Why I'm An Anglican XI

 Because We Honor Scripture, Reason and Tradition!

Bishop Eric Menees

This is the final reason in this series of why I am an Anglican. This is not meant to be an exhaustive examination.

You'll remember, from your catechism class, what is often referred to as the "three legged stool" of Anglicanism. What the teachers were referring to is what is generally attributed to the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker... the three legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.

Hooker wrote The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in the sixteenth century, providing direction and theological foundations in a time of confusion as the Church of England was seeking her identity. Hooker embodied the Anglican ethos that honors the universal and historic realities of the church and the reform that became necessary.  That ethos is often summed up with Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.

Now that being said, I'm not a Hooker Scholar, but I think that the notion of a three legged stool was not Hooker's, and he'd probably be aghast at the notion.  A three legged stool images three equal legs, but Hooker did not say that these were equal in authority. What did Hooker say? "Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever." (Book V, 8:2)

Rather than a three legged stool, I envision a ladder built upon the three steps of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition:

Scripture - the Word of God, that contains all things necessary for salvation (Article 6), is the foundation upon which everything else is built.  Scripture is God's self-revelation - literally God Breathed - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Reason - the God given ability to use our minds to recognize and understand, on some level, the Word of God and God's revelation in nature. God has given us the ability to think critically about Him, and about ourselves.

Tradition - while Hooker does not specifically use this term, it makes sense to me in this context. While God has given us, individually, the ability to think critically, He has collectively given us the ability to receive the Word of God, and to be the Body of Christ in the world. The revelation given in and through the Church has changed the course of history, and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, transformed and saved billions of souls.

These are the reasons among many others that I am proud to be an Anglican Christian.

Archbishops Welby And Duncan: The Future of Anglicanism Contrasted

Fr. Dale Matson

Recently both Archbishops spoke about the future of Anglicanism. For Archbishop Duncan, the talk was primarily about the future of Anglicans in North America under his leadership. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFiTHF4kbIQ&feature=youtu.be

Archbishop Welby talked about the future of the Anglican Communion under his leadership. http://www.anglicanink.com/article/archbishop-welby-sets-agenda-anglican-future

As someone who navigates his way in the wilderness, I set a way point on my GPS at a known location before I begin. This allows me to find my way back as I begin my mission. It is interesting that both ++Welby and ++Duncan use ‘way points’ from which to navigate the future. ++Duncan used Scripture in general and this verse in particular as a means of orienting his pilgrims. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1^st Peter 2:9, ESV) This is the ACNA missiology.

++Welby referenced the Lutheran theologian “Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ideal of the Church as ‘Christ existing as community’ as his guide.”  http://www.anglicanink.com/article/archbishop-welby-sets-agenda-anglican-future. He also pointed to the second paragraph of a 1963 statement of the Toronto Anglican Congress. http://anglicanhistory.org/canada/toronto_mutual1963.html

The final sentence states, “They prove that the ideas, the pictures we have of one another and of our common life in Christ, are utterly obsolete and irrelevant to our actual situation.” The final paragraph of section IV states, “In substance, what we are really asking is the rebirth of the Anglican Communion, which means the death of many old things but-- infinitely more--the birth of entirely new relationships. We regard this as the essential task before the churches of the Anglican Communion now.”

Is this really the starting point? Is this the context the leader of the Anglican Communion will use to orient; to begin the future? ++Duncan sees things differently. While ++Welby believes that Christ exists as community, ++Duncan would say that the community exists in Christ. “Jesus is the Life, and the Way and the Truth.” In his homily on “How It Holds Together”, He laid a foundation on Jesus Christ. His anthropology was based on church tradition. “We are under the Word of God. Our ancestors wrestled with what it means to be human. We need to pay them heed [my emphasis]. What has happened in 2,000 years matters to us.”

++Welby noted that the issues of the church needed to be examined through the lens of theology, anthropology and ecclesiology. Who is the God we serve? Who are we? What is the church for? He answered the last question by saying that the purpose of the church is growth through reconciliation. He did not answer the former two questions he posed. ++Duncan used the traditions of the church, particularly the creed, to state that the church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” ++Duncan’s comment on the work of the church was, “We are converted individuals, multiplying congregations, fueled by the Holy Spirit.”

To be fair, ++Welby’s Skype talk was only about eight minutes but he seems to be reaching for a starting point. For ++Duncan, it was obvious that his starting point was with Jesus Christ. “What holds it [the local church] together? What is our coherence? How would you make sense of us? It all holds together in Jesus Christ.”

++Welby noted, “We have a vocation to bring people together.” ++Duncan noted that we have tools that hold us together. “The Word of God, The Book of Common Prayer (the Bible arranged for worship), our new Catechism” He noted that it is lengthy but that is because we are living in a post Christian society.

It is interesting to me that Archbishop Justin is apologetic to the modern culture about the traditional Anglican world view and Archbishop Robert believes a desperate and pagan society is clamoring for what we have to offer. Both have a similar mission as leaders. ++Welby and ++Duncan want unity. Each is using different way points. One sounds like someone from human resources using reconciliation and one sounds like a bishop using truth.

Why I'm An Anglican X

Because We Are A Three Streams Church!

Bishop Eric Menees

So far, I've said that I am Anglican because we are: 1) Biblical, 2) Liturgical, 3) Sacramental, 4) Evangelical, 5) Rational, 6) Episcopal, 7) Ecumenical, 8) International, and 9) We Are A Three Streams Church!

What do I mean by a "Three Streams Church?" Generally speaking (and recognizing that books could be written on the subject), this refers to different styles of worship and theological emphases. These three streams are Anglo-Catholic, Charismatic, and Evangelical. I find it remarkable that our church embraces these three streams, and yet remains one church. This is not to say that we are without our challenges, but overall these three streams work well together, and can be found in each diocese (the Diocese of San Joaquin included) and province of the church.

 

Anglo-Catholic: Typically, this stream embodies a high church form of worship using liturgy as an evangelical tool. Seeing and participating in the majestic worship of the ancient church leads us to an experience of the divine. Anglo-Catholics place a heavy emphasis on the real presence of Christ in the Sacraments, and they deeply honor the way that the Lord has worked through Holy Tradition and continues to unfold his redeeming work through the Church.

Charismatic: Anglican Charismatics usually emphasize the experience of God through the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Charismatics place heavy emphasis on an individual's openness to being filled with the Holy Spirit and to exercise the gifts which God desires to anoint all Christians with. Anglican Charismatics argue that God the Holy Spirit is alive and well, and is performing his miraculous works daily. For Anglican Charismatics, the church that is open to the movement of the Holy Spirit is the church that embodies what it means to worship God in the fullness of faith.

