A long-awaited property- settlement decision in Fairfax Circuit Court apparently will not be the end of a two-year-long conflict between a minority group of conservative congregations in the Episcopal Church that broke away from the church to join the Anglican District of Virginia.

Read it all.

It is more than ever the task of the little teams and small flocks, to struggle most effectively for man and the spirit, and, in particular, to give the most effective witness to those truths for which men so desperately long and which are, at present, in such short supply. For only the little teams and small flocks are able to muster around something which completely escapes technique and the process of massification, and which is the love and wisdom and of the intellect and the trust in the invisible radiation of this love. Such invisible rays carry far; they have the same kind of incredible power in the realm of the spirit that atomic fission and the miracles of microphysics have in the world of matter.

–Jacques Maritain, The Peasant of the Garonne (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), p.172

There is very positive news coming out of Chicago this week: the launch of the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as an outgrowth of the Common Cause Partnership, which will keep everyone watching for further developments. Numerous planned meetings of Primates in smaller and larger groups, sometimes with the Archbishop of Canterbury and sometimes not, and together with laity in Jamaica as the Anglican Consultative Council, will be occurring over the next six months, guaranteeing that the issues brought forward by GAFCON, the formation of the GAFCON Primates’ Council, and now ACNA, will stay in the center of attention for some time to come.

The launch of the new Anglican Church in North America, an outgrowth of the Common Cause Partners Federation, has been positioned such that there is reasonable hope that Primates of the Anglican Communion, perhaps beginning with the GAFCON Primates’ Council, might begin to recognize the entity as a province in the Anglican Communion. The Jerusalem gathering of GAFCON gave a call for such a new province to be formed, and the approval of a provisional Constitution and Canons of the ACNA is seen as the beginning of this process.

The formation of ACNA, which is a coming together of Anglican judicatories under an Archbishop, leaves two of its sponsoring organizations in a here-and-there position. Both Forward In Faith-North America (FIFNA) and the American Anglican Council (AAC) are advocacy and affinity organizations that overlay actual ecclesial judicatories, and although both are presently headed by bishops, the bishops and the members are all embedded in separate actual church structures.

Read it all.

“We’ve seen it coming for years. It’s not a rival denomination. At best, it would be a church within a church,” said the Very Rev. John Burwell of the Church of the Holy Cross, which has congregations on Sullivan’s Island and Daniel Island. “They’re still part of the Anglican Church. They just don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church,” he said.

“We intend to stay and fight. We intend to stay in the Episcopal Church and act as the conscience of the Episcopal Church,” Burwell said.

Read it all (essentially the AP article with local reaction).

Stream Starts around 5:15pm CST.
5:30 CST Press Conference
7:30 CST Worship Service

Can’t see the video? Click here and install the latest Flash Player.

From here:

Archbishop Ben Kwashi reports that violence has subsided in Jos City in Northern Nigeria. He and his wife Gloria were able to visit churches in all the archdeaconries and St Luke’s Cathedral. In some churches attendance was down to 25% and in others down to 50%. His message was the same for all: ” There is no battle in which a child of God is involved in which God is not also involved. He is involved in our present conditions.” In the city as a whole military checkpoints have been set up; there are many internally displaced persons and food is scarce, He continues to ask for prayer.

I caught a quote from Archbishop Kwashi on the BBC World Service on the way home from worship today–let us continue to keep the whole region in prayer–KSH

I took my good fortune for granted for a long time, and I’m finally starting to realize what is important. We all have SO much, much more than we realize. This year Thanksgiving will not be about the turkey, the centerpiece, the china or the silver.

I will sit at the table today, bow my head and say a heartfelt prayer of thanks for the food I receive. When I tuck my children into bed tonight, I will thank God for these miracles and for the roof over their heads. I will tell my husband I am so grateful for this marriage.

I will call my parents and my brother and tell them that they are without a doubt the best parents and brother a girl could ever have. I will hug my friends and family and let them know that there is no way I could ever make it without them.

Read it all.

It has become our custom on Thanksgiving Day to spend a few moments reflecting on the past year and our many reasons to be grateful. Here-with, a few of the people and developments for which we give thanks….

California firefighters. Every time the hot Santa Anas blow, we’re grateful they’re on the job. Sadly, as this month’s ring of fire from Santa Barbara to Orange County painfully reminds us, we’ve had too many opportunities to appreciate them this year.

Read it all.

We asked our readers to share their thoughts about Thanksgiving in these difficult times. Here is…[some of what they said]:

Read them all.

Many things that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson has said about the credit crunch and financial markets have come back to haunt him.

Now we may be facing a U.S. rescue of Citigroup Inc. — just one week after Paulson assured the American people that the banking system “has been stabilized.”

Citigroup’s shares dived $1.69, or 26.4%, to $4.71 today, leading another meltdown in financial shares, as investors bailed on fears that the sinking economy could torpedo the financial giant.

Read it all.

Wall Street was last night anticipating that at least one of America’s Big Three carmakers will file for bankruptcy protection within weeks after bail-out plans for the country’s near-bust car industry were left in tatters.

General Motors shares sank to their lowest level since 1938 at one point yesterday amid a showdown between the outgoing Republican Administration under President Bush and the incoming Democrat Administration led by Barack Obama, the US President-elect who takes office on January 20.

While both sides of Capitol Hill bickered over the terms and conditions of a possible $25 billion (£16.8 billion) emergency loan, Wall Street traders became convinced that Washington will fail to devise, vote on, and force through rescue funds in time to save General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford.

Read it all.

When I was 18, a friend asked if I’d like a job delivering singing telegrams in Manhattan while dressed as a gorilla. It wasn’t anything I ever expected to do, but I was unemployed and the gorilla mask muffled my lack of singing ability. So I took the job.

Soon after, I heard about another job, this time at the Empire State Building entertaining tourists by posing as King Kong. As one of the few applicants with prior gorilla experience, I was a shoo-in. When the summer ended and it got too cold to be on the observation deck, even while wearing a gorilla suit, another friend asked if I’d like to be a private detective. I said, “Yes, ever since I was 6.”

Somewhere between the gorilla suits and getting hired to work as an actual private eye, I realized something about myself: I believe in the ridiculous.

Read it all.

The Lambeth Conference Design Group, meeting one last time to review last summer’s gathering of Anglican bishops, was unanimous in its assessment that the 2008 conference was an overwhelming success, says the Rev. Ian Douglas, the group’s only U.S.-based Episcopal Church member.

Underscoring the missiological focus of the July 16-August 3 Lambeth Conference, Douglas said that the design group’s work had been “led by the Holy Spirit” as its members “asked prayerfully what God wanted us to do ”¦ It gave the group a fortitude of spirit and confidence that sustained us throughout the planning.”

“The design group felt that the vision they had, along with that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had played out well,” said Sue Parks, Lambeth Conference manager, who noted that the group was “very conscious of all the people around the communion who had held the Lambeth Conference in prayer and the prayerful way the bishops had approached the gathering.”

The design group, which has met regularly since February 2004, held its final meeting November 4-6 at the Anglican Communion Office in London to measure the effectiveness of the conference theme, “Equipping bishops for God’s mission,” assess whether the bishops’ identity as Anglicans had been strengthened, and to discuss the nature and worth of the Indaba process.

Read it all.

Next Saturday, November 15th, sees the convening of a National Evangelical Anglican Consultation (NEAC) at All Souls, Langham Place in London. It has been called by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC). In contrast to the large-scale NEACs of Keele (1967), Nottingham (1977), Caister (1988) and Blackpool (2003), where the C stood for “Congress”, this is a one-day consultation (similar events have been organised be CEEC in the past) with a very specific focus: Anglican evangelicalism post Lambeth and GAFCON with a view to ”˜shaping the future’. What, then, is the ”˜state of the party’ on the eve of this NEAC and what are the issues to be addressed and possible outcomes?

Opportunities

NEAC offers a number of real opportunities at a crucial time in the life of the Anglican Communion:

a) Genuine consultation: There are, sadly, few opportunities for genuine consultation and face-to-face conversation along the full spectrum of Anglican evangelicals. Our growth over the last forty years, combined with the lack of recognised unifying leadership that used to be provided by John Stott, has led to greater diversification and fragmentation into different groups with various emphases. This has, particularly in recent years (arguably since women’s ordination in 1992 and certainly since the appointment of Rowan Williams in 2002), led to increasing tensions and fracture lines. These have sometimes been compounded by the desire of various evangelical sub-groups to define the centre or the boundaries and limits of evangelicalism in a way which alienates others.
b) Building great unity: One of the benefits of NEAC and ongoing consultation will be clearer recognition of the many areas of agreement and consensus across the different strands of Anglican evangelicalism.
c) Constructive engagement with difference: NEAC also provides the opportunity for an honest and constructive identification of the areas of disagreement and potential division that are found among evangelical Anglicans. These particularly focus on issues relating to women in church leadership, how to respond to the crisis in the Anglican Communion, and the extent to which the Church of England and elements of its leadership are already compromised in relation to orthodox biblical sexual ethics. It also could provide a catalyst for the renewal and/or creation of structures and procedures that will help us in the future both to build on areas of agreement and to address areas of tension in a godly, Christian manner rooted in strong personal relationships.

Threats

There are, however, a number of threats that must also be clearly acknowledged. One is that the meeting next Saturday does not achieve anything and is seen as a wasted opportunity and a failure to consult genuinely. Another, more serious threat, is that the meeting itself and its outcome (either on the day or as developed by CEEC subsequently) fuels further division, most likely through a confrontation between the more conservative evangelicals (linked to groups such as Reform, Church Society, Fellowship of Word and Spirit) who are supportive of GAFCON and other, particularly more open evangelicals (represented by most evangelicals bishops and groups such as Fulcrum), who have been cautious or hostile to GAFCON.

Commitments and hopes

What follows seeks to address these opportunities and threats by identifying and exploring five areas that will be particularly pressing in the minds of many attending NEAC and then sketching something of my own personal hopes as to what might result. At the heart of these hopes is a three-fold commitment and vision as to how we need to proceed at NEAC and in the months that will follow it:
”¢ The need to build relationships that will allow the discernment of a consensus around the evangelical centre both theologically (as expressed in CEEC’s Basis of Faith) and ecclesiologically (where divergences are currently at their greatest)
”¢ The need for those claiming to speak for Anglican evangelicals as a whole to address matters of controversy in a way that all ”˜sides’ or ”˜parties’ can feel recognises their concerns. This results in a wider ownership of a way forward together as Anglican evangelicals rather than a way forward that leads to a parting of the ways as some feel they cannot agree and so must distance themselves from and even undermine what is developed post-NEAC
Ӣ The need to avoid a repetition of the tensions and divisions that occurred before, during and in the aftermath of the last NEAC, symbolised for many in the lack of ordained women on the main platform, the launch of Fulcrum and the development of Anglican Mainstream. As someone closely involved in the birth of both groupings and whose wife is on the Leadership Team of one (along with me) and on the Steering Committee of the other, my hope is that this NEAC might begin to heal some of the wounds from the past but my fear is that it might inflict new wounds and confirm and harden historic cycles of miscommunication and distrust
In thinking what this might look like there have been two models that I have found particularly helpful and encouraging. One is the EFAC Commitment of July 2008 (and CEEC is the “English agent” of EFAC (Constitution, 3.1.4)) and the other is the recent CAPA statement of Sept 2008.

The key issues

Although they would probably rank them differently and have a range of perspectives on each of them, probably the majority of Anglican evangelicals in the CofE, faced with this CEEC-sponsored NEAC on Anglican evangelicalism post Lambeth and GAFCON, would recognise five areas as particularly pressing for evangelical witness, as potential causes of tension among evangelicals and so as issues that need to be faced.
1) GAFCON, Jerusalem Declaration & Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA)
2) Anglican Covenant
3) Support for orthodox in North America
4) Covenant for CofE and evangelicals in CofE seeking alternative oversight
5) The representative nature of CEEC
Of course it is vital in focussing on these five areas not to lose sight of what unites us. There is great unity theologically on a whole range of issues, notably the centrality and supreme authority of Scripture, the representative and substitutionary death of Christ, and the priority of mission (the three themes – Bible, Cross and Mission – of the last NEAC). There is also considerable unity in relation to current tensions in the Communion where Anglican evangelicalism in the CofE is resolutely opposed to the developments in North America and any attempts to move the CofE in a similar direction, being clear that blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of those in such unions is contrary to Scripture and cannot be treated as within legitimate Anglican diversity. It is also important not to get matters out of proportion because of the focus of NEAC and lose the priority of evangelism and mission both in England and the wider Communion. Nevertheless, it is these five areas which require careful analysis and handling:

(1) GAFCON, Jerusalem Declaration & FCA
Although the Jerusalem Declaration and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans based on it are the fruit of GAFCON, it is important that these three different developments of the last six months are distinguished and not treated as a single ”˜take it or leave it’ package. If they are not distinguished, then it will be very difficult to avoid a division between those who wholeheartedly “take it”, those who wish to “leave it”, and (perhaps the majority) those who rather confused and still seeking to discern the full significance and implications of all that has happened since the summer.
”¢ GAFCON: The calling of GAFCON remains a matter of division largely between those evangelicals who were invited and/or felt represented there and those (including many evangelical bishops and ordained women in the CofE) who were uncertain or unhappy about it being called and/or were not invited (or were unable/unwilling to attend). The former are clearly convinced this is a move of God that must be warmly embraced. Many others are still cautious or sceptical. Over time a consensus may be able to emerge among evangelicals that allows the positive elements to be highlighted but that should not be pressed or forced upon the whole constituency by GAFCON’s advocates but should clearly arise from within it. As with EFAC and CAPA, therefore, at NEAC a recognition of GAFCON as a very significant fact in the life of the Communion and the value of it for all those who attended is better than a definitive stance for or against.
”¢ Jerusalem Declaration. This articulation of Anglican identity is clearly the most significant development from GAFCON. While assessment of it is coloured by assessment of GAFCON (above) and of FCA (see below), it can be taken as a statement in its own right. Here evangelical Anglicans should be able to affirm what it affirms. EFAC’s statement “We heartily endorse the fourteen points of the Jerusalem Declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and, like those at GAFCON, are fully committed to remaining within the Anglican Communion, and to bearing joyful witness to evangelical distinctives” represents a helpful way of doing this that should enjoy wide support.
”¢ Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA). While the Jerusalem Declaration has received positive comments from across and beyond evangelicalism (with the Archbishop of Canterbury among those drawing attention to its wide acceptance), FCA (as the continuing institutional life of GAFCON) remains controversial and potentially highly divisive. Although its Primates’ Council has met and there are plans underway for a UK FCA, there remains much uncertainty and lack of clarity about its structure, goals and strategy and as a result a significant level of suspicion remains among many evangelicals. While NEAC should affirm FCA’s commitment to the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism as expressed in canon A5, further institutional support at this stage from NEAC or CEEC would likely cause fractures. NEAC would therefore be best to encourage and enable further reflection on how CEEC and wider evangelicalism should relate to FCA and its developing UK structure.

(2) Anglican Covenant
Mirroring in some ways the different attitudes among evangelicals to GAFCON, there are different attitudes to the proposed Anglican Covenant. Some remain very positive, others are sceptical or opposed. Such scepticism and opposition may be in principle and/or in relation to its current draft and/or in relation to its effectiveness in dealing with the crisis in the Communion and particularly North America. Following its meeting in Singapore and helpful Lambeth Commentary, the Covenant Design Group has asked for submissions on the covenant to be made to it by March 9th and the Church of England General Synod (many of whose evangelical members will be at NEAC) will debate it in February. NEAC could therefore encourage and enable further evangelical education and discussion of this important development and ask CEEC to make an official response to the CDG as it did to the Lambeth Commission prior to the Windsor Report.

(3) North America
Orthodox Anglicans in The Episcopal Church (eg Common Cause and Windsor Bishops/Communion Partners) and the Anglican Church of Canada (eg Essentials Federation and Essentials Network) have responded in a variety of ways to the actions of their dioceses/provinces in violation of Communion teaching. Those different strategies have produced some tensions among the orthodox in North America and these are also reflected among evangelicals in the CofE. It is important therefore that NEAC does not ”˜take sides’ between these different groupings but rather ”“ like Anglican Essentials in Canada – encourages mutual conversation, understanding and support both on the ground in the US and Canada and between evangelicals here in the CofE.
Despite these differences in strategy, I believe the overwhelming majority of evangelicals in the CofE would:
Ӣ recognise as Anglicans in good standing those who have been received in good standing by other provinces of the Communion because they have been unable to remain within or have been removed from office by their former province,
Ӣ assure them of prayers and continued fellowship in ministry and mission
Ӣ urge resolution of property and other disputes without recourse to secular courts
Explicit support for the creation a new province at this time remains divisive among evangelicals (though support for that as a necessity ”“ and certainly recognition that it is inevitable – is perhaps growing). Nevertheless, it should be possible for evangelicals in the CofE to agree on the need to work for unity among all Anglicans committed to Anglican faith, order and morals and to express our desire that all such Anglicans be recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the wider Communion.

(4) CofE and Covenant for Church of England
Two years ago, the Chair and President of CEEC were among those who signed the “covenant for the Church of England”, a document which came under rapid and stringent criticism from other leading evangelicals, notably Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham. Given this history, and the fact that the covenant never gained much wider support among evangelicals, explicit reference to the proposed covenant for the Church of England in any outcome from NEAC will inevitably be divisive. There remain, however, a number of situations (perhaps a few dozen) in various dioceses (eg Chelmsford and Southwark) where there are problems arising in relation to impaired communion between evangelicals and their bishops and/or church plants (eg related to Crosslinks) seeking some form of alternative episcopal oversight. Given this reality, evangelicals must find fresh ways of resolving these problems and not allow different reactions and different settings to increase pressure on potential fracture points. A number of evangelical bishops have been seeking to find ways forward in consultation with the authors of the covenant and their work needs to be given wider recognition and support and all involved urged to recognise the seriousness of this situation and so provide and seek diocesan and regional solutions to difficulties within the structures of the CofE in order to avoid importing the problem of boundary-crossing into the Church of England.

(5) CEEC
For some time there has been concern that CEEC has ceased to be as representative a body within evangelicalism as it has been in the past and CEEC has itself acknowledged that there are issues that need addressing here. Many evangelicals feel strongly that significant changes need to be made if it is to fulfil its stated aims and to accomplish the vision of John Stott and others by assisting evangelical unity. In particular,
Ӣ the relationship with evangelical bishops is apparently weak or non-existent
”¢ more conservative networks are strongly represented (eg Reform, Church Society, Latimer Trust, Fellowship of Word and Spirit) and the overlap between membership of CEEC and membership of Anglican Mainstream’s Steering Committee has gradually increased in recent years in a way few people have recognised.
Ӣ it has not been able to adapt to the growing number and diversity of evangelical networks and
Ӣ it has not faced the reality of the consequent decline or even demise of the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships/Unions that have been the historic backbone of CEEC.
Although a new constitution was adopted in 2005, major questions remain about the reform of CEEC which should soon be undertaking its five-yearly “rigorous review of its performance and effectiveness” (Constitution 6.9) and many of whose members, including key Executive positions, are due for re-election in 2010.

What might be done?

What, then, might be more concrete hopes as to outcomes of NEAC 2008? Obviously, there is a need to be realistic: the gathering will be a large one but is a self-selected group, attending an event which has been organised by a group within CEEC and with much input from the platform but seemingly minimal scope for discussion and organised feedback. Furthermore, those attending will only receive papers on the day, not in advance (although those attending have been asked to look at the Jerusalem Declaration) and no information has been provided as to how the ”˜consultation’ with those attending will happen. Its ability to act as a body in any coherent or truly representative manner is thus minimal. Hence the first danger that the “consultation” will be ineffective and the second danger that the “consultation” will either be led to certain (perhaps majority but not consensus) conclusions or be used as a front for whatever decisions are subsequently taken by the CEEEC Executive and Council. In the light of the analysis above I think there are five elements which would represent a successful NEAC making the most of the real opportunities and minimising the real dangers:

1. Affirmations of all that can be positively and jointly affirmed by the full spectrum of evangelicals about such matters as the affirmations in the Jerusalem Declaration, the importance of contributing to the Communion covenant process and our solidarity with all the orthodox in TEC, ACC and those in North America who are now in other provinces of the Communion.
2. A request to CEEC urgently to establish ”“ in consultation with EFAC and evangelical bishops – a representative working party comprising members of the Council and others (as they are authorised to do in CEEC’s Constitution 6.10) in order to address other issues relating to the Anglican Communion and in particular to:
a) Prepare a CEEC submission on the Anglican Covenant to the CDG by Feb 2008
b) Make recommendations concerning the relationship between CEEC and FCA
This would enable the creation of new institutional structures to build relationships and seek a common mind rather than risk continuing down divergent paths with megaphone diplomacy between different evangelical networks and groups. It would also allow CEEC to make a considered response to the two main developments arising out of Lambeth and GAFCON. Deferring any decision on FCA would enable FCA’s UK structures and plans to become clearer, concerns of some evangelicals to be addressed, and the mind of evangelicals in the CofE as a whole to be discerned. In particular, it is vital to discover whether FCA is a broad body which may function something like EFAC and with which CEEC could legitimately be aligned as a member or simply another new network which may seek to be represented within CEEC but to which CEEC itself should not be affiliated or give preferential status over other groups.
3. A request to CEEC to consult widely (drawing in evangelical bishops and others currently less involved with its work) as it reviews its structures, renews its membership and seeks better to fulfil its object. In particular consideration needs to be given as to how CEEC can in future work better to “promote effective consultation between Anglican Evangelical leaders, in order that the evangelical heritage, as expressed in the Basis of Faith, may be better applied to contemporary opportunities and problems in church and nation” (Constitution, 3.1.1).
4. A request for another National Evangelical Anglican Consultation/Congress, perhaps over a weekend, by summer 2010 in order to consider these and other matters
5. A re-commitment to face our differences and disagreements among ourselves as evangelicals and as evangelical Anglicans with non-evangelical Anglicans in a godly manner shaped by Paul’s exhortation:
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God (Col. 3:12-16).

–The Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard Tutor in Christian Ethics at Trinity College, Bristol where he is helping develop the new Centre for Bible and Society

[Archbishop Fred] Hiltz is under no illusions about the challenges facing the Canadian Anglican church.

“We’re in the midst of a period of major transition, which is never an easy time for a lot of people,” said Hiltz.

“I think there is a real longing from a lot of Anglicans to come to a resolution of the same-sex blessings debate. It’s nothing new; we’ve been grappling with this issue for 30 years.”
The national church has recommended a moratorium on same-sex blessings for two years, until the matter can hopefully be resolved once and for all at the general synod meeting in June 2010. However, a number of dioceses, most notably New Westminster in the greater Vancouver area, have approved same-sex blessings.

Hiltz says the key to the survival of the Canadian Anglican church may be to agree to disagree.

“I don’t think we may ever be able to come to a consensus on this issue,” said Hiltz.

