Read it all.

As it has turned out, however, the Primates decided (“unanimously”) to stay the course of the Communion’s established order, indeed to strengthen that ordering and to maintain the ecclesial commitments that lie behind it. They have affirmed the resumption of their formal meetings, as well as a new Lambeth Conference of all Anglican bishops in 2020. Echoing the scriptural language of the 2004 Windsor Report that first sought to deal with rifts over sexuality, the Primates forcefully affirmed their commitment to “walk together.” They also took up previous decisions they had made in more formal meetings in the past, and laid out (apparently with a two-thirds majority voting in favor) a general way they might deal with one of the major sources of theses rifts, the Episcopal Church of the United States. The Episcopal Church’s advocacy for homosexual affirmation culminated this past summer in a change in its canons to permit same-sex marriage. Without throwing the American Church out of the Communion, the Primates explicitly asked that representatives of the Episcopal Church no longer actively serve in decision-making bodies of the Communion that deal with doctrine and polity, or represent the Communion in ecumenical and interfaith discussions. The language here was also from the past (i.e. Rowan Williams), focusing on the negative effects of “distance” among members, but also on the protective benefits of “distancing” among conflicted members. How this will be sorted out was left to Canterbury and a taskforce that will be put in place.

In one way all this is a grand symbolic gesture, and nothing else. Member churches of the Anglican Communion, mostly organized on national or regional lines, are ecclesiastically autonomous bodies governed by their own internal canons and decision-making processes. A meeting of the Primates has no legislative authority over individual churches, even though, of course, each Primate exercises considerable authority within their own church. What has held the Communion together over the years has been a set of dynamics that have often puzzled observers, and more recently, Anglicans themselves. In the past few decades the image that has often been used to describe this ecclesial glue has been that of “family”: Anglicans are related by blood ties, shared history and formation, rooted commitments, fundamental mutual responsibilities, and sometimes the push and pull of savage passions.

These are elements that terms like “federation” simply cannot engage.

Read it all.

The fraction found in both the Rite I and Rite II services in our 1979 Book of Common Prayer happens immediately following the Lord’s Prayer and before the invitation to and distribution of Communion. The Celebrant breaks the consecrated bread and then says, “[Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” The congregation then replies, “Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.]” Now, this statement comes from Scripture, specifically 1 Corinthians 5:7. Well, actually it is a mistranslation of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:7, which is found only in the King James Version. The specific word that is mistranslated is the Greek word etuthe, which means a sacrifice that was completed in the past. Therefore, in most English translations, 1 Corinthians 5:7 is translated, “Christ, our Passover has been or was sacrificed.”

Now, why would this mistranslation make its way into the 1979 Book of Common Prayer when this form and placement of the fraction was never in any Anglican Prayer Book prior?

Read it all (if you need to know more about Peet Dickson see there).

The fourth deadliest known terrorist group has been named as the Fulani militant group operating in Nigeria and parts of the Central African Republic.

The little-known group, formed of individuals from the semi-nomadic pastorial ethnic group Fula people existing across several West African nations, has seen a dramatic escalation of its activities in the past year.

In 2013, the Fulani killed around 80 people in total ”“ but by 2014 the group had killed 1,229.

Read it all from the Independent.

Almighty God, whose only-begotten Son hath led captivity captive and given gifts to thy people: Multiply among us faithful pastors, who, like thy holy bishop Wulfstan, will give courage to those who are oppressed and held in bondage; and bring us all, we pray, into the true freedom of thy kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Almighty and everlasting God, the brightness of faithful souls, who didst bring the Gentiles to thy light and made known unto them him who is the true light, and the bright and morning star: Fill the world, we beseech thee, with thy glory, and show thyself by the radiance of thy light unto all nations; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

O LORD, I love the habitation of thy house, and the place where thy glory dwells.

–Psalm 26:8

The Anglican Leadership Institute is an outgrowth of the Mere Anglicanism Conference that has been held in Charleston, SC for several years.

Bishop Mark Lawrence, in his 2014 Convention Address, called for the creation of a leadership training initiative that would bring future leaders in the Anglican Communion to South Carolina for periods of study, teaching, reflection and nurture.

The South Carolina Session was created in response to this call, offering men and women with a proven track of ministry a chance to spend a month in community under the guidance of expert leaders who have exercised faithful and effective ministry in their own contexts.

(The Anglican Leadership Institute Meets at the “Castle” in Sullivan’s Island, SC.)
You can read more about the program here.

