Anglican Mainstream South Africa

November 7th, 2008 Posted in News |

Bishop Robert Duncan is once again the bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh

Clergy and lay deputies to a special convention of the diocese on November 7 voted to invite Bishop Duncan back into leadership of the diocese 50 days after the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church voted to remove (“depose”) him

“It is good to be back.  God has clearly watched over the diocese and watched over me and Nara as we have walked through these challenging days together.  God willing, I look forward to many years together sharing the good news of Jesus Christ,” said Bishop Duncan.

Leaders representing a majority of the world’s Anglican Christians, as well as many inside and outside The Episcopal Church in North America, never accepted the validity of The House of Bishops’ decision to remove Bishop Duncan from leadership.  In spite of the decision’s deep defects, Bishop Duncan and the diocese elected to submit to the purported “deposition,” so long as the diocese was part of that denomination.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh was able to invite Bishop Duncan back into leadership after it voted to leave The Episcopal Church and temporarily join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone on October 4.  The diocese made the decision after years of disagreement with the leadership of The Episcopal Church over basic Christian beliefs about the authority of the Bible, the unique role of Jesus Christ in salvation, and Christian moral standards.  At the conclusion of that diocesan convention, the Standing Committee of the diocese, led by the Rev. David Wilson, announced that there would be a special convention on November 7 for the purpose of electing a bishop.

With the election complete, clergy and laity from around the diocese are participating in the “Moving Forward in Mission” conference at Trinity Cathedral in downtown Pittsburgh on November 8.  The conference features the Rev. Mike Breen, who has done extensive work helping parishes effectively make new Christians in their local communities.

“The most important thing now is to move beyond our conflict with the leadership of The Episcopal Church and turn all of our energies toward living as Christians and effectively sharing the good news of God’s love and mercy for all people in the places God has put us.  I am looking forward to hearing what Mike has to say to us tomorrow,” said Bishop Duncan.

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/3/2008

Progressive evangelicals in the Church of England simply don’t get it. They believe, falsely, that when they talk of the rich diversity of the Anglican Communion that they are dealing with men and women of basic good will. Herein lies the first fallacy.

The second fallacy is that all theologies and opinions, based on a misguided understanding of via media, can be reconciled within the communion and that the instruments of unity are capable of holding it together under the present Archbishop of Canterbury.

The third fallacy is that a Covenant will be written that will hold the communion together.

The fourth fallacy is that the present trajectory can somehow be reversed if the more (allegedly) strident right (now called Fundamentalists) can be made to see reason and agree to return and come under the diverse umbrella of Anglicanism.

Consider then the essay by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard, Tutor in Christian Ethics at Trinity College, Bristol, England, and a member of the Leadership Team of Fulcrum – a liberal evangelical blog.

In a well articulated, even brilliant essay on the current crisis in the Anglican Communion Goddard offers four challenges and poses four questions, post Lambeth.

1. Are the developments in North America acceptable within the life of the Communion?
2. If not, has the Communion, through its Instruments, done sufficient to respond to these developments?
3. If not, are there signs that the Communion is now capable of responding?
4. If not, what form of realignment is necessary and what is the role of GAFCON in this?

On the first question, Goddard admits that developments in North America are unacceptable within the life of the Communion. “That has been the consistent position of the Communion over these last five years through the Archbishop of Canterbury, the ACC, three Primates’ meetings and the Windsor Report. The new situation now is that this has been reaffirmed clearly at Lambeth this summer with the renewed commitment to the Windsor moratoria. For most Anglicans, particularly in the Global South, the developments are wholly unacceptable in substance because they are contrary to biblical teaching on sexuality. For others, the problem lies more in terms of the process and the fact that fundamental ecclesiological principles – as articulated in Windsor – have been violated. Either way, the mind of the Communion is clearly opposed to what has happened and is continuing to happen in North America. However, it is also becoming clear that a significant minority of bishops and dioceses within North America do not accept this judgment and are determined to proceed.”

Goddard is correct. These developments are wholly unacceptable. The Windsor Report has been violated, and the actions of liberal and revisionist bishops within TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada have torn the fabric of the communion. He is also correct that both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are determined to proceed out of TEC and the ACofC and that there is no possible reversal on that score.
……………
But then Goddard says this, “Some will conclude that is because of a lack of will, particularly on the part of the Anglican Communion Office and the Archbishop of Canterbury. While there may be an element of truth in that, and certainly mistakes have been made by the Instruments, I do not think it a fair explanation. Furthermore, as Christians we need to be very careful about alleging bad faith on the part of fellow Christians, particularly those called by God to positions of authority in the church. The answer is I think quite simply that the Communion Instruments are, to coin a phrase, ‘not fit for purpose’ when faced with this sort of action by a member church.”

Here he is wrong. He says we should not allege “bad faith” on the part of fellow Christians. That might be true in the Church of England it is not true in TEC. In TEC we have bishops like Charles Bennison, Jefferts Schori, Orris Walker, Jon Bruno, Gene Robinson and dozens of others who have no real faith or play-act as though they do, picking and choosing what part of the creed they believe in while picking from the ethical and moral smorgasbord as though it were a buffet of choices. There is a ton of bad faith to go around in TEC and it is only increasing. Pro-Gay bishops openly flaunt their sexual theology on Gay Pride days on public streets in major cities, something that would probably never happen in England. Orthodox Ordinands from orthodox seminaries like TSM are NOT welcome in liberal dioceses and are in fact told not to apply. Who’s demonstrating bad faith here?
…………………
The notion of “healing and revitalizing” the church that Goddard talks about will never happen. There are two very different gospels, “two irreconcilable religions” being proclaimed in today’s Anglican Communion. For the authentic gospel to thrive, it must separate itself from the dead vine. Only when it does so, will new and living branches break forth from a new tree with roots in a different soil, the soil of a revived Biblical faith.
Read full article here…………….
END

“Church must recover its identity or be divided,” says bishop

www.virtueonline.org

A theologian and former seminary Dean says that Archbishop Ian Ernest, chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), misunderstands the nature of the church when the prelate recently called upon the African church to put aside its differences and engage with its theological opponents within the Anglican Communion.

