Words
11-15-10
Fr. Dale Matson
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3)
“ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Gospel of John 1:1)
Two of my favorite passages in Scripture deal with words. In Genesis, God spoke the universe into being. In St. John’s Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ is immediately identified as the Word of God and God Himself through whom all things were created (verse 3).
Words are an important means of communication and provide humans with a history. While we can now communicate with images, it is words that provide a longer historical memory for humans. Our intellectual functioning is possible because we have a language to form and express thoughts and images. Much of my life has been spent developing, cultivating and refining the use of words. I am amazed at how well brilliant individuals can provide a clear image with few words. It reminds me of the economy of genius of the composer Beethoven, who could use so few notes in so many ways in the first movement of his 5th symphony. The same can be said of words. I remember a critic stating succinctly that the movie Remains of the Day was a “superb portrayal of unshakable repression.”
While words can be used in positive ways to create and portray, they can also be employed for the opposite outcome. Words can be used with the precision of a scalpel to help or they can be a dagger that leaves a wound that never heals without intervention. Those of us with the gift of exhortation possess the opposite also. I have said things to my sons in anger that have the power of a curse. Their forgiveness came grudgingly but helped heal the collateral damage I had incurred.
Another concern for me is that the use of words, that should be used to communicate clearly and with precision, have become a kind of Romulan cloaking device to create incremental change and communicate permissions to those in power. The words are nuanced in such a way as to stay off the radar of those of us who believe that our yes should be yes and our no should be no. It is subterfuge and it is dishonest.
Finally Words should be an improvement on Silence. The sheer volume of words by individuals such as the Archbishop of Canterbury becomes a white noise covering the overly nuanced intentionally obfuscated meaning. When a leader speaks, the words must breathe life into the hope of those they lead. They must engender courage. They must speak the truth in love.
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63) Amen
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Monday, November 15, 2010
Friday, July 17, 2009
Bishop William White and the Episcopal Church
Last night while I was reviewing the history of Bishop William White and the beginnings of the Protestant Episcopal Church, I came across two quotes that I found fascinating in light of the current situation in TEC – particularly after what has emerged simultaneously out of Anaheim and Newport Beach, CA.
Bishop White was the motivating force behind the establishment of a national Church in the newly formed United States and he was also chaplain to the Congress. Though he studied and was ordained in England, he was passionate about establishing the Church in America corresponding to the ideals and structures of the new Federation. Powel Mills Dawley wrote the following in “Chapters in Church History”:
“dioceses agreed to sacrifice some of their jealously-guarded independence in order to create a national organization. Actually, the Episcopal Church was a federal union of independent diocesan units, and each diocese a federation of independent parishes, rather than a single, closely-knit ecclesiastical institution.” [page 222]
Why did Dawley make this distinction? He did so noting the fact that the American clergy were very much concerned about not establishing a hierarchical Church like the one in Britain. Such was the concern for maintaining this independence that some of the clergy were opposed even to having bishops. Though the need for bishops – constrained under this new structure - was finally accepted by the majority. This is why they decided on a presiding bishop, as one who simply presided over the meetings and conventions, rather than an archbishop.
The framers of the Episcopal Church were interested in fellowship and unity but not at the cost of orthodoxy. Robert Prichard writing about the first conventions and prayer book revisions of the 1780s in “A History of the Episcopal Church” observed:
“Charles Miller, the rector of King’s Chapel, Boston, wanted, for example, to remove all references to the Trinity. When the conventions did not agree to do so, the congregation . . . distanced itself from other Anglicans, and became the first explicitly unitarian church in America (1786).” [page 86]
There are two sad ironies that come out of this as we look back: First, that The Episcopal Church has lost that sense of the American ideal of communities of equals (federalism) and has willing exchanged it for an oligarchy like that which they rejected over two-hundred years ago. And second, that much of The Episcopal Church now looks like the Unitarian Church with vestments and liturgy.
“The schismatic is the one who causes the separation, not the one who separates.” - J. C. Ryle, Charges and Addresses (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1978) p. 69.