Evangelical: By in large, Anglican Evangelicals embody the reformed aspect of our church. Heavy emphasis is placed upon a personal and saving relationship with Jesus Christ, and therefore they see personal evangelism as the primary responsibility of the church. The church is necessary to live out the faith, but a person may come to faith outside of the church. Among Evangelicals, the Bible is the primary source of God's revelation and He is present in His Word!

 

All three streams desire essentially the same thing: for people to come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ and to live out our lives as His obedient disciples. Most Anglicans are not purely any one of these streams, but rather exhibit two or three of the streams in their worship and ministry. For example, Bishop Keith Ackerman--our upcoming clergy retreat leader--embodies all three streams in his worship and ministry. As president of Forward in Faith North America, he is associated with Anglo-Catholics. Yet, when I hear him preach, he places strong emphasis on the Word of God and a personal saving relationship with Christ which exhibits the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

As I travel around the diocese, I rejoice in seeing these three streams working in tandem with one another. I believe that we are a richer diocese, province, and communion because we experience the fullness of the Church and her faith in these three streams.

Why I'm Anglican IX

Because We're International

Bishop Eric Menees

So far, I've said that I am Anglican because we are: Biblical, Liturgical, Sacramental, Evangelical, Rational, Episcopal, and Ecumenical.

In May of 2012, I was blessed to addend a FCA (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) meeting in London, where the international flavor of Anglicanism - which had always been theoretical to me - became real. How powerful it was for me to have dinner with the Archbishop of Chile, the Bishop of Iran, and a Bishop from Uganda. We shared a meal together, prayed together, and spoke of our faith in Christ. As we did, it became clear that while we came from very different cultures and backgrounds, we shared the same Christian Culture - based on a common understanding of Christ, the Church, and our Mission in the world.

We have the evangelical spirit of the English Reformers to thank for our international flavor and expression - for a truly catholic (universal) church. In short, where the English Navy and economic traders went, the Church of England went also. This missionary zeal took extra focus with the formation of the Church Mission Society in the eighteenth century, under the leadership of many evangelicals, not least of whom was William Wilberforce. In a short time, the CMS began to focus on Africa and India. They then focused on the South Pacific, including Australia and New Zealand. Today, millions of men and women have come to Christ through the efforts of those original missionaries and their successors.

However, the focus was not only calling individuals to conversion, but also engaging the culture, with the intention of transforming all of society. This engagement of the culture is meant to Christianize the culture by injecting moral values which we want to see present, whether or not everyone is Christian. William Wilberforce's leading of the church to engage the sin of forced slavery is an example that affected people in England, Africa, and the entire world.

In short, Anglican missionaries struggled and sacrificed to humanize and affect the culture through Christian morality in the education, health care, and legal systems. Unfortunately, this heritage is currently being challenged from within, by liberal Anglicans who argue that influencing culture with Christian morals, education, etc., etc., is oppressive. I say "hooey" to that line of thought, and point to the amazing ministry, at great personal cost, that is being carried out day in and day out around the world by modern Anglican missionaries.

I love being a part of a church that speaks as many languages as exist on the earth. A church that expresses her love for Christ in hundreds of different cultures, but all with a similar church-culture and style of worship based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Last Sunday, while I celebrated Holy Eucharist in Porterville, a similar and familiar worship was offered in Lima, Toronto, Nairobi, Sydney, Calcutta, Vientiane, and Singapore.

Why I Am An Anglican VI

We Honor Intellectual Inquiry and Pursuit

Bishop Eric Menees

In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the Church Ad Project ran an ad using a picture of a coat rack in the narthex of a church, with a caption that said, "Check your hat not your brain at the door." I agree with that sentiment, and the Anglican church is at her best when we acknowledge the natural intelligence that God has given us, and then work on developing that intelligence with rigorous study of the Word of God and the Doctrines of the Church.

Anglicanism is a rational form of Christianity, and thus a rational form of pastoral care, because we take questions and intellectual curiosity seriously. Within the Anglican fellowship, if you have problems or difficulties, you are not immediately squelched or kicked out. Your thoughts will be taken seriously within the church. You may ask any question; raise any problem. If, on the basis of your study of scripture, you want a new way of expressing a biblical truth, the Anglican way is to discuss it and debate it, to sort out whether you are on track or off track. In the ACNA, we are keen on learning how to express age old Biblical Truths in a manner that can be understood by a modern pagan culture.

Secondly, it has always been the way of Anglican leadership to keep in touch with the world of thought and intellectual pursuits.  It is important to note that the English reformers were highly educated Oxford and Cambridge men.  A founding principle of the Anglican church is to examine the surrounding culture through the lens of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, which is often referred to as the "three legged stool." That examination is not simply done in a laboratory or library, but in order to engage and confront the culture - thus making the church a cultural influence intellectually.

By engaging the culture, we take a risk of being overly influenced by the culture, and I would argue that too many of the mainline denominations have simply given in to the surrounding culture - embracing and blessing that culture. This is a danger and requires us to be extra vigilant and intentional, but it doesn't mean that we should simply withdraw from the challenge of transforming the culture by the power of God.  On the other hand, some denominations have sought to withdraw from the world, seeking to be the Lord's people in an alien land. However, Anglicanism seeks to engage the world, with the aim of converting it and transforming it. If we read Acts chapter 17, this is the model of St. Paul - to engage and transform. I believe that the Anglican way is more apostolic, more scriptural, and more intellectually honest.

Why I’m an Anglican IV

Bishop Eric Menees

Because It’s Sacramental!

You will remember from your catechism class, that the traditional definition of a sacrament is: “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” I pray that, more than just remembering from catechism class, you are receiving God’s Grace regularly in and through the sacraments. God’s Grace is what sustains us, fills us, comforts us, equips us, and impels us forward.

Essentially, the sacraments of the Church are one of God’s ways of speaking into our lives pastorally. The two primary sacraments commanded by Jesus - Baptism & Holy Eucharist - speak powerfully to Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross in the ultimate act of redemption. In the sacrament of Baptism, we have that outward and visible sign of water and oil in receiving God’s Grace and redemption. I came to Christ as a young man, and was baptized at age 14 (though two years later I learned that the nun at St. Francis hospital in Lynnwood, CA baptized me and every child born there from 1950 - 1970... but that’s another story).

I was able, then, to make a public renunciation of Satan, and a public acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That grace was signified with the symbolic washing away of my sins and anointing with oil, sealing me “as Christ’s own forever.” My baptism was a turning point in both my life, and in the life of my family. Soon after that service, on January 2nd 1976, my parents began attending church with me, and my brother began attending church with his girl friend and soon-to-be wife. God’s Grace spoke powerfully into our lives.

Holy Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper, is a sacrament that speaks pastorally into our lives on a weekly or even daily basis, and, frankly, I can’t imagine life without the great joy of receiving the sacrament or the privilege of celebrating Holy Eucharist. What a tremendous honor it is, for any priest, to look into the eyes of a forgiven sinner and say, “The body of Christ. The Bread of heaven.” At that moment, we have a foretaste of the heavenly banquet and the assurance of Christ’s amazing love for us who do not deserve it, but can only receive it!