The Rt. Rev. Dr. John H. Rodgers addressed the Primate of the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean and Bishop of Mauritius saying Ernst misunderstands the nature of the Church failing to see the difference between the Church Visible and the Church Invisible.

Ernest wrote that CAPA bishops should eschew a political solution to the divisions over doctrine and discipline and focus instead on church transformation through Christian witness. CAPA must resist becoming one interest group among many within the Anglican Communion, he said.

“The Church is going through trial times. This is nothing new, and it is certainly not the last time that our Communion faces challenges”, Archbishop Ernest told a joint meeting of primates and standing committee of CAPA bishops in Nairobi recently.

“But what is new at this critical juncture is a process of profound change. Our deliberations at this meeting will not only affect our lives today, but will contribute to shape the future of the Anglican Communion worldwide.

“The Anglican Communion has been distressed by unilateral decisions taken by the North American churches which threaten the unity of our communion.” Ernest said the violence of these arguments have so hardened positions that it raises serious concerns about its ability to resolve such differences.

Rodgers challenges this view. He criticizes the CAPA chairman saying that he has failed to understand the different meanings of the word “church” found in the 39 Articles of Religion.

“As I read the comments of Archbishop Ian Ernest, the Chairman of CAPA, I was once again struck by the failure of many of us to be clear when we use the term “Church”, usually in reference to the Church Visible (Article 19). If we take Article 19 seriously and the other references to ‘Church’ throughout the 39 Articles, we need to ask what is the status of an institution or visible, organized group that lacks the marks listed in Article 19 and the implied mark of ecclesiastical discipline listed in the Homily for Whitsunday? If these are lacking then can it be said that to disassociate from such an institution is leaving the Church? Is it not rather that the Church is leaving the institution?”

Rodgers said the Anglican Communion must recover its historic identity, including all of the marks of the Church as set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration or be divided. “It happened at each of the great historic Councils, it happened at the Reformation of the 16th Century and it could happen in our day. The issues cannot be ignored.

“For CAPA to be concerned for the preservation and treasuring of these marks in the Anglican Communion is clearly not an act of becoming an interest group in the Church, but rather it is CAPA acting as and on behalf of the Church, as Anglicans have historically read the Scriptures. At some point, as the present drift from historic Anglican theology spreads abroad, it is surely right to work hard for that reform or recovery rather than a division. And we pray that CAPA will be one of the leaders in that godly work of recovery and reformation.”

It is unclear at this point in time where all the African bishops stand in relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth and GAFCON. Many CAPA bishops showed up at Lambeth this past summer even though archbishops and bishops from the larger African provinces like Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya did not. These latter countries represent the vast majority of Anglicans, some 44 million, in the Anglican Communion.

Clearly, as Western pan-Anglicanism slowly disintegrates with orthodox dioceses, parishes and individuals fleeing in the US, Canada and now the UK, with many of them coming under Primates in the Global South, there will be less incentive for Africans to stay or want to hold together the Anglican communion as it is presently constructed.

Furthermore, there is a growing chorus for Dr. Rowan Williams to resign, as homosexuality slowly becomes more enshrined with publically undisciplined acts occurring in the Church of England. These acts will only further alienate Global South leaders.

The Church of England is increasingly being hobbled over women bishops, the alienation of its Anglo-Catholic wing and increasingly rebellious homosexual acts involving same-sex unions and non-celibate pansexualists in the pulpit.

Furthermore, the Church of England is irrelevant to 98% of the British public. Their priests are barely able to muster a million of 60 million to turn out on a Sunday morning to worship in tens of thousands of England’s rapidly dying churches.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been described as being “over a barrel” by world-renowned evangelical theologian Dr. J. I. Packer, the patriarch of Anglicanism. He recently called for Dr. Williams to resign. A revisionist Canadian bishop deposed the much beloved theologian so Packer has personally felt the sting of a bishop who has no use for orthodox Anglicanism.

The question that is increasingly being asked by vigorous evangelical post-colonial global south leaders is how can they go on respecting a man and an institution that is not respected by its own people? Why is Dr. Williams’ brand of Affirming Catholicism not drawing millions of disaffected nominal Anglicans? Why, indeed.

Why should CAPA bishops pay homage to an evangelically neutered occupant at Lambeth Palace?

Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan stated it well when he said in London recently that the great question for Anglicanism, not just Anglicanism in England, is “How can this tradition be coherent?” I am convinced that what kept the Church of England in its three streams of expression always true was the Book of Common Prayer. It was not that the Catholics broke themselves against the evangelicals. It was that the Catholics broke themselves against the boundaries of the Prayer Book. It was not that the Evangelicals were kept in order by the Catholics., Iit was the evangelicals were kept in the Catholic tradition by the Prayer Book and the same way with what I now call the Pentecostal stream.

“The question is for Anglicanism, will it cohere in the 21st century? The Prayer Book was the magisterium. It was that piece which kept us under the word and gave us our theological understandings. The Great Book Psalter was the common language. We have no common language any more nor do we have a secured theology. The great challenge for 21st century Anglicanism is “Can it cohere? Will it endure?”

Archbishop Ernest said he does not despair. He hopes love and unity will prevail to build the church of God. But that will not happen unless and until the nature of the church is addressed and truth prevails. Then and only then will we see true love and unity.