Thanks Giving Message

Dearly beloved faithful in Christ,

With Thanksgiving Day approaching, we would like to take the time to evaluate the true essence of the holiday. We found it appropriate to quote from the "Proclamation of Thanksgiving" issued by President Abraham Lincoln on October 3, 1863. With the issuance of this letter, Thanksgiving Day was proclaimed as a national holiday in the United States of America.

". . . No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union . . ."

Proclamation of Thanksgiving*

Washington, D.C.

October 3, 1863

Therefore, it is our duty as members of the Anglican Church in America , continuing to faithfully follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and as law-abiding citizens of the United States of America to forever remember the true spirit of Thanksgiving: being thankful and praising the Lord not once a year but always. "I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart; I will tell all thy wonderful deeds. I will be glad and exult in thee, I will sing praise to thy name, O Most High" (Psalms 9:1-3).

Prayerfully,

Bob+

Rev. Bobby C. Hall, SSM

The Chicken and the Egg

The following article was posted by Christian Champbell on his Anglo-Catholic Blog. It is exceedingly well thought out and well worth sharing again here.

Bob+



The Chicken and the Egg

Since the announcement of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, from progressive and traditionalist Catholics alike, concerns have been raised about the commitment of Anglicans who may avail themselves of the Holy Father’s offer and the thoroughness of the “conversions” they will undergo.

The liberals seem concerned that an influx of supposedly “conservative” Anglicans will further undermine their progressive vision of the modern Church and the fading ’spirit of Vatican II’. A recent editorial in The Tablet even suggested that incoming Anglicans must dispense with their outmoded beliefs on the priesthood, liturgy, and devotion to the Blessed Virgin in order to be received into the Catholic Church. For these liberals, Anglicans must be assimilated into the modernist ideal and leave the baggage of traditional piety and belief behind.

Traditionalist Catholics fear that Anglicans may be motivated more by what they are running away from than what (or rather Whom) they are running towards. Do these Anglicans truly submit in every last detail to the Magisterium as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do they really accept the primacy and infallibility of the Pope and the recent Marian dogmas? Do they not have mental reservations? How dare they maintain that the Anglican patrimony has treasures to offer to the larger Catholic Church? They speak of being ‘united but not absorbed’. They must abandon their pretensions! They must convert!

As for the hand-wringing of the progressive Catholics, I hate to break it to The Tablet, but we’re coming in and you can pry our antiquated prayer books, missals, and rosaries from our cold dead fingers. We’ll continue to naïvely believe in the Real Presence and all those fairy tales in the Bible, we’ll bow when the processional cross passes by, genuflect at the Incarnatus est, use incense, and say ‘and with thy spirit’ — and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it! Rather, it is the concern of the so-called “traditionalist” or “conservative” Catholics that “former Anglicans” will only convert with reservations that I desire presently to address.

I do not presume to speak for Anglicans in other places and in other circumstances. Certainly, the implosion of the Church of England, for example, creates certain pressures. Faithful Anglo-Catholics are being systematically marginalized and forced out of the Established Church and they must look to other arrangements. Does this impel some of them to seek entry into the Roman Catholic Church as a sort of fallback position and without the full acceptance of the significance of this move? Perhaps. But I can only speak to my experience in one corner of the American Continuing Church.

From its foundation, the Traditional Anglican Communion has been dedicated to entering into full sacramental communion with the Roman Catholic Church. In the adoption of this goal, the TAC was not being particularly innovative; it was simply seeking to pick up where the official Canterbury-based Anglican Communion had left off. The general trajectory of the Anglican Communion throughout the twentieth century was towards unity with the Roman Church, and this goal seemed tantalizingly close in the period immediately following the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. It was only the radical innovation of women’s ordination (and the concomitant deviations in historic Christian faith and praxis) in some provinces of the Anglican Communion that lead to the breakdown of the ARCIC process and the prevention of that long-desired restoration of communion between Rome and Canterbury. As the Continuing Church had preserved our traditional Anglican faith and practice, so too did the TAC adopt the ecumenical agenda which had been put on hiatus by the troubles in “official” Anglicanism.

While I have have only had the privilege of being a member of the Continuing Church for several years now (though born and raised in the Episcopal Church), it is clear to me that this mission of unity with the Roman Catholic Church had been assimilated — at least in some vague way — into the identity of my parish (the diocesan cathedral) long before my arrival. From its inception thirty years ago, the parish has had, like many others in the largely Anglo-Catholic Continuum, a decidedly “high church” bent and has enjoyed the leadership of solid Anglo-Catholic clergy. The diocesan bishop (and long-time rector) is a strong Catholic and has never been afraid to teach the Faith. The notion that communio in sacris with the Catholic Church was the aspiration of our church was generally understood.

This is not to say that the traditional Anglican fault lines between Catholics and protestants were absent in the parish (and to some small degree they are still present). Our people come from a variety of backgrounds — many were raised Episcopalian (of all varieties of churchmanship), some grew up in the Roman Catholic Church, and not a few come to us from various protestant traditions. All were drawn to our profession of the historic Christian Faith and to the sublime beauty of the Anglican tradition by which we live it out.

Those of our folks that left the Episcopal Church often did so at great personal cost. They left the churches in which they were raised, where their parents are buried, where their children were christened. The pastors that the Episcopal Church had set over them betrayed them to the Enemy and they were forced out into the Wilderness. While they were thankful to have found a parish home, their willingness to meekly follow their bishop and clergy had often been sorely tested by their painful experiences. Those from the various protestant sects were new to the Catholic Faith and obviously had no tradition of forming their consciences in accordance with the teaching of the Church. Our clergy and their collaborators, with pastoral sensitivity and common sense, met each individual where they were. Without ever denying the fundamental truths of the Catholic Faith and working from within the limited framework of the Anglican tradition, they endeavored, by stages, to instill in our people a genuine sensus Catholicus. And this process remains ongoing.

But herein lies the problem: the Anglican tradition is indeed a limited framework and its ultimate shortcoming is a lack of authority. The hierarchy of the Traditional Anglican Communion have long been committed to reunion with Rome. It is well known that in 2007, the bishops of the TAC solemnly signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sending the landmark letter to Rome requesting corporate reunion with the Holy See. Our bishops have proposed the Catechism as “the most perfect expression of the Catholic faith in the world today,” a Faith which they “aspire to hold and teach.” But how effectively can the bishops and their clergy teach the fullness of the Catholic Faith in our communities?

Thankfully in our Continuing Church, we are not officially burdened with the acceptance of certain unfortunate and imperfect formularies from the Anglican tradition such as the XXXIX Articles of Faith. We are bound only by the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer (with the attached Ordinal) and informed by Holy Scriptures, the (first) Seven Ecumenical Councils, and Holy Tradition (though notably professing “that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them”). Appeal is made to the “ancient catholic bishops and doctors” and presumably thus to the “Undivided Church” of the first millennium. Obviously, on a number of issues, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is at odds both with certain traditional Anglican formulae and, for example, the Orthodox Church’s understanding on a number of key points.

So here we arrive at the Chicken and the Egg. Ours is an episcopal church; our bishops claim the right to teach and govern, it is true, and our people are respectful of that prerogative. But that authority is mitigated — vitiated — by the the lack of an ultimate authority in our ecclesiology. Where the errors or excesses of our past must needs be corrected and brought into conformity with Catholic teaching as expressed in the Catechism, how is this to be accomplished? While any bishop or priest may teach a point of Catholic doctrine, when it is disputed by historic Anglican formularies or otherwise contested in our tradition, the individual layperson often feels that he has justification to resort to private judgment. How can our bishops — and derivatively our other clergy — appeal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church whilst we are divorced from the unity of that Church?

In our parish, the doctrines of the invocation of the saints, prayer for the Dead, Purgatory, the Real Presence in terms of Transubstantiation, the prerogatives of Our Lady, and other Catholic doctrines disputed — or even explicitly condemned — by historic Anglican formularies are taught to the people. In the past few years, with the expectation of serious developments in our relationship with the Catholic Church on the horizon, great emphasis has been placed on preparing our people — always respectful of the limitations of our current framework and with a mind to meet our folks where they are to be found — to accept the fullness of all Catholic doctrine.

As we receive the gracious invitation of our Holy Father in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus in our parish, our people have a great devotion to the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar, they are bidden to pray for the Holy Souls in the Intermediate State, our liturgy is replete with intercessory prayer to the saints, at Mass the celebrant prays for the Holy Father in an expression of (as yet imperfect) communion, the Holy Rosary is recited publicly in the church, and we have much of the fullness of Catholic life. Finally, there is a belief that the focus of unity in the Universal Church is to be found in the Successor of St. Peter, though some are yet unsure as to how this will be attained.

