s important to understand that God was not behind the crucifixion. God was in the Resurrection. God is not a crucifying God, not a God of cruelty and domination. God is an Easter God, a God of new life who brings about miracles of transformation even in the bleakest of circumstances.

There’s nothing so perniciously dangerous as a half truth. The half truth that Ingham insists upon is that the God is not a crucifying God.

However, God disagrees. Consider this:

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Here is the wonder of Easter. Not only is God at hand in the Resurrection, He is also fully the God of the Cross. He designed it, He intended it. Indeed, the Resurrection would be nothing without the Cross for the Resurrection requires the Cross in order to have any effect. God did not simply raise Jesus from the dead to make the best of a bad job - He raised Him from the dead to complete the job that they had started, Father and Son.

click here to leave a comment

Monday, March 24, 2008

“we need to challenge the belief that the Resurrection from the Dead was a physical resurrection”

Yes, you read it correctly. Those are the words of the Dean of Perth’s Anglican Cathedral, The Very Reverend Dr John Shepherd. Here’s his very special Easter message…

Got that? I’m staggered. One of the most senior clergymen in the country denying the physicality of Jesus’ Resurrection. Consider the claims that he makes and what the Bible actually says:

The Resurrection of Jesus ought not to be seen in physical terms, but as a new spiritual reality. It is important for Christians to be set free from the idea that the Resurrection was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original earthly body.
...
Jesus’ early followers felt His presence after His death as strongly as if it were a physical presence and incorporated this sense of a resurrection experience into their gospel accounts. But they’re not historical records as we understand them. They are symbolic images of the breaking through of the resurrection spirit into human lives.
...
Jesus lived ... as a transformed spiritual reality.

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” ²⁰ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

Luke 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, ² like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. ³ So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, ² and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you– unless you believed in vain. ³ For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received– that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, ⁴ and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

and, of course, the Anglican Articles:

Article IV

Of the Resurrection of Christ

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Shepherd says that the very central truths of the Christian gospel, the fundamental event without which we “believe in vain” (as the Apostles puts it) is something that Christians need to “be set free from”. Put simply, He denies the gospel. He denies the assurance of a physical resurrection, and he throws in universalism to boot.

There used to be such a thing as integrity and honour. Men used to resign in good conscience when they realised that the position that they held was incompatible with the role or office they were in. Not so Shepherd. He wants the trappings and status of being “Very Reverend” while making the most irreverent statements.

Will the ArchBishop Herft of Perth deal with this? Of course not. But you could always . I did. Be polite. Be courteous. But be clear - his Dean denies the basics of Christian Doctrine and it is unacceptable.

Bonus: Shepherd denies the Doctrines of God and of Special Revelation on Sunday 2 March 2008:

This is a cunning piece of oratory. He plays the straw man most effectively. And of course, no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ who perfectly reveals God to us. Not that you’re surprised by now.

click here to leave a comment

Sunday, March 16, 2008

A Majority of Bishops?

If you follow all things Anglican you cannot fail to have noticed the current discussion surrounding the deposition of Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) of America. An article by The Living Church summarises the issue neatly:

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

The problem, you see, is that the canons of TEC [pdf], and specifically Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2, require a majority of those entitled to vote, not just those present. Here’s the actual text of the canon:

If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

OK, that’s fair enough. Except that TEC are now arguing that it was all legal after all. A good example of such argumentation is a piece entitled ”A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On: The Canons and Deposing Persons” by Mark Harris on his blog, Preludium. Here’s what Mark is arguing:

Here is the wording from the Constitution: Article 1, Section 2 regarding quorum for the House of Bishops Meetings as part of General Convention.

“Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity, or who, under an election to an office created by the General Convention, or for reasons of mission strategy determined by action of the General Convention or the House of Bishops, has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and a vote in the House of Bishops. A majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”

At the last General Convention in 2006 (Journal pg 81) a understanding of the meaning of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and how to count the quorum was given in a note. It reads, “Note: A quorum is defined by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution as “a majority of all bishops entitled to vote (281), exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdictions or positions (156)” Thus the present quorum is 63.”

With it so far? Good. Now consider how Harris continues:

Every session of the House of Bishops, either at General Convention or otherwise, determines to do business on the basis of the bishops entitled to vote and determines that there are enough present to conduct business by determination of a quorum. At that point the “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” consists of those present and the “whole number” makes it clear that bishops other than those with jurisdiction may vote on the matter. To read “whole number” as meaning a reference back to all the possible bishops (300 or so) absent or present would provide the parliamentary boondoggle of making some votes based not on those present but on those possibly present. One might suppose it would be a virtue of any democratic system to insist that a majority vote ought to be on the basis of the whole body of voters on the rolls, but it would be a virtue that would either require compelling voters to be present or it would be increasingly unmanageable.

This is a good point. To read “whole number” as meaning a reference back to all the possible bishops does lead to a boondoggle (I don’t know exactly what that word means but I get the sense of it entirely). But that’s the problem that TEC has for, curiously, they have decided to use exactly the same language in one place as in another, namely

Bishops entitled to vote

Why does it mean one thing in one place but something different in another? It’s surely a principle of intelligent reading that terms are used consistently thus aiding understanding and dispelling confusion.

