The charge to the Governance Task Force was to provide a strong skeleton around which a living Church could be built.
This letter is being sent to the whole Church as an introduction to the basic work that has been done, and in order to outline the process of discussion, adoption and ratification now ahead of us. Simply put, the whole Church discusses, the Provincial Council adopts, and the Provincial Assembly ratifies or sends back.
The principal time for suggesting changes to the draft canons is between now and the April meeting of Council. Comments and suggestions should be given to the jurisdictional representatives who compose the Common Cause Leadership Council by April 24th or sent to the chair of the Governance Task Force, Mr. Hugo Blankingship (email: governance [at] theacna [dot] org), no later than noon on Monday, April 20th. The Council can then consider these matters in deciding the form in which the canons are adopted. Once adopted, another period of publication and comment follows, but this time the advice from the local Church to its representatives to the Provincial Assembly (June 22-25) would take the form of recommendations on whether to ratify or reject individual canons or sections of canons. If, however, substantial concerns are identified in this latter period, it should be noted that it would be possible for the Council to meet, adopt and circulate further revised canons prior to the Provincial Assembly.
Just a quick glance – shows that women can’t be bishops. Does it say anything about female priests? Just curious.
I dont think they want to address this ( WO) at all..I was told that there wont be an issue on WO in just a little bit hmmmmm. It will be fixed later ? Why not now ?
I also ask.what seems to be the problem with the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal ?
I fear that the avoidance of the WO issue and the inclusion of a permissive approach to the remarriage of divorced persons will haunt the new province.
Ron + asks: “what seems to be the problem with the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal?â€
Nothing: In fact, given Canon 2.1 and Canon 5, the parish where I serve can continue to use these wonderful expressions of Anglican worship.
Will +
does anyone know what has been done up to this point to try to become “official” in the eyes of the broader communion (have they petitioned the acc, petitioned ++abc, etc.)? besides the gafcon primates, who else is ready to accept them?
also, why, if marriage is in fact so sacred, is remarriage allowed?
[i]”What seems to be the problem with the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal?” [/i]
There are lots of issues with these books. Setting aside the theology, they are basically unAnglican. Let me explain. Anglicanism has incarnational ministry at the core of its DNA. Starting with the first BCP and down to today, it is a given that worship and Scripture are offered in the language and culture of the people. IMHO, the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal offer neither to mainstream American culture, a culture which God loves and is at work in saving, transforming, and using for His glory. In response to God’s amazing love, our culture needs to offer a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving back to God. But how can they offer a sacrifice from the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal (and I might as well add parts of the 1979 BCP and the entire 1982 Hymnal, LEVAS, WLP, and even 1960’s folk style masses, etc…) that is so stylistically and linguistically foreign to most people in our culture (except maybe those initiated in Club Anglican)? As an example, when was the last time you heard Herbert Howell’s thumping from a car subwoofer at a stop light? Let’s face it Anglican chant, Elizabethan language, traditional hymnody are all dying and/or dead cultural forms. In contrast, basic American English and songs with “3 chords and the truth” played on guitars, drums, and keyboards (for you hip-hop fans we can even add a DJ with a turntable) are living and breathing. If ACNA is truly to be missional, we would do well to discourage the use of historic worship resources (except for pastoral reasons) and instead encourage liturgies that are based on orthodox Christian theology (1662 BCP as standard bearer?) and inspired by the resurrected Jesus at work in people today – using their language, their culture, and their rhythms for the corporate sacrifice of praise. Ironically, I don’t think our Anglican fathers (and mothers) would disagree with this view.
#6 Un Anglican ? I hope your kidding but I fear your not.
God bless you anyway.
Revdons #6:
The language used by Cranmer was not the vulgar language of his day; rather it was the elevated language of Shakespeare and the later Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. The music of the Anglican Church has never been the bawdy songs of the public house. Anglican worship has always elevated the language and music of its day.
In my seminary training, my professors often pointed out that the American of the post-modern era seeks a sense of the ancient. This partially explains why so many twenty-somethings are attracted to the reemerging Roman Mass in Latin, and why so many young couples are attracted to the little 1928 BCP Parish that I call home.
Furthermore, too often hip/cutting-edge services are filled with poor theology. They are also often “too much horizontal, and not enough verticalâ€, as a former Dean/President of my seminary was oft to say.
I wish to keep “propitiationâ€, “vouchsafe†and other rich language in the prayer book as they convey a much higher theology than the coarser words used in too many “modern†services.
Will +
Ron+,
Nope. Not kidding in the least. In fact, I wish it was something I learned in Seminary instead of being indoctrinated in how to teach people to be good chanty Anglicans. As I read my Bible and reflect on our Anglican tradition, I see our role is to encourage, teach, and feed people to help them be Christians in our world today and that means integrating Sunday AM with the rest of the week and the rest of the week with Sunday AM. I really don’t see how the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal assist us with this task. Sorry to be so brutely honest but it is something Anglicans in Post-Christian, Postmodern American need to face.
#5 For the broader Communion perspective you’ll want to take a look at three things:
1. The newest draft of the Covenant Agreement (which should be published on teh Communion website sometime this week)
2. The following is from the most recent Primates’ meeting found at this link:
http://www.aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/2/5/ACNS4574
14. The Windsor Continuation Group Report examines in Section H the question of parallel jurisdictions, particularly as raised by the Common Cause Partnership, a coalition of seven different organisations[10] which have significantly differing relationships with the Anglican Communion. The Report identifies some of the difficulties in recognising the coalition among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. Significant concerns were raised in the conversation about the possibility of parallel jurisdictions. There is no consensus among us about how this new entity should be regarded, but we are unanimous in supporting the recommendation in paragraph 101 of the Windsor Continuation Group Report[11]. Therefore, we request the Archbishop of Canterbury to initiate a professionally mediated conversation which engages all parties at the earliest opportunity. We commit ourselves to support these processes and to participate as appropriate. We earnestly desire reconciliation with these dear sisters and brothers for whom we understand membership of the Anglican Communion is profoundly important. We recognise that these processes cannot be rushed, but neither should they be postponed.
