6. They affirm that they are showing great reverence for God, to Whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins. But in truth none do Him greater injury than they who choose to prune His commandments and reject the office entrusted to them. For inasmuch as the Lord Jesus Himself said in the Gospel: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,” who is it that honours Him most, he who obeys His bidding or he who rejects it?
7. The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord’s word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power.
St. Ambrose of Milan
Concerning Repentance 1.2.6-7
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Table Fellowship with Greg & Sylvia Venables
May 1, 2008
What a joy it was to have Archbishop Gregory and Sylvia Venables, and Bishop Bill Atwood with us this past Tuesday. The contrast between the pastoral approach of Archbishop Venables and that of Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori was unmistakable. In fact, the contrast was so striking that it reaffirmed to me – and I know to many others – that we are moving in the right direction. The doctrinal and theological differences between the two primates are obvious but seeing them worked out “in person” this week was fascinating and encouraging.
My particular reaction to all of this was shaped somewhat by a book that I have been reading by Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, in which he emphasized the biblical norm of making decisions in community, and recognizing how our actions are a witness of the Body of Christ to the World.
While North Americans tend to think in terms of a one-on-one relationship with God, early Christians responded to the Gospel not just as individuals but as families and communities. And, because their faith in Christ created a stronger bond than family, racial and national identities, their Christian family became their primary identity.
Hays’s words were echoing in my mind while listening to Archbishop Venables on Tuesday as he was talking about us coming together as a family. As Saint Paul emphasized the value of table fellowship during the Antioch controversy in Galatians [2.11f], so did Venables in his conversations with us in San Joaquin.
Thankfully, we are experiencing a dramatic shift in worldviews. We are moving from a litigious Western institutional mindset toward a more wholesome and biblical family interaction.
A perfect example of this, is the way in which the bishops of the Southern Cone responded to the plight of churches in North America. While some were debating over canon law, in order to find “permission” to be faithful to Christ, the bishops of the Southern Cone simply offered us their home. Sadly, there have been a number of people who have had the effrontery to suggest that the bishops of the Southern Cone did not have the right to offer that hospitality because their own constitutional documents did not provide for it. But those critics are responding out of a completely different worldview than the bishops of the Southern Cone. Venables’ critics are thinking from a litigious Western view, while the bishops of the Southern Cone are thinking like family. Isn’t that refreshing?
Which would you prefer to receive if you were in crisis, a summons to court, or an invitation to dinner?
What a joy it was to have Archbishop Gregory and Sylvia Venables, and Bishop Bill Atwood with us this past Tuesday. The contrast between the pastoral approach of Archbishop Venables and that of Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori was unmistakable. In fact, the contrast was so striking that it reaffirmed to me – and I know to many others – that we are moving in the right direction. The doctrinal and theological differences between the two primates are obvious but seeing them worked out “in person” this week was fascinating and encouraging.
My particular reaction to all of this was shaped somewhat by a book that I have been reading by Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, in which he emphasized the biblical norm of making decisions in community, and recognizing how our actions are a witness of the Body of Christ to the World.
While North Americans tend to think in terms of a one-on-one relationship with God, early Christians responded to the Gospel not just as individuals but as families and communities. And, because their faith in Christ created a stronger bond than family, racial and national identities, their Christian family became their primary identity.
Hays’s words were echoing in my mind while listening to Archbishop Venables on Tuesday as he was talking about us coming together as a family. As Saint Paul emphasized the value of table fellowship during the Antioch controversy in Galatians [2.11f], so did Venables in his conversations with us in San Joaquin.
Thankfully, we are experiencing a dramatic shift in worldviews. We are moving from a litigious Western institutional mindset toward a more wholesome and biblical family interaction.