Of course, in addition to the two primary sacraments, we have Christ speaking into our lives in the other five sacraments of the Church.

Confirmation - is that moment where men and women, at an age of understanding, both renounce Satan, and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (or confirm that acceptance). This is especially powerful for those baptized as children, who had no say in the matter. At Confirmation, men and women are set aside and empowered for ministry and leadership in the church. I have always said, and firmly believe, that the Lay Order is the most important of the church.

Marriage - is that sacrament which affirms the biblical plan of setting aside one man and one woman in the life-long partnership of husband and wife.  The comfort and care given to the couple is not meant only for them, but for their families, if God grants them the blessing of children. Marriage also gives us an expression of Jesus’ relationship with us, His Church. In the marriage service, as the rings are exchanged, the couple say to one another, “I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am and all that I have I honor you.” This is the ideal that the sacrament of marriage sets for the couple and with Christ Jesus.

Confession/Reconciliation - is that sacrament where Jesus speaks to us audibly through the priest as he pronounces absolution. Knowing that, when we come to the Lord with an humble and contrite heart, we are, indeed, forgiven of our sins. I make my confession regularly, and I am, as a forgiven sinner, always moved to hear those words, “I absolve you of your sins: In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Lord has put away all of your sins. Go in peace and pray for me a sinner”

Ordination - This is a sacrament reserved for those who are set aside for the ministries of Deacon, Priest, or Bishop. God speaks so powerfully and pastorally into the lives of individuals and the church, through the sacrament of ordination, by providing structure for the church and her ministry, and by setting aside individuals to be used for the Glory of God and the benefit of man.

Holy Unction - This sacrament of prayer, laying on of hands, and anointing with Holy Oil, is the epitome of Jesus speaking pastorally into our lives. When we are ill and sometimes at the point of death, to receive the loving prayers, the words of scripture, and the laying on of hands by a priest or bishop, speaks so powerfully of Christ love for the sick and dying - a condition, because of the Fall, that all of us have and will find ourselves in.

One of reasons that I am an Anglican is because of our emphasis on God’s Word and God’s sacraments, which speak so powerfully and pastorally into all aspects and times of our lives!

Why I'm An Anglican III

Bishop Eric Menees

- Because We Are Liturgical
I'd like to continue my explanation with why it is that I am an Anglican. One of the great strengths of the Anglican Reformers was their wisdom in seeking to "reform" Catholicism, not abandon her. One area where the more Protestant churches went afoul, was with their abandonment of liturgy and all things liturgical because they appeared "Romish."

The liturgies of the church are in fact deeply scriptural both in quoting scripture but also expressing it in a most pastoral manner.

So what is liturgy? Well, it is most often described as the "work of the people." I would expand that definition to say that it is the "Work of the people in ministering to the people of God and worshiping the Lord God almighty." Liturgy is what Christians do when they gather together for worship. I always find it odd when I meet Protestants who argue that they are not liturgical. However, if you go to a service you will find a set way of organizing worship - generally speaking they gather together, sing some songs, take an offering, offer prayers, hear some scripture, listen to a sermon, sing some more and have announcements. No matter how you slice it that is liturgy.

What I love about Anglicanism is that we embrace that liturgy and seek to make it as beautiful and transformational as possible. To do that we rely upon music that is ancient and modern. These are songs of praise that speak to a deep and profound theological reality of God's redeeming love in Jesus Christ. When I sing those hymns I am proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ and worshiping God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Whether that hymn is Ode to Joy or In Christ Alone. "Joyful, Joyful, we adore thee God of Glory, Lord of Love; hearts unfold like flowers before thee praising thee their God above." Is it possible to read those words and not hearing Beethoven's music in their minds ear? When those verses and that music was first written in the 18th Century it was the pop music of the time but speaks to a timeless truth and reality. So too with hymns 21st century hymns like In Christ Alone - "In Christ alone, my hope is found, he is my life, my strength, my song."

In the Liturgy we very intentionally take up an offering of our treasure to be used for the Glory of God, the spread of the gospel and the ministry of the church. This offering is biblical and right allowing the entire church to return to the Lord a portion, (which should be a minimum of 10%), to him in gratitude for the other 90% that we use to support our families, ourselves and our communities. Note that when we gather up the offerings we bring them to he altar and hand them to the priest or deacon who raises them up before the Lord and the congregation with one voice either sings or says words from scripture known, as the Doxology - "Praise God from whom all blessings flow. (James 1:17) Praise Him all creatures here below.(Psalm 145:21) Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts. (Rev. 5:11-14) Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen" (2 Peter 1:11)

In the Liturgy we read the Word of God, and as I mentioned last week, if we gather for worship every Sunday over three years we will have read over 80% of the bible. However, in Anglican liturgy we not only hear the Word of God we interact with it - praying together the psalms and responding both physically (standing for the gospel and sometimes the psalms) and verbally responding to the Lector by proclaiming our affirmation to the proclamation of the Word saying "Thanks be to God," a phrase given in scripture by St. Paul, among others, in his letters to the Corinthians.

In the Liturgy the Word of God is faithfully preached. This should be a challenging exposition of the scriptures read that day that include a practical application to the lives of the people gathered. Through the movement of the Holy Spirit who opens our hearts and minds this will sometimes be a very challenging and uncomfortable message, and at times a very comforting message of assurance. However, it should always be bible-based and include practical implications for life. I thank God for the preaching of my clergy in the diocese and regularly listen to them online.
In the Liturgy we offer, individually and collectively, prayers to God. Prayers of praise and thanksgiving, prayers of petition asking God for his assistance for ourselves and others, prayers for those in authority and prayers for the church. I love the fact that our liturgy forces us to look beyond ourselves and our perceived needs, wants and desires.

In the Liturgy, we proclaim our faith in the words of the Nicene or Apostles Creed. This profession of faith is so important as an affirmation of our faith and defining, for ourselves and others, who we are as Christians. Additionally, the public affirmation of our faith connects us with Christians from the first century to the present day and connects us with Christians around the world and across most denominational lines.

In the Liturgy we share in the sacraments of the church that speak into our mind, heart and soul.
Lastly, in Liturgy we participate in a beautiful work that through music, symbols, clothing and rituals, connect us to one another across time and across the divide of human and divine. I love the liturgy of the church because in that eighty minute time frame, give or take, I can intentionally set myself in the presence of God and have a glimpse into His Kingdom!


God bless you all!

