FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Toronto)

Wycliffe College, the evangelical and Anglican theological college in Toronto, is delighted to announce the appointment of the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner to be professor of historical theology, to commence Sept. 1, 2007. Dr. Radner, presently the rector of the Episcopal Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado, has a doctorate in systematic theology from Yale University. He was called by Archbishop Rowan Williams one of the most creative Anglican minds today. Dr. Radner has a distinguished record of publication which includes The End of the Church, a major work on the doctrines of the Spirit and the Church, Hope Among the Fragments, dealing with Scriptural hermeneutics, and The Fate of Communion (co-authored), a theological reflection on contemporary Anglicanism. His commentary on Leviticus for Brazos will appear later this year. On the occasion of his appointment, George Sumner, Wycliffe’s principal, said “Ephraim Radner brings an impressive scholarly corpus to this new work. Equally impressive are his years of faithful and effective parish ministry. His range of ministerial experience includes Burundi, Haiti, and inner-city Cleveland. He embodies the Anglican ideal of the pastor-scholar. Ephraim also continues to make a key contribution to conversations about the future shape of the Anglican Communion through his membership on the Covenant Design Group. On that stage he has been a patient and wise voice on behalf of the unity and catholicity of Church. The addition of Ephraim to an already strong and cohesive faculty means that there is no stronger place than Wycliffe for an Episcopal/Anglican ordinand to learn about his/her tradition.”

An article by Giles Fraser received a response from Richard Turnbull here. Joanna McGrath also has a piece there, and a letter from some members of the Wycliffe community is here.

The recent articles by Steve Noll… and Peter Moore [ed note: both posted below] in the blogosphere have occasioned some useful discussion here…. Some of you have pointed helpfully to ways in which Trinity might have prospered better in its young history, if such-and-such had occurred. I thought it might be a good time to share with you some of the features of Trinity’s life that I have particularly appreciated – some of the strengths that I’ve seen, along with its predictable “need-to-improve” areas.

First of all I have appreciated how Trinity has managed somehow to serve such a wide variety of constituencies – even within the Episcopal Church, not to mention our valuable Methobapterian sisters and brothers. Since for a generation – until Nashotah’s wonderful renaissance a few years ago – Trinity was the only reliably orthodox seminary in the Episcopal Church, the School needed to try and train Episcopalians from an extraordinarily diverse range of traditions. Amongst our students we have seen Five-Point Calvinists, Moderate Charles Simeonite Evangelicals, AngloCatholics, Moderate Alpha-Course Charismatics, AngloCowboy “Drop-Kick-Me-Jesus-Through-The-Goalposts-of-Life” Pentecostals, not to mention a few AngloMennonites like myself. I’m sure that all of you alumni occasionally felt that chapel worship was like Noah’s Ark, when we had clouds of incense, a fifty-minute exegetical sermon, and a message in tongues all in one service. And yet you all persevered in tolerating one another, and somehow the Trinity Chapel “wars of religion” never occasioned actual bloodshed.

Considering the strong convictions that everyone held, that’s no small grace. Likewise I have appreciated the way in which Trinity managed to serve a different variety of vocational constituencies. Probably half or more of you were headed for ordination, and yet you managed to coexist – and indeed often to cherish – those whose calling was to lay ministry. Think of the valuable part that the Youth Ministry folks have played in the School’s life, in the last fifteen years. In an environment that might well have ossified into cerebral monasticism, wasn’t it great when two youth ministers grabbed Bill Frey and stepped into Nanky Chalfant’s swimming pool? (Any observations occur to you at this time, Bill?) And Trinity even managed – somehow – to encompass Whis Hays’ cutting-edge Rock the World youth ministry ethos with Jason Smith’s Young Life style. I know these cross-cultural issues weren’t easy, folks, but you did it and I’m grateful.

Also I appreciate that Trinity has managed to serve both the “three-year-residential-MDiv” folks and the “extension education fanatics” (I speak as one of the latter). In the blogosphere discussion that Steve Noll’s article stimulated, this issue has come up repeatedly. Should clergy be formed in a residential environment (the Episcopal seminary model that goes back to the foundation of General in New York in 1818) or should Trinity take advantage of the Internet and make its education available in Idaho and Arizona and Alabama (and to the ends of the earth)? Should leadership formation be done intensively in a boundaried community like a seminary campus, or should it be done in local parishes with Internet courses wired-in from Trinity? Well, that conversation still goes on vigorously. I’m really grateful that Trinity didn’t come apart over that question. As you can see from the Trinity web site, the School continues to emphasize intensive residential education. We added mandatory Hebrew to the curriculum a year ago. To me that symbolized our commitment to a rigorous residential MDiv. But at the same time you can take nearly 60 credit hours online as well – the Diploma programs in Anglican Studies and Basic Christian Studies. Not to mention Jan Term and June Term and our extension sites in NM and VA and elsewhere. How did we manage to agree on both of those directions? I’m grateful. Well, I could go on. But I wondered if we might take this critical moment in the Episcopal Church to reflect a little on what actually worked, in Trinity’s first 30 years. What would you like to see perpetuated? Or morphed? Or replaced?

–The Rev. Dr. Leslie Fairfied recently retired as a Church History Professor at Trinity School for Ministry

In response to Steve Noll’s excellent piece on why Trinity (and Nashotah, from which I hold an honorary degree) must be supported by Network and Common Cause bishops, I would add only a couple of thoughts:

First, It is not just retired bishops like +Ben Benitez and +Alex Dickson who in their day refused to send students to Trinity. It is also quite a number of current Network bishops who have sought all kinds of alternative roots, as you suggest, and in some cases refused to allow students to come to Trinity. It has been frustrating for Trinity Deans to watch capable candidates be spirited off to England, Canada and other US seminaries who then, upon graduation, are almost totally unconnected to the US Episcopal/Anglican renewal scene, and woefully uninformed about historic Anglican evangelicalism. No one is saying that Ambridge is a great tourist destination, especially in February. But theological education there is solid, biblical, Anglican, and thoroughly in touch with all the theological currents in the wider church. Those who have suggested that qualified candidates, who wanted to come to Trinity, or might have come with a bit of encouragement, would “do better” to go elsewhere have to bear some responsibility for the chaos the Episcopal Church is in today. The fact that some of these bishops are my friends makes me very sad.

Secondly, the system that we now have is itself confusing. Frequently, I’ve heard bishops say that they are “willing” to have candidates go to Trinity. However, when the candidate goes before the Commission on Ministry, they are told that they must be broadened, and go elsewhere. This is a case of one playing “good cop” and the other “bad cop.” One senses collusion in these decisions.

Thirdly, it has become clear to me over the years that stereotypes about Trinity have nothing to do with the reality that one finds there. The stereotypes, however, are a necessary defense by the liberal leadership of TEC against any willingness to countenance the thought that historic biblical theology, coupled with missionary zeal, has a place within North American Anglicanism. Of course, this is historical nonsense. But the misrepresentation lingers. It is necessary that the liberals stigmatize Trinity as fundamentalist, or narrow, or anti-women, or hate-filled, or whatever — not because any of these labels stick, or have the slightest relationship to reality, but because they protect the users from actually facing the facts: Anglican evangelicalism has both an historic and a current place within North American Anglicanism, and until the recent unpleasantness was making great strides towards leading TEC backward to its roots, and forward to its true missional calling.

–(The Rev. Dr.) Peter Moore is a former Dean and President of Trinity School for Ministry

AN OPEN LETTER ON THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION TO NETWORK BISHOPS AND COMMON CAUSE PARTNERS USA

Dear Colleagues in the Gospel,

I write you about an issue close to my heart: the sustenance of orthodox Anglican theological education in the USA. As many of you know, I worked for 21 years at Trinity School for Ministry to fulfill its vision to reform and renew the Episcopal Church. Sadly, we failed. Any failure has multiple explanations, but I am convinced that one of them is the failure of conservative bishops to see the urgent need to send ALL orthodox and evangelical students to Trinity. Instead many naively accepted a pluralistic approach to theological formation. Trinity was seen as a nice new dish at the Episcopal smorgasbord, catering to certain renewal people, not the necessary remedy to a radically sick denomination.

(N.B. I am focusing on the seminary I know best, but there is a surely parallel story to be told for Nashotah House and the Reformed Episcopal seminaries. It strikes me that Trinity and the REC seminaries should naturally serve an evangelical Anglican constituency which seeks to be catholic-minded and Nashotah should naturally serve an Anglo-catholic constituency that seeks to be evangelically-minded.)

Two quiz questions will highlight the problem that blunted the kind of impact that Trinity was founded to accomplish. Which bishop refused to present the present Dean of Nashotah House for ordination because he took a job as Director of Library at Trinity? And which bishop refused to send any of his younger postulants to Trinity but sent them rather to his alma mater? Answers: Alex Dickson and Ben Benitez! I suspect Bps. Alex and Ben now regret those decisions, but they exemplify the mindset of conservative leaders during the critical period that Trinity was getting started.

The bold and visionary action taken by the founders of Trinity in the mid-70s was never matched by bold actions in the conservative dioceses to free students to train there. All it would have taken was a bishop, standing committee and commission on ministry in one diocese working cooperatively, and Trinity could have hosted every student who wanted to be formed with an Anglican Evangelical foundation. In the early 80s the Diocese of Pittsburgh opened the door, but within a few years the liberal holdovers on the COM found a way to stanch the flow by imposing a residency requirement, with the bishop’s consent.

In 1996, I helped set up through the AAC an alternative ordination track for ministry refugees (the new bishop of Pittsburgh was to provide the conduit for this track). By that date, the horse had already fled the barn as far as any hope of reforming the church through a flood of renewed clergy. Since that time, in fact, the flow of Trinity grads has been diverted to AMiA and other Christian traditions.

Trinity’s own leaders themselves, myself included, contributed to the problem. We were naïve to think that accreditation (1985) would make us acceptable in the mainstream Episcopal Church. Later on, Trinity’s leaders were also too slow to recognize that AMiA and other Common Cause groups were there coming constituency, thinking that we could woo liberals to give us a few crumbs from their ordination process. But as we all know, contemporary liberals are anything but liberal. Such a hope is surely now a vain hope.

The point of these recollections is to warn that the same failure of vision may be happening today. In my occasional visits to conservative gatherings in the States, I hear people saying: “We’ve sent student X to Gordon Conwell or to Beeson or Wycliffe in Oxford.” Or “We’ve set up our own fast-track training program.” And I have asked these colleagues: “What about Trinity?” “Oh yes,” they reply, “we are willing for students to train at Trinity, but”¦”

“Yes, but”¦” is not enough. Given the fragmented condition of conservative Anglicanism in North America, such decisions are understandable. But in my opinion, as a long-term solution to building a strong and unified Anglican church, they are inadequate and ominous. Say what you may about alternative models of theological education, a good seminary (or two or three) will be vital to the growth and long-term success of orthodox Anglicanism on that continent.

I say “that continent” because I live now in Africa and oversee the flagship theological centre of the Anglican Church of Uganda. The Church of Uganda recently identified an acute clergy shortage impending and has responded by increasing the numbers attending our “Bishop Tucker School of Divinity and Theology” (we just doubled our intake). The church in Rwanda has likewise recognized the need for a theological college, as have other Provinces. So the need and call for strong theological colleges call is not just a North American phenomenon.

So what can be done? I think a couple simple decisions and declarations could clarify matters.

The Boards of Trinity and Nashotah House should announce that their primary mission is to serve the Network and Common Cause churches and that they will no longer receive students sponsored from revisionist dioceses (not a very costly decision since they won’t send students anyway).
The Network and Common Cause dioceses and churches should commit themselves to require all candidates for ministry to get their degrees from Trinity or Nashotah or a REC seminary, or at least to attend for one year to instill in them a common Anglican ethos.

As bishops and leaders in Network and Common Cause churches, you have great influence in these matters. Our movement has made a tremendous investment in these seminaries, and should not squander it. I have real doubts whether these institutions can survive without strong support from the churches they were birthed to serve. These seminaries in turn must focus themselves on building up the movement. If these things happen, there is a real chance that orthodox Anglicanism can emerge as a real church like the Presbyterian Church in America (note, with its Covenant Seminary) and not just a welter of “continuing” factions. If it doesn’t, I think we are sowing the whirlwind.

Thank you for listening.

Cordially in Christ,

The Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll

Vice Chancellor
Uganda Christian University

[ed note: This was posted on Stand Firm a week ago and received 115 comments at last count.]

Here is the BBC blurb:

One of the Church of England’s six evangelical training colleges is at the centre of a dispute over the management style of its new principal. Since Richard Turnbull took over the reins at Wycliffe Hall, more than a third of its staff have resigned. Some also fear he’s wishing to take the college in a more theologically conservative direction. Mike Ford has been trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Listen to it all.

(ACNS)

As part of its commitment to helping to strengthen Anglican theological education on a regional basis, TEAC, the Primates Working Party on Theological Education, is pleased to announce that three part-time Regional Associates have been appointed to work with and alongside TEAC’s Secretary, Clare Amos.

The three Regional Associates are:

Rt Revd Michael Fape, Bishop of Remo, in Nigeria. Bishop Michael Fape was previously a lecturer at Immanuel College of Theology, Ibadan, and then the Dean of Archbishop Vining College of Theology, Akure. He has a PhD from the university of Aberdeen and has worked in theological education since 1990. He will focus particularly on helping to deliver TEAC’s work in Anglican Provinces in Africa.

Revd Joo Yup Lee, a priest of the Anglican Church of Korea. Revd Joo Yup Lee after training both in Korea and abroad has served three rural parishes as rector and a sharing house community (a Korean Anglican social ministry for the urban poor). His present responsibility is as Director of Sallintuh ”“ an Anglican shelter for homeless families. He will engage especially with the East Asian context.

Revd Sally Sue Hernandez Garcia, a priest of the Anglican Church in Mexico, from the Diocese of Mexcio City. Having trained for the ministry both in Mexico and abroad, Revd Sally Sue Hernandez Garcia works part-time for the St Andrew’s Seminary teaching mission and ministry, practical theology and popular religiosity, and in addition ministers in two local congregations, with young people and in a hospital. Among other projects she will work to facilitate the development of Anglican theological resources in Spanish.

The three Regional Associates were selected for their roles on the advice of their Primates or senior Provincial colleagues. All three made a valuable contribution to the recent TEAC ”˜Anglican Way’ meeting held in Singapore. Archbishop Rowan Williams and the other members of TEAC present in Singapore welcomed the appointment of these talented and enthusiastic people to these key roles supporting theological education in the Anglican Communion. The appointments were made possible by a generous grant from Trinity Church, Wall Street.

(ACNS)

Members of the TEAC (Theological Education for the Anglican Communion) Working Group held a consultation in Singapore 10-16 May 2007, to explore ”˜The Anglican Way in theological education’. Participants in the consultation included members of TEAC’s Steering Group and Anglican Way Target Group, as well as a number of other people who brought particular expertise and helpful cross-links to the process.’The meeting was honoured with the presence and contributions of Archbishop Rowan Williams for two days of its discussions. Participants in the consultation explored how the Anglican Way was informed by specific concerns; e.g. contextual issues, educational process, recent developments in Anglican ecclesiology and Anglican ecumenical conversations. A key document ”˜The Anglican Way: Signposts on a Common Journey’, which seeks to set out key parameters of the Anglican Way as a framework for Anglican theological education, was agreed by the consultation (see below for the complete text of this document). A number of specific projects to help resource the teaching of the Anglican Way were devised and will be developed over the coming months. Additionally, the meeting provided an opportunity to welcome TEAC’s new Regional Associates and induct them to their tasks.

Members of the consultation wish to express their special thanks to Archbishop John Chew, the clergy and people of the Diocese of Singapore, and the Principal and staff of Trinity Theological College for the gracious welcome they received and the considerable help that was offered which enabled the smooth running of the consultation. ‘TEAC is also grateful to the St Augustine’s Foundation who generously funded the meeting.

Theological Education for the Anglican Communion (TEAC) The Anglican Way: Signposts on a Common Journey[1]

This document has emerged as part of a four-year process in which church leaders, theologians and educators have come together from around the world to discuss the teaching of Anglican identity, life and practice. They clarified the characteristic ways in which Anglicans understand themselves and their mission in the world. These features, described as the ”˜Anglican Way’, were intended to form the basis for how Anglicanism is taught at all levels of learning involving laity, clergy and bishops. This document is not intended as a comprehensive definition of Anglicanism, but it does set in place signposts which guide Anglicans on their journey of self-understanding and Christian discipleship. The journey is on-going because what it means to be Anglican will be influenced by context and history. Historically a number of different forms of being Anglican have emerged, all of which can be found in the rich diversity of present-day Anglicanism. But Anglicans also have their commonalities, and it is these which hold them together in communion through ”˜bonds of affection’. The signposts set out below are offered in the hope that they will point the way to a clearer understanding of Anglican identity and ministry, so that all Anglicans can be effectively taught and equipped for their service to God’s mission in the world.

The Anglican Way is a particular expression of the Christian Way of being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. It is formed by and rooted in Scripture, shaped by its worship of the living God, ordered for communion, and directed in faithfulness to God’s mission in the world. In diverse global situations Anglican life and ministry witnesses to the incarnate, crucified and risen Lord, and is empowered by the Holy Spirit. Together with all Christians, Anglicans hope, pray and work for the coming of the reign of God.