Bishop White was the motivating force behind the establishment of a national Church in the newly formed United States and he was also chaplain to the Congress. Though he studied and was ordained in England, he was passionate about establishing the Church in America corresponding to the ideals and structures of the new Federation. Powel Mills Dawley wrote the following in “Chapters in Church History”:
“dioceses agreed to sacrifice some of their jealously-guarded independence in order to create a national organization. Actually, the Episcopal Church was a federal union of independent diocesan units, and each diocese a federation of independent parishes, rather than a single, closely-knit ecclesiastical institution.” [page 222]
Why did Dawley make this distinction? He did so noting the fact that the American clergy were very much concerned about not establishing a hierarchical Church like the one in Britain. Such was the concern for maintaining this independence that some of the clergy were opposed even to having bishops. Though the need for bishops – constrained under this new structure - was finally accepted by the majority. This is why they decided on a presiding bishop, as one who simply presided over the meetings and conventions, rather than an archbishop.
The framers of the Episcopal Church were interested in fellowship and unity but not at the cost of orthodoxy. Robert Prichard writing about the first conventions and prayer book revisions of the 1780s in “A History of the Episcopal Church” observed:
“Charles Miller, the rector of King’s Chapel, Boston, wanted, for example, to remove all references to the Trinity. When the conventions did not agree to do so, the congregation . . . distanced itself from other Anglicans, and became the first explicitly unitarian church in America (1786).” [page 86]
There are two sad ironies that come out of this as we look back: First, that The Episcopal Church has lost that sense of the American ideal of communities of equals (federalism) and has willing exchanged it for an oligarchy like that which they rejected over two-hundred years ago. And second, that much of The Episcopal Church now looks like the Unitarian Church with vestments and liturgy.
“The schismatic is the one who causes the separation, not the one who separates.” - J. C. Ryle, Charges and Addresses (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1978) p. 69.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Comfort Ye My People
Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. - Isaiah 40:1
Dcn Dale Matson 05-07-09
As I reflected on a portion of the Gospel lesson from Luke (Chapter 6) for the Daily office for Wednesday May 6th, it also occurred to me again that we are in the midst of a serious legal struggle in our Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin against The Episcopal Church (TEC). It is easy to be anxious and fearful about the possible outcome. It is also possible to adopt a self righteous anger too. However, our Gospel lesson is quite a contrast to what would be an expected human response. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.” This is a portion of Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” which is a kind of parallel to Mathew’s Sermon on the Mount.
There is a property dispute of course but hopefully both sides would say that ultimately, God owns the property not a Parish, Diocese or a Denomination. It also occurred to me that while property provides a place to gather for worship and fellowship, it can also be an occasion to misunderstand and be misdirected as to what is meant when we talk about the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has never been about bricks, stones, mortar, wood and steel.
I believe the Jews of the Old Testament confused God’s presence among them with the Temple in Jerusalem. Much of their pride and identity was centered on the temple rather than God Himself. Seeing the Dome of the Rock sitting on the very ruins of the Temple should be evidence enough that God has left an historical reminder that the Temple and the land of Israel are not as important as the God who gave both to Israel. While it is what they are fighting each other about, who owns the land and the buildings is really not the central issue for the Arabs and Israelis nor should it be the central issue for us either. “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:20, 23).
With each crisis in our personal lives and in the life of our faith community, we are faced with understandable initial human responses of anxiety, fear, anger or self righteousness. I am reminded of the man who put his faith in his possessions. "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” (Luke 12:20) My brothers and sisters, we are the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The property and the buildings belong to God and Him alone. Amen
Dcn Dale Matson 05-07-09
As I reflected on a portion of the Gospel lesson from Luke (Chapter 6) for the Daily office for Wednesday May 6th, it also occurred to me again that we are in the midst of a serious legal struggle in our Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin against The Episcopal Church (TEC). It is easy to be anxious and fearful about the possible outcome. It is also possible to adopt a self righteous anger too. However, our Gospel lesson is quite a contrast to what would be an expected human response. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.” This is a portion of Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” which is a kind of parallel to Mathew’s Sermon on the Mount.