Why I Am An Anglican II

Bishop Eric Menees

When Archbishop Cramner and the other Anglican Reformers first broke from the Roman Catholic Church, they wanted to keep the richness of the faith and the tradition of the Apostolic and Patristic periods of the church. In doing so, the Anglican reformers placed a strong emphasis on both the Word of God and the Sacraments of the Church - the 39 Articles of Religion state that, "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." (Article 19)

I love the Anglican Church because we recognize that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Inspired Word of God! The 39 Articles are clear in stating:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." (Article 6)

For Anglicanism, it begins and ends with God's self-revelation through His Word. The Book of Common Prayer itself is made up of something like 80% scripture...now that is just a guess on my part, (but I'm sure someone with lots of time on their hands has already done a study) however, it is an educated guess. Look at the words of institution (the words Jesus used at the Last Supper) during Holy Eucharist, which are taken from the Gospels and Corinthians. Or take the Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer services where, for example, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and the Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29-32) are taken directly from scripture.

This was done in a radical move to make the scriptures accessible to all people: rich and poor, literate and illiterate. By attending the services, the people were immersed in the Word of God. Equally, when the lectionary was put together, the intention was to allow the scriptures to be taught and learned on a Sunday by Sunday - day by day basis.

This emphasis on the Word of God has been brought into modern day Anglicanism, and has been affirmed in current documents like the Jerusalem Declaration and the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). "The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in the plain and canonical sense, respectful of the Church's historic and consensual reading" (Jerusalem Declaration)

This emphasis on The Word of God is also one of our points of separation from the Episcopal Church, which has, for a generation now, taught that the Bible contains the "words" of God but is not necessarily the inspired Word of God that is authoritative for our lives. In the Anglican Church we read, believe and follow the words of St. Paul when writing to Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Our lives - public and private- are to be modeled upon the the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.


As the ACNA puts together our Prayer Book and develops the lectionary, I've encouraged Bishop Thompson and his committee to reverse what the Episcopal Church did in removing large sections of scripture that they disagreed with from the daily and Sunday readings. We have a wonderful opportunity to get it right, and to make sure that we begin and end with the Word of God!

Why I Am An Anglican

July 18, 2013
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ
Today, I begin a series on the reasons why I am an Anglican.

After eighteen years of ordained ministry, and more than ten years of working to change the Episcopal Church from inside out - serving on every commission and committee I could get on to - I made the choice to leave the Episcopal Church, lock stock, and barrel. As I made my exit, I was asked many times why I wanted to be an Anglican. This question was asked most poignantly, perhaps, by my brothers - one a faithful Roman Catholic, and the other a faithful Lutheran (Missouri Synod) - who asked if I would like to join one of them.

I have to admit that my initial response to their questioning was no, of course not "I'm Anglican." They kindly asked me why, and I had to take some time to think about that - it was not sufficient simply to say, "Because that's what I have always been." I would like to share in my Bishop's Notes why it is that I am an Anglican, and perhaps some of these reasons will resonate with you; though assuredly you will have other reasons why you are an Anglican.

In order to define why it is that I am an Anglican, it is important to say that I am a repentant and redeemed sinner, made a child of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, first and foremost, I am a Christian who has his expression of Christianity in Anglicanism. That means that I am a Catholic and Reformed. This is not to say that I am undecided about whether I am Catholic or Protestant. Rather, the Anglican Church was born with the understanding and intentionality to maintain the very best of Creedal Catholic faith, depending on the revelation of the Holy Spirit through the Church Fathers and the Councils of the Church, while at the same time receiving the evangelical call of the reformers to unabashedly proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

When I speak of the Anglican Church, I am referring to the Anglican Communion world wide that uses the Book of Common Prayer - based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (including the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion), which was a light revision of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, which was largely authored by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer
.
Notably, the Anglican Church is estimated by Sociologists of Religion to be about 75 million strong. Of those 75 million, on any given Sunday you will find approximately 5 million in church on the Lord's Day in the "West" - Europe, North America, Australia & South Africa. You will find 40-50 million in church on the Lord's Day in what is referred to as the Global South - Africa, Asia, and South America. That statistic is remarkable, and speaks to a church that is rapidly growing and healthy in the Global South versus an anemic church in the West. You may be saying to yourself, 75 minus 55 leaves 20 million - what of those others? That number represents people who self identify as Anglican but only attend their wedding, occasionally Christmas and Easter with their grandmother, and their funeral - and some may argue that they don't attend their own funeral.

I mention this because some of the very reasons that I am an Anglican are the same reasons why the Anglican Church in North America and the churches of the Global South are growing and vibrant. Some of those reasons are that Anglicanism is: Biblical, Historical, Liturgical, Ecclesiastical, Episcopal, Ecumenical, Pastoral and Rational, to list just a few and to provide the source of my following Bishop's Notes.
May The Lord bless you!

Bishop Menees

GAFCON II: A Way Forward For Anglicanism

Fr. Dale Matson

“The Archbishop of Canterbury has used his first presidential address to the General Synod to call on the church to recognise that the ‘cultural and political ground’ in Britain is ‘changing’, and to ‘accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully heard it’". http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/5-july/news/uk/church-must-accept-there-is-sexual-revolution,-welby-tells-synod

I wrote in January of 2011. “Will the See of Canterbury remain the focal point of 21st Century Anglicanism”? “It can remain the center of Anglicanism but Canterbury must represent more than the historical roots of Anglicanism viewed through the blurred lens of contemporary culture. It must represent the heart of the faith also. This is what is missing.” http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2011/01/way-forward-for-canterbury-anglicanism.html

At that time ++Rowan Williams was still the Archbishop of Canterbury and I called for him to step down in hopes that someone who reflected the majority of the mind of the Anglican Communion and the church catholic would lead the World Wide Anglican Communion in the 21^st Century. ++Williams did step down (I am sure he made the decision apart from my urging). He was followed by ++Justin Welby and early signs http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2012/11/justin-welby-reconciliation-or.html   have proven to be reliable indicators that ++Welby is ++Williams 2.0. http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-error-of-human-flourishing-as.html and http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2013/03/canterbury-repentance-and-reformation.html

What ++ Justin Welby has essentially said here is that the church needs to accept what contemporary culture is promoting, repent that she hasn't come on board and prepare herself for even more change “…we have not fully heard it.” Apparently he has not just been “listening”. He perceived “notable hostility” to the churches’ position which he had supported in opposing the Same-sex Marriage Bill. He then went on to discuss “homophobic bullying” which is another issue. Bullying of anyone is morally wrong. Isn't the murder of Christians because they are Christians a serious matter also?

Am I asking for ++Justin Welby to step down? No, because I believe he does represent the progressive mind of the Church of England, TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.

The Church of England and ++Welby are culture bound. They formerly sent missionaries to the far corners of the earth. Much of the pushback against Canterbury is from lands Canterbury missioned through the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The prophetic voice for Anglicanism is from the Global South not Canterbury.  It should be Canterbury speaking truth to power not cowering and renting her garments because she is ashamed of her guiding documents and Lord. Does accommodating the cultural change make the church more relevant; more genuine; more truthful; more liked? Does ++Justin Welby actually speak the mind of the WWAC any more than the former ABC ++Rowan Williams? His collaboration, while cloaked is progressivism not true reconciliation or repentance.