3. The above refers to section 8 of the Windsor Continuation Group Report (found at this link):
http://www.aco.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm
H. Parallel Jurisdictions
92. The advent of the ACNA is a serious and unprecedented development in the life of the Communion. It is proposed that eight different organisations – and different types of organisations – shall come together to create “a network based Province” encompassing a variety of geographical and non-geographical associations. Its existence is predicated on the assumption that the current Anglican presences in North America – The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada – are no longer adequate to represent their understanding of faithful biblical Anglicanism, and this new association is intended to make such provision. Within ACNA are entities not formally part of the Anglican Communion or whose status within the Communion is disputed – the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, the Anglican Mission in America and the Anglican Coalition in Canada – together with associations such as Forward in Faith in America and the American Anglican Council.
93. It is unclear to what extent this new body is seeking recognition within the Anglican Communion. On one level, the leaders of ACNA state that they seek a place within the Communion, but at the same time say that the approval of the Instruments of Communion or recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury are unnecessary for them to proceed with the formation of the Province. They have sought recognition, however, from the Primates’ Council of Gafcon. On the other hand, they include participants who clearly hold to their identity as Anglicans, and indeed, have only taken the steps they have because they believe that this is the only way to be faithful to the Anglicanism which they inherited.
94. There will undoubtedly be Primates and Provinces, such as those involved with Gafcon, which will wish to give recognition to the new body. Equally, there will be primates and Provinces for whom even consideration of the request would be untoward, and involve the accommodation of schism.
95. If indeed it is the desire of the “province-in-formation” to seek formal membership of the Anglican Communion, the WCG foresees formidable problems in the way ahead. They believe that such a proposal should only be entertained through the official channels which exist, namely according to the principles which were established and set out by ACC-9. Any move to recognise the new Province outside of these formal channels would further undermine our common life in Communion.
96. For such an approach to be successful, there would be very significant obstacles to be overcome. In the first place, the Communion would have to decide whether it could live with a parallel non-geographical Province based on theological ideology. This would be a significant change in the Catholic ecclesiological tradition� upheld by the Communion throughout its history.
97. In the second place, the new Province-in-formation would have to reassure the Instruments of Communion that it does have the “ecclesial density” appropriate to the life of a Province: that is, a Province is more than a loose confederation. Does the new Province-in-formation have a unified jurisdiction, a common canon law, and shared norms of worship and liturgy?
98. Thirdly, if it can be successfully argued that a new Province can be formed on doctrinal and ideological lines, what reassurances can be given about its relationship to the existing jurisdictions in North America, particularly in the life of those dioceses where bishops and synods have expressed their solidarity with the standards commended in the Windsor Report. TWR set its face against the concept of parallel jurisdictions[20]; it would be especially tragic if a generous accommodation of the new entity were to be seen as carte blanche for the new Province to establish a presence in localities where no cogent theological basis for differentiation could be advanced.
99. In reflecting upon the emerging situation, WCG is mindful of three of the principles articulated by the Primates at their Dar es Salaam Meeting in 2007:
to encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;
to respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole;
to respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church.
and believe that these principles should continue to guide the thinking of the Instruments.
100. One way forward – although initially dismissed by some of the parties concerned – would be for ACNA to seek for some clear provisional recognition which seeks to keep it in relation to the Communion, but which acknowledges its provisional and anomalous nature. WCG has explored on previous occasions the idea of “escrow” – the creation of a body which could take on the oversight of these groups on behalf of the Communion, but which recognises the provisionality of such bodies. The group wonders whether there is any mileage in the model of extra-Provincial jurisdictions? In at least one case, such jurisdictions have been recognised as provisional – e.g. in Sri Lanka Such a provision is fraught with difficulties. Such a scheme could not guarantee any particular outcome, the nature of which would be dependent on many factors, including the progress of the Covenant process. The provision would have to be hedged around with all sorts of restrictions, to avoid such a scheme becoming a haven for discontented groups, and institutionalising schism in the life of the Communion. Who would be the metropolitical authority?� If all other obstacles were overcome, the WCG would favour a Metropolitical Council similar to that which operates for Cuba rather than linking the new entity to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Recommendation:
101. The WCG therefore recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Primates, establish at the earliest opportunity a professionally mediated conversation at which all the significant parties could be gathered. The aim would be to find a provisional holding arrangement which will enable dialogue to take place and which will be revisited on the conclusion of the Covenant Process, or the achievement of long term reconciliation in the Communion. Such a conversation would have to proceed on the basis of a number of principles:
There must be an ordered approach to the new proposal within, or part of a natural development of, current rules.
It is not for individual groups to claim the terms on which they will relate to the Communion.
The leadership of the Communion needs to stand together, and find an approach to which they are all committed.
Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not seek to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation. WCG believes that the advent of schemes such as the Communion Partners Fellowship and the Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop in the United States should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church from recent developments.
sorry, #3 above should read “section H” NOT “section 8”.
[i]The language used by Cranmer was not the vulgar language of his day; rather it was the elevated language of Shakespeare and the later Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.[/i]
I am sorry, but you really need to check your history. For example, Shakespeare’s plays were written in a language every one could comprehend. Remember, the Globe was in the seedy part of town and had seating for the monied folks and the ground floor for the “vulgar” types.
[i] In my seminary training, my professors often pointed out that the American of the post-modern era seeks a sense of the ancient. This partially explains why so many twenty-somethings are attracted to the reemerging Roman Mass in Latin, and why so many young couples are attracted to the little 1928 BCP Parish that I call home.
Furthermore, too often hip/cutting-edge services are filled with poor theology. They are also often “too much horizontal, and not enough verticalâ€, as a former Dean/President of my seminary was oft to say. [/i]
Great! It is probably b/c of the connections they hunger for. I too was one of these young people who gravitated towards Anglo-Catholicism, but after my ten years of ordained ministry I now admit I was playing church instead of being part of the living, breathing Body of Christ serving in the world today.
[i] I wish to keep “propitiationâ€, “vouchsafe†and other rich language in the prayer book as they convey a much higher theology than the coarser words used in too many “modern†services. [/i]
You have your preference, but worship isn’t about you. It’s about God and all God is concerned about is the heart. If those words lead you to a closer relationship with God, then alleluia! (Oops, I just broke Lenten rubrics.) 🙂
If ACNA is not to your liking by all means stay in TEC.