A perfect example of this, is the way in which the bishops of the Southern Cone responded to the plight of churches in North America. While some were debating over canon law, in order to find “permission” to be faithful to Christ, the bishops of the Southern Cone simply offered us their home. Sadly, there have been a number of people who have had the effrontery to suggest that the bishops of the Southern Cone did not have the right to offer that hospitality because their own constitutional documents did not provide for it. But those critics are responding out of a completely different worldview than the bishops of the Southern Cone. Venables’ critics are thinking from a litigious Western view, while the bishops of the Southern Cone are thinking like family. Isn’t that refreshing?
Which would you prefer to receive if you were in crisis, a summons to court, or an invitation to dinner?
Archbishop Greg: 'Why I'll be at Lambeth'
May 1, 2008
by Ruth Gledhill for Times Online
In an interview with me while he was in Canada, Archbishop Gregory Venables explained why he will be attending both the Global Anglican Future Conference next month in Jordan and Israel, and the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Kent in July.
Read it all here.
by Ruth Gledhill for Times Online
In an interview with me while he was in Canada, Archbishop Gregory Venables explained why he will be attending both the Global Anglican Future Conference next month in Jordan and Israel, and the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Kent in July.
The Archbishop of the Southern Cone said: 'I will be at Gafcon and also I am going to be at Lambeth. I think that is pretty important from the point of view of you guys [meaning the Press. rg].
'Someone's got to be there to talk to you about what is going on.' [Too right, and initial impressions indicate we're going to have even less access than last time. It's nice to know that at least one Bishop is prepared to sup with us sinners, the few there are left. rg]
AB Greg continued: ''That was one of the reasons why I eventually made a final decision to go, which was only recently.
'I think someone has got to go and show their face and speak to the situation.'
[The article continues]
Read it all here.
Why We Left the Episcopal Church
This article is over a year old but was so well written, it remains timely.
From the Washington Post
By The Rev. John Yates and Os Guinness
Monday, January 8, 2007; A15
When even President Gerald Ford's funeral at Washington National Cathedral is not exempt from comment about the crisis in the Episcopal Church, we believe it is time to set the record straight as to why our church and so many others around the country have severed ties with the Episcopal Church. Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.
The core issue in why we left is not women's leadership. It is not "Episcopalians against equality," as the headline on a recent Post op-ed by Harold Meyerson put it. It is not a "leftward" drift in the church. It is not even primarily ethical -- though the ordination of a practicing homosexual as bishop was the flash point that showed how far the repudiation of Christian orthodoxy had gone.
The core issue for us is theological: the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world. It is thus a matter of faithfulness to the lordship of Jesus, whom we worship and follow. The American Episcopal Church no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith common to all believers. Some leaders expressly deny the central articles of the faith -- saying that traditional theism is "dead," the incarnation is "nonsense," the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, the understanding of the cross is "a barbarous idea," the Bible is "pure propaganda" and so on. Others simply say the creed as poetry or with their fingers crossed.
It would be easy to parody the "Alice in Wonderland" surrealism of Episcopal leaders openly denying what their faith once believed, celebrating what Christians have gone to the stake to resist -- and still staying on as leaders. But this is a serious matter. [the article continues]
Read it all here.
From the Washington Post
By The Rev. John Yates and Os Guinness
Monday, January 8, 2007; A15
When even President Gerald Ford's funeral at Washington National Cathedral is not exempt from comment about the crisis in the Episcopal Church, we believe it is time to set the record straight as to why our church and so many others around the country have severed ties with the Episcopal Church. Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.
The core issue in why we left is not women's leadership. It is not "Episcopalians against equality," as the headline on a recent Post op-ed by Harold Meyerson put it. It is not a "leftward" drift in the church. It is not even primarily ethical -- though the ordination of a practicing homosexual as bishop was the flash point that showed how far the repudiation of Christian orthodoxy had gone.
The core issue for us is theological: the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world. It is thus a matter of faithfulness to the lordship of Jesus, whom we worship and follow. The American Episcopal Church no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith common to all believers. Some leaders expressly deny the central articles of the faith -- saying that traditional theism is "dead," the incarnation is "nonsense," the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, the understanding of the cross is "a barbarous idea," the Bible is "pure propaganda" and so on. Others simply say the creed as poetry or with their fingers crossed.