The bitter irony is that Canterbury in an attempt to be more relevant and responsive to her immediate culture has made herself less relevant to the Christian church in general and the WWAC in particular. Since when does taking the majority side make the church right or more liked? Does Canterbury even understand that lukewarm Christianity is no match for Islam which will ascend to power by demographics alone? England is in danger of having a new and less tolerant established religion.

The title of my article is “A Way Forward For Anglicanism”. It is different than two years ago. We are further down the road. There is more clarity.  GAFCON II will be meeting in Kenya in October. I am hopeful. The press release states in part, “We continue to face the triple challenge of skeptical secularism, militant religion and compromised Christianity. GAFCON 2013 has been summoned so that GFCA can help both plan for and experience the future of the Communion of which we, with many others, are part.”   http://anglicanink.com/article/press-release-gafcon-ii-set-october  It is the “compromised Christianity” that most troubles me.

Anglican Identity

 Fr. Van McCalister

Anglican Identity

Are you a victim of identity theft?  Most Anglicans are.  Well, if not identity theft, certainly identity confusion.

We hear questions like: Are you Catholic?  Do you have a pope?  Are you Protestant?  Weren't you founded by King Henry the VIII^th?  (That's embarrassing!)

Unfortunately, we have accepted some misleading labels that get us off to a bad start.  So, let's get our identity back! 

Are Anglicans Catholic?  Yes, we are.  But we are not Roman Catholic.  Our bishops have been consecrated within the unbroken line of apostolic succession from the apostles to the present, along with the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore our identity as a Catholic Church is as legitimate as that of the Roman Catholic Church.  For Anglicans, being Catholic means being faithful to the catholicity of the Early Church before the denominational divisions, and the medieval corruptions born out of political interests.

Do Anglicans have a pope? No. The early undivided Catholic Church made decisions through councils where bishops and others met to seek God's direction over matters of faith, through prayer and debate. For example, the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon, which have defined Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ for nearly 1700 years, were the products of Church Councils. During those early centuries the Bishop of Rome was known as “the first among equals” - certainly someone who deserved much respect, but still only a bishop among fellow bishops. Prior to the Great Schism of 1054, the Emperor called the early Ecumenical Councils together and presided over them. The Emperor sought the advice of the Bishop of Rome, who in turn presided over lesser councils and synods to resolve theological and ecclesiastical issues. It is noteworthy that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) did not have broad unilateral authority during the early centuries of the Church. Anglicanism follows a similar pattern, where an archbishop will preside over councils, but he is still simply a bishop among a college of bishops. The archbishop's authority allows him to call the College of Bishops together, to introduce an agenda, and to preside over the meetings, but he does not have unilateral authority to introduce or revise matters of Faith and Doctrine.

Are Anglicans Protestant?  Not really.  Anglicans were among those who protested the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation Movement of the 1500s and later.  However, none of the Christian denominations are now what they were in the 1500s. So, the label “Protestant” is not very helpful.  Since then, “Protestant” has come to mean “churches that are not Catholic” because few Christian denominations are still protesting the Roman Catholic Church.  So, if by “Protestant” one means “not Catholic” then Anglicans are not really Protestants.  At least, certainly not in the way other denominations are Protestant.  The difference between Anglicans and Protestants is most apparent by the fact that Anglicans were the only group of protesting Christians within the Reformation Movement who maintained the ancient Catholic Liturgy and continued the ministration of the seven Sacraments.  As you can imagine, the “Protestant” label and the “Catholic” label carry a variety of implications depending on the context.

Weren't Anglicans founded by Henry the VIII?  No.  The Church was founded by Christ on Pentecost.  During the Reformation Movement, a number of people risked their lives and gave up their lives to reform the Church in England during those tumultuous years.  Henry the VIII simply provided an opportunity to carry out those reforms.  To diminish the sacrifice of those English martyrs by attributing their faith to the political whims of King Henry is a travesty.  The fact that Anglicanism has no such visible founder as Luther, Calvin or Knox is a testimony to the desire of the Anglican reformers to restore the doctrine and practices of the Early Church in England.  This is why you will find no Anglican Creed.  Our only Doctrine is Holy Scripture.  Our only Creeds are the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. 

Finally, the most important aspect of our identity is that we are followers of Jesus.

“In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect . . .”    Saint Peter

The Right Stuff and Holy Orders: Problems and Suggestions For The Future

Fr. Dale Matson

As the vocations officer for the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, I wrote an article in 2010 called “The Right Stuff and Holy Orders” http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2010/11/right-stuff-and-holy-orders.html

In the article, I stated, “An important consideration in the discernment process, is the call of God to the individual and the confirmation of this within the parish.” The diocesan commission on ministry is gathered by the bishop to also assist the individual in discernment. It is really a sorting process that determines what order of ministry God is calling an individual into. Are they called to remain in the lay order? Are they called to the vocational diaconate or the priesthood via the transitional diaconate? Hopefully the candidate and commission agree with what constitutes the call of God. Hopefully, if someone is not called by God to holy orders, they will self-select out sooner rather than later. Hopefully, those on the commission will be seen as advocates and not obstacles.

Of course the process can be frustrating for the aspirant/postulant/candidate and perhaps the imperfect and labor intensive process is an additional test of the genuineness of the call. It reminds me of the dementia assessments I performed at the Medical College of Wisconsin. If the person could endure the assessment process itself, it was the best indicator that they were healthy.

The discernment process is not intended as a hazing or a series of hoops and hurdles but often that is the impression of those in the discernment process. In my experiences with candidates, there have been some disappointments because of the sorting/discernment.

For example, there are individuals who have served faithfully as ministers in Protestant churches who wish to be ordained as a priest. This may be because of an elderly priest needing help in an Anglican parish or a paid position that has become available to a clergyperson with no church. I do not think either of these reasons is sufficient in and of itself to signal a call from God as a priest. What is missing even in the “Examination” (BCP 531) of a priest is a sufficient understanding of the apostolic, sacrificial and sacerdotal aspect of the priesthood. I believe Donald Cozzens The Changing Face Of The Priesthood (2,000) overemphasizes the role of “Tender of the Word” at the expense of the traditional Alter Christus aspect of the priest. If an individual is not drawn by God to the Altar, they may be a great preacher or deacon but they are not a priest. What follows are thoughts and suggestions for the future.

There is another option in the discernment process that may be considered but it requires a ‘letting go’ of traditional sorting. There are those young men who are not meant by God for the priesthood who have a call to serve. They need a profession and a vocation. They cannot be non-stipendiary vocational deacons. They must make a living for their families and need to serve God. There are many young men in this situation. They have leadership skills and a necessary faith. For those young men, another option is service in another denomination as a pastor. It is only right that we as Anglicans be willing to give them up for the good of the universal church. It is also important that we examine why the “rector” model of priest is somehow the litmus test for priest. For example, don’t we have chaplain priests? It would also be useful to reexamine the training model for priests. I question the necessity for most priests to be prepared in a brick and mortar setting. What about a mentorship/apprenticeship model that would not require the huge expenditure of resources and time, only to discern that the commission and candidate lost the degrees of freedom to decide correctly, along the way.

There is a certain irony in the selection process. Sometimes young men are only too willing to hear the voice of God in others urging them forward when their own hearts don’t have the same ears to hear. Sometimes the urging of the church is as self-serving and subjective as the self-appointed postulant that does not understand why the church is not behind his aspirations.          

The Underground Pewster responds to "Canterbury: Repentance And Reformation Before Reconciliation"

Fr. Dale Matson

From The Underground Pewster in response to “Canterbury: Repentance and Reformation before Reconciliation”

“Good points. Let me present a question. Unity in the Church as it now stands appears to mean being able to share the communion cup with those who you see supporting an ‘innovative’ (AKA heretical) Gospel. Is that theologically tenable? I don't think it is, but I will leave it to wiser minds such as yours to spell it out. The "innovator" will claim that his position is Spirit led, not heretical, etc., and therefore those who believe communion has been impaired by those innovations are labeled as the ones who are less than Christian.  A renewal is clearly needed, but Canterbury has not wanted to offend anybody except perhaps the "orthodox" recently. I think any honest attempt by the Church to create unity will have to come out of a search for the truth. I don't see that happening anytime soon. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer reflected on his days at Union Theological Seminary.
"...in the conflict between determination for truth with all of its consequences and the will for community, the latter prevails. This is characteristic of all American thought, particularly as I have observed it in theology and the church, they do not see the radical claim of truth on the shaping of their lives. Community is therefore formed less on truth than on the spirit of 'fairness'." 

(This sounds like a potential canonical exam question)

If only purity of doctrine could save us. The Law itself couldn’t save us. Having said that however, heretical doctrine could surely damn us. Look at our Christian brethren in the Lutheran Church Missouri Syond and the Wisconsin Synod who are orthodox in their doctrine but don’t share altar and pulpit fellowship with one another. Do we sup with the Big Endians or the Small Endian Lilliputians? How much doctrinal agreement is necessary? What must we agree upon? I hear often that someone is a “Creedal Christian”.  Is it the “I believe” (rite I) or the “We believe” (Rite II) in the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed is more than a set of truth statements. It is a mystical document that is confessed with the mouth AND received in the heart by faith.

 

If God the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing in the Church of Christ, He will not contradict what has already been revealed in Scripture.  Even the Gospel was tested with Scripture by the Bereans. (Act 17:11) Scripture is like a proof set of Johansson gauge blocks where we measure truth, and Tradition is the working set of ‘Jo blocks’. As a journeyman plumber I knew plumb lines did not parse the truth. Reason is intellect informed by God through revelation. Even the contemporary Christian church is a measure of the truth. A province or denomination by itself does not speak for the one holy catholic and apostolic church and has no authority to innovate.

“I think any honest attempt by the Church to create unity will have to come out of a search for the truth.”

I think much of the church has been captured by the spirit of the age. The spirit of the age includes a mixture of individualism (a sense of personal entitlement), feminism, humanism, rationalism, science as religion, anomie, moral relativism, consumerism, and nihilism. These unclean things have crept into the church and were given lodging. They are the ‘legion’ of this age that possesses the church. The bishops did not man the watchtowers and the prophets were afraid to speak. The truth we seek is Jesus the Christ; The Way, The Truth and The Life. It is His church, He is the head, let us not be ashamed to proclaim this. Any organization that does not proclaim this is not a Christian church. 

And yet God’s people remained arrogant. There is no agreement because there is an endemic spirit of confusion. Pilate said, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Wherever there is evil, there is confusion. There is especially confusion about truth.  And Satan is the author of confusion. Today we are reliving the tower of Babel. It is Babel 2.0. The spirit of the age, I would have to say, this is Satan celebrating the Fat Tuesday of an era before the real season of repentance begins.

I believe God is about to call his church out of captivity. He will gather the scattered denominations together. We are about to awaken from our slumber. I believe we are about to see a huge outpouring of His Spirit. Satan’s preemptive ascendance in our age is a good indicator that God is about to bust a move. God will not be fair. He will be Sovereign and true to His word.

Pax et bonum,

Dale+

The Underground Pewster has his own blogsite called “Not Another Episcopal Church Blog”

http://lowly.blogspot.com/

Canterbury: Repentance and Reformation Before Reconciliation

Fr. Dale Matson

Canterbury never seems to have an over the cliff moment, only a possible downhill slide into oblivion. There has been a well-intended but mistaken sense for both +Rowan Williams and ++Justin Welby that agreement within the WWAC is simply a process issue whether it is called ‘Indaba’ or ‘Reconciliation’. Both men have failed to see the differences between the traditionalists and progressives for what those differences really are. It is heresy versus orthodoxy. I was greatly disappointed when +Rowan Williams referred to the differences as a matter of ‘styles’ as if it was simply differing local adaptations of the Gospel. They have identified and attempted to treat a symptom, disunity, as the problem when disunity is only a symptom of the problem.

Today, Canterbury Anglicanism is not a firewall. Canterbury is a fulcrum  used by the progressives to pry loose the preeminence of Scripture, Tradition and Reason and supplant it with subjective experience. The innovations are patches of new material on old cloth. Would Canterbury be recognizable by Thomas Cranmer today? The once reformed church is now itself in need of reformation.  The ‘locally adapted’ innovations of progressive churches are now becoming the tail wagging the dog of Anglicanism. We have taken the wrong road and ignored our brothers and sisters in the Roman and Orthodox Churches. It was a sin of pride to go another direction. The ordination of women propelled us down the wrong path. Some would even say our separate path began sooner with birth control that makes sexual pleasure the goal of human sexual intercourse. This has degenerated further into reproductive rights but it is still murder of the unborn child. It is an unconscionable outrage that some call this a blessing. Sex for pleasure has led to additional perverse forms of sexual relationships being added to the list daily. The church is called to be a restraint on evil not call that which is evil blessed.

One cannot separate Canterbury from the Church of England. The CoE views itself as both catholic and reformed. Reformation is not usually associated with innovation as much as a recapturing/remembering. That is the spirit of Thomas Cranmer.

“The religious settlement that eventually emerged in the reign of Elizabeth gave the Church of England the distinctive identity that it has retained to this day. It resulted in a Church that consciously retained a large amount of continuity with the Church of the Patristic and Medieval periods in terms of its use of the catholic creeds, its pattern of ministry, its buildings and aspects of its liturgy, but which also embodied Protestant insights in its theology and in the overall shape of its liturgical practice. The way that this is often expressed is by saying that the Church of England is both 'catholic and reformed.’” http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/history.aspx.

Thomas Cranmer was both catholic and reformed. His vision was for a Benedictine spirituality available to the people in the vernacular via the Book of Common Prayer. Orthodox Anglicanism was preserved in missioned lands far from Canterbury.  What the progressives would term primitive binary thinking is God’s prophetic voice calling Canterbury back to her roots. Canterbury is no longer catholic or reformed. Canterbury has gone her own way, doing what is right in her own eyes. Canterbury has not sought the council of the Roman or Orthodox churches. Can Canterbury even say to what extent she remains a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church? She still has a seat but no voice and vote. Does Canterbury even reflect the mind of the majority of Anglicans?

The ear of Canterbury has turned toward contemporary society for its prophetic voice and away from God's voice in Scripture.  Myopic eyes see only a contemporary human centered missiology. It is a material kingdom of this world. It is a human flourishing in this world mentality, not a preparation for the next world spirituality. God the Holy Spirit cannot and will not bring unity and reconciliation to those holding to Tradition, Scripture and Reason and those who have introduced another gospel. It is the gospel of distortion. It includes Eve rather than Mary feminism. It is the insistence on factional rights rather than God’s sovereignty. It is human focused not Christocentric.  It is finding new ways to introduce innovation through the back door in the dark of night one inch at a time.

This is not the time to attempt reconciliation without the urging and blessing of God the Holy Spirit Who created and unified the Church of Jesus the Christ. This is the time for repentance and reformation. It is a call to return to historic orthodox Anglicanism. It is a call to seek reconciliation with our brothers and sisters in the Roman and Orthodox Churches. It is a call to return to the only name and hope we have, Jesus Christ.

“It is Classical orthodox Christianity that tells the profoundest truth about the One we call the Christ."  Very Rev. Robert Barron, S.T.D. 

The Church of England: Lessons for ACNA

Fr. Dale Matson

“For those pushing for women bishops in the Church of England, there is after all only one real theological argument. And it is that the office of priest and the office of bishop are fundamentally united, and that there should not be a class of people ordained to be priests who cannot be bishops:” Post on Stand Firm blog

I agree with this and believe it is the crux of the issue. Women priests are already a break from tradition and scripture. Once this is allowed, the measure is no longer scripture and tradition but consistency. The cloth begins to unravel.

“Archbishop Duncan has appointed the Rt. Rev. David Hicks, Bishop of the REC Diocese of the Northeast & Mid-Atlantic to lead a Theological Task Force on Holy Orders. The Task Force will lead the College of Bishops through a thorough study regarding the ordination of women to Holy Orders.” http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/525

How the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood is resolved in the ACNA may be their most important decision theologically. It is not a second order issue. A theologically sound decision must be made. One issue is an existing provision in the constitution and canons of the church.

1. “The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate (Constitution, Article VIII)

Does this mean that even if the ACNA decides as a church that women should not be ordained as priests, that the bishop in a diocese may still ordain them to serve in that diocese?

A great deal of ink has been devoted to the issue of reconciliation. What this really has come to mean is the reluctant acquiescence of one group to the incessant demands of another group. To what extent has the Anglican Church sought the counsel of the other two main Christian denominations; the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? Even dialogue with our brothers and sisters in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) has them concerned about our foggy policies on the ordination of women in the ACNA.

What does it mean to be a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church? I am simply weary from the empty arguments of relevance, context, and justice as inclusion. It finally comes down to God’s Gospel or a humanist gospel that claims inclusivity but has demonstrated only exclusivity.  The majority of those who voted in the CoE, voted in favor of women bishops in the Church of England. Did this mean that God’s will was thwarted? What about the majority of Christians in the world today? They accept only male priests and bishops. What about the tradition of the church universal?

The issue of women’s ordination will be researched by the ACNA task force, headed by +David Hicks. One comment that caught my eye: “...the first major conversation will be a study of hermeneutical issues, specifically looking at how the Church’s tradition and culture influence interpretation of Biblical texts.” I am concerned that there may be a tendency to portray early Christian culture as contextual and androcentric. Another concern is that in the context of our modern culture males are diminished by both male and female feminists with gynocentric perspectives.

One question the task force must address is whether their conclusion will lead to greater unity in the Christian church or it will be just one more, lengthy, politically correct, agenda driven document. I believe the ACNA has the opportunity to shape the future of World Wide Anglicanism through their decisions and ecumenical perspective.

The Changing Face Of 21st Century Anglicanism

Fr. Dale Matson

            There are approximately 80 million Anglicans worldwide which makes it the third largest Christian denomination. While the Church of England is considered the largest province, the numbers are somewhat misleading since English citizens are automatically included as members of the established church whether they attend or not. Today, the average Anglican is an African female. There are nearly 40 million Anglicans in the 11 African provinces.  What does it mean to be Anglican in the 21^st century? This is perhaps the main question and the primary task before us today.  This is a time when Anglicanism is experiencing both realignment, and related cultural shifts in membership. Some would say that the realignment is a matter of conservative versus liberal ideology. Some would even say that it is a battle for the faith once delivered but it is also a struggle for control of who shapes Anglican identity. The liberal (sometimes called Broad Church) focus is on inclusion, social justice and the right to innovate. They see God doing a new thing in this generation. They also advocate autonomy from centralized authority. They see themselves as relevant to contemporary society because they are informed and changed by culture. This includes embracing issues such as environmental sustainability and related measures to ensure this, like energy conservation and population control. This portion of Anglicans is located primarily in the North and West (also New Zealand and parts of Australia) and includes the See of Canterbury, the historical center of Anglicanism. The See of Canterbury is the residence of the Archbishop of the World Wide Anglican Communion and it is the Archbishop who recognizes who is and who is not Anglican by which bishops are invited to the Lambeth Conference held every 10 years. The liberals are ahead of their theology with their practice but practice is precedence and precedence creates “new tradition.” Liberals have established their branding ahead of the conservatives who have defined themselves in the negative by saying essentially that they are not like the liberals. Those conservatives who have separated themselves for the sake of truth as they understand it have lost the public relations battle with the liberals who have successfully portrayed conservatives as schismatic and bigots in the media. The liberals have most of the money because of endowments, a higher  per capita wage and governmental financial support as in the established church in England. However, The liberal face of Anglicanism is disappearing. For example, in 2011 the Episcopal Church (TEC) reported a 16% decline in membership over the previous decade. There are also significant membership declines in the Church of England. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/will-the-last-person-to-leave-the-church-of-england-please-turn-out-the-lights-2269185.html  and The Anglican Church of Canada with a decline of more than half its members in the last 40 years.  http://www.christiantoday.com/article/statistics.suggest.anglican.church.of.canada.in.huge.decline/5307.htm