We have arrived at this moment as a community. Our pastors have done their utmost to teach the Catholic Faith and their labors have born great fruit already. Is there further yet to go? Most definitely. But we will only make it to our destination — in our integrity — with the shepherds of our small flock leading the way. It seems (to me at least) that there are not a few traditionalist Catholics that fail to appreciate the importance of the corporate dimension of this reunion. (Thankfully, the Holy Father does!) It is all well and good to insist upon catechesis and individual conversion and absolute conformity to the teaching of Holy Mother Church, but how is this to be accomplished?

I do not wish to be misunderstood, for I do not hold that it is a desirable thing that an individual enter the communion of the Catholic Church with mental reservations or culpably ignorant as to the teachings of the Church. I simply desire to point out that it is impossible to expect that, unless they become the definitive teaching of our communities by virtue of a final and absolute appeal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, certain doctrines will not be fully assimilated and appreciated by our people. And we can not claim this Magisterium without communion.

A New Perspective

Many years ago following the signing of the Affirmation of St Louis, a large number of the continuing Anglican Jurisdictions fragmented into to many Churches. During this period, Arch Bishop Louis Falk, Primate of the Anglican Church in America (ACA), who also served as Arch Bishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) for a number of years was instrumental in opening contact with the Holy See. Arch Bishop Falk quickly saw the necessity of opening dialogue with Rome with the goal of coming into full communion with them, but not being absorbed by the Roman Church. The initial contact with the Holy See was made by Arch Bishop Falk on a trip to Rome over 13 years ago. This type of dialogue with Rome has been a continuing effort by many clergy in the Anglican Church from 1534 following the Church of England’s initial break with the Holy See, however due to various political and ecclesiastical roadblocks it has waxed and waned over the years. From that initial contact by Arch Bishop Falk this dialogue had been quietly on going and was continued later by Arch Bishop Hepworth, through numerous contacts involving high ranking members of the Roman Catholic Clergy

The final approach to Rome was made when the College of Bishops of the TAC met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See. The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC had agreed that no member of the College would give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded.

One may ask at this moment in time why this movement toward Rome? At the most theological level it was the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate, with its consequent undermining of sacramental certainty and the classical Anglican understanding both of authority and the given-ness of the Faith. More recently the growing ambivalence towards authentic Christian sacramental and iconographic teaching on gender and sexuality, upon which the ordination of women depends, has given rise to the homosexual crisis which threatens to blow the world wide Anglican Communion apart.

As to the current press; the Holy See has responded and most favorably. However numerous articles fail to make clear the status of this announcement. First of all those members of the Anglican Communion who choose to take part in this momentous undertaking will be received in full communion with Rome yet as a complete and separate rite, a so called “uniate” church. These are ritual churches "sui iuris" - in other words, are churches with their own rites, cultures and canon law. And although, as Archbishop Hepworth has pointed out in a previous statement, "most of these rites are descended from ancient churches that have never been part of the Roman or Western rite". There are some twenty-eight of these churches, and they appoint their own bishops by the synodical processes, and since they are in communion with Rome they routinely inform the Bishop of Rome of their actions.

It is evident that the Holy Father has extended to the fractured Anglican Communion a unique rallying point containing a method allowing us to return to our rich sacramental and liturgical heritage which has been abandoned by numerous Anglican jurisdictions worldwide.

What does this all mean? First of all, we know that we will not be converting to Roman Catholicism or otherwise be absorbed. Rather the Apostolic Constitution provides the canonical vehicle for full communion with the Roman Catholic Church while at the same time retaining our Anglican liturgy, spirituality, patrimony and ability to function suri juris. Additionally, we will retain our autonomy in that the Constitution creates Anglican Ordinariates that will exist parallel to the existing dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. As such, we will have complete autonomy from the local Roman Catholic Diocese. That being said then it is evident, contrary to some press statements, we will not become” Roman Catholics “but as we have always been, Anglicans within our own distinct Church with our very own, Deacons Priest, and Bishops.

There is much work to be done on the parish, diocese, and national level before we will see the fruits of our labour. I am sure that much give and take will occur between both churches before a truly common ground is reached. However the ultimate goal is the bringing together Christ’s Church on Earth. Pray my brothers and sisters that our efforts will be fruitful.

Bob+

Rev. Dr. Bobby C. Hall, SSM

Homosexuality

Now that the Lambeth Conference has closed and all the smoke and mirrors has ceased some revealing statements are being made by the homosexual community.

During the conference there was a open concerted push by the gay/lesbian forces of the Anglican Communion to make their desires known during this event. A real in your face effort causing much discomfort to many of the attendees.

As Christians we know that this life style is diametrically opposed to the Bible and the Christian way of life. Several years ago there was one school of thought that attempted to demonstrate that homosexuality was a genetic causative factor. When this research failed to produce the results wanted, the discussion of this research slowly faded into the mists. It was clear then as it is now that homosexuality is a lifestyle of choice and in opposition to the teachings of Holy Scripture.

Regardless of the causative factors we as a Church are called on to administer to the sinner and hate the sin. To provide counseling and support for those seeking to return to a normal life style.

Below is an article recently published in the Blog Homosexuality supporting these statements?


Homosexual Honesty
August 6th, 2008 Posted in Homosexuality
By Bill Muehlenberg


It is nice to get a bit of honesty on the issue of homosexuality. It does not come our way very often in the mainstream media. And when this honesty comes from homosexual activists, it is even more refreshing. Indeed, when heterosexuals tell the truth about homosexuality, they are dismissed as homophobes. So what happens to homosexual truth tellers? Are they homophobic as well?

A very revealing case of homosexual honesty comes from Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born, British-based homosexual activist, who spills the beans on the “gay gene”. There is none, he asserts, and says homosexual desire is not genetically determined.

Writing for Spiked online, June 24, 2008, he makes some very interesting remarks about homosexual determinism. He in fact sounds very much like, well, me. I have been saying similar things for years, and have been howled down by the homosexual lobby as bigoted, intolerant and homophobic. But it is nice to hear homosexuals saying similar things.

He says there may well be biological influence in one’s sexuality, but nothing more. He argues that “an influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things. There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t. The reality is that queer and straight desires are far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow.”

Indeed, he is honest enough to admit that the jury is still out on the science of all this: “The relative influence of biological versus social factors with regard to sexual orientation is still uncertain. What is, however, certain is that if gayness was primarily explainable in genetic terms we would expect it to appear in the same proportions, and in similar forms, in all cultures and all epochs. As the anthropologists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach demonstrated in Patterns Of Sexual Behaviour (1965), far from being cross-culturally uniform and stable, both the incidence and expressions of same-sex desire vary vastly between different societies.”

He concludes his piece with this interesting remark: “The homophobes are thus, paradoxically, closer to the truth than many gay activists.” Thank you Peter. Nice to have some positive affirmation here. Of course he does not go all the way and admit that people can leave their homosexual lifestyle for a heterosexual one. He says, “For most of us, it is impossible to subsequently change our sexual orientation”. Notice that he does not say ‘all of us’, but ‘most of us’. That is a very telling choice of word usage.

Tatchell is certainly right to debunk the gay gene myth. And he is not alone in such candid admissions. A number of other homosexual activists have also admitted to such truths. Consider Australian activist and Latrobe University lecturer, Dennis Altman, who wrote this in 1986: “To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice. Even if, as many want to argue, one has no choice in experiencing homosexual desire, there is a wide choice of possible ways of acting out these feelings, from celibacy and denial . . . to self-affirmation and the adoption of a gay identity.” “Being gay,” says Altman, “is a choice”.

Another Australian homosexual activist has said similar things about homosexuality and genetics: “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It’s a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort?” Or as he put it elsewhere: “On the question of recruiting to homosexuality – well, of course, I am in favor of this. I believe homosexuality to be a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. . . . I am naturally keen to encourage people to participate in [the gay lifestyle].”

And a leading Australian feminist and lesbian has also made it clear that choice is a major component of the lifestyle. Melbourne University academic Sheila Jeffreys became a feminist in her twenties, when she was involved in “perfectly good” relationships with men. She then decided to become a lesbian: “At the time,” she says, we “made the decision to become political lesbians, as we called it.”