“It may come down to allowing some space for local options. Then, we need to address the bigger issue of how do we live together with our differences, but do it with grace, not by condemning each other.”

Read it all.

Jefferts Schori fielded questions from about 350 people who stayed after the service to discuss their church’s future. While some have come to terms with the growing role of gay men and lesbians in the diocese, a few said their fellow parishioners wonder whether the presiding bishop sees Jesus Christ as the sole way to salvation.

Jefferts Schori replied that like most Christians, she believes Jesus died for “the whole world.” But his life and resurrection did not sever the promise God made to Jews and to Muslims, she added, and those groups still have access to salvation.

“I see evidence of holiness in people who are not Christians. I have to assume in some way God is present and important in those people who may not consciously know Jesus. And it’s really God’s problem to figure out how to deal with that,” she said, to surprised laughter and applause. “My problem is to be the best Christian I can be and to share what I know of the power of Jesus in my own life.”

Once again the Presiding Bishop hits exactly the wrong note on the subject of the scandal of particularity. Neither Billy Graham nor Benedict XVI would make this error in this pluralistic age. This continues to reinforce the strong concern many of us have about the loss of vibrant and muscular Christology among TEC’s leaders. Read it all

In terms of a future renewal, much of it will depend on a commitment to individualism, something that has been much maligned in recent years. We hear so much trendy, tedious talk today of how bad individualism is, and how we need to think in terms of “the group.” The problem is that the group usually offers conformity, not genuine community. The drift in the United States today is toward the submergence of the self into Mass Mind, a trend that is powerfully encouraged by corporate culture and the new technology. Along with this — as in the early Middle Ages — we see the dissolution of interiority, and the loss or denigration of individual judgment and achievement. All this is a major factor in the disintegration of American culture, which, popular opinion to the contrary, is a herd culture, not an individualistic one. Thus political scientist Kenneth Minogue writes that the fashionable attack on individualism amounts to “a project for closing down the innovative vitality of the modern world.” An important aspect of the new monastic option is thus a rejection of this project, of the group, and of attempts at institutionalization. Today’s “monk” is committed to a renewed sense of self, and to the avoidance of groupthink, including anticorporate or anti-consumer culture groupthink. The monastic option will not be served by the new monastic “class” being a class of any sort. As the quote* from E. M. Forster on page 9 shows, the power of this contribution lies precisely in its lack of institutionalization. Membership cards and badges (whether real or metaphorical), avant-garde language and appropriate party line, organization and even visibility — these are the exact opposite of what the monastic option is about. We don’t need to form our own little institutes or committees; that would be the kiss of death. In The Dark Side of the Left, Richard Ellis shows how avant-garde political movements, including environmentalism and feminism, become utopian, Manichaean, and finally tyrannical; but he admits that this is a right-wing tendency as well. The point is, it is a group tendency. The more individual the activity is, and the more out of the public eye, the more effective it is likely to be in the long run. Not that like-minded souls shouldn’t make connections, but the key is to keep these links informal. As Kenneth Minogue rightly notes, Western individualists have a capacity for joint action that exceeds that of communally organized civilizations.

–Morris Berman, The Twilight of American Culture (New York: Norton & Company, 2000), pp. 88-89

————————————————————————————————————————-

*The quote from E. M. Forster [What I Believe, 1939] on page 9 is as follows:

I believe in aristocracy,…Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all nations and classes, and all through the ages, and there is a secret understanding between them when they meet. They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos….On they go — an invincible army, yet not a victorious one. The aristocrats, the elect, the chosen, the Best People — all the words that describe them are false, and all attempts to organize them fail. Again and again Authority, seeing their value, has tried to net them and to utilize them as the Egyptian Priesthood or the Group Movement, or some other worthy stunt. But they sip through the net and are gone; when the door is shut, they are no longer in the room; their temple…is the Holiness of the Heart’s Imagination, and their kingdom, though they never possess it, is the wide-open world.

From Irenaeus

Dear Kendall:

I’ve been deeply troubled by the extent to which rage drawn from secular politics and culture wars has shaped comment threads on T19 and some other orthodox Anglican blogs.

We dishonor the gospel by conflating it with our own conventional secular politics. We also impair the unity so sorely needed among Anglican reasserters when we treat the theological divide as a subset of a hackneyed secular political divide—as though secular divisions were paramount.

We should take to heart these wise words from Thomas Merton:

In our refusal to accept the partially good intentions of others and work with them (of course prudently and with resignation to the inevitable imperfection of the result) we are unconsciously proclaiming our own malice, our own intolerance, our own lack of realism, our own ethical and political quackery. Perhaps in the end the first real step toward peace would be a realistic acceptance of the fact that our political deals are perhaps to a great extent illusions and fictions to which we cling, out of motives that are not always perfectly honest: that because of this we prevent ourselves from seeing any good or any practicability in the political ideas of our enemies—which may of course be in many ways even more illusory and dishonest than our own. We will never get anywhere unless we can accept the fact that politics is an inextricable tangle of good and evil motives in which, perhaps, the evil predominate but where one must continue to hope doggedly in what little good can still be found.” —New Seeds of Contemplation, ch. 16.