There is a property dispute of course but hopefully both sides would say that ultimately, God owns the property not a Parish, Diocese or a Denomination. It also occurred to me that while property provides a place to gather for worship and fellowship, it can also be an occasion to misunderstand and be misdirected as to what is meant when we talk about the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has never been about bricks, stones, mortar, wood and steel.
I believe the Jews of the Old Testament confused God’s presence among them with the Temple in Jerusalem. Much of their pride and identity was centered on the temple rather than God Himself. Seeing the Dome of the Rock sitting on the very ruins of the Temple should be evidence enough that God has left an historical reminder that the Temple and the land of Israel are not as important as the God who gave both to Israel. While it is what they are fighting each other about, who owns the land and the buildings is really not the central issue for the Arabs and Israelis nor should it be the central issue for us either. “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:20, 23).
With each crisis in our personal lives and in the life of our faith community, we are faced with understandable initial human responses of anxiety, fear, anger or self righteousness. I am reminded of the man who put his faith in his possessions. "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” (Luke 12:20) My brothers and sisters, we are the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The property and the buildings belong to God and Him alone. Amen
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Legal Analysis and Opinion on San Joaquin Lawsuit
A.S. Haley has provided a detailed analysis and update on the lawsuit in San Joaquin on his blog: "Anglican Curmudgeon"
The entire article is here.
The entire article is here.
Black Bishop Rips Episcopal Lesbian Leader for her Views of Rick Warren and Intolerance
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
12/24/2008
A leading Black African Bishop, the founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) and senior pastor of the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., ripped the lesbian leader of the Episcopal Church's Integrity organization describing her condemnation of Dr. Rick Warren as "intolerant" and typical of the Left's "mischaracterization" of the views of the Saddleback pastor.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson butted heads with the Rev. Susan Russell on FOX News Channel. In a Sunday segment subtitled "President-elect Obama under fire for inviting Rick Warren to speak at Inauguration.", Jackson said that Russell slandered Warren's name in order "to advance their cause and their PR and wanting to sound tolerant about being so aggressive."
Jackson, who was named one of the top 50 most influential Christians in 2005 by the Christian Post, believes that the church and its leaders must lead the way to protect America's moral compass and heal the nation. A transcript of the " Fox News Sunday" segment on the controversy over President-elect Obama's invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his January 20th Inauguration appeared on Russell's blog:
Bishop Jackson: This controversy is a clear example of just how intolerant the gay community is about anyone they disagree with. They've mischaracterized what they've said about Rick Warren. He was not calling gay people pedophiles or anything of that nature and they've been putting out a false story for PR purposes.
MODERATOR: Joining us now on the phone is the Reverend Susan Russell, a priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in California where Prop 8 has been a hotly contested issue. What say you about the invitation to Pastor Warren to speak?
REVEREND RUSSELL: I think it's an unfortunate choice, I think it's a disappointing choice. As I said in my open letter to the President-elect, I applaud -- I applaud. -- his efforts to bring the evangelicals back to the table.-I think that's exactly the sort of post-partisan leadership we're looking for in our president-elect, but we could have done better than Rick Warren.
And I want to rebut your guest. This is not about gay intolerance. This about pointing out that Rick Warren as a pastor has compared a woman's right to choose to the Holocaust, who doesn't believe in evolution, he has said that the Bible would condone the assassination of the President of Iran. These are ideas that are way outside the mainstream of American religious thought.
What I'm saying is rather than seeing gays as being "intolerant," we're serving as the canary in the coal mine saying we deserve better - the American people deserve better - and if you're going to ask someone to pray a blessing on America on Inauguration Day, please select someone who speaks for all Americans.
MODERATOR: Bishop Jackson?
BISHOP JACKSON: Well, I think this is part of the PR spin. Your guest is mischaracterizing the statements of Rick Warren. He is the new Billy Graham. He represents American. The Purpose Driven Life ... everybody knows ...has sold multiple millions of copies ... and he's given millions of dollars to help people who are HIV/AIDS ... he is not intolerant ... he's helped the gay community. I just resent that they're slandering his name to advance their cause and their PR and they want to sound tolerant about being so aggressive.
MODERATOR: Let me point something out to both of you. Last night, Rick Warren spoke for a gathering of Muslims in Southern California - about 800 there. Melissa Etheridge opened up the event, performing there as well, and she of course is openly gay. She went on to say that Pastor Rick Warren is a great guy, someone that she enjoys talking to despite their differences. President-elect Barack Obama has said the same thing.
And then [Warren] also gave a quote here. He said, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims, and for the media's purposes I happen to love gays and straights." He said people ask him what he prays for when it comes to the President-elect Obama and he said (quote): "I pray for the president the same things I pray for myself: integrity, humility and compassion." Reverend Russell, what's wrong with that?
REVEREND RUSSELL: There's nothing wrong with that. Our issue is, we want to see the actions meet the words. This is a person, Pastor Warren, who preaches family values and practices discrimination against gay and lesbian families. This is someone who fundraised and advocated to take civil rights away from California regarding civil marriage. We want to see the actions that meet the words and what we're asking is that rather than Rick Warren, the President-elect should look at evangelicals like Tony Campolo or ...
MODERATOR: Reverend Russell, we're running out of time here. I understand your point -- point well taken.
Bishop Jackson, I understand your point as well and of course it's up to the President-elect. He can choose who he wants to for the Invocation, and he says his choice is Rick Warren.
Russell is not the only pansexual proponent critical of President-elect Obama's choice. The openly homogenital Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson condemned Warren saying that the God Warren is praying to is not the God that he knows.
Washington Episcopal Bishop John Bryson Chane said he was "profoundly disappointed" by Obama's choice, accusing Warren of being "homophobic, xenophobic, and willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce his prejudices-even going so far as to support the assassination of foreign leaders."
Russell was angered and deflated by the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, vowing to push the California Supreme Court into reconsidering the issue."No one has the right to write their theology into our constitution," Russell said. This of course begs the question: If Prop 8 had lost, it would have been her pansexual theology written into the Constitution. Apparently, it is okay to write her version of theology into the California State Constitution, an apparently untenable position to most Californians.
The original article is here at VirtueOnline.
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
12/24/2008
A leading Black African Bishop, the founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) and senior pastor of the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., ripped the lesbian leader of the Episcopal Church's Integrity organization describing her condemnation of Dr. Rick Warren as "intolerant" and typical of the Left's "mischaracterization" of the views of the Saddleback pastor.Bishop Harry R. Jackson butted heads with the Rev. Susan Russell on FOX News Channel. In a Sunday segment subtitled "President-elect Obama under fire for inviting Rick Warren to speak at Inauguration.", Jackson said that Russell slandered Warren's name in order "to advance their cause and their PR and wanting to sound tolerant about being so aggressive."
Jackson, who was named one of the top 50 most influential Christians in 2005 by the Christian Post, believes that the church and its leaders must lead the way to protect America's moral compass and heal the nation. A transcript of the " Fox News Sunday" segment on the controversy over President-elect Obama's invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his January 20th Inauguration appeared on Russell's blog:
Bishop Jackson: This controversy is a clear example of just how intolerant the gay community is about anyone they disagree with. They've mischaracterized what they've said about Rick Warren. He was not calling gay people pedophiles or anything of that nature and they've been putting out a false story for PR purposes.
MODERATOR: Joining us now on the phone is the Reverend Susan Russell, a priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in California where Prop 8 has been a hotly contested issue. What say you about the invitation to Pastor Warren to speak?
REVEREND RUSSELL: I think it's an unfortunate choice, I think it's a disappointing choice. As I said in my open letter to the President-elect, I applaud -- I applaud. -- his efforts to bring the evangelicals back to the table.-I think that's exactly the sort of post-partisan leadership we're looking for in our president-elect, but we could have done better than Rick Warren.
And I want to rebut your guest. This is not about gay intolerance. This about pointing out that Rick Warren as a pastor has compared a woman's right to choose to the Holocaust, who doesn't believe in evolution, he has said that the Bible would condone the assassination of the President of Iran. These are ideas that are way outside the mainstream of American religious thought.
What I'm saying is rather than seeing gays as being "intolerant," we're serving as the canary in the coal mine saying we deserve better - the American people deserve better - and if you're going to ask someone to pray a blessing on America on Inauguration Day, please select someone who speaks for all Americans.
MODERATOR: Bishop Jackson?
BISHOP JACKSON: Well, I think this is part of the PR spin. Your guest is mischaracterizing the statements of Rick Warren. He is the new Billy Graham. He represents American. The Purpose Driven Life ... everybody knows ...has sold multiple millions of copies ... and he's given millions of dollars to help people who are HIV/AIDS ... he is not intolerant ... he's helped the gay community. I just resent that they're slandering his name to advance their cause and their PR and they want to sound tolerant about being so aggressive.
MODERATOR: Let me point something out to both of you. Last night, Rick Warren spoke for a gathering of Muslims in Southern California - about 800 there. Melissa Etheridge opened up the event, performing there as well, and she of course is openly gay. She went on to say that Pastor Rick Warren is a great guy, someone that she enjoys talking to despite their differences. President-elect Barack Obama has said the same thing.
And then [Warren] also gave a quote here. He said, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims, and for the media's purposes I happen to love gays and straights." He said people ask him what he prays for when it comes to the President-elect Obama and he said (quote): "I pray for the president the same things I pray for myself: integrity, humility and compassion." Reverend Russell, what's wrong with that?
REVEREND RUSSELL: There's nothing wrong with that. Our issue is, we want to see the actions meet the words. This is a person, Pastor Warren, who preaches family values and practices discrimination against gay and lesbian families. This is someone who fundraised and advocated to take civil rights away from California regarding civil marriage. We want to see the actions that meet the words and what we're asking is that rather than Rick Warren, the President-elect should look at evangelicals like Tony Campolo or ...
MODERATOR: Reverend Russell, we're running out of time here. I understand your point -- point well taken.
Bishop Jackson, I understand your point as well and of course it's up to the President-elect. He can choose who he wants to for the Invocation, and he says his choice is Rick Warren.
Russell is not the only pansexual proponent critical of President-elect Obama's choice. The openly homogenital Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson condemned Warren saying that the God Warren is praying to is not the God that he knows.
Washington Episcopal Bishop John Bryson Chane said he was "profoundly disappointed" by Obama's choice, accusing Warren of being "homophobic, xenophobic, and willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce his prejudices-even going so far as to support the assassination of foreign leaders."
Russell was angered and deflated by the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, vowing to push the California Supreme Court into reconsidering the issue."No one has the right to write their theology into our constitution," Russell said. This of course begs the question: If Prop 8 had lost, it would have been her pansexual theology written into the Constitution. Apparently, it is okay to write her version of theology into the California State Constitution, an apparently untenable position to most Californians.
The original article is here at VirtueOnline.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Some Protestants find spiritual appeal in natural family planning
Taking a page from Catholic doctrine, Protestants are avoiding artificial contraception for religious reasons
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Phaedra Taylor abstained from sex until marriage. But she began researching birth control methods before she was even engaged, and by the time she married David Taylor, she was already charting her fertility.
Taylor, a fresh-faced 28-year-old who would blend in easily with South Austin bohemians, ruled out taking birth control pills after reading a book that claimed the pill could, in some cases, make the uterus uninhabitable after conception occurred. She viewed that as abortion, which she opposes.
"I just wasn't willing to risk it," she said.
Taylor wanted her faith to guide her sexual and reproductive decisions after marriage. Natural family planning felt like the best way to honor God, she said.
The Taylors are one of several couples at Hope Chapel — a nondenominational church where David Taylor, 36, was the arts minister for 12 years — who practice natural family planning. Christian scholars say they may reflect a growing trend among non-Catholic Christians who are increasingly seeking out natural alternatives to artificial contraception.
Natural family planning is frequently dismissed by Protestants as an outmoded Catholic practice that most Catholics don't even follow anymore. But 40 years after Pope Paul VI released Humanae Vitae, the document outlining the church's position on marital sex and procreation, the method and the theology behind it are earning respect among some young Protestants, according to Christian scholars.
Read it all.Saturday, August 2, 2008
Alliee DeArmond - Diaspora: Word Shop Newsletter July 2008
From the Word Shop Newsletter, July 2008. Also, check out the Word shop online at companyofsaints.com and stop by next time you are on that edge of the continent!
"It's been ten years since I read Isaiah 49 and walked out of church, the wind slamming the door behind us; ten years since we left and walked into a church down the street just in time for the Gospel: "Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world." Since then I have bounced around, sometimes feeling like a kid who's left home to go off to college, sometimes rejoicing in the unity of those beholding and sometimes experiencing the heart ripping anguish of divorce. "Great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart," Paul said in regards to his people.
"It's been ten years since I read Isaiah 49 and walked out of church, the wind slamming the door behind us; ten years since we left and walked into a church down the street just in time for the Gospel: "Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world." Since then I have bounced around, sometimes feeling like a kid who's left home to go off to college, sometimes rejoicing in the unity of those beholding and sometimes experiencing the heart ripping anguish of divorce. "Great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart," Paul said in regards to his people.
"I grew up in a liberal, academic household. I remember my father refusing to sign the anti-communism loyalty oath demanded of professors in the 50's. We were pro civil rights, pro free speech, anti-war; nonconformists, effete intellectual snobs, hippies. What a shock it has been to watch so-called liberals move into behaviors I would have once attributed to "red-neck fundamentalists." I personally have experienced hate mail, book banning and up shutting from the liberal front. Those whom I'd expect to applaud a forum of freely exchanged ideas, suddenly can only tolerate ideas in agreement with theirs. Since when do liberals demand loyalty oaths like the Presiding Episcopal Bishop did while collecting delegates for her puppet diocese? Why have there been more priests and Bishops deposed in the last two years than in the previous 200 years of the American Episcopal Church? It is very odd.
Reading over a century of encyclicals on Social Justice, I was struck by how the church is unable to rest on the right or on the left. Instead she is always shifting, one foot in front of the other, arms swinging in opposite directions. The belly button insists that we should all just find middle ground, but the church is on the move, always has been. Right, left, right. Sometimes she looks quite drunk, staggering down the hall, bouncing off the walls. Sometimes she is drunk on the finest of wine. Meanwhile, some of us get bruised. This love stuff is not for the faint hearted."
"I try to avoid looking forward or backward, and try to keep looking upward." - Charlotte Bronte
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Bishop Adams: Why some may say that the Episcopal Church is no longer a member of the Anglican Communion
June 2, 2008
A very interesting and disturbing phenomenon has occurred due to a reinterpretation of the Canons of the Episcopal Church. The decision was made to use a Canon formed to ease the transition for a priest to leave the Anglican Church (of which The Episcopal Church is a part) and go to another Apostolic faith community without trial or expenses, non-necessary paperwork and meetings, which a regular renunciation would have required.
A good Canon constructed to work as Christians together in one faith: when spiritual disciplines change and new callings and discernment lead us apart. But now that same Canon has been reinterpreted to mean that a bishop may depose a priest when they disagree or when that clergyperson sees that they can no longer remain in the Episcopal Church, but she/he may be called to another Anglican entity (Province, Church, Ministry) which shares, supposedly, the same faith and Holy Orders.
It has been used nearly 300 times in the past six years. The words have been reinterpreted to speak to a Bishop and his/her clergy instead of a Holy Order within the whole of the Anglican Communion. The interpretation now leans to saying that people are ordained to this Church (TEC) and not to the worldwide Communion.
This has been extended to bishops for the first time and now all pretence of investigation, trial, evidence and Anglican identity can be ignored to solve problems that should be dealt with pastorally. [the article continues]
Read the rest of the article at VirtueOnline.