She says that “you can learn to be heterosexual and you can learn to be lesbian”. When challenged by an interviewer that sexuality is more innate than that, she continues, “I don’t think there’s anything natural about sexuality; you do learn it. And you can unlearn it, go in a different direction, change it.” She says that her own experience proves this, as does that of many other women who decided to switch to lesbianism in the ‘70s.

Other homosexuals have admitted that choice plays at least a partial role in the overall equation. Indeed, there is even an entire website devoted to those who say they have chosen the homosexual lifestyle. The site says it is “a radical gathering place for people who have chosen to be queer” ( http://www.queerbychoice.com ).

However, the tendency is to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired. And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
But that bluff needs to be challenged. I and others have challenged it. And it is quite refreshing when homosexual activists challenge it as well.

Former Archbishop Carey says Anglican Communion is in crisis

HOUSTON: Carey says Anglican Communion is in crisis
Former archbishop of Canterbury wants U.S. church to give in to demands

By RICHARD VARA
The Houston Chronicle
January 11, 2008

The former archbishop of Canterbury wants the Episcopal Church to support an international agreement calling for a moratorium in the Anglican Church on the consecration of gay bishops and church blessing of same-sex unions.

"The Anglican Communion as such is in crisis," said the Most Rev. George Carey, who was in Houston this week to install the Rev. Russell J. Levenson Jr. as rector of St. Martin's Episcopal Church, one of the largest Episcopal churches in the United States.

The 77 million member communion, including 2.15 Episcopalians, has been in turmoil since the 2003 consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.

"It has created enormous tidal waves, shock waves around the world," Carey said of the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson. "It has hindered missions in Muslim countries. It has distressed conservative congregations everywhere. There is no place in the Anglican Communion that has been impervious to the shock waves."

Scores of American parishes and at least two dioceses are asking for foreign oversight because members feel the national church is no longer traditional in biblical interpretation and practice. Asking for such oversight is contrary to Anglican governance.

"If I were in my successor's shoes, what I would be wanting to do is say that the American House of Bishops must commit itself to the Windsor Covenant and be wholehearted about that," Carey said of the 2004 report calling for the moratorium. "Around the Windsor Covenant we can actually find a way to deepen the dialogue and get people there.

"If we don't insist upon that, then I think our number is up and so I worry about that," he said.

Carey served as archbishop from 1991 to 2002. His successor as titular head of the Anglican Communion is Archbishop Rowan Williams.

Despite claims to adhering to Windsor, the American House of Bishops has said that only the denomination's national assembly could speak to the issue. The next General Convention is scheduled for 2009.

Although the bishops have supported a ban on gay consecration and blessing of same-sex unions until then, that has not quieted the furor.

The once-a-decade meeting of the world's Anglican bishops is set for July in Canterbury, England. Conservative leaders, including Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, are calling for an Anglican conference in June in Jerusalem, a move that some say is meant to undercut attendance the following month at the Lambeth Conference in England.

"If the Jerusalem conference is an alternative to the Lambeth Conference, which I perceive it is, then I think it is regrettable," said Carey, a conservative. "The irony is that all they are going to do is weaken the Lambeth Conference. They are going to give the liberals a more powerful voice because they are absent and they are going to act as if they are schismatics. It's crazy."

Ten years ago, Carey presided over the 1998 Lambeth Conference which declared homosexual behavior as not scriptural.

"So what the American church has done by the election and then ordination of Gene Robinson is really actually turn its back on the voice, the moral voice of the Lambeth Conference. That's the problem basically. There is no way out of the problem now."

Still, Carey feels that if the Americans were to come out wholeheartedly for the Windsor Covenant, dialogue and reconciliation would be possible.

"If the Episcopal Church says, 'No, dammit, we are not going to go that way', then there is no dialogue," he said. "They are actually saying they are walking away from the family, they are closing the door. But if they are prepared to say, 'We will fall in behind the covenant,' then we can find a resolution.

"But there is no sign that the American House of Bishops realizes how serious it is," he said.

Carey said he remains active in the church although he is an ex-archbishop.

"What I am trying to do now is make a contribution towards healing the church," he said.

He also is working as head of a British education program and for interfaith understanding. He travels regularly with his wife to Africa, where the "church is strong."

"My problem is that I am probably doing too much," he said. "I need to slow down a bit."

But one thing he won't be doing is leaving the Anglican Communion.

"Basically the Anglican spirit aches for unity and I don't think there are going to be many people who are going to be in a rush to run away from the See of Canterbury."

END


Sadly I must differ with the Archbishop for we see daily a mass exit of the Episcopal faithful to other provinces in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion as we once knew it and the validity of the leadership of the Current Archbishop of Canterbury as it now exists is morally and theologically defunct All that the faithful is asking for is a return to reason and the time honored teachings of the Church. Any less than this and the bleeding in the Episcopal Church will continue.

Fr Bob

Bishop of London left in dark over secret gay service

December 31st, 2007 Posted Dominic Kennedy

The Archbishop of Canterbury kept a special communion service for gays so secret that he failed to tell the Bishop of London it was happening in his diocese, The Times has learnt.

Dr Rowan Williams inflamed the row over homosexuality which is tearing apart the Anglican Church when it was reported that he had agreed to hold a eucharist for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender clergy.

But even his critics have been taken aback to learn that he did so by making an incursion on to the patch of the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres, without giving notice or seeking permission.

Dr Williams now risks being seen as, at best, discourteous and at worst, in breach of canon law, for sneaking into a church near the Tower of London under the Bishop’s nose. Canon law says that only a bishop can authorise services in his own diocese and infringements may result in an intruder being removed from office.

The gays’ venue of choice was drenched in symbolism. The stones and beams of the 7th century church of All Hallows by the Tower have borne witness to the persecution of misunderstood, but ultimately vindicated, Christians down the ages. The headless bodies of the martyr saints Sir Thomas More, John Fisher and William Laud were taken there after their executions at the Tower.

Lambeth Palace is justifying the sortie by relying on a rule designed to provide short-term stand-ins for sick or holidaying vicars. But a spokesman made no reply when The Times suggested that the Archbishop’s behaviour might be seen as rude.

The Bishop of London’s spokesman said: “The Bishop wasn’t aware it was taking place.” He described the event as a private function.

The spokesman was asked by The Times if he considered there had been a discourtesy. “I am not able to comment on that,” he replied.

Such security surrounded the communion service for priests, monks and nuns organised by the Clergy Consultation support group that the guestlist was shredded by Lambeth Palace.

The location was changed after the original venue, the liberal St Peter’s Church in Eaton Square, was “outed” on a hostile website.

Dr Williams’s covert methods are a gift to opponents threatening schism at next year’s Lambeth Conference.

The Times emailed the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, a more conservative primate, to ask if such a thing would have happened in his day.

The 72-year-old replied promptly by Blackberry: “I am sure that Rowan was acting for the very best of reasons viz. to show that he cares for all and wishes to hold minorities in the church. What would I have done? I would not have agreed to a private Eucharist; after all, the Eucharist, by definition, is open to all Christians.

“I am surprised to hear that the Bishop of London’s permission was not sought. Check your facts. If that is so then it is a failure of courtesy but it could be a staff member’s fault! Happy Christmas”.

Lambeth Palace at first implied that it was acceptable to bypass the bishop because the invitation had come from an independent group rather than a parish.

Asked where canon law permits services without a bishop’s blessing, a spokesman pointed to Canon C8, paragraph 2 (a). This allows ministers to invite a “priest or deacon” to serve in their church for up to seven days without telling the bishop.

However, a canon lawyer said there was no wording in that rule which mentioned invitations to external bishops.

The Bishop of London now has the drastic option of reporting Dr Williams to the Archbishop of York who could order a tribunal hearing with ultimate powers of removal from office. Nobody is suggesting that the Bishop would exercise these rights but those familiar with him say he would be disappointed to have been kept in the dark.

The Rev Bertrand Olivier, vicar of All Hallows and a former convenor of Clergy Consultation, said: “It’s nothing to do with the Bishop. Why would the Bishop need to be told?”

The Rev Colin Coward, a gay priest at the gathering, said: “The consulation has always met in confidentiality of venue and time to preserve the safety of those who come.”

Traditionalists are dismayed that the Archbishop condoned practising gay clergy by choosing to give communion, instead of just listening to them. Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream said: “Obviously they were wanting to communicate that this is acceptable behaviour for those who are at the table of the Lord.”

