The Missionary Society of Saint Wilfrid and Saint Hilda

has been launched by some catholic Anglican bishops including (from my part of the world) the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of Horham and Bishop Lindsey Urwin. It will be very interesting to see how it develops.

Is the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans / FCA UK which came out of the GAFCON movement an evangelical equivalent?

There seems to be a lack of English Evangelical Bishops seeking to make a similar kind of provision?

In fact, who are the English Evangelical Bishops who are opposed to the consecration of women to the Episcopate? And even if some are in favour of it, what provision will be made for their evangelical brothers and sisters and friends who up with this can not put?

Or maybe the good old C of E itself might yet do something adequate?

Bishop of Chichester re Women Bishops

A pastoral letter from The Bishop of Chichester to the Diocese in the light of movements in the C of E towards women bishops (PDF file).

REAL

Classically the Church of England is Reformed and Evangelical. The historical formularