ECUSA

“Anglican Collider Breaks Down”

I was just directed to this wonderful parody. A great post from September at a very interesting blog, Pluralist Speaks. I wonder if he does all that artwork himself. They seem to be original. Be sure to read the whole thing but here are a few snippets.

Anglican Collider Breaks Down

The Anglican Collider will be out of action for months or even years, according to The European Cern (TEC).

A large magnet, located at Pittsburgh, USA, has malfunctioned. Apparently it has slipped away, and may only now be useful for attaching to a different, lesser collider. The fault seems to be in a nut, essentially characterising a bishop, and bishops are notorious for having a screw loose.

This blog recently recorded how Anglican particles are sent spinning round the collider in opposite directions, causing huge outbursts of energy that generate more heat than light.
…

The problems emerged on Friday. The magnets, also called bishops, have to be super cool in order that the particles stay within the collider. It seems that a number of magnets have been heating up. A critical point was passed when the Presiding Bishop particle was set off, causing ruptures in a number of places and an immediate dislodging of that one magnet at Pittsburgh. …

However, the whole TEC needs warming up slowly and then cooling down again, and this takes considerable time. The Archbishop of Canterbury provides the model for this slow operation. He is known to be in deep freeze most of the time, is slowly warmed up, makes an ambiguous statement and then cools down again back to freezing point. His one utterance when warm is said to keep the Anglican Collider going for months.

Latterday Latitudinarians Lumbering over the Limen

Oct 19th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

George F. Will has an excellent and fair summary of where the Episcopal church finds itself. You can find the article in the Washington Post: A Faith’s Dwindling Following. The summary is fairly straightforward:

As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.

He is, of course, not saying anything new or that we have not observed before. I have often marveled at how the so-called “progressives” in our church (I say “so-called” because such a term, like so many in politics, is used not to define oneself, but the other; the opposite of “progressive” is, of course, “regressive”) are so confounded as to why evangelical churches with a fairly straightforward message of repentance, acceptance of forgiveness, and Bible study have been growing so rapidly while our numbers dwindle. The answer is simple. Very few people want a religious community where “anything goes.”

People fundamentally understand that not everything can be equally right. We go to churches, synagogues, and mosques to hear guidance and direction. We know we aren’t perfect and recognize there must be a better way. The last thing we want to hear is “your OK just the way you are, don’t change a thing” because we know that we are not OK. A newer generation won’t get the reference, but we might say “I’m not OK and you’re not OK and that’s OK.” At the core of all the Bible and the Gospel particularly is the assertion that we and this creation were made for something much, much better than what we are now. We need clarity of message so that we can decide whether or not we agree with it. Say what you will about Willow Creek Bible Church, you know what they believe. You may not agree with them, which is fine, but you know what they believe. What does the Episcopal Church believe? Hmm. That’s a tough one….

In many ways I think that the Episcopal Church would be far, far better off if it simply decided to draw a clear line in the sand regarding the role and authority of Scripture. The church would probably lose members and it might gain them, but at least being decisive would allow those seeking a community of faith to know upon what (or whom) the Episcopal Church based their faith. Be hot or be cold, but no one finds luke wark palatable.

“If bishops were no more, would we miss them?”

Jul 18th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

No comments yet

That is the headline of a Times story. And it is a good question and a good little piece. Some highlights are below, but be sure to read it all. Of course this goes straight to the earlier conversation with Kevin Wilson of Blue Cord about polity.

The episcopal extravaganza at Lambeth illustrates how outdated the Church of England hierarchy is

View a graphic representation of episcopal inflation in the Church of England

by Theo Hobson

The problems of the Anglican Communion are being sorted out by its leaders, the bishops – well, those bishops who have decided not to boycott the Lambeth Conference. There are still quite a few of them at the Anglican pow-wow: 650 out of a possible 800 worldwide. They are currently enjoying a retreat in Canterbury Cathedral, a sort of holy lock-in. Forgive the heretical thought, but how much would it matter if that ancient edifice suddenly collapsed on the lot of them? Might Christian culture actually be a bit better off?