The Conscience of an Anglican

The Conscience of an Anglican
A man under authority

by Alan Jacobs
Christianity Today
12/24/07

For some time now, people have been asking me why I haven't written anything on the current-or, depending on your point of view, everlasting-crisis in the Anglican world. After all, I have been an Anglican for nearly twenty-five years, virtually all of my adult life; indeed, my experiences in other denominations, before I discovered Anglicanism, were so brief and tentative that I don't even know how to be a Christian except as an Anglican. Nor do I wish to be a Christian in any other way. Surely I have some opinions on the mess the Anglican Communion is now in, on how it got this way, and how it might get out again?

Well, yes, I do have such opinions. But they are worthless. All such opinions amount to little more than the assignation of blame for past events and predictions of the future-the latter usually involving punishments to come for those blamed for the past-and neither of those activities interests me. There was a time when they did, but I have long since learned how futile such pursuits are, and (more important) how powerfully they distract from the core practices of the Christian life. This is the primary reason why, after too long a season scanning the Anglican blogs daily, I now check just one of them, and once a week, at most. This abstinence has calmed my spirit and removed, I think permanently, my taste for such things.

Moreover, I remind myself that the churches of the Anglican world are governed by bishops, and I am not a bishop. One of the chief reasons I have held firm to Anglicanism over the years is that I believe that the threefold order of ministry-bishop, priest, and deacon-is the model taught by the apostles, the governance particularly approved by God. In this model I, as a layman-even though I am also a member of the priesthood of all believers-have a highly circumscribed role. If my pastor asks me to teach, I teach; otherwise I shut up. In the unlikely (and unwelcome) event of a bishop of the Church asking for my thoughts I would share them; otherwise I keep them to myself, at least in public. The decisions that will shape the future of the Anglican Communion will be made by bishops, not by laypeople, nor even by priests; if I care about that Communion-and I do-I had best be praying for those bishops, and not repeating the error of Job in darkening counsel by words without knowledge.

Like the Roman centurion, then, I am a man under authority, and also like him, I have some responsibilities of my own. Chief among them is to raise my son Wesley in the faith of the Gospel. Around four years ago now I left the Episcopal Church because-thanks to various changes in our parish's life that followed the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire-I knew that if we stayed my son would be taught doctrines which I do not hold, and, just as important, would not be taught doctrines which I hold and believe it important for all Christians to hold. People who encouraged me to stay reminded me that, as (relatively) theologically knowledgeable persons, my wife and I could correct any sins of omission or commission when we got home. But the idea that the family holds the full responsibility for forming children in the faith, with the church being nothing more than a place of worship, is one of the ideas that I don't want to teach my son. Another one is this: that bishops can ignore or repudiate significant portions of the doctrine and discipline of the Church-something the Bishop of Chicago did on a regular basis-and still be thought of as legitimate pastoral overseers for their people.

In leaving the Episcopal Church, then, I believe that I acted according to what Cardinal Newman long ago called "the supreme authority of Conscience ... the aboriginal Vicar of Christ." For Newman, conscience is anything but "private judgment": it is, rather, the testing of one's own private judgments, and sometimes those of others, against Scripture and against the long testimony of the whole church of Christ. And if we test those judgments so, and invoke our consciences, we enter perilous territory: as Newman reminds us, the fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirmed that Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam-Whatever is done in opposition to conscience is conducive to damnation.

But there is no coercing the consciences of others, especially in what Rusty Reno has called "the ruins of the church." One acts according to conscience, but it takes a certain rashness to commend one's own precise course to others. My dear friend Charles Marsh published a book this year called Wayward Christian Soldiers, and while I disagree with much that he argues in it, one chapter of the book has has often come back to my mind in an especially powerful way. Its title is "Learning to be Quiet in a Noisy Nation (and in a Nation of Noisy Believers)." The historical moment Charles invokes, and encourages all Christians to consider, is that of the German church in the Nazi era. I am not, let me hasten to say, casting anyone in the role of Nazi or Nazi sympathizer; the point of comparison between Lutheranism in 1930s Germany and Anglicanism in North America today is simply that both churches are broken, ruined; both present their adherents (clergy and laypeople) with potent challenges to faithfulness. And in the midst of such challenges-so said Dietrich Bonhoeffer, consistently, from the time of the Nazi accession in 1933 to his execution in the spring of 1945-almost the first requirement of the Christian is, simply, silence. "The time of words is over," he said; sometimes words have to be forgone in order to save time and energy and focus for what is more essential than words: "prayer and righteous action."

Not because I am taking a general vow of silence, but for other reasons, I am now concluding this online column. Its title, as you can see, is "Rumors of Glory," from a Bruce Cockburn song I particularly admire. Those of us living in the ruins of Anglicanism might be especially inclined to say that we have nothing more to go on than rumors, a handful of slightly hopeful whispers fading into imperceptibility. This could be deeply worrisome for those, like me, who see in Anglicanism a beautiful and compelling vision, a church that draws together the Catholic and the Reformed strands of the Christian life and thereby brings both of them to their fullest realization. I do not enjoy the thought that the Anglican experiment may be over, since, as I have said, I don't know how to be a Christian any other way; but I do not believe that that experiment is over; in fact, I have hope-I hear certain rumors-that it may be only beginning.

But even if that experiment is drawing to a close, I am not worried-a little sad, maybe, but not worried. I could learn to be a Christian some other way, if I had to, because, after all, there is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. Plus, I'm thinking about Christmas, which, among other things, teaches us that all those rumors are true: the Lord of All came once, in meekness and humility, in the form of a servant. And he will come again-but next time in glory.


---Alan Jacobs teaches English at Wheaton College in Illinois; his history of Original Sin will be published in Spring 2008 by HarperOne.
Printer Friendly Page

TEC Has No Legal Claim To Church Properties

Canon Bishop Says National Church Has No Legal Claim To Church Properties

An exclusive interview with the Rt. Rev. William Wantland, the retired Bishop of Eau Claire. Bishop Wantland was bishop of the diocese from 1980 - 1999. He is a canon lawyer and lives with his wife in Oklahoma. He agreed to be interviewed by VirtueOnline about church property lawsuits, a number of which are making their way through various courts in the United States.

VOL: Bishop Wantland, because of the Dennis Canon there is the overwhelming belief, substantiated in a number of state courts, that all parish properties are held in trust for the local diocese. Is that true in all cases? If not why not?

WANTLAND: Generally speaking, there is a trust interest running from the parish to the diocese. In 1570, the British Parliament passed legislation restricting the disposal of parish property. This was carried over to New York law, where an early statute provided that the Bishop and Standing Committee would have a say in the disposition of parish property, but so would the New York Legislature. This (without reference to State bodies) was added to Title II (now Canon II. 6) shortly after the Civil War. In the 20th century, a similar Canon was enacted in Title I, adding all parish property to that requirement, not just church or chapel buildings. Most States in the U.S. follow Implied Trust principles of law, so in those States, the diocese would prevail. Several States follow Neutral Principles of Law, and in those States, the local parish might, under certain circumstances, prevail.

VOL: Recently in the State of California, the Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling placing three parishes at risk of losing their parishes. They reversed an Orange County Superior Court's prior ruling that three former Episcopal churches, which disaffiliated from the national denomination in 2004, did not forfeit their property. This division of the appellate court broke with nearly thirty years of California church property law, and instead ruled that hierarchical church denominations can take over local church property. Where is this going?

WANTLAND: It is going to the California Supreme Court, which has already agreed to hear the matter.

VOL: Attorney Eric C. Sohlgren said the decision puts one division of the appellate court in direct conflict with other California court of appeal decisions that for almost thirty years have rejected the idea that a court must automatically defer to a church denomination in church property disputes. He said that idea offends basic principles of fairness and property ownership. Do you agree?

WANTLAND: The latest Appellate Court decision certainly offends the previously settled law in California. However, nothing would prevent the California Supreme Court from rejecting the Neutral Principles idea, and moving to Implied Trust.

VOL: It is also alleged that all properties are also held in trust for the National Church. Is that automatically true if the diocese can also lay claim?

WANTLAND: What is the National Church? We commonly use that title, but the so-called National Church has no current machinery for holding title to property outside of New York. While the Canons in both Title I and II recognize an interest in parish property for the diocese, this only re-states law that has been a part of our Church for over 400 years. Further, a careful reading of the Dennis Canon does not grant any real interest in diocesan property to 815 2nd Avenue.

VOL: What exactly is the National Church? Is it an ecclesiastical body or strictly an administrative body?

WANTLAND: The so-called National Church is an administrative body with very limited authority. It has defined itself in a number of documents over the years as a confederation of dioceses. Neither General Convention nor Executive Council has any jurisdiction over dioceses granted in either the Church Constitution or Canons.