Formed by Scripture

As Anglicans we discern the voice of the living God in the Holy Scriptures, mediated by tradition and reason. We read the Bible together, corporately and individually, with a grateful and critical sense of the past, a vigorous engagement with the present, and with patient hope for God’s future.
We cherish the whole of Scripture for every aspect of our lives, and we value the many ways in which it teaches us to follow Christ faithfully in a variety of contexts. We pray and sing the Scriptures through liturgy and hymnody. Lectionaries connect us with the breadth of the Bible, and through preaching we interpret and apply the fullness of Scripture to our shared life in the world.
Accepting their authority, we listen to the Scriptures with open hearts and attentive minds. They have shaped our rich inheritance: for example, the ecumenical creeds of the early Church, the Book of Common Prayer, and Anglican formularies such as the Articles of Religion, catechisms and the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
In our proclamation and witness to the Word Incarnate we value the tradition of scholarly engagement with the Scriptures from earliest centuries to the present day. We desire to be a true learning community as we live out our faith, looking to one another for wisdom, strength and hope on our journey. We constantly discover that new situations call for fresh expressions of a scripturally informed faith and spiritual life.
Shaped through Worship

Our relationship with God is nurtured through our encounter with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in word and sacrament. This experience enriches and shapes our understanding of God and our communion with one another.
As Anglicans we offer praise to the Triune Holy God, expressed through corporate worship, combining order with freedom. In penitence and thanksgiving we offer ourselves in service to God in the world.
Through our liturgies and forms of worship we seek to integrate the rich traditions of the past with the varied cultures of our diverse communities.
As broken and sinful persons and communities, aware of our need of God’s mercy, we live by grace through faith and continually strive to offer holy lives to God. Forgiven through Christ and strengthened by word and sacrament, we are sent out into the world in the power of the Spirit.
Ordered for Communion

In our episcopally led and synodically governed dioceses and provinces, we rejoice in the diverse callings of all the baptized. As outlined in the ordinals, the threefold servant ministries of bishops, priests and deacons assist in the affirmation, coordination and development of these callings as discerned and exercised by the whole people of God.
As worldwide Anglicans we value our relationships with one another. We look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as a focus of unity and gather in communion with the See of Canterbury. In addition we are sustained through three formal instruments of communion: The Lambeth Conference, The Anglican Consultative Council and The Primates’ Meeting. The Archbishop of Canterbury and these three instruments offer cohesion to global Anglicanism, yet limit the centralisation of authority. They rely on bonds of affection for effective functioning.
We recognise the contribution of the mission agencies and other international bodies such as the Mothers’ Union. Our common life in the Body of Christ is also strengthened by commissions, task groups, networks of fellowship, regional activities, theological institutions and companion links.
Directed by God’s Mission

As Anglicans we are called to participate in God’s mission in the world, by embracing respectful evangelism, loving service and prophetic witness. As we do so in all our varied contexts, we bear witness to and follow Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Saviour. We celebrate God’s reconciling and life-giving mission through the creative, costly and faithful witness and ministry of men, women and children, past and present, across our Communion.
Nevertheless, as Anglicans we are keenly aware that our common life and engagement in God’s mission are tainted with shortcomings and failure, such as negative aspects of colonial heritage, self-serving abuse of power and privilege, undervaluing of the contributions of laity and women, inequitable distribution of resources, and blindness to the experience of the poor and oppressed. As a result, we seek to follow the Lord with renewed humility so that we may freely and joyfully spread the good news of salvation in word and deed.
Confident in Christ, we join with all people of good will as we work for God’s peace, justice and reconciling love. We recognise the immense challenges posed by secularisation, poverty, unbridled greed, violence, religious persecution, environmental degradation, and HIV/Aids. In response, we engage in prophetic critique of destructive political and religious ideologies, and we build on a heritage of care for human welfare expressed through education, health care and reconciliation.
In our relationships and dialogue with other faith communities we combine witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ with a desire for peace, and mutual respect and understanding.
As Anglicans, baptized into Christ, we share in the mission of God with all Christians and are deeply committed to building ecumenical relationships. Our reformed catholic tradition has proved to be a gift we are able to bring to ecumenical endeavour. We invest in dialogue with other churches based on trust and a desire that the whole company of God’s people may grow into the fullness of unity to which God calls us that the world may believe the gospel.
TEAC Anglican Way Consultation Singapore, May 2007

1. This document currently has only the authority of the TEAC meeting in Singapore which agreed the text.