… The English have a funny relationship with bishops. We almost got rid of them in the 16th century, we briefly abolished them in the 17th century (and cut the Archbishop of Canterbury’s head off). There’s no denying their historical importance: it was antipathy to bishops that galvanised the parliamentary party in the civil war, and the same antipathy subsequently launched England’s Nonconformist tradition that played such a key role in Liberal politics. We have certainly been shaped by our episcopal tradition – but as much in the breach as the observance.

Anglicanism is the only form of Protestantism to take bishops so seriously. And this has been a cause of huge internal division. The Anglo-Catholic wing has a tendency to idolise them, as a spiritual elite descended from the Apostles, and the evangelicals are wary of the office – but of course they see it as their humble duty to occupy it rather than cede power to the Anglo-Catholics.

…The godfather of our anti-episcopal tradition is Milton. Four hundred years after his birth, we should stop to think what he would have made of the international episcopal palaver at Canterbury. “Why are you still clinging to this feudal relic, this tired dream of holy authority?” he might ask. “Why can’t you see that the gospel spurns hierarchy, and calls us to freedom?”

The Presiding Bishop Responds to GAFCON (boy does she!)

Jun 30th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

The Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori has responded as well. Her entire response is as follows:

Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.

Help me out people, what is it about her response that I find so offensive? Is it the scatological tone of the first sentence? Does she think that she is any less than one who claims to be a “true believer”? (She obviously thinks “the others” are wrong.) Perhaps it is the way in which her first sentence seems to ignore the fact that much (the majority, in fact) of the Anglican world has lamented the actions of the Communion in the North and West. Is it the tone, the condescension?

What is it….

Some more thoughts. Compare the PB’s response with that of the ABC. He did affirm the uniqueness of Christ and his deity in his statement, affirmed the common purpose and goals and then had very reasonable criticisms of the GAFCON proposal. From KJS? We have scatological aspersions.

New “church within a church” within the Anglican Communion

Jun 29th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

The new Jerusalem council (not to be confused with the New Jerusalem Council which has yet to be scheduled) has apparently resulted in a new organization of orthodox Anglican churches within the Communion. From the Daily Telegraph:

Orthodox Anglicans who are creating a new movement at a breakaway summit in Jerusalem have said they feel “betrayal and abandonment” at the current church structure.

The 1,000 conservatives at the Gafcon conference say they feel “profound sadness” that the worldwide Anglican Communion has been driven to the brink of schism by liberals in America and Canada departing from traditional church teaching, particularly over sexuality.

Another Daily Telegraph article has more details:

Organisers of the Gafcon summit in Jerusalem who produced a statement declaring the formation of the “church within a church” were keen to state that it does not represent a complete split or schism in Anglicanism, and that they only want to preserve the faith’s original intentions.

Their final statement stated: “We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.”…

And they claimed that the “colonial structure” of Anglicanism had failed to discipline those churches which had broken the rules by consecrating gay clergy and blessing same-sex unions.

For good or for ill I think this is the only way for the Anglican Communion to preserve its unity. The comment about the “colonial structure” is spot on, the churches (national entities) that exist now are purely the result of national and political boundaries and the spread of the Anglican Church was the result of British colonization. The Empire is long since gone and now the colonists are taking the lead. With the ability to communication immediately through the internet and phone services the need for physical, regional boundaries is no longer necessary.

We pride ourselves on being a “broad” church with room for everyone in it. If we want the Communion to remain as just that, a communion of different communities and views, then allowing organization based upon theological affiliations rather than geographic location is the best way forward. The problem will be, of course, the fragmenting of the British, Canadian, and US churches as some parishes would choose to leave the local Diocese and others would remain.

For those in other Protestant traditions this is nothing new. What has set the Anglican Communion apart is the episcopal structure, resulting from the origins of the Church of England as a theological rather than structural break from Rome. But the Archbishop of Canterbury (nor the other Primates) is unable to allow diversity while still reserving the power to discipline those who step too far out of bounds. So instead there is diversity with no discipline. Allowing the formation and alignment of Anglican Churches along something other than geographic boundaries might allow for diversity of views and practices while preserving the Communion. Maybe.