VOL: In the 'which came first, the chicken or the egg', is the national church a product of General Convention, or are the dioceses the product of the national church and General Convention?

WANTLAND: The Episcopal Church came into being in 1789. Dioceses preceded the existence of TEC by a number of years. For example, the Diocese of Connecticut not only existed for years before 1789, but elected a bishop and had him consecrated in Scotland in 1784. New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia also elected bishops and had them consecrated in England in 1787. Clearly, the dioceses came together to create the Episcopal Church by adopting a Constitution and Canons and a Book of Common Prayer. The dioceses created the Episcopal Church, and not the other way round.

VOL: If the national church or general convention is the product of dioceses and not the other way round, then what legal claim can the national church make in court for parish properties?

WANTLAND: The only way TEC could even claim a trust interest in parish property is to rely on the imprecise language of the so-called Dennis Canon. However, prior to 1979, the so-called National Church never claimed any trust interest in parish or diocesan property. A basic principle of trust law is that two people can agree to create a trust interest in property which one of the parties owns. However, a third party cannot then claim a trust interest in that property without the consent of the original parties. While it might be possible, I am not personally aware of any diocese which has recognized the interest of 815 2nd Avenue in any property. To the contrary, a number of dioceses have specifically rejected any claim of the so-called National Church to property within those dioceses. With the possible exception of the Diocese of California, I am not aware of any parishes voluntarily granting an interest in their property to 815. In the absence of such a granting of trust interest, I doubt any court would uphold it.

VOL: Does the Presiding Bishop have any canonical authority in a diocese, any diocese, either liberal or conservative?

WANTLAND: The authority and duties of the Presiding Bishop are set forth in Canon I. 2. 4. In regard to dioceses, the PB shall consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese if there be a vacancy in the office of bishop, but the PB has no authority to act, only to consult. Further, the PB is to visit every diocese, and takes order for the consecration of bishops within a diocese. No other duties in regard to dioceses are delineated. All other duties apply to the administrative structure of the Episcopal Church.

VOL: Mrs. Jefferts Schori, while holding the title of Presiding Bishop, is in reality the bishop of nothing. She has no diocese, unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury who is both the titular head of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In that case, does she have any legitimate (legal or ecclesiastical) authority over the leadership of a Diocese?

WANTLAND: The Presiding Bishop has no authority over the leadership of a diocese, except if charges are brought against a bishop. The PB does have certain responsibilities in regard to the charges, as set forth in Title IV of the Canons. However, there is absolutely NO authority in any instance over Standing Committees, Diocesan Councils, or other diocesan leadership.

VOL: Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker said to his diocese recently that "there is no such thing as "the national Church." We are a confederation of Dioceses, related to each other by our participation in General Convention. He went on to say that from the earliest days of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church in this country, including the formation of dioceses and eventually the creation of the General Convention itself, there has been a strong mistrust of centralized authority that is deeply rooted in our history as Episcopalians. We do not have an Archbishop in this Church, who has authority over other Bishops and their Dioceses. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop, with very limited canonical responsibilities, mainly administrative in nature." Do you agree with him?

WANTLAND: Bishop Iker has stated precisely what I feel the situation to be.

VOL: Mrs. Schori has said she will allow the sale of properties back to the parishes, even to other religious groups, but not to another Anglican jurisdiction. In your mind is that legal? Can she in fact do that? Is she breaking some federal statute by saying that a property sale can be restricted because she says so?

WANTLAND: Federal law does not apply here. The law of the State rules. I would simply observe that the previous Presiding Bishop declared in Louisiana that the so-called National Church had no interest in property disputes between a parish and the diocese, and would not intervene unless asked to do so by the diocese. Therefore, if a diocese is negotiating with a parish to avoid a costly lawsuit, what right does a Presiding Bishop have to dictate terms? None whatsoever.

VOL: Recently the Diocese of Western Michigan sold their cathedral to an independent evangelical mega church without apparently a whimper from the national church or David Booth Beers, Mrs. Schori's attorney. But when the pro-cathedral in El Paso, Texas, under the ecclesiastical authority of then Bishop Jeffrey Steenson in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, wanted to leave the diocese and TEC, I was told by Steenson that Beers raised all hell. Steenson told me that he did not want to litigate and furthermore the parish gave the diocese $2 million as part of the deal! Why do you think Beers ignored one situation and yet weighed in on another?

WANTLAND: Because of prejudice against so-called conservatives.

VOL: David Booth Beers bills out his time at $600.00 an hour less 15% discount for TEC at a cool $510.00 an hour, so I have been told. Presumably he has a team working with him. He seems to be everywhere, - Virginia and Philadelphia (recently). I can't imagine that at the end of the day millions of dollars in legal fees are being given to him by the national church. Where, in your opinion, is the money coming from?

WANTLAND: The money, in all probability, is coming from the endowment funds of TEC, which funds are more than $200,000,000.00.

VOL: A number of bishops, including yourself, have asked Mrs. Jefferts Schori where the money is coming from for the present litigation, but she has not replied. Why is that?

WANTLAND: I was one of the bishops to raise this question. To date we have received no answer. My guess is that TEC doesn't want to start the precedent of providing full and complete information about anything. The name of the game is "spin".

VOL: Is it possible that litigation costs could, in the end, bankrupt the Episcopal Church?

WANTLAND: I doubt it. While the cost of litigation is ridiculous, I don't think it will deplete the endowment funds.

VOL: Can the Trust Funds be raided without accountability and financial responsibility to pay legal costs?

WANTLAND: Some of the trust funds are unrestricted, and can be used however 815 2nd Avenue sees fit. Others are restricted, and cannot be legally used for purposes other than stated in the establishment of those funds. In any instance, the matter of our Treasurer (Ellen Cooke) who went to jail for misuse of trust funds proves that there must be accountability.

VOL: In the end, if the National Church takes possession of dioceses that will be 90 per cent empty, is the victory anything more than pyrrhic?

WANTLAND: In the highly unlikely event this were to occur, it is not really a victory of anything. What do you do with property you can't use? History has shown that it gets sold at a great loss.

VOL: With empty or near empty churches which will have to be sold in the open market, what is the ultimate victory for the National Church?

WANTLAND: The only victory is for the forces of Satan and secular humanism.VOL: Thank you Bishop Wantland.

NOTE: This story may be posted on Blogs and used by newspapers. The content may not be changed and full credit and links to VirtueOnline must be posted. www.virtueonline.org

His Last Supper

The last week of the life of our Lord, the time that we refer to as Holy Week, was the most significant of his life. For three Sundays we will have been examining in some detail the events that occurred during that period. We will have looked at Sunday, the day of celebration, Monday, the day of emotion, and Tuesday, the day of questions. Here I would like to examine Wednesday, the day of transition, and Thursday, the day of fellowship.

Jesus’ final week can be divided into three phases. The first two days of the week find the masses in a mood of acceptance and praise. The middle of the week they began to question and challenge. By the end of the week their attitude had completely changed to rejection and crucifixion. Wednesday is the day in between. It is the day I like to refer to as the day of transition. Jesus knew this change was coming. So, on Wednesday he went apart from the crowd to be in meditation and communion with God. He needed to lay hold of the power of God that would enable him to turn defeat into victory.

This scene reminds us that we occasionally need to be free of the things and circumstances that clutter our lives. We need time to clear our heads and be in fellowship with the divine. David Stanley, the New York Times reporter who went to darkest Africa in search of Dr. Livingston, wrote a fascinating biography. He noted that for several days his safari made excellent time, but then, one morning, the porters refused to move at all. He asked the guide what the problem was. It is a native superstition, he replied. They feel that they must stop a day to give their souls a chance to catch up. We too need to stop and let our souls catch up.

Wednesday of Holy Week says to us that we must occasionally take time out of our busy schedules of daily life and have time for introspection. That is harder for some than others. For Type A personalities such as myself, it can be extremely difficult.

Most of us are Familiar with the story of Elijah the prophet. He was the one who took on the 450 prophets of Baal on the top of Mt. Carmel. He was totally successful in routing the godless enemy, but he was stunned to discover that even though he had won the battle, wicked Queen Jezebel was still on the throne. Not only that, she had put a contract out on him. So Elijah ran. And he ran and he ran until he was totally exhausted and he could run no more. He prayed to God: Take my life. You see, when we are exhausted we are not ourselves. We do things and say things that are not like us. It is at that point that God comes to Elijah and asks: What are you doing here, Elijah? Now, you see, that is what is known, as a rhetorical question. God knows the answer. He wants Elijah to say it so that he will have to hear himself. When we run from our responsibilities God asks us: What are you doing here?” Has God your attention: It is time that you stop, be silent, and know that I am God. No TV, no radios, no phones, no beepers.

