Commemoration of Bishop Wm White: A Prophetic Message for the Church

The following is an excerpt from the 1887 Centennial Commemorative Discourse celebrating the consecrations of Bishop White and Bishop Provoost, delivered in Christ Church by the Right Rev. William Bacon Stevens, D. D., LL.D. Bishop of Pennsylvania.

We may have the most perfect church organization which earth can furnish; we may have a well attested apostolic lineage for our ministry; we may have as grand a liturgy as the human mind can construct; we may have as gorgeous a ceremonial of worship as the loftiest aesthetic art can devise; we may have as magnificent cathedrals and churches as human architects can build;--but if our diocesan organization does not rest on Christ as its corner-stone; if that apostolic succession is merely the articulation of dry bones, and is devoid of the life-blood and nerve-force of apostolic fellowship and doctrine; if that lofty worship degenerate into mere lip-service and ceases to be the true worship of God in spirit and in truth; if that gorgeous ceremonial tends to fasten the mind on the accessories of divine service, and obscures, rather than unfolds Christ, and if our noble church edifices only echo through their aisles a teaching not warranted by Scripture, not supported by the Book of Common Prayer, not meeting the soul's true and eternal needs--teaching for doctrine the commandments and traditions of men, at once "strange and erroneous,"--then is our church indeed without Christ--a fair temple without the schekinah; like the Church of Ephesus, having "left its first love"; like Sardis, "having a name that thou livest but art dead," and like Laodicea, "lukewarm, neither hot nor cold."

Only as the Holy Ghost, the living Spirit of truth, teaches in our churches; only as the living Christ is heralded there in his perfect fulness as the sinner's only Saviour; and only, as the one living and true God, is worshipped there "in the beauty of holiness" and "in spirit and in truth," can we fulfil the true conditions of our existence as an organized Christian Church,--then only can Christ speak to us as he did to the angel of the Church of Philadelphia, one of the seven Churches of Asia, and emblemized by a golden candlestick, saying "I know thy works. Behold I have set before thee an open door and no man can shut it, for thou hast a little strength and has kept my word and hast not denied my name."

By William Bacon Stevens, D. D., LL.D., Bishop of Pennsylvania.

The entire text is here.

Ecclesiology and Accountability

By Dcn Dale Matson
11-30-09

Father Dan Martins has an excellent series on his blog about Ecclesiology http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/. Ecclesiology is the doctrine of the Church. It consists of the questions the Church asks itself about itself. Fr. Dan notes that Protestants tend to see the individual believer as the precursor of the Church and Roman Catholics tend to see the Church as preexistent to the individual believer. As Anglicans perhaps we can see merit in both perspectives. There are some difficulties that emerge however when we only see the individual believer as preeminent and in some cases sufficient. This view has led to an individualism that encourages autonomy and ultimately leads to isolation and lack of accountability.

There are areas that serve as unfortunate examples that result from this individualistic Ecclesiology no longer being balanced by seeing oneself as a part of a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Fr. Martins discussed this regarding the failure of The Episcopal Church to continue to see itself as a part of a larger Church in an article titled “An Emerging Secondary Infection” (Sep. 10th 09).

My concern is with another problem that emerges. How do we as Christians defend ourselves and confront society if our faith is individual and our life is autonomous? Is our prophetic voice solitary? This concern emerged recently with the issuance of the “Manhattan Declaration”. It deals with the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife and the rights of conscience and religious liberty. My concern is not for those who signed the declaration. My concern is not even for those who will not sign because they do not agree with the declaration. Of those who identified themselves with a denomination, the original 168 signers identified themselves as Baptists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Lutherans and Presbyterians. As of this writing the list of signatures is approaching 200,000. I include myself as a signer. My decision was based on personal agreement but seeing the name of my Archbishop Robert Duncan on the list was also a permissive moment. By identifying myself as a Deacon, I was saying that my signature was in accord with my church.

No, my concern is for the individuals who will not sign because they are not in doctrinal agreement with other people who signed. There are even people who have publicly stated that they did not sign because to do so would be an admission that some from other denominations were actually Christian. These are people who agree with those who signed on the three issues in the declaration. This is not an “altar and pulpit fellowship” issue. For the individuals who did not sign because of doctrinal disagreements with other signers even though they agreed with the declaration, I would ask this question, “Have you truly discerned the body”?

Moscow Patriarchate laments over Anglican decision to install women bishops

Moscow, August 1, Interfax -

"The Russian Orthodox Church has to state with regret that the decision to install women bishops impedes the dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Anglicans developed for some decades," Communication service of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations' Communication Service says in its special statement spread in Moscow on Friday.

According to the document, this decision "alienates Anglicans from the Orthodox Church and contributes in further division of the Christian world."

The Moscow Patriarchate reminds the Orthodox Church has always been negative about women priests since some Protestant and Anglican Churches started to ordain them late in the 20th century.

"Such practice contradicts centuries-old Church tradition dating back to the first Christian community. Orthodox Christians consider women bishops even more unacceptable," the statement further says.