Oswald Chambers sounds a complementary warning about our own cozy ways of thinking:

“Our Lord never tolerates our prejudices [i.e., our preferences or our customary ways of thinking]. He is directly opposed to them and puts them to death. We tend to think that God has some special interest in our particular prejudices, and are very sure that He will never deal with us as He has to deal with others. We even say to ourselves, ”˜God has to deal with other people in a very strict way, but of course He knows that my prejudices are all right.’ But we must learn that God accepts nothing of the old life! Instead of being on the side of our prejudices, He is deliberately removing them from us. It is part of our moral education to see our prejudices put to death by His providence, and to watch how He does it. God pays no respect to anything we bring to Him. There is only one thing God wants of us, and that is our unconditional surrender.” —My Utmost for His Highest, Oct. 23

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I join with Karen [in the earlier thread] in affirming that “there needs to be some POSITIVE way of using the blogs to build community” and that providing some personal commentary (if you have time) can help counteract the tendency for readers to react to stories with the same old predictable rancor. It is a bad witness. It is also spiritually unhealthy.

We as T19 commenters also need to be mindful of how we represent a narrow and oddly self-selected slice of Anglican Christianity. Most of us are American; most Anglicans are not. Most commenters are politically conservative; most Anglicans, including those in the Global South, hold views well to the left of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tony Blair. Most of us feel betrayed by ECUSA. So do many other orthodox Anglicans, but we differ from them in our willingness to spend time keeping informed about ECUSA’s latest misdeeds. A similar self-selection occurs among T19 readers: those of us who comment actively are more likely to be opinionated and even judgmental than those who read without commenting. We are who we are, and I’m part of it.

But we need to make a conscious effort to avoid bitterness, self-righteousness, and xenophobia. We need to take care that we do not confuse the gospel with our own preconceptions, predilections, and affinities. We also need to take care that we do not, in our zeal, drive away gentle commenters with whom we disagree.

I differ from Karen in hoping you won’t curtail T19’s coverage of Anglican developments.

My decision in June also reflected my conclusion that participating in these blog debates was taking a toll on my devotional life and my witness for orthodox Christianity. (For example, one of my brothers said he enjoyed talking with me about anything except current disagreements in the Episcopal Church.)

From the diocesan website:

It is with a profound sense of sadness that the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande acknowledges the vote of the Vestry of St. Francis-on-the-Hill in El Paso, Texas, to leave the Episcopal Church. This vote took place on Tuesday evening, October 21, 2008, and a majority of the Vestry present voted to make this move.

This decision comes after meetings between the congregation, the President of the Standing Committee and the Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, the Rt. Rev. William Frey. At those meetings, Bishop Frey and Canon Kelly made it clear to the congregation that, if they made the decision to leave the Episcopal Church, they could not take their property with them. That counsel follows the consideration of the Standing Committee and Deans of the Diocese that, after the departure of St. Clement’s Church from the Diocese in 2007, other departing congregations would not be able to avail themselves of the same parameters surrounding the severing of a relationship with the Diocese of the Rio Grande.

The Standing Committee understands that St. Francis has filed a suit for declaratory judgment with the District Court in El Paso County, Texas. We have begun to respond to the Court, reminding them that, according to our common agreements, parishes hold their property in trust for the larger Church community.

The Diocese of the Rio Grande is in the midst of an exciting and hopeful period in its life, having entered into a process to call and elect its next Bishop. With the able assistance of a New Life Team, the Diocese has entered into a purposeful time of listening and reflection, with the prayerful hope that this process will lead to healing and reconciliation in the Diocese as we look forward to our next Bishop. It is particularly disappointing that the people of St. Francis-on-the-Hill have chosen this moment to depart from the fellowship of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, as it is a time full of anticipation and hope for the future.

The people of the Diocese gather at their annual Convocation beginning on Friday, October 24, and the presence of the delegation from St. Francis will be sorely missed. Any time a part of the Body of Christ severs itself from the Body, the injury that results requires time, prayer and God’s healing power to restore. We move forward, confident that divine healing will continue to be with us, and that God will lead the Diocese of the Rio Grande into continued leadership in mission and ministry. Our prayers continue to be with the clergy and people of St. Francis.

Diocese of San Joaquin Convention
Online TV Shows by Ustream
Please help with AnglicanTV’s Travel Expenses:

Kendall,

I have found myself increasingly stunned by the tone of…[some] of the respondents on Titus, and that particular thread which included your own thoughts on Sarah Palin was particularly unedifying….