There is another reason why we do not do that and it has nothing to do with schedules. It is because the thought of being alone with ourselves frightens us. It is safer to be busy.

What is so disturbing is that it is so easy to be religious yet still miss the Kingdom. It is so easy to be centered in ourselves that we cease growing. If we are not open to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can miss it all. On Wednesday, Jesus took time to be in communion with God.

If Wednesday was the day of transition and meditation, then Thursday was the day of fellowship. In the evening of that day, an admirer of Jesus, we do not know who, loaned the upper Floor of his house to the disciples and Jesus to come together to partake of the first Seder of the Passover.

In this ancient meal, Jews eat certain symbolic foods to remind them of their former bondage in Egypt. A bitter herb is eaten to remind them of the bitterness of the experience. Applesauce is eaten to remind them that they were required to make bricks without straw.It was at this point that Jesus took the matzo bread and broke it and spoke the ancient words of the Baruch: Blessed art thou O God, LORD of the universe, who brings forth fruit From the earth. Suddenly Jesus broke with tradition and began to speak in his native Aramaic: Take, eat, this is my: body broken for you. Jesus then took the cup and said: Take, drink, this is my bloodshed for you. Thus, to an ancient symbolic meal Jesus added the symbolism of his broken body and shed blood for us.

This marvelous mystery even today is misunderstood by many of today's modern world. How does one, except through complete faith explain the miraculous transformation that takes place in simple bread and wine. There is no adequate description of the oneness with God that is experienced by the communicant when we receive the Blessed Sacrament during communion.Anna Pavlova, a Russian ballerina, was once asked what she meant in a certain dance she had just performed. She replied: IF I could have said it, I would not have danced it. On Thursday of Holy Week, Jesus dramatized the mystery of faith. What God could not be conveyed in words alone he expressed in human flesh-—the body and blood of his own son.

In the same way fellowship within the church needs to be understood. We hear it and we think of a potluck meal where we share food and fellowship together. True fellowship is expressed in the words of John Wesley: if your heart is like my heart, then give me your hand and we walk together. We need to cherish our times of coming together-— as families, friends, and as the church.

The day was not yet over. Jesus went up to the Mt. Olivet and prayed and spoke to a crowd. It was here that Judas came up to him and gave him a kiss. I have often wondered why he did that. I mean, why did he not spit in his Face. Why did he not slap him? But he gave him a kiss. It’s a sobering reminder that even in the name of love we can sometimes still hurt those we love. When we do not give people room enough to let them grow, we can hurt in the name of love. When we love our ideas more than we love people, we can hurt in the name of love. We all love Christ, but we have all hurt Christ at one time or another. The kiss of Judas perhaps should remind us that we can end up hurting the ones that we love the most.

We are told that after the Lord’s Supper the disciples sung a hymn and departed, as we all do when we collective leave the Church following mass. Let it be a reminder of the importance of our fellowship. And let it connect all of us to our brother, friend and Saviour Jesus for whom on that Thursday night so long ago the clock was now ticking. Jesus’ date with destiny could now be measured in hours. Calvary awaits.

The Advent Season

Well the Advent season has arrived as it always does after our gorging on the bounty of Thanksgiving. After all that it takes a good deal of self control and personal discipline to keep our minds focused on this very important period of the Christian season. Now, in today's society, we are besieged with the pressures of advertising and other secular distractions that would cloud our devotions in this joyous season. With in our communities we live with other Christian churches that do not keep the Advent season as a time of spiritual preparation to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. These good people are more caught up in the celebration of Christmas than the devotions of Christmas. Rather let us keep Advent in the true spirit that which it was meant to be observed , as a period of devotion in the life of one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

With quite joy we again travel in our mind and scripture readings to that cold December night when a innocent babe was born. Nothing pretentious as a kingly procession announcing his birth amid the clanging of cymbals and the blare of horns. Rather the quite sweet songs of heavenly host declaring to the people of the earth that a Saviour had been born. Can we yet imagine of the fright that those humble shepherds felt as this heavenly declaration was made unto them and all mankind.

We are called in Advent to look deep into our hearts as we ponder the miracle of God’s coming into our world as a man. We are told that as we read the first collect of the season where we are called to “cast away the works of darkness and put upon us the armor of light, now in the time of this mortal life in which our Lord Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility….” This is a season where more than ever the Lord becomes the really central figure in our lives and causes us to once again offer ourselves anew to his love which he so freely gives to us. That love to Him returned as we, here on earth, wait quietly for his eventual return, doing all those things that are pleasing in His sight.

Therefore in this period of preparation let us continue to pray for the all conditions of mankind, the further establishment of His church here on earth and peace among nations. As Christians let us love others more, provide for the needy and care for the homeless. I remember the statement of a old Ag professor so many years ago. “If there is one hungry person on this earth we have no surplus of crops rather a serious problem with its distribution.” This holds true to the needy of all mankind. If they are in need we fail our Christian duty. Let us, as a church body, serve in our communities participating in the various programs that need our help.

As the Sundays of Advent come upon us let each of us prepare to celebrate the coming of the Prince of Piece and God of Love who came among us then and will come again in that glorious day for all mankind.

Shalom

Reflections 2006

The following article was penned by The Rev. Dr. Deuel Smith of St. Patrick's Church in Hurst, TX. It is so complete and so to the point that it was felt that all should have a opportunity to read it. In visiting with Fr. Smith we were graciously given permission to reprint the article.

Reflections

Over a brief but crucial period of time, a final settlement of major issues occurred in the life of the Anglican Communion and what is now officially called The Episcopal Church (TEC). This "definitive moment" spanned ten all too-brief days in June in Columbus, Ohio. Through actions taken and actions postponed, the 75th General Convention of TEC has brought an end to the worldwide Anglican Communion of Churches and has declared once and for all the complete autonomy and independence of TEC. TEC will "walk apart" from the vast majority of the Anglican Communion and will irreparably split the Communion into traditional/orthodox and liberal/revisionist factions.

The liberal/revisionist faction will encompass England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, the United States, most of Australia, South Africa, and Central America – representing a minority of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The raditional/orthodox faction will encompass some "faithful remnants" in the United States, Australia, Canada and England, most of New Zealand, South America, Africa, and Asia - representing the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide.

No longer "Anglican" in ethos or philosophy (in the sense of practicing a Reformed Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition), the "New" Anglican Church is no longer a valid branch of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The still-emerging "Traditional" Anglican Church will perhaps be unified in purpose but will be split along evangelical-charismatic and Anglican-Catholic lines without common worship or "prayer". No longer will "communion with the See of Canterbury" be the sole criteria for those churches to be considered validly "Anglican".

This leads one to define what being an "Anglican" truly means. There is no simple answer, but here are some guidelines that may prove helpful:

As a branch of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Anglicans practice an ancient and unchanging faith founded on the belief that Jesus the Christ is the Incarnate Word of God, that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written word of God and that the apostolic witness ("tradition") is the proclaimed word of God. That foundation continues to be unchangeable and unshakeable regardless of the tempest and storms battering against it.

During the Reformation, the Church in England emerged as a unique institution. It retained its Catholic heritage as expressed in the Creeds and decisions of the General Councils of the undivided Church, in its ancient liturgy and sacraments, in Apostolic Succession and the threefold order of ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. The Church in England emerged as the 'middle way' between the extremes of both Protestantism and Catholicism. The Church in England reformed itself by removing many nonessentials in the practice of faith that arose in the Medieval Church, and by returning to the practices of the earliest Christians. First and foremost is an insistence upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures to be the rule and guide to Christian faith and practice.

What became known as the Church of England underwent its formative period during the reign of Elizabeth I. Members of the Church of England entered the American colonies during the 16th and 17th centuries, and became the "official" or established Church in many of those colonies. Following the Revolution, Anglicans in America established an autonomous branch of the Church which was officially known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, (PECUSA).

Over the course of the last thirty or so years the Episcopal Church abandoned most of the traditional, historic Anglican faith and practice that emerged at the Reformation. Many faithful Anglicans in the United States opposed the innovations of the Episcopal Church and sought to preserve their traditional Anglican identity.