Christian tradition, the authors stress, has always considered bishops as "direct spiritual successors of apostles, who grant them a special blessing to lead God's people and a special responsibility to keep the purity of faith and be symbols and guarantors of Church unity."

Thus, the Moscow Patriarchate believes installing women-bishops contradicts "the course of Savior, holy apostles and ancient undivided Church."

In conviction that revision of the original church norms contradicts the Lord's idea on priestly ministry, the Moscow Patriarchate states "it is not a theological or practical church need that dictated this decision to the Anglican General Synod, but rather its strive to keep step with secular idea of sexual equality in all spheres of life."

The Russian Church reminds, "Secularization of Christianity makes many believers to abandon it as they strive to find spiritual support in secure Gospels and apostolic traditions introduced by Eternal and Unchangeable God."

Bishop Schofield Recognized by Archbishop of Canterbury

14 July 2008
Dear Bishop John-David and Beloved Brothers & Sisters of the Diocese of San Joaquin,

I greet you in the name of the Lord from the UK where the Lambeth Conference is only just about to begin. First of all, let me thank you for the wonderful prayer support so many offered when Sylvia was injured a few weeks ago. Although it was a difficult time, we were sustained by those prayers and are happy to report her recovery. Please keep praying.

Though I will be in touch about the Lambeth Conference at a later date, at this critical time in the Anglican Communion, I have several things to share with you to address some of the aspects of the current crisis. Let me tell you what a wonderful experience the GAFCON gathering in Jerusalem was. There was Christ centered worship, biblical teaching from some of the best leaders in the Anglican Communion and unified fellowship centered in Christ.

The Anglican Communion has been in chaos for a number of years. As a whole, the structures of the Communion seem to have been unwilling to speak clearly and definitively about theological foundations and limits. There has also been an unwillingness on the part of some Provinces to moderate their behaviour even when told how destructive their actions are to other Provinces. GAFCON clearly articulated Anglican theological foundations that many innovating Provinces have proven they are not willing to accept. It also recognized the cooperation and mutual accountability of a group of small (but growing) group of Primates who are willing to be clear in affirming the authority of the Bible and other Anglican tenets. We have agreed that we will seek consensus before implementing changes that impact other Provinces in the circle. That is the way the whole Communion should be operating. We also agreed with the historical perspective that the structural authority of the bishop of a diocese is not absolute. The church has always taught that bishops are accountable for their teaching and their actions. The difficulty in our day has come when there are Provinces that are unwilling to hold bishops accountable to any discipline in the face of unbiblical actions and pronouncements.

We have not broken with the Anglican Communion. We have not broken relations with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sadly, a number of people have attempted to paint GAFCON as a breaking away from the Anglican Communion and from the Archbishop of Canterbury. That may reflect their desire for us to leave so they can change the faith without challenge, but we are not going anywhere. We remain committed to be linked by shared theological principles and shared relationships that, quite frankly, should be the way the whole Communion operates. After a great deal of prayer and conversation, it is our hope that our commitments can widen a circle of health in the Communion and bring some fresh order to what has been chaos for a number of years. Though there have been some noble attempts by the Primates to address the crisis in the Communion at Dromantine and other gatherings, with the Windsor Report, the Panel of Reference and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, these attempts have not born fruit of any substance. At GAFCON we agreed to standards of faith and order by which we will live within the Anglican Communion in hopes to build a more orderly (and less chaotic) fellowship. If there are those who reject the Jerusalem Declaration from GAFCON, I would ask the question, “Why?” What part of genuine Anglican or Christian faith do they think the Declaration forbids? What in it do they think is not compatible with being Anglican Christians?

As I write to you from the Lambeth Conference, there are painful reminders that all is not well and that the clarity, hope, and charity of GAFCON are desperately needed. Those who have by their action “torn the fabric of the Communion,” are being welcomed as if all is well, and tragically many godly bishops and archbishops are not present having decided that they are bound by conscience not to attend with others who have disregarded the faith. Other godly leaders have not even been invited despite the fact that they were consecrated lawfully and in broad consultation and agreement with many provinces. This is not a joyful time, quite the contrary. For me, it is one of those necessary times to attend to the order of the church even when it is painful. Remember, the situation has been created by the actions of the Episcopal Church. Despite the fervent requests and the fact that the consequences of choosing a unilateral course would precipitate anguish at levels the Anglican Communion has not previously known, they proceeded. There are many, like you in San Joaquin, that are unwilling to continue with such moral and theological compromise. As you know, by the concerted and agreed action of both the House of Bishops and the Provincial Synod, we are glad to give you full membership and a safe haven in the Southern Cone while a long term solution is found. The imperatives of the Gospel give us clear direction.

In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him:

“I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry.”

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David’s decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference. I am also aware of statements by Bishop Jerry Lamb in which he makes statements and demands that miss the mark of Christian leadership and fall short of what many consider propriety. I would encourage the clergy and lay members of the diocese to ignore this.

We are glad to have you as full members of the Southern Cone. As you can see, you are well regarded as members of the Anglican Communion. May God richly bless you!

2 Cor. 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. 8 We are hard- pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed— 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.

Your brother in Christ,
+Greg

The Original Sin of Anglicanism

As we enter into a period of radical change, equal to the Reformation of the 16th century, Anglicans are being asked to consider, to study and to adopt various statements or declarations defining Anglicanism. Documents such as the Common Cause Theological Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration have been proposed and adopted by the reforming orthodox in order to secure the foundations of our faith and common life.

The danger inherent in any Anglican statement or federation is the great original sin of Anglicanism: disobedience to authority. The Jerusalem Declaration addresses this problem in article 13: "We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord." Inherent in the rejection of the authority of the heterodox is the acceptance of the authority of the orthodox.

With these foundational statements and articles being written and promoted, our strongest temptation will be to promote and publish these declarations with no intention of actually following them.

This temptation is the strongest for me in the puzzling omission of the last three Ecumenical Councils and in the wholesale acceptance of the 39 Articles. The rejection of the Ancient, undivided church and the acceptance of a Reformation era statement of a local council is highly problematic for a church that yearns to be universal and apostolic.

From the Jerusalem Declaration:
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

From the Common Cause Theological Statement:
7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

From article thirty-four of the 39 Articles: "Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren."

At this point in the life of Anglicanism, the only way forward that I can imagine that will lead to unity and that will prevent disintegration is radical submission to authority. For my part, this would mean the end of reserving the Holy Sacrament. I would have to travel to our new preaching station every Sunday rather than consecrating enough bread and wine for several Sundays.

Also, since I believe that the unwritten reason that the Reformers could not accept Nicaea II and the end of Iconoclasm was that they were Iconoclasts, this would mean that we would have to remove or drape our icons and cease the Benediction and the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament. Without the clear statements on veneration and the place of Holy Objects that led to the Triumph of Orthodoxy in Nicaea II, our services would be impoverished but in true submission to the authorities that have adopted the CC Theological Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration.

I believe that the clergy and laity in churches and dioceses should submit to this authority while petitioning the Primates to include all Seven Ecumenical Councils and to reconsider the wholesale adoption of the 39 Articles, specifically in light of the articles dealing with Predestination and the Holy Sacraments (17, 35 and 38). The voluntary submission of those who yearn for a more catholic and apostolic expression of Anglicanism will only be able to effectively unite and defend an Anglicanism that is rooted in the submission to authority. While I believe that this is also true for women's ordination, that we should suspend all ordinations until the mind of the Communion is united, that is for another article and author.

St. Vincent of Lorens

Today, according to our Liturgical Calendar, we remember St. Vincent of Lerins. One of the greatest flowerings of Anglicanism has been the historic translations of the Fathers in Modern English. The translation below, by the Rev. C.A. Heurtley, D.D., is a fine example of how a fifth century Gallic Father can be made to speak so clearly to us today.

I encourage you to read St. Vincent toward his purpose, teaching us how to avoid heresy and embrace orthodoxy, but I also encourage you to contemplate the role of Anglicanism in bringing the Fathers' voices back to our contemporary discussions about the faith, the church and the orthodoxy we claim.

The COMMONITORY OF Vincent of Lérins,
For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of all Heresies:
Translated by
Rev. C. A. Heurtley, D.D.,
The Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church.

Chapter II.

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Uganda archbishop responds to Presiding Bishop's objection to his 'incursion' into Georgia

"Archbishop of Uganda Henry Orombi has responded to a May 12 letter to him from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, saying that he is visiting a congregation in Savannah, Georgia, because it is now "part of the Church of Uganda."

Read it all.

Women priests write protest letter to Anglican bishops

"Women priests in the Church of England say they would rather never be bishops at all than have to accept special arrangements for opponents of women’s ordination."

Read it all.

1,000 Christian leaders, 280 bishops to GAFCON in Jerusalem

"Over 1000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, have registered for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem at the close of the online registration process. They include 280 bishops, almost all accompanied by their wives. Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors."

Read it all.

Catholic or Protestant?

"Ecumenical dialogue between Rome and the Anglican Communion ground to a halt in 2006. Cardinal Kasper said at the time that a decision by the Church of England to consecrate women bishops would lead to "a serious and long lasting chill".

Cardinal Kasper, Vatican

Read it all.

Still a Bishop

Excerpt from

Still a Bishop by the Reverend Canon John Heidt, D.Phil., (Oxon)

. . . Every bishop's certificate of consecration begins with the awesome words: "To all the faithful in Christ Jesus throughout the world, greetings," and then proclaims to the world that a duly ordained priest has been ordained and consecrated "into the sacred office of a bishop in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God," according to the prescribed order of the Episcopal Church and in conformity with its canons.

They are ordained in conformity with the canons of the Episcopal Church, but the authenticity of their orders does not depend upon those canons. The divisions within catholic Christendom must not trap us into believing that the Episcopal Church has absolute and universal authority either by constituting the whole church of God, or, by being a totally self-governing denomination. Our bishops ordain other bishops according to the rules of the Episcopal Church but they do so as apostolic representatives of the whole catholic church throughout the world. And those they ordain, though specifically authorized to function in the Episcopal Church, are likewise ordained bishops of that same catholic church. . . .

Read it all here: Still a Bishop