But more than that. Consider this -

Harris says:

The argument that deposition is a matter so great that a supermajority is required may or may not have merit, but none is to be found in the canons. Those who believe that the Constitution and Canons have this in mind need to show it.

Well, I’ll have a crack. The quorum is calculated as

a majority of all bishops entitled to vote

but the deposition is calculated on the basis of

a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote

The language of the latter is, by any fair reckoning, not just the same as the former but actually more expansive, if that were possible.

One more thought. We quite expect these days to see bishops twist scripture. We’ve been used to that for quite some time and it no longer shocks us. But to now see the TEC hierarchy twisting the sacred polity of TEC. Well, they must be desperate.

UPDATE
jamesw makes a very important observation on the “Let’s get to the Procedural Bottom of this” thread:

Canon III.12.8(d) makes clear what language is employed when a simple majority of those present is required, and that language is “by a majority of those present.”

Indeed, that language is used time and time in the canons. Here are the instances:

The House during its session shall accept or refuse the resignation by a majority of those present. (III.12.8.d p.111)

The House during its session shall accept or refuse the resignation by a majority of those present. (Rules of Order, House of Bishops, Daily Order, VII p.188)

If passed by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, members of the House will… (HoB General Rules for Meeting V p.189)

ditto 190; XIV, XV, XVII , XVIIIa, p.192, etc (another 6 identical usages - all concerning the business of the House of Bishops)

Thanks for that encouragement to further research, James. Quite clearly, when the canons want a simple majority of those present, they signal so.

click here to leave a comment

Saturday, March 15, 2008

The Lambeth Decision: A Sydney Briefing

The Anglican Church League in Sydney bring full details of a briefing meeting held this past Friday, organised by the Dean Philip Jensen. We are grateful to them for permission to reproduce their report and the links to all 4 presentations.

Audio and PDF files of Friday’s Lambeth Decision Briefing called by Dean Phillip Jensen, and held in the Chapter House of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, are now available, courtesy of SydneyAnglicans.net.

All very helpful in understanding the crisis facing the Anglican Communion.

The topic of the briefing was – ‘The Lambeth Decision: Refining or Redefining Anglicanism?’

The mp3 audio and PDF files will open in a new window.

Phillip Jensen – Are there limits to fellowship? (70 min / 48MB) – PDF file.
Mark Thompson – The Anglican Debacle. (30 min / 21MB) – PDF file.
Robert Tong – Doing the Lambeth Walk. (21 min / 14 MB) – PDF file.
Russell Powell – What is GAFCON all about? (7 min / 5MB) – PDF file.

click here to leave a comment

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Doug Wilson on polity

One of our joys at Stand Firm is to provide our readers with useful arguments the next time they’re stuck in an elevator with Bonnie Anderson, or whichever liberal Episcopalian they fancy. I couldn’t help but smile when I read the following from Doug Wilson who, although dealing with a different situation, provides us with a pithy and powerful argument:

If someone were to show me that this travesty had been perfectly legal in all essential respects, I would not therefore be impressed. Something does not become just simply because it can be justified procedurally. When the Sanhedrin met to condemn Jesus, I’ll bet they had a quorum.

click here to leave a comment

Saturday, February 02, 2008

From near and far for Ordination

sydneyanglicans.net are running this excellent story on our ordination:

Hundreds of people, some from as far away as Broken Hill, have packed St. Andrew’s Cathedral for the ordination of 48 men and women for ministry.

The group included 31 year old Jonathan Lilley, the first Aboriginal candidate to complete the full four year course at Moore College.

Lilley, who is married with three young children, says he found the course academically challenging.

He says he he didn’t come to college with a degree as many of his colleagues had, but had been encouraged greatly by friends along the way.

He will take up a position with the Anglican Church in Nowra, and will be involved in ministry to the South Coast’s Aboriginal community.

The Diocese has several aboriginal workers, but Jonathan is the first to complete the full Bachelor of Divinity degree.

Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen described Jonathan as a man with a great heart for his own people, but said his training meant he could be posted to any ministry, aboriginal or not.

The ordinands will take up positions in churches ranging from Holy Trinity, Adelaide to Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains.

As well as the 48, John Lee was commissioned as a Diocesan worker for church planting in Sydney’s South.

Archbishop Peter Jensen said it was a point of great thanks to God that such large numbers had been presented for ordination for three years running.

John Lilley and I came through the same 4 years at college. This, my friends, is the gospel. Two men who’s ancestors were mortal enemies standing together to serve their common Lord and Saviour.

click here to leave a comment

Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Statistics

This page has been viewed 114214 times
Page rendered in 2.4651 seconds
Total Entries: 735
Total Comments: 3903
Total Trackbacks: 849
Most Recent Entry: 05/11/2008 07:29 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/09/2008 09:47 pm
Total Members: 4
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 10
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/17/2008 12:06 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am