A very interesting and disturbing phenomenon has occurred due to a reinterpretation of the Canons of the Episcopal Church. The decision was made to use a Canon formed to ease the transition for a priest to leave the Anglican Church (of which The Episcopal Church is a part) and go to another Apostolic faith community without trial or expenses, non-necessary paperwork and meetings, which a regular renunciation would have required.
A good Canon constructed to work as Christians together in one faith: when spiritual disciplines change and new callings and discernment lead us apart. But now that same Canon has been reinterpreted to mean that a bishop may depose a priest when they disagree or when that clergyperson sees that they can no longer remain in the Episcopal Church, but she/he may be called to another Anglican entity (Province, Church, Ministry) which shares, supposedly, the same faith and Holy Orders.
It has been used nearly 300 times in the past six years. The words have been reinterpreted to speak to a Bishop and his/her clergy instead of a Holy Order within the whole of the Anglican Communion. The interpretation now leans to saying that people are ordained to this Church (TEC) and not to the worldwide Communion.
This has been extended to bishops for the first time and now all pretence of investigation, trial, evidence and Anglican identity can be ignored to solve problems that should be dealt with pastorally. [the article continues]
Read the rest of the article at VirtueOnline.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Episcopal House of Bishops Votes to Depose Network Bishops
From the ACN:
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church today voted to “depose” two bishops related to the Anglican Communion Network. The bishops are the Rt. Rev. John David Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Rt. Rev. William Jackson Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland. Before the action was taken, both bishops had come under the care of another province of the Anglican Communion, rendering the action of the House of Bishops a symbolic, but essentially meaningless, gesture.
“This is a bit like saying ‘you can’t quit, you’re fired!’” said the Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, Chief Operating Officer for the Network. “It will have no practical effect on the ministry of these two godly leaders, but instead makes crystal clear the scorched earth policy that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church intends to prosecute against those who can not in good conscience follow them out of the Christian mainstream.”
“There is no question that both Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield remain bishops in the Anglican Communion and will continue in ministry. We at the Network are thankful for their willingness to witness for the truth of the Gospel and fully intend to support them in their ongoing ministry,” he added.
The original article is here:
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church today voted to “depose” two bishops related to the Anglican Communion Network. The bishops are the Rt. Rev. John David Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Rt. Rev. William Jackson Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland. Before the action was taken, both bishops had come under the care of another province of the Anglican Communion, rendering the action of the House of Bishops a symbolic, but essentially meaningless, gesture.
“This is a bit like saying ‘you can’t quit, you’re fired!’” said the Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, Chief Operating Officer for the Network. “It will have no practical effect on the ministry of these two godly leaders, but instead makes crystal clear the scorched earth policy that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church intends to prosecute against those who can not in good conscience follow them out of the Christian mainstream.”
“There is no question that both Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield remain bishops in the Anglican Communion and will continue in ministry. We at the Network are thankful for their willingness to witness for the truth of the Gospel and fully intend to support them in their ongoing ministry,” he added.
The original article is here:
Episcopal House of Bishops Votes to Depose Network Bishops
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Anglican maneuvers
From the Christian Century
"The opening in July 1998 of the 13th Lambeth Conference of 800 bishops of the Anglican Communion was an exuberant celebration of multiculturalism, a Eucharist of rejoicing in the many tongues and the crackling fire of a new Pentecost.
But all was not as it seemed. The conference can now be seen as a momentous changing of the guard, when an unlikely coalition emerged, a coalition whose cocktail of scriptural ingenuousness and political sophistication has since come to dominate global Anglicanism."
Read it all.
"The opening in July 1998 of the 13th Lambeth Conference of 800 bishops of the Anglican Communion was an exuberant celebration of multiculturalism, a Eucharist of rejoicing in the many tongues and the crackling fire of a new Pentecost.
But all was not as it seemed. The conference can now be seen as a momentous changing of the guard, when an unlikely coalition emerged, a coalition whose cocktail of scriptural ingenuousness and political sophistication has since come to dominate global Anglicanism."
Read it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)