On a more general note, these days I usually pause several times before posting on Titus because it would appear that on…[some] of the threads there is rightist determination to pounce on anything that is considered not to be towing their particular party line — and usually it is not the idea that is made subject to debate, but it all comes down to issues of personality and prejudice. Most of the time I do not engage because of such an expected response.

I am sorry that such Rush Limbaugh shout-you-down tactics have taken more moderate voices like my own out of the discussion, because clearly a lot of us have shrugged our shoulders and said to ourselves that we have better things to do than jumping in on a conversation where we are going to be kicked around the place like something nasty that the cat brought in!

I am sorry that this polarization has taken place because it minimizes our ability to honestly and faithfully exchange ideas and create some kind of fresh, Christ-centered synthesis.

My deepest sympathy for the way you were raked over the coals recently at T19 (“Many Evangelicals Struggle with the Choice of Sarah Palin”). It was a masterpiece of understatement when you finally said:

This thread is not proving productive nor is it a good witness.

It’s just awful to see such terrible departures from civility amongst Christians, much less than a complete flight from the deeper Christian virtues of gentleness, tenderness, charity, humility, and forgiveness. It must have been miserable for you. And certainly as you say it isn’t a good witness to the outside world.

Anyway, my deepest sympathy to you.

All great deeds and all great thoughts have a ridiculous beginning.

–Albert Camus

MARTIN BAILY, Brookings Institution: Well, I was very pleased that Bernanke supported that. The economy is looking pretty ugly at the moment. I would expect that we’re going to report a negative third quarter. The fourth quarter looks like it could be substantially down. And then probably a continuing recession into the first half of 2009.

So we need to try to sort of reverse that. Initially, the financial crisis didn’t seem to be having that much ill effect on the overall economy, jobs and production, but now it is. And we need to do something to reverse that. And I think a stimulus package is definitely needed.

JEFFREY BROWN: Do you agree with that as a starting point?

WILLIAM BEACH, Heritage Foundation: I think the problems of the financial sector are beginning to spread throughout the economy. We’ve had such a long period of time when credit was tightening. Every day, we would get more news of tighter credit.

And ultimately that affects people where they work, their payrolls, vendors in businesses, and then it goes out into the consuming public, because they can’t get the credit necessary.

Read it all.

From here:

The most important issue facing America is not the economic crisis, the war against terrorism, our national debt, environmental concerns, education or health care.

The greatest issue is a loss of trust in our key institutions. This includes our government (all branches), financial institutions, corporations, the political system, educational institutions (all levels) and the media.

The degree to which trust can be restored will determine the future of America. It is awfully hard to regain trust once it has been lost.

I hope those at the highest levels in all of these institutions will realize this and do all in their power to restore the trust of the people.

If this is not done quickly, I fear a revolution will eventually occur. We do not need change as much as we need trust. Without it we cannot survive.

Bryan B. England

Pawleys Island

Receive our inheritance with gratitude and be radical in our interpretation of it. That suggestion sorted me out in regard to the creeds and I’ve since found it to be helpful in a variety of arenas. This weekend we’ve been applying it to the topic of gay marriage. We’ve been specifically focused on Proposition 8 ”“ an attempt to deny gay and lesbian couples their constitutional right to marry. Many of us oppose that proposition and we do so in the spirit of Dr. Carpenter. We have no intention of altering the traditional understanding of marriage ”“ two people, mutual love expressed in and through fidelity, life-long commitment lived out under the gracious purview of God and with the strong support of society ”“ but we insist on extending that blessing to the whole human family.

We are rigid conservatives when defining the core content of holy marriage and wild radicals in our belief that God intends this beautiful covenant for all. And because both sides of that statement are equally true, we join with the Episcopal bishops of California, unanimously aligned, in vigorously defending the right of gay couples to wed, the right the high court of our state granted earlier this year. We also pledge to work to encourage the Episcopal Church, as a national body, to recognize the wisdom and compassion of that decision and follow suit.

Read it all. This is what passes for wisdom in the Orwellian world of the leadership of The Episcopal Church these days. What is by any reasonable definition a complete overhaul of the nature of marriage–which is by definition a life long union of a man and a woman–is claimed to be instead a conservative clinging to the content of holy marriage.

Recall carefully and well the genuinely prophetic Statement by the California Catholic Conference Of Bishops’ Regarding The Supreme Court Decision:

Yes, exactly, these relationships can never be marriage by its very definition. That is the core content of marriage which some are attempting to change completely. But this is a church that does not tell the truth, and then does not tell itself the truth about not telling the truth, so this complete alteration is claimed to be the opposite of what is–KSH.