It would be easy to parody the "Alice in Wonderland" surrealism of Episcopal leaders openly denying what their faith once believed, celebrating what Christians have gone to the stake to resist -- and still staying on as leaders. But this is a serious matter. [the article continues]
Read it all here.
Thank you to Kevin Kallsen of AnglicanTV.org
70 Degrees and Sunny from LAX
Thanks,
I just wanted to add a quick note of thank to everyone in California. I am overwhelmed and humbled by the thousands of you who watch AnglicanTV and by your warmth and hospitality for me when I visit. I eagerly await my return in May to videotape the Anglican Men's Weekend. I will have better quality online videos of Archbishop Venables posted Friday evening when I return to Connecticut. I also have a great interview with him I will post next Monday.
Sharing His Victory,
Kevin
We continue to be blessed by Kevin's ministry and appreciate his role at our convention and during the Archbishop's visit. Thank you Kevin!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
+Iker - Shocked and Saddened
From David Virtue:
FT WORTH: Iker Blasts Schori over Venables Visitation
April 30, 2008
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Dear Katharine,
I am shocked and saddened by the rude letter you released yesterday to Archbishop Greg Venables, concerning his visit this weekend to the Diocese of Fort Worth. Far from being "an unwarranted interference," he is coming at my request as an honored visitor and guest speaker.
You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.
There are no efforts at reconciliation proceeding within this Province, which is one reason why faithful people continue to leave TEC in droves. Your attitude and actions simply reinforce alienation and bring further discord.
Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions.
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
cc: The Archbishop of Canterbury
Saturday, April 26, 2008
From Bishop Schofield
To the clergy and parishioners of San Joaquin -
We recognize that the news of a lawsuit from the Presiding Bishop and the representatives of Remain Episcopal in Stockton, may be unsettling. However, please be assured that we have been expecting this litigation and the contents contain no surprises. Please know that our legal team has been at work for some time. They are optimistic and remain unperturbed by The Episcopal Church's most recent action. What our legal counsel has accomplished on our behalf is already proving most helpful in defense of property and assets despite the fact that this preparatory work had to be done without the benefit of seeing what the Episcopal Church intended to do.
Furthermore, I want to remind you that in spite of the claims by The Episcopal Church, nothing in their current Constitution and Canons prohibits a diocese from leaving one province and moving to another. Also, just as we stood together for the sake of our witness to the Gospel at our Convention in December, so now will we continue to stand together for that same witness. I will continue to respond to those who disagree with us in a Christian and charitable manner and I trust that you will, as well.
Thank you for the trust that you have placed in me as your bishop and senior pastor, and know that I will continue to honor that trust with God's help.
Faithfully, yours in Christ,
+John-David
We recognize that the news of a lawsuit from the Presiding Bishop and the representatives of Remain Episcopal in Stockton, may be unsettling. However, please be assured that we have been expecting this litigation and the contents contain no surprises. Please know that our legal team has been at work for some time. They are optimistic and remain unperturbed by The Episcopal Church's most recent action. What our legal counsel has accomplished on our behalf is already proving most helpful in defense of property and assets despite the fact that this preparatory work had to be done without the benefit of seeing what the Episcopal Church intended to do.
Furthermore, I want to remind you that in spite of the claims by The Episcopal Church, nothing in their current Constitution and Canons prohibits a diocese from leaving one province and moving to another. Also, just as we stood together for the sake of our witness to the Gospel at our Convention in December, so now will we continue to stand together for that same witness. I will continue to respond to those who disagree with us in a Christian and charitable manner and I trust that you will, as well.
Thank you for the trust that you have placed in me as your bishop and senior pastor, and know that I will continue to honor that trust with God's help.
Faithfully, yours in Christ,
+John-David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)