A meeting of faithful Episcopal clergy and laity was held in Mobile, Alabama in 1968 - from this meeting the 'American Episcopal Church' emerged. In 1977, a Congress of Concerned Churchmen was held in St. Louis, Missouri faithful Anglicans from Canada and the United States were in attendance. The Congress issued 'The Affirmation of St. Louis' which affirmed as unalterable the received Faith and Tradition of the Church: the Holy Scripture, the Church's ancient and universal Creeds, teachings of the Early Church Fathers, decisions of the General Councils of the undivided Church, and the historic Apostolic Ministry of male bishops, priests and deacons descended in unbroken succession from the first Apostles.

Several groups of traditional Anglicans emerged in Canada and the United States following the meeting in St. Louis. The "continuing Anglican" movement in Canada prospered while the movement in the United States was not able to attain complete unity and separated into several different "jurisdictions”.

The "continuing Anglican church movement" in the United States, treated with disdain by most "Episcopalians", continues to be thoroughly grounded in the Holy Scriptures. These orthodox Anglicans believe that the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds sufficiently express the faith of the Church and are to be understood by all as they were written. Orthodox Anglicans support the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and decisions of Church Councils of the undivided Church.

Ethics and morality practiced among Anglicans are expected to follow the teaching that 'every Christian is obligated to form his conscience by the divine Moral Law of the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the teachings and Tradition of the Church' (The Affirmation of St. Louis).

Orthodox Anglicans come to church not to receive something, but to give worship and praise to God.

Orthodox Anglicans worship and pray using the traditional Book of Common Prayer as their liturgical guide. The principal act of Christian worship for Anglicans is the Holy Eucharist, also called the Mass, the Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper and the Divine Liturgy, .which together with Daily Morning and Evening Prayer constitute the regular services of public worship. Anglicans believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Any who believe in traditional, orthodox Anglican teachings and practices, as evidenced by Confirmation at the hands of a Bishop in valid Apostolic Succession, are allowed to receive Holy Communion - for this reason, traditional, orthodox Anglican churches are not considered to be "open communion" churches as are nearly all "Episcopal" and other so-called "Anglican" churches.

Orthodox Anglicans believe that the Sacraments are 'objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among his people, and his covenanted means for conveying His Grace' (The Affirmation of St. Louis). The two Gospel Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are considered to be 'generally necessary to salvation'. Five other sacramental rites, in their Biblical sense, are also termed 'sacraments': Confirmation, Penance, Unction, Marriage, and Holy Orders.

Any who hold to teachings and innovations antithetical to those espoused by traditional, orthodox Anglicans are rightly called "apostates or heretics", but not "Anglicans". We must continue to pray for the salvation of our once fellow "Anglicans" who have placed their mortal souls in jeopardy by following after false teachers and heretics in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. May Almighty God in His infinite Goodness forgive them their sins and grant them eternal salvation. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Fr. D+ -July 2006

An Answer to Cahos

As we stand here today the entire Anglican Communion continues to reverberated down to it’s roots following the actions of the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

The world looks at what has taken place and wonders as to the validity of the Anglican Faith. Devoted Christians are shocked, confused and demoralized as to the actions of their national Church. Many parishioners are abandoning their traditional faith and moving over to other denominations. Where and when will this madness stop? What can we as concerned Anglicans do to help right this dilemma?

First we must pray constantly for Gods guidance in this matter.

Secondly we must reach out to those hurting. We must let them know that there are Traditional Anglicans out there to help assist them in finding answers to their quandary. We must stand up and let the world know that there are still dedicated Christians who believe in and live by the Holy Scriptures with out being influenced by so called politically correct interpretations.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has produced a paper titled Challenge and Hope which delves into some of the underlying problems of this quandary. A copy of the synopsis of his paper is is found at the link below. The content is well worth any concerned Anglicans reading and consideration.

Anglican Communion News

A MS Word version of the entire text is at the following link

Challenge and Hope

Quickly following the conclusion of the ECUSA convention the Diocese of Fort Worth requested alternative primate oversight, and it is almost assured that a number of other dioceses will follow suit in the near future. In addition, there are cries heard daily throughout the Christian community from individuals and congregations who are seeking help in leaving the heterodoxy of ECUSA and who have lost heart for Anglicanism. Many laity departing ECUSA are leaving quietly, going to Rome, independent churches, or most sadly, no church at all. This week, the largest church (in average Sunday attendance) in ECUSA, Christ Church, Plano, announced its decision to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. It is feared that tens of thousands of individuals will be lost from Anglicanism forever unless immediate, though interim, intervention is provided. The face of Anglicanism has been changed, and it behooves us as Traditional Anglicans to be creative in the midst of the restructuring process before us. The situation in the American church is rapidly deteriorating, and it is critical to act now in order to prevent the “balkanization” of the entire Anglican Communion.

A Matter of Sheep and Goats

There comes a time near the end of the season when the Sheppard brings all of his animals into a confined area and systematically begins separating the sheep from the goats. The sheep he will lovingly place into a protected place of plenty during the winter and later put them out in the spring to multiply. Most of the goats will be sold and sent to slaughter.

Are we like the sheep and the goats in the Anglican Communion? Christ said “I am the good Shepherd; and I know my sheep, and am known by My own." "My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me." Goats have always had a bad reputation with the Sheppard’s of old. They were always wandering off, climbing into inaccessible and dark places, never listening to the voice of the shepherd. That is exactly why the goats were always getting into trouble.

This same characteristic of the goats marks some of our Brothers and Sisters in the Anglican community. They have wandered far a field, failing to heed the voice of the Good Shepherd. Like most goats, due to their own hard headedness, they are now teetering on the brink of denominational damnation.

There can not be a cafeteria exercise of faith in traditional Christianity. The bible says exactly what it means. To understand the message you must read the before and after of a particular bit of scripture in order to correctly grasp the entire meaning of the passage. You can not take a little scripture here, another bit there and formulate a basis of correct scriptural dogma. You can not be a true Christian and also be politically correct.

Trust me when I tell you there is no "Mother Jesus".

Trust me when I tell you that the practice of homosexuality is a sin according to strict interpretation the bible by all knowledgeable Biblical scholars.

Trust me when I tell you that marriage is a God given sacrament between one man and one woman.

Trust me when I tell you that good Anglicans are fed up and are looking again at the moral values of the Traditional Anglican Church as a refuge from the madness of the so call politically correct religions.

This Sunday morning in the process of leaving for church I stood in the kitchen with my sermon under my arm gulping down the last cup of coffee. Glancing at the morning’s paper I happen to see the following Editorial by nationally known columnist Cal Thomas. Suddenly I became aware that there were others out in the world community that were as disgusted and saddened as myself at the actions of a national Church which appears to have gone morally and spiritually corrupt. I have included Mr. Thomas’s article below for your edification and you draw your own conclusions.

Cal Thomas
Church lite

The new leader of the Episcopal Church in America, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, says she does not believe homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

As the Episcopal leadership continues to huff and puff to catch up with the world, it would be helpful if it could tell its members what it regards as sinful behavior, or will the very concept of sin soon be up for negotiation in order to avoid giving offense to anyone?

Truly what Paul, the Apostle, warned would happen in the "end times" is coming true in our day: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine, instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4 NIV).

Meeting at the Episcopal General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, the denomination passed a resolution expressing "regret" for consecrating a homosexual bishop three years ago, but it declined to repent of its action. On Tuesday, they voted to continue consecrating homosexual bishops and to permit same-sex unions. But, just 24 hours later, they reversed themselves yet again and adopted a resolution to avoid consecrating additional gay bishops. Apparently, they are so wishy-washy; they are even wishy-washy about their wishy-washiness.

Bishop Schori, a former oceanographer for the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, says, "The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings and that's certainly the great message of Jesus to include the unincluded."

This is so outside orthodox Christianity that only biblical illiterates or those who deny the supreme authority of the only book that gives foundation to the faith will accept it.

Anglicanism has suffered from probably irreversible Corruption since the days of the late C.S. Lewis and John Stott, who is still with us. These men combined intellectual heft with orthodox belief and had little regard for trends, fads or cultural diversions. They have been replaced by theological dim bulbs that are less concerned about proclaiming truth and conversion than in not offending anyone

Maybe the question for Bishop Schori and her fellow heretics should be: if homosexual practice is not sin, what is? And how do we know? Or is it a matter of "thus saith the opinion polls" and lobbying groups, rather than "thus saith the Lord"? With the bishop's "doctrine" of inclusion, why exclude anyone? How about applying the religious equivalent of "open borders" and let everyone into the church, including unrepentant prostitutes, murderers, liars, thieves and atheists. If the Episcopal Church denies what is clearly taught in scripture about important matters like sexual behavior, why expect its leaders to have any convictions about anything, including directions to Heaven? How can anyone be sure, if the guidebook is so full of errors?