Let’s be honest. The statement is not everything we had hoped for. I have just finished listening to the Primates Press Conference, where the Archbishop of Canterbury stated multiple times “These are NOT sanctions. Rather, they are consequences for acting autonomously in an interdependent fellowship.” When asked about the Task Group in paragraph 8, and whether at the end of three years it would simply do as previous task forces had done with respect to TEC ”“ to study, report and take no action, the Archbishop said “I don’t know.” The Primate of Hong Kong followed by saying the task force “will inquire and study.” These comments are not hopeful with regards to restoring the doctrine, discipline and order of the Communion.

It is true that the consequences spelled out in paragraph 7 remove TEC from (1) representation on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, (2) election or appointment to internal Standing Committees of the Anglican Communion, and (3) in all other “internal bodies” on which TEC may sit (like the Anglican Consultative Council) they will not take part in decision making on matters of doctrine or polity. These are more than reasonable, extremely measured limits on TEC.

I’m also an attorney, and I can spot a loophole when I see it. I’m not going to repeat the loopholes others have spotted; see the comments on Kendall Harmon’s blog here.

In reality, the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) is in the driver’s seat and it will depend on him. He is reported as having given his personal word to the Primates gathered together that he will follow through on paragraphs 7 and 8. But since there is no Biblical call for repentance in either paragraph, it is difficult to imagine what assignment or benchmark TEC will need to demonstrate to restore its relationship to the Communion. With even less clarity and specificity than the Primates gave to TEC at Dar es Salaam (2007), what reason do we have to believe that these “consequences” will have any more effect? What objective benchmark is there for this Archbishop, much less the task force, to measure TEC’s response over the next three years? Is it simply a reversal of the Same-Sex Marriage canon (Res. A054) at General Convention 2018, while everything else remains status quo?

At a deeper level, we must also recognize that the Instruments of Communion, including the ABC, still suffer a hopeless deficit of authority to resolve the doctrinal differences that deepen the wound in our Communion. Apart from the statement upholding traditional marriage in paragraph 4, the Primates statement does nothing to address that doctrinal wound. In fact, it leaves out most of the teaching in Lambeth Resolution I.10 (1998) on holiness of life, celibacy for those outside marriage, and holy orders.

Read it all

.@PCEditorials: Why we need #MartinLutherKingDay. https://t.co/AzGp7NplBn #chsnews pic.twitter.com/RJ0LfAK32C

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) January 18, 2016

The slaying of nine people as they studied the Bible at Mother Emanuel AME Church touched Charleston in profound ways: the horror of the hate-filled act, the fear that raw racism lurks where we least expect it, and the desire to see that nothing like that happens again here.

But most profound was the response of victims’ families, who didn’t speak in anger, as would have been justified. Instead they spoke of forgiveness ”” the message they learned in Bible studies and from church elders.

And the message of peace and love they also heard in the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King.

Read it all.

It’s been nearly 50 years since civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in Memphis at age 39.

Had he lived, King would have turned 87 this week in an America that’s dramatically different, in some ways, from the one he knew during the 1960s. The country has an African-American president, for example, and the Confederate flag has finally begun to fade into the mist of history.

Still, there also are distressing echoes of King’s time. Many see voting rights for minorities imperiled again and hear an update of George Wallace’s harsh “us vs. them” rhetoric at Donald Trump rallies. And the murders at a black church in Charleston last summer recall the deaths of four little girls in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing.

Read it all.

[Michael] Gilbreath (a CT editor at large) hearkens back to the 1963 Birmingham civil rights campaign, to the world of Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Shuttlesworth, and other heroic Christian leaders. Today, we idolize these figures for leading a beleaguered people to the Promised Land. But as Birmingham Revolution makes clear, the civil rights movement was no slam dunk. Uncertainty, scarce resources, and outside hostility could have ground its progress to a halt.

The Birmingham campaign was pivotal. On the heels of defeat in Albany, Georgia, victory in Birmingham restored the movement’s momentum. Failure could have crippled it, by drying up funding, discrediting the nonviolent method, and validating fears that the leaders were””take your pick””extremists, rabble-rousers, too Christian, not Christian enough, too Southern, or insufficiently urban.
How””amid the noise and ambiguity, the internal struggles and self-doubts, the bone-deep weariness and constant fear of death””did the Birmingham leaders maintain their focus? And how might their example instruct the church today? Gilbreath gives four answers.

Read it all.

Standing in front of Madeleine’s church are more than a dozen people who all look different. A heart is between each person.

Madeleine’s currently working on another drawing, this one of a group of dogs sitting in a field of grass.

“Being colorblind is awesome. You should give it a try,” is written across the top of the page.

Melanie says her family is active in the community, adding that she and her husband try to teach their two children the importance of kindness.

“I was talking to them about love and forgiveness and hope,” Melanie said. “And Madeleine said ‘I love the world HOPE for our little project we are doing. What else could it stand for?'”

Read it all.