Revdons #12:
Yes, Shakespeare often wrote in bawdy language, but I doubt the common folk generally spoke in iambic pentameter (although I do acknowledge the more common parts of his plays were not in this meter). This does not discount that Cranmer’s liturgy was an elevated form of the English language.
Also, please notice there is a reason why I prefer words such as “propitiationâ€â€¦it conveys a rich theology. Yes, worship should not be about the minister; rather it should be about God. A defined, elevated liturgy protects the congregation from the whims of a capricious priest.
Revdons, this tangent is getting very far off topic…what would you like to see in the Canons that would facilitate your views?
Not in TEC per se. I’m actually currently serving in a Christian Reformed Church and playing bass on the worship team. 🙂 Nevertheless, my heart is with ACNA. I just don’t want them to play church but be Jesus in North America in the 21st Century.
[i]Revdons, this tangent is getting very far off topic…what would you like to see in the Canons that would facilitate your views?[/i]
[b]Actually, I was glad to see that the 1662 BCP is the standard bearer, that a diversity of BCP’s can be used, that the local priest is responsible for the local parish’s worship and that the Bishop is the final arbiter of liturgy. I think it mentions something about an “official” BCP yet to come. My hope is that it will be written in the best basic North American English and allows freedom for local parishes to incarnate their worship of course within bounds of the theology of the 1662 BCP and the Creeds.[/b]
Back to the original topic:
Canon 8.4 states “God, and not man, is the creator of human life. The unjustified taking of life is sinful. Therefore, from conception to natural death all members and Clergy are called to protect and respect the sanctity of every human life.â€
What are its implications for the death penalty?
This is NOT a question about one’s personal opinion on the death penalty; rather it is a question about how the canon is interpreted. The second sentence refers to the “unjustified taking of lifeâ€. But the “therefore†clause indicates “every human lifeâ€.
Not to change the discussion here, but several on standfirminfaith.com, myself among them, mentioned that the position of Lay Reader in the Anglican Church of North America was not mentioned in the Canons, and we feel that it should be so stated and clarified, since it is an important lay ministry in the life of the Church. At least two of us have emailed Mr Blankingship about this, given that it [i]IS[/i] important.
[i]What are its implications for the death penalty?
This is NOT a question about one’s personal opinion on the death penalty; rather it is a question about how the canon is interpreted. The second sentence refers to the “unjustified taking of lifeâ€. But the “therefore†clause indicates “every human lifeâ€. [/i]
[b] I certainly hope the death penalty is implied in this canon, as it would be a wholistic view of the sanctity of human life.[/b]
[i] Not to change the discussion here, but several on standfirminfaith.com, myself among them, mentioned that the position of Lay Reader in the Anglican Church of North America was not mentioned in the Canons, and we feel that it should be so stated and clarified, since it is an important lay ministry in the life of the Church. At least two of us have emailed Mr Blankingship about this, given that it IS important.[/i]
[b] Nice catch Cennydd. Yes, it is important and needs to be addressed. Possibly just an oversight.[/b]
RE: “IMHO, the 1928 BCP and the 1940 Hymnal offer neither to mainstream American culture, a culture which God loves and is at work in saving, transforming, and using for His glory.”
Goodness, if we’re just about offering worship opportunities to “mainstream American culture” than by all means let’s bring in Janis and Oprah. Or at the very least all practice worshiping like Rick Warren’s church.
But then . . . I’m not a “mainstream American.” I’m an Anglican, which in case anyone hasn’t noticed yet, isn’t exactly tearing up the joint in the US right now, whether orthodox or ragingly heterodox.
And this Anglican thinks that the 1940 hymnal is the bees knees — simply fantastic worship opportunities there, and far far far more than the one TEC is stuck with now, much less the occasional pasted together compendiums of “praise tunes.”
And this Anglican thinks that the 1928 BCP fits perfectly within my culture — and I’m not certain why my culture is to be rejected for “mainstream American culture.”
I’m just fine with some Anglican parishes determining that they’re going to offer Anglican worship to “mainstream American culture.” I won’t be attending those parishes — I’ll be attending the ones that quite deliberately offer non-mainstream worship. But I don’t begrudge the offer for other parishes to offer such.
Signed,
An increasingly older, but much younger than some, Gen-Xer
RE: “Does it say anything about female priests?”
Contrary to the hopes of so many revisionist Episcopalians, the ACNA has settled that practice — in stone, if you note the canons and Constitution, since any changes allow parishes to depart forthwith with their property. As long ago predicted, the ACNA decided to take on the practice of the Anglican Communion as a whole — each diocese gets to decide on WO, and it’s not going to prevent anti and pro-WO folks from staying together. They didn’t avoid it — they simply announced their policy, while fevered speculators continued to hope for outbreaks of dissension. For those for whom it is necessarily communion breaking, there are numerous Continuing options, as well as Rome.
Pretty much every six months, people on both sides of the issue — hopeful revisionists and fevered anti-WOers [and not all anti-WOers are fevered, either] — pretend as if the issue hasn’t been decided and as if it’s being “avoided.” But it was clearly decided almost from day one — not communion breaking, each diocese decides, gracious behavior to both sides [unlike TEC], they’ll be glad to debate it at some point in the future, but now — as the canons demonstrate — any changes in the current policy allows post-haste departures anyway.
Although I have had other predictions about what will be deeply divisive to the ACNA — the WO issue won’t be. Let’s face it — folks who have been able to endure TECUSA for the past three decades will be just fine in the ACNA concerning WO. The other reason why WO won’t be a divisive issue is because those for whom WO is a communion breaking issue have opted — and will continue to opt — out of the ACNA.
It’s going to be hard for me to tell which group will be the most gnashingly enraged over this reality — but I give dibs and bets on the TECUSAn revisionists, in the end.
#10 — thanks for the good information. it was very informative. but what (if anything) has the proposed province done? i note from your post that the anglican communion has fairly clearly stated what they feel needs to happen, but has the acna group done anything to attempt to follow the communion’s request (e.g., have they applied to be recognized by the acc, agreed to participated in mediations, or agreed not to attempt to expand through proselytizing)?
[i] The 1940 Hymnal is the bees knees – simply fantastic worship opportunities there[/i]
Sarah, you are being sarcastic right? I am afraid you are actually being serious. If I may be so bold to ask this question… how do you reconcile the use of these historic worship resources with the church’s calling to be missional and incarnational? I mean possibly your mission field includes highly literate PhD’s who specialize in English Literature from the 16th Cent, who actually don’t need a dictionary to define words like “beseech” and “unfeignedly.” Possibly you live among classically trained singers who view Herbert Howells as kind of a celebrity? I know my position is kind of wacky but I have never been happier once I let my membership in “Club Anglican” run out. By doing so, it has helped me see that God inhabits my world every day. In fact, I don’t need to speak a special language for Him to hear me nor do I have sing a special form to make Him Happy nor do I need to wear special clothes, as He thinks my street clothes are just fine. You see, the place where I live, books are a thing of the past – they learn primarily through interacting with moving pictures on a screen. They learn English by watching TV and they are not watching Shakespeare. Most don’t know how to read music per se and most who play an instrument learned to play it by imitating their favorite rock star. Jeans and sneakers are their Sunday best. This is Mainstream America and if we are going to be a church “for all sorts and conditions of men” then our common prayer and praxis life needs to seriously reflect 21st Cent. America and not some imitation of Westminster Cathedral on Sunday. Clearly, the old stuff works for you and there will always be a niche market for the old stuff, and we need to be pastorally sensitive to this, but the question is how can we maintain our traditions and yet be missional?
Indeed, there will always be a niche for traditional liturgy and music. Millions of Americans still appreciate classical music and opera. It seems like almost all parents in my suburban neighborhood want their kids playing classical instruments. People like this may well be drawn to a more traditional worship service. And for those who want modern American music in their service, well, there are literally dozens of options. But strangely, every Sunday about 300 people pass all these up to attend the very traditional services at our parish, and many are younger families. The other night 80 showed up for a Choral Evensong. Anglicans do Prayer Book liturgy, we should concentrate on doing it well. Why do we want so badly to be yet another denomination doing pop rock worship? I probably listen to WXDX too much as it is, I don’t need more of it on Sunday morning…
Cennydd (#18)
Here is the canon which covers it: Each diocese will probably have more specific wording on Lay Readers vs Lectors vs Lay Communion Visitor vs Lay Chalice Bearer
Canon 6
Of Lay Worship Ministry
Lay persons may be appointed to assist the Clergy in various tasks of worship to further the ministry of the Word and Sacrament.
Revdons:
It’s about beauty and holiness. It’s about a marriage of heart and art. God did not teach us about beauty in vain….look about you man. There is beauty and order all around you in God’s marvelous creation. It’s also about wanting to bring our first fruits before God’s Thone and about wanting to offer to Him the best of our heart and our art. I have found many, many seekers who do not want their “soul food†dumbed down. They, in fact, desire that it not reflect the common–the culture that they walk in every day.
People can get simple, and easy, and plain-spoken the whole day long just by turning on their TV. But to get soul-nurturing deep-down meat, many seek holy men and women who speak in language larger than a sound bite and who choose and lead music for worship of the King of Kings that is crafted more beautifully and with more care than a pop song.
My personal experience is that well-crafted liturgy and music, lead with integrity, reveal God’s beauty to the worshipper and usher them into the presence of The Divine. In this light, my church offers the Office of Compline each Sunday night at 9:00p.m. This past week we had 180 people at this service. Many present were “seekers†and many were High School and College-age. The choir, clad in black Anglican cassocks, chanted Gregorian and Anglican Chant, sang by candlelight, and sang traditional hymns and anthems in four-parts with both beauty and excellence. I can also tell you that that same choir sang from their hearts, prayed through the words that they sang, and utilized the liturgy as a vehicle for actively worshipping the Lord in both beauty and holiness.
Shall I tell the choir to wear sneakers and jeans next week and to drop the chanting so that we might speak to the hearts and souls of the High School and College-age seekers more effectively?
Mark Williams
Parish Musician
Christ Church, Savannah
Revdons,
You’ve opened a fascinating tangent. It might not actually be as off-topic as it seems, though, since it’s my understanding that ACNA will comprise several diverse forms of churchmanship. So perhaps these questions need to be broached now.
In response to your perspective, I offer several thoughts.
1. The Incarnation means Christ being present not only in our own day but also in every age and outside of time. What the Holy Spirit inspired in the 8th c or the 17th c, for instance, is therefore as valid as what is inspired now. The ancient (or the “old”) shouldn’t be thrown into the dustbin of history simply b/c it’s not marketable in the popular entertainment industry of the moment. (And I use the word “industry” advisedly.)
2. Much of the musical “old stuff” that has survived is still around b/c it conveys theological insights on a number of levels and bears repeated listening, reflection, and thought. If you, as a minister, do not appreciate this, it might indicate a lacuna in your education that would be worth filling.
3. The People of God are not dolts. Not all of us are educated. But even the simplest are educable — sometimes beyond our expectations. To treat those who come from certain socio-economic backgrounds as though they can’t “get it,” can’t use a dictionary, can’t listen for text painting or harmonic symbolism in an anthem, can’t appreciate the cadence of Cranmer’s language, can’t see beyond the popular culture of their own time, etc. is ulitmately demeaning. I realize you have the best of intentions, and I’m sure your flock rightly appreciates you for that fact. But in the end you run the risk of a kind of reverse snobbery that plays into the hands of elitist gatekeepers who want you and your kind out. In other words, I fear your perspective contains not only the seeds of impoverishment of mind and heart but also a basis for division. Is that what the Incarnation is about?
I take no issue with the past ( I love history) and I am not against people who find historic forms as avenues to the holy. (Please read what I have repeated throughout this thread – the 1662 BCP is the standard bearer and worship issues need to be handled with pastoral sensitivity.) I want to make this clear – my view is not concerned with marketability. Rather, my struggle is how to create a worship environment where a true sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving of all the people (not just the robed ones) can offer that sacrifice out of their daily experience of God at work in the world – a world that speaks and sings differently than our historic liturgies. As some have argued here, our role is to then “educate” people to worship properly, teaching them how to chant, what the meaning of words are, why we have candles on the altar, why we call a plate a paten, etc…but is that why the Church exists – to instruct people to be good historic Anglicans at worship? Again as I read my Bible and understand Anglican DNA, this is not why the Church exists. It exists to be Christ in the world today and that means it needs to speak the language of today in all its forms and embrace the art of today in all its forms and the music of today in all its forms. It is about incarnating Christ in the culture it finds itself in and not imposing a religious culture on top of it when we gather for corporate worship. When we do this, I believe the Anglican expression of Christianity is at its best. If it has anything to teach, it surely is biblical theology out of which our life’s practices arise. Here’s another concern I have – do we really need a “talking head” to do this? I appreciate sermons and I like hearing the Bible read, but if I am being honest some times I get more out of a 3 minute video on a screen. For example, I helped plan the Palm Sunday service in my local church. The worship team had a concern that the service was too wordy but we really wanted to present the Passion Gospel. As an alternative, I found a video (contemporary stained glass) from worshiphousemedia.com titled “FROM PALMS TO THE CROSS.” This is one response I got from a member: [i]By the way, I’ve been meaning to tell both of you that yesterday’s service was very moving for me…I really appreciate the thought you both put into it. The “palm procession” was really cool, and there was something so powerful about moving from the high energy of the “Jesus, you’re our king” songs, to the raw reality of the crucifixion in that video clip…It was a “stop you in your tracks moment.” [/i]
So, does the ACNA have no plans to do away with this cluster and network stuff? Is this still going to be an unorganized mish-mash of choose your own bishop and create your own parish, no matter if its just down the street from an orthodox parish or within an orthodox diocese?
What is being written is addressing many of the problems of the current EC. And no, Women’s Ordination is not being ignored as has already been noted. Dioceses have more autonomy than previously and they will decide the place of Women’s Ordination in the Diocese. But other important matters that are problematic are being addressed. Churches own their property. Dioceses decide whether or not to be part of the larger organization. There is a freedom that the EC does not allow.
What must also be noted is that Constitution and Canons can be changed. This is the danger of living by them….but there is freedom here that the tyranny of the current Episcopal Church embraces. Plus, the ACNA is publishing their draft and asking for commnent…clear, helpful, insightful comments.
This is an open process that is more about relationship and unity of belief as opposed to the oppression of Canon Law imposed by a rigid and abusive system.
[blockquote]”…to play church… special language for Him to hear me nor do I have sing a special form… praise and thanksgiving of all the people…”[/blockquote]
Sigh – this all sounds a bit reactionary.
As a gen-xer, I greatly appreciate that our missional church plant mixes the ancient with the future. A ccm piece might be followed by an ancient hymn presented as a hymn. We also mix periods for liturgy. Our body includes doctors, mechanics, and students. It can be done. New Christians/Anglicans learn the hymns rather easily and sometimes sing the loudest. I would find a straight ccm service lacking. I would also note that ccm (and contemporary Christian culture) often carries its own “coded” language.
[blockquote]”…flexibility, recognizing the diversity of Godly approaches common among the partners coming into union”[/blockquote]
Flexibility and charity are key. At least in my section of ACNA, we are called to be missional. If a body plants a church and has success using hymnody and the 1662 BCP exclusively, then God bless them. If another body plants a church and has success using a contemporary language liturgy with all ccm exclusively, then God bless them.
RE: “Sarah, you are being sarcastic right?”
Nope — just as serious as you have been.
RE: ” . . . how do you reconcile the use of these historic worship resources with the church’s calling to be missional and incarnational?”
Quite easily — I’m countercultural and happy to be so. Being “missional” and “incarnational” does not mean “mainstream American culture.”
RE: “I mean possibly your mission field includes highly literate PhD’s who specialize in English Literature from the 16th Cent, who actually don’t need a dictionary to define words like “beseech†and “unfeignedly.—
And why do you reject that as a fantastic possibility, revdons? I’m fine if your mission field is that of Oprah fans — there is nothing wrong with that — but churches will, necessarily, appeal to differing cultures and there’s nothing wrong with that either. I won’t, needless to say, be joining a church with your notion of a fine “missional and incarnational” worship service. So do you feel guilty over cutting Gen-Xers like me out of your “mission field”?
; > )
RE: “I have never been happier once I let my membership in “Club Anglican†run out.”
That is wonderful for you.
RE: ” . . . it has helped me see that God inhabits my world every day.”
Why me too! Only without cutting out appreciating the things that I relish, including the 1928 BCP and the 1940.
RE: “In fact, I don’t need to speak a special language for Him to hear me nor do I have sing a special form to make Him Happy nor do I need to wear special clothes, as He thinks my street clothes are just fine.”
That’s wonderful — neither do I. “Need” of course, as distingished from “want.” But it’s somewhat amusing that you decry “special languages” and “special forms” and “special clothes” when of course “mainstream American culture” is chock a block full of “special languages” and “special forms” and “special clothes” — after all, you listed quite a few of them above! So really, this is just all about RevDons not approving of or liking [i]some[/i] “special languages” and “special forms” and “special clothes” — and liking and approving of others. That’s cool of course and is your right — but I just happen to like and approve of different special languages and special forms and special clothes than you do.
RE: “You see, the place where I live, books are a thing of the past – they learn primarily through interacting with moving pictures on a screen.”
Well — that’s wonderful. You may do and worship as you please in the “place where you live.” I happen to live in a rather different place.
RE: “This is Mainstream America and if we are going to be a church “for all sorts and conditions of men†then our common prayer and praxis life needs to seriously reflect 21st Cent. America and not some imitation of Westminster Cathedral on Sunday.”
Nonsense. I have no desire to “reflect” mainstream American culture and the more you try to do so the more artificial and passe and affected you become. I’ve watched such services — and smiled. For all of their affectation of drums and hip-hop they merely end up looking and sounding like bad, and old, and poorly done “mainstream American culture.” Face it — you’re never going to be Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chili Peppers or even U2 — ancient stuff — much less the latest stuff. So people’s efforts to “reflect” mainstream American culture only ends up looking incredibly passe and embarrassing.
Our job is to *influence and persuade and transform* culture — which is a very different thing.
Matt,
Like I once did, these college kids are probably reacting against their religious upbringing as they come to solidifying their adulthood identity. Their preference in your parish is no arbiter in these worship discussions per se. As an example, when I was serving at Good Samaritan in Paoli, PA the “New Chapel” service drew many college aged evangelicals from local Eastern University. This service consisted of 20 minutes of worship led by worship leader and band, 20 minutes of teaching by a priest w/o vestments, and 20 minutes of Holy Communion led by priest w/o vestments praying an extemporaneous Eucharistic prayer.
I’m a Gen-Xer and my struggle is not for relevance but how do we take what is part of our culture, which many see as going to hell in a hand basket, and use it for Holy purposes? In the same vein, how do we take something like the Anglican liturgical and hymnody tradition with its vast richness and integrity and keep it alive so to speak in a culture that is so radically different? I personally don’t think blended worship is the answer. The only answer I can come up with is charity in worship praxis at the local level.
[i]What is it that makes someone move from a state of spiritual death to spiritual life?[/i]
[b]The Holy Spirit. 🙂 [/b]
I feel like this tangent is going in circles, so I am signing off. Plus, I really need to go and start preparing for my Good Friday sermon. Hmm…what video will I use? 🙂
As I said earlier, there are literally dozens of churches in my neighborhood doing dozens of versions of the modern worship service. They are ubiquitous. This [url=http://www.yournorthhills.com/northhillsnews/article/local-church-seeking-ways-reach-young-parishioners] recent [/url] attempt a few miles from my house failed after 18 months, IMO in part because it simply offered more of the same. I met this pastor because his daughter is in the same kindergarten class as mine. He has successfully planted churches elsewhere but this model just didn’t work in this neighborhood. Others have done it to death around here. Anglicans don’t need to do it like everyone else.
As an aside, my parish does include a significant number of Ph.D’s, J.D’s, M.D.’s etc. And they also need a church to go to that will appeal to them. If we dropped the sermon for a three minute video and replaced the choir and organ with a rock band- they would all be gone…
Re: #32. You hit the nail right on the head, Matt. Please keep those thoughts floating around the Anglican blog world, because I share them wholeheartedly.
My wife and I are fairly young and both grew up in what you might call the contemporary worship culture. Then high church liturgy arrested our hearts and minds and indelibly altered our understanding of worship. But when we moved three or four years back, the AMiA congregation near us had utterly abandoned liturgy and reveled in the same base worship culture were were trying to move beyond. Since we were younger, they expected that was what we were looking for. Quite the opposite– we longed for the transcendent. But the supposedly Anglican churches around us were filled with power point screens, guitars, bar stools, and unvested profanity. (Interestingly enough, we found a local TEC congregation far more liturgically orthodox… we quietly snuck away to it at least once a month for the restorative beauty of the Prayer Book, hymns, and chancel choir.)
When we moved again we looked at the websites of the local AMiA parishes. You couldn’t even tell they were Anglican… Bible church this, community church that… screens and barstools, no vestments, celebrating the fact that you shouldn’t dress up for church. We just can’t do that; our hearts sink every time we sit through it. That’s what we’re trying to eschew. We’re now preparing for confirmation in a TEC parish. Not our first choice, but a moderate place that places the utmost importance on fidelity to the prayer book and sound liturgy.
At least from our own experience, we fear that much of these AMiA-type modern innovations will be just as much the undoing of Anglicanism in North America as they are its salvation. Methinks its high time for another Oxford Movement.
I agree with much that is said on both sides of the worship issue and therefore like blended worship. As Mark Williams said, it has to be done well and often is not. My parish offers a wide variety of services and is attracting three new families per week. I have loved classical music ( and other forms) all of my life and have hundreds of recordings. Not one of them is of a pipe organ.
I’m not sure what all this worship style stuff has to do with the canons. Style is not set by canon and diverse styles can be effective. I would like to hear more discussion on the canons themselves.
Julia — I think we got off on style when someone mentioned the BCP/Hymnal [BCP being mentioned in the canons] and RevDon indicated that the 1928 BCP and 1940 Hymnal were not appropriate for his worship vision.
But I agree that it’s sort of off-topic.
I hate to add to the off-topic bit, but I’m fascinated by Jerod’s comments on liturgy, etc, and exploration into various Anglican churches. I wonder if he is commuting, by chance, to find a moderate Episcopal church — or was one “ready to hand,” wherever Jerod lives? My own oft-stated view about parishes is that — whether ACNA or TEC — neither one will in the future do flourishingly UNLESS in their own “venues” — that is, TEC parishes will thrive in basically liberal and large urban areas and ACNA parishes will thrive in conservative and large urban areas as long as they have started with a massive base of Episcopalians/Anglicans and garnered immediate great leadership. I think here of Plano, Falls Church, and Raleigh as exhibits of where ACNA parishes will grow.
What that leaves out is massive rural areas of the country. Basically in most dioceses, parishes are “going concerns” in three or four big cities — everywhere else TECUSA falls off dramatically.
The more crazed TECUSA behaves, the more the single parish in a small town or small city declines and passes beyond the point of no return — and for them, an ACNA plant is simply not an option.
It’s frankly happening all over the country, except again where I’ve indicated above. I expect this rate of decline — and broad pattern — to become more noticeable as the next decade advances.
Matt said: [blockquote]I didn’t know the Holy Spirit only moved through contemporary music bands and flash screens…who would’ve guessed.[/blockquote]
Come on, Matt, that isn’t what revdons said and you know it. He has made some valid points that we need to listen to. If we are truly going to ‘seek and serve Christ in all people’ then that will mean getting out of our Anglican ghettoes and moving out into the world and communicating in a language that people understand.
I don’t think this is quite as tangential as presumed. The tie in to the canons discussion is the problem with the seeming continued autonomy of the network/cluster structures like AMiA, which seem fully content with little oversight, little fidelity to the Anglican tradition, and in many cases a liturgical laxness (if not nonexistence) that morphs Anglicanism into little more than lowest-common-denominator American evangelicalism. Is this or is this not to be an Anglican province? If so, unity in spirit is not enough. Common Cause gives unity in spirit. A province, by definition, is unity in spirit AND in practice. That is, the autonomy of the networks and clusters (whatever that means) is willingly–eagerly–sacrifices for the greater good of a unified province.
Regarding Sarah’s comment, we were actually rather close to a few AMiA parishes. We do pass a few up en route to our current TEC parish. Ours is a mid-large, diverse southern city, with plenty room for liberal and conservative churches to grow. Yours is an interesting question and one that I hope will be considered.
does anyone know of any steps that the proposed province has taken to be recognized by the broader communion or subscribe to the recommendations of the windsor continuation group?
I would recommend Dr. Charles Erlandson’s article “Orthodox Anglican Identity” (to find it you will have to get a copy of the North American Anglican Vol II). He asks,
He suggests
I believe this article was taken from his Ph.D. thesis and the quotes were referring to the entire GAFCON movement, not ACNA exclusively. I think he’s right. Toss out the Prayer Book and the Anglican identity is gone. A few of the ACNA churches here in Pittsburgh are nearly indistinguishable from their non-denominational neighbors.
I don’t really have much to add to the discussions about WO or Prayer Books or other hot issues in ACNA, but even as a “reappraiser,” I do wish the best for this new endeavor. If people are led to Christ through it, fantastic; and if all of the disparate groups/churches/dioceses can manage to live together and flourish, maybe the rest of us can learn something from that.
Kevin
#22
I’m afraid I am not sure as to how they have responded, nor how these particular comments have been received. ACNA seems to be proceeding as though it will attain Communion status at some point. Whether this will be possible may become more clear when the new draft of the Covenant Agreement is made available (sometime this week I think), and as Churches receive, discern and respond.
Revdons… Are aware of the fact that over the past 50 years or so the number of people actually ATTENDING the plays of William Shakespeare have steadily INCREASED? For instance, there are hard numbers you can readily access regarding the precise size of the audiences attending plays at the “three Stratfords” (England, Ontario, and Connecticut), as well as the number of performances staged at these three venues. Shakespeare is NOT irrelevant to our “post-modern” culture, and there is ample evidence (compiled by producers, theatre management, Actor’s Equity in both the UK and the States) that audiences cannot get enough of this stuff. When the Public Theatre stages Shakespeare in Central Park in Manhattan, EACH performance is attended by as many as 50,000 people. How many CHURCHES are there that can command THAT sort of “audience,” I wonder?
Joe Papp– the founder of the Public Theatre– used to stage Shakespeare in “Alphabet City” to IMMENSE CROWDS. As a native New Yorker, I can assure you that the people attending those plays were NOT Ph.D’s or Anglophile elitists. He finally had to stop doing shows in “Alphabet City” because the CITY found the THRONGS of people attending these plays to be unwieldy; it was the government of the City of New York that MADE HIM move his performances from the Lower East Side to Central Park, which was deemed a safer and more accomodating place for such huge audiences.
I am with Sarah on this one. I think that the Book of Common Prayer is a very POWERFUL vehicle which is NO LESS ACCESSIBLE to most people than the plays of William Shakespeare.
I think the 1928/1940 debate going on is quite interesting. I wonder if Revdons is a cradle Episcopalian or joined the Church post 1979. Since he identified himself as a generation x-er he is now over 30. As a cradle Episcopalian I do not remember the those battles but we never once had a Rite II service between 1979 and 1993 (the last time I recall going to my old church). On the occasions that I visited an Episcopal Church during the late 80’s in Williamsburg – I found the Rite II service to be “playing church” it lacked any real sense of grandeur and attachement to time immorral that the Rite I service had. It is my main complaint with the Methodist Church that I now attend.
I do think for the ACNA to be a success it does need to realize that there are several types of “orthodox” Episcopalians, ex-Episcopalians, and unchurched persons upon whom it can grow its ranks. There are the current and former: smells and bells Anglo-Catholics, the traditional low church Episcopalians, and the Republican party at prayer/scotch and soda Episcopalians (please recognize that there can be considerable overlap between the groups) – all of whom are not really find of “modern” forms of worship. Then there are the orthodox evangelical Episcopalians/Anglicans which would appear to be the growing ranks of the orthodox and younger people who are looking for a church home. My humble advice if I was a priest trying to grow a parish or start one from scratch would be to offer both. Have two services on Sunday morning the early to be the 1928 or Rite I/ Alternate between Rite I and Rite II at the main service and have a contemporay one on Sunday evening. If it is a large parish with a main santuary and a chapel and two priests you could have a traditional service and a modern one at the same time – whichever group being the larger when get the larger facility. To thrive the ACNA will need to be tolerate of its diverse membership. Having witnessed leftwing totalitarianism I expect it should not be doomed to repeat those mistakes.
Are aware of the fact that over the past 50 years or so the number of people actually ATTENDING the plays of William Shakespeare have steadily INCREASED? For instance, there are hard numbers you can readily access regarding the precise size of the audiences attending plays at the “three Stratfords†(England, Ontario, and Connecticut), as well as the number of performances staged at these three venues. Shakespeare is NOT irrelevant to our “post-modern†culture, and there is ample evidence (compiled by producers, theatre management, Actor’s Equity in both the UK and the States) that audiences cannot get enough of this stuff. When the Public Theatre stages Shakespeare in Central Park in Manhattan, EACH performance is attended by as many as 50,000 people. How many CHURCHES are there that can command THAT sort of “audience,†I wonder?
The numbers of people attending Shakespeare is irrelevant to this discussion. Again, my concern is not about increasing market share and trendiness of the ACNA. I’m more concerned about the fact that Metallica sells out every single concert and has millions of fans around the world, kind of like a religion don’t you think? Some of these fans are bound to become Christ followers and will want to offer a sacrifice of praise. What are we supposed to do when these types start joining our churches? My struggle is that I would want their worship to be authentic; that is, I would want their energetic devotion to Metallica be rechanneled to the one true God with as much energy and passion using the style, rhythms, etc… that arise from their experience of life. I for one would have difficultly training them to be proper chanty Anglicans. In fact, the idea of that makes me gravely sad when they already have the ingredients for proper worship, as it is about the heart and not the form that pleases God.
#54, Revdons,
You assume that Metallica fans expect and want that musical idiom when they gather for church. I heard a sociologist who had studied this phenomenon say this is not the case. (She wasn’t using Metallica as the example, as I recall.)
I agree that worship is about the “heart” if “heart” is in the biblical sense which we would translate as heart and mind. Art forms used in worship that rely largely on emotion have an immediate draw but their abilit to speak more deeply and lastingly are questionable at best.
I realize that your intent is not to ‘market’ the Gospel, but since popular music is so heavily driven by market forces, one needs to be aware of what one buys into when incorporating it into worship.
Revdons… Your point about Metallica selling out is well-taken, but I am not at all convinced that there are more Metallica fans in the world today than there are fans of William Shakespeare– on the contrary, using hard empirical evidence gathered by theatre professionals in the English-speaking world, it would be difficult for you to refute the notion that Shakespeare commands a MUCH bigger audience than Metallica and/or any other “pop” phenomenom.
Perhaps, the next time Metallica rolls through my neighborhood (do they still tour?) I should survey the audience and try to determine how many of them find Shakespeare irrelevant and/or inaccessible.
In my experience, you do NOT need to patronize people in order to facillitate their relationship with God. As I read the Gospels, I am struck by the fact that Jesus, at first glance, seemed to be speaking WAY OVER THE HEADS of the (illiterate, irreligious, decidedly primitive and troubled) crowds that He preached to. How many Gospel narratives describe preaching-moments that SEEMED to be TOTAL FAILURES? And yet, by the grace of God and through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Message seems to have sunk in– eventually. And the Church is still with us.
Today, there are more Anglicans in Nigeria than there are COMBINED in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and the United States… Those Nigerians were steeped in a culture that was TOTALLY REMOVED from the culture of the “Anglo-sphere” and, yet, the Book of Common Prayer was ENTHUSIASTICALLY EMBRACED by these people and continues to be the basis for their worship… Do you think that the drug-addled and confused crowds at a Metallica concert are, perhaps, more culturally removed from the cadences of our Prayer Book than the masses of simple people in Nigeria?
I am not musical, and cannot speak with any sort of authority about the Hymnal– personally, I like the old Hymnal, but I am fairly indifferent to the music used during worship. There is, to be sure, a part of me that cringes whenever I hear some sappy “love song to Jesus” being sung in church, but this almost always has to do with a revulsion at the “Christianity-Lite” lyrics, not the music, per se.
But the Prayer Book is something else. It has been a TRIED and TRUE and POWERFUL tool that has been successfully used to bring tens of millions of people to Christ throughout the world.
I can understand your desire to reach people who might otherwise never hear the Gospel through innovative means. But, it seems to me, that once you have reached these people, there are very few ways that you successfully disciple and form these new Christians than to expose them– on a regular basis– to the incisive (and Biblical) riches of the old Prayer Book.
Just my humble opinion, for whatever it is worth.
When I lived in Manhattan, I used to run the outreach to college students. With all due modesty, it was an extraordinarily effective program, leading to the conversion of MANY kids– most of whom came from explicitly sub-Christian backgrounds or completely un-Christian backgrounds. AT NO TIME did any of these kids complain that the BCP was irrelevant, boring, or inaccessible. NONE of them thought the old Hymnal to be an inappropriate vehicle for their worship. On the contrary, the more they were exposed to these things, the more they came to appreciate them.
Maybe there are SOME people out there who require “special handling” and/or some modified liturgy. And, perhaps, Revdons, you are called to reach out to these people. But do not underestimate the power of the traditional Anglican liturgy to touch the hearts of even the most ferociously post-modern youth to be found in America today.
#56, bluenarrative – After reading your post I can’t help but counter your claims with a story told me by the now Archbishop of Sudan Daniel Deng Bul. We were students together at VTS back in 1996-1997 when he was studying here in the US. We were close as I prefer to hang around the fringe types and his stories of how God was working in the Sudan always intrigued and inspired me. I asked him one day how Christianity came to the Sudan in its recent history. He told me a fascinating story about 3 English Anglican priests who came as missionaries in the early 20th Century with Western clothes, vestments, BCP’s, Bibles, etc… and after 10 years not one person had come to faith in Christ. Discouraged, 2 priest went back to England but one stayed. He traded in his Western clothes for a loin cloth, bought himself some cattle (which is like our equivalent to money in the West), and lived as the Sudanese lived. Eventually, he befriended a young Sudanese African man, who came to faith in Christ and then another and then another, etc…until today a thriving church exists that not even the Islamic Sudanese Fundamentalists can annihilate. I relay this story b/c I can see parallels to American culture in the future especially as it moves further away from its Judeo-Christian roots. As an example, I once sat down in priestly uniform (black shirt, collar, black pants, black shoes) a few years ago next to a gentleman with multiple piercings and tattoos. We were sitting at the same table together and I struck up a conversation with him. I asked him what he did for a living and his response was “a digital animation artist.” Then he turned to me and asked me what I did. He was not joking or being sarcastic. It was not even clear to him that I was a Christian priest. For all he knew, I was wearing some strange clothes or at least some new fashion from Paris. This moment has never left my memory and I can’t help but see parallels to Bishop Daniel’s story and what the Church in America faces as we head further in to Post-Christian, Postmodern America.
Here’s another concern I have…Books will be increasingly things of the past, a product of modernism that has a difficult time existing in a world view that gathers information quite differently – through pictures, feelings, emotions, experiences, video, TV, computer – and a world view that communicates in a similar vein. What happens to the BCP then? Of course, there will be people who will always hunger and romanticize about the past, so the BCP will live on in some form, but if I am being honest, I think at some point in the future it will become obsolete and replaced technologically. I predict that there will be increasingly in our worship spaces touchscreens and projection screens that will display the liturgy as well as religious art, music, and a Scripture video or two instead of Bible readings. I also predict it will become interactive in some fashion with people texting prayer requests, praise reports, responses to sermons, etc… in real time. I don’t think there will be “virtual” Eucharist though – you kind of can’t mess with that.
As I look over this thread, my perception is that many, who prefer traditional Anglican worship resources, felt dismissed by my responses. That was never my intention and for that I apologize. I feel that reaction was based in part because I failed to be convincing that Anglicanism has incarnational ministry at the core of its DNA, which has an impact on how we order our worship life in the 21st Century. I just read an article online that I would like to suggest to everyone who joined in this conversation. While it is from an emergent church perspective and not Anglican per se, the author does a better job of articulating the reasons for incarnational ministry than I ever could. Here’s the [url=http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1116]link[/url].