The leader of Anglicanism, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has promoted this doctrinal wishy-washiness. Williams, who has acknowledged ordaining a priest who is a homosexual, says he opposes cohabitation by heterosexuals because it has a harmful impact on family stability. But the same book that speaks against what we used to call "fornication" before such words died along with the accompanying doctrines, also speaks against the "sin" of homosexual practice. So how can anyone be sure one is true and the other not true, or the reverse, or neither, or both? And who is to say if the church leaders don't know or are afraid to say because they might be criticized as "exclusive."

The Episcopal Church isn't the only denomination having trouble deciding what it believes. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to "receive" a policy paper on sex-inclusive language for the Trinity. Instead of the traditional (and biblical) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these liberal Presbyterians will consider using "Mother, Child and Womb," or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," among others. Never mind what God calls Himself. These people want a name change without asking permission.

No wonder liberal denominations are losing members while the conservative ones are growing. The liberal ones don't seem to care. Seeking only to be "relevant" they face condemnation from the One they are supposed to represent, whose attitude about such things is anything but "inclusive."Conservative Episcopalians are too few in number to stop the theological drift. If they intend to preserve their congregations without further theological seepage, they should "come out from among them and be separate."


Where do we go from here???

We pray with out failing for the hand of God to direct the hearts of those in positions of responsibility to realize the error of their ways and return to the Sacramental fold of Christ’s Church on Earth.

We open our hearts and parishes for those who flee from this madness while we continue to pray lovingly for those left behind.

A Test of Faith

The Episcopal Church of The United States is meeting in solemn session to determine it's path to embark on for eternity. There have been many resolutions that have been drafted in response to the Windsor report. None of these which respond directly to the concerns of the report but rather dance around the fringes of truth.

It is obvious that almost all of the resolutions as they are currently drafted fail to meet the concerns of the Anglican community as a whole as well the areas addressed by the Windsor report. Basically, at this point in time, it also appears that ECUSA has no intention of correcting its head strong slide away from Christian morality.

As a result of these actions, or should I say skirting around the truth, many prominent church leaders have looked the proposed resolutions and expressed grave concerns to their lack of concrete answers. Such is the case of Dr N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham. The concluding remarks of his paper on these actions are presented below.


The Choice before ECUSA
by the Bishop of Durham, Dr. N. T. Wright June 2006

Conclusion
19. It is very important not to let the plethora of material, in the official document and in all the various commentaries on it, detract attention from the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed. If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor, and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to walk apart’ (Windsor 157). My hope and earnest prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be avoided. May God bless the Bishops and Delegates of ECUSA in their praying, thinking and deciding.

As Christians the most difficult thing to do in this secular world is stand up for the truths of our faith as set out in the Bible with out compromise. One can not be a cafeteria Anglican and remain true the basic tenet’s we profess to believe.

There are many parishes in ECUSA that are trembling at home as to the possible action to be taken by this Synod of 2006. We reverently pray that their fears may be in vain and their ancient Christian faith restored.

New song - Same dance

THE DIOCESE of California did not elect a gay bishop last weekend, despite choosing from a list of seven candidates which included three living in same-sex partnerships. Clergy and laity voted in a final ballot for the Suffragan Bishop of Alabama, the Rt Revd Marc Andrus, the most senior of the candidates. He was described by the Washington Post as "a violin-playing, yoga-practicing father-of-two".

Much speculation had surrounded the election in ECUSA's most liberal diocese. The candidates the Revd Michael Barlowe, the Revd Robert Taylor, and the Revd Bonnie Perry were all openly living with gay partners.

In a telephone message relayed to the diocesan convention in San Francisco, Bishop Andrus said: "Your vote today remains a vote for inclusion and communion of gay and lesbian people in their full lives as single or partnered people, of women, of all ethnic minorities. . . I take this election to be an expression of our common desire to be part of the whole, the Communion and the world, in what may be a new way."

Key figures in the diocese have been at pains to stress that the candidates sexuality was not an issue. Bishop Andrus won 188 clergy votes and 161 lay, having needed 131 and 148 respectively.

The outgoing Bishop of California, the Rt Revd William Swing, said that while it was understandable to see the election as "straight versus gay, or perhaps men versus women, or perhaps black versus white", it had been about which candidate God seemed to favour.
A lay member of the nominating committee, Craig Martin, said that the election process had been democratic, and the diocese had not been concerned about the impact of its decision on the Anglican Communion.

The Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, was swift to welcome the result and thank the electors "for not attempting to short-circuit the decisions the Episcopal Church must make this June [at the General Convention] about walking with us or apart from the Anglican Communion.

"The world Church has clearly told us what we must do to stay in communion: repent of our decision in 2003 to confirm the election of a bishop in a same-sex partnered relationship, and place moratoriums on further elections of bishops in same-sex partnered relationships, as well as the blessing of same-sex relationships."

The American Anglican Council had no warm words. It asked: "Did the diocese succumb to reported pressure from ECUSA, including Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, to avoid electing a partnered homosexual? Is such pressure in fact part of a co-ordinated strategy to mislead the Communion?"

It is evident the ECUSA has no intent of repenting or correcting their slide from Christian morality. So they did not elect a practicing homosexual, instead they elected a ultra liberal individual that the gay /lesbian community was quick to place their stamp of approval on.

As Christians we are taught to hate the sin but continue to love the sinner. Nowhere in scripture can I find a commandment to approve and promote the sin.

Have I missed something some where?

Time to fish or cut bait

The Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) continues to flounder in the dark swamp of what to do or what not to do in the next general convention. Do they pull back from the abyss that they are tethering over due to same sex unions, ordination of homosexual priest and the elevation of of openly active homosexuals as Bishops. For them, at this point in time, it would be a prudent action however I feel that they will continue to throw all good reason to the winds and plunge stubbornly forward as they have done in the past.

The following excerpt was found today on the AAC web site which is a continuing example of the pulse of the Anglican Communion.

Bishop of Exeter's Reflections Offered to the House of Bishops of ECUSA
*Below is a significant excerpt of the Bishop of Exeter's statement to the House of Bishops; the entire statement is available on the AAC website here.
"...I suppose one of the major challenges for the Episcopal Church now has to do with whether there are enough of you to stand on broadly the same ground, holding a range of opinions on the issue of Lambeth 1.10 but firm in carrying forward the Windsor vision of a strengthened and enabling communion life. This, I believe, is the key question rather than questions (unhelpful questions I think) about whether the Episcopal Church will either be pushed out of Communion or consciously walk away. Let's be clear: On the one hand no one can force another Province or Diocese either to go or remain. We are not that kind of Church. Yet equally, no Diocese or Province can enforce its own continued membership simply or largely on its own terms. There has to be engagement. There is no communion without a shared vision of life in communion (at least that is how I understand Windsor).
"So it does seem to me, as I listen to those other parts of the Communion that I know best, that any further consecration of those in a same sex relationship; any authorisation of any person to undertake same sex blessings; any stated intention not to seriously engage with The Windsor Report -- will be read very widely as a declaration not to stay with the Communion as it is, or as the Windsor Report has articulated a vision, particularly in sections A and B, of how it wishes to be. Having said that, I do believe that I have heard in this house this week, by and large, a desire for shared life in communion and ongoing engagement with others in just what this must involve..."
-The Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish, Bishop of ExeterKanuga, N.C.March 22, 2006

No individual, congregation or province can drift this far from the traditional teachings of the Anglican communion and stay afloat. There comes a time when all concerned simply say "enough is enough." Unfortunately it appears that that time is just around the corner.

Women Priest in the Episcopal Church

Alice Linsley served as a priest and rector in the Episcopal Church until she came to believe that the Episcopal Church has abandonded catholic order. She has renounced her orders in the Episcopal Church and has written about her journey and her position against women's ordination. I especially found this part interesting:

Question: Where do Evangelicals who support women priest go wrong in your view?

Response: The iorny of Evangelicals is that they say they believe in the authority of Scripture but then allow cultural accommodation of ther interpretation of Scripture

I will have to agree. I have never understood why those calling themselves "Evangelical" or scripture based so often look over biblical passages that speak about divorce or women's ordination. These two issues are the most glaring contradictions in the Evangelical worldview - to speak generally, but not absolutely.

Full text of Alice Linsley: Q & A via Pontifications.