Conservatives are more likely to be found in the other traditional Anglican streams which include Evangelical, Anglo Catholic and Charismatic and constitute the green shoots on the Anglican tree. The majority of Anglicans are in what is called the Global South, which includes Africa, South America, Asia and Sidney Anglicans. Conservatives are increasing. For example the newly formed Anglican Church North America (ACNA) increased membership by 15% in its first year. http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/acna-reports-15-growth-in-number-of-congregations-in-its-first-year-the-church-of-england-newspaper-may-7-2010-p-6/.  Many conservative Anglicans live in former English colonies where Christianity was introduced by Anglican missionaries.  The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is still used by many African Anglicans. What do these conservative groups have in common? I believe they would all agree on the basic four tenants of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888. Scripture is the revealed Word of God; The Nicene Creed is a sufficient statement of the Christian Faith, Baptism and Communion are the two dominical sacraments. There is a Historic Episcopate locally adapted. This is of course the minimum standard since it was designed as ecumenical outreach toward greater church unity. Conservatives would also insist on the primacy of Scripture along with Tradition and Reason, the 39 Articles of Religion and the call of the Great Commission. There is another important issue that is increasingly dividing the liberals and conservatives. It is Christology. For conservatives Christ is the only way one may obtain salvation (Article XVIII). He is God and He was raised bodily from the dead. Problems emerge for conservatives when Evangelicals tend to emphasize the Protestant and reformed side of Anglicanism and others including Anglo Catholics emphasize the reformed and Catholic aspects of Anglicanism. Women’s ordination is an unresolved issue also. Where are the roots of Anglicanism? Is it The Apostolic and undivided church or Cranmer, Parker and the Calvinists? Is it both?

Lastly, there is a disconnect  between the liberal power structures of the WWAC and the people they lead. The leaders do not reflect the mind of the communion. The power structures are based on history and tradition but underlying this is also the scent of imperialism and colonialism. There is also a rift that has become an irreconcilable chasm between liberals and conservatives.    

This is one of several pieces that has been and will be posted on our Soundings Blog for discussion. Self-knowledge and identity are important for both individuals and for Anglicanism. This is especially true in North America where our Anglican Christianity is attracting a new generation of those who seek the face of God in a culture that is less tolerant and increasingly hostile. (See the article on "Anglican Fever.") We offer structure and discipline for those who need it. We offer a Mystical faith for those who seek it. We offer a historic faith for those looking for context. But primarily, we offer Christ in Whom we are being saved.

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)

    

Thomas More, Henry VIII and the Future of Anglicanism

On July 6, 1535 Sir Thomas More was beheaded because he was unable to agree with the conscience of King Henry VIII, in opposition to the Conscience of the Church.

Thomas More defended his refusal to sign the oath acceding to Parliament's Act of Supremacy because:

• The Act of Supremacy contravened God's Law.
• English subjects could not be removed from the corps of Christianity by an act of parliament.
• That corps is represented by the General Councils of the Church (over king and pope).

Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley ruled against More stating, “if the Act of Parliament be not of unlawful, then the indictment is not in my Conscience invalid.” In other words, with some obvious sarcasm, if the acts of Parliament were valid, than the verdict stood. Audley ignored the entire point of More's argument, which was that neither the acts of Parliament, nor the King could overrule the corps of Faith, as held by the Conscience of the Church.

When More defended his inability to defy conscience, it was not in defense of an arbitrary personal conscience but the conscience of the Church, which was proclaimed and protected by the Councils of the Church. More did not elevate the Councils of the Church above Holy Scripture, but saw them as the guardians against the whims of individuals.

Contemporary Anglicans would do well to follow More's example. We rely too much on a sense of individual personal conscience, without first exploring and submitting to the conscience of the Church. North American Anglicans did well to recognize that the leadership of The Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada abandoned the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and reoriented themselves back toward their Anglican roots where the authority of Holy Scripture is honored.

However, this reorientation is incomplete and confused. Some are reorienting themselves to the Reformation Movement with particular respect to Thomas Cranmer. Some are reorienting themselves toward the Roman Catholic Church. Some are orienting themselves toward a form of Evangelical non-denominationalism. Some are finding their identity in the Global South – so long as it doesn't require too much submission. And, some look to 1662 or 1928 as their defining ethos. Others look to Canon Law to define who they are.

Even as we endeavor to re-embrace a genuine and orthodox Anglicanism, we are struggling with our identity. We are so accustomed to being western individuals that we struggle to be authentically Catholic. In other words, submission to our ancient catholic corporate identity does not come naturally to us. We value Apostolic Succession in our catechisms but have difficulty honoring it in actual practice.

There is much that we can learn from all of the post-reformation expressions of Christianity. However, these are not our roots if we are a Catholic Church. Our catholic legacy did not begin with the Reformation Movement, but with Pentecost, and the Apostles, and was carried to us by the faithful Church Fathers. This is evident as we read the history of the Church in the British Isles from the Third Century onward, as well as from the writings of so many of the Anglican Divines, who constantly referred back to the Church Fathers as the source of Anglicanism.

Anglicanism is not the illegitimate child of Henry VIII. It is not the invention of Archbishop Cranmer. Anglicanism is no longer ethnocentric and imperialist. Anglicanism is not a pale reflection of Roman Catholicism, as though there never was an undivided Church.

The primary emphasis of Anglicans in North America over the past several years has been to re-establish Biblical orthodoxy, which must be our first concern. This led to a variety of Anglicans, with different identities, banding together for the sake orthodoxy – but not necessarily unity. While agreeing on Biblical orthodoxy, numerous debates have ensued over the Instruments of Unity and other Anglican distinctives. Discussions and meetings about canons and covenants occupy a considerable amount of attention throughout the Anglican Communion.

It is going to be extremely difficult to overcome these differences (if not impossible) until we come to an agreement on who we are and what our lineage is. If we continue under the mistaken identity that our patrimony is Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer and the Reformation Movement, then we will be hopelessly embroiled in all the personal conscience issues that those embody. If, however, we recognize, as did Thomas More and the Anglican Divines, that our identity and lineage is to be found in the corporate conscience of the Fathers and Councils of the Church, we will find an appropriate standard through which we can find catholic unity, not only for ourselves, but also with the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.

As for the general councils assembled lawfully, I never could perceive but that in the declaration of the truths it is believed to be standen to; the authority thereof ought to be taken for undoubtable, or else were there in nothing no certainty, but through Christendom upon every man's affectionate reason, all things might be brought from day to day to continual ruffle and confusion, from which by the general councils, the spirit of God assisting, every such council well assembled keepeth and ever shall keep the corps of his Catholic Church. (Thomas More to Thomas Cromwell – March 5, 1534)

- Fr Van McCalister

Note: The historical references are from lectures by Prof. Dale Hoak of Wm and Mary College, and The Last Letters of Thomas More, Letter 5 “To Thomas Cromwell, Chelsea, 5 March 1534.” Edited by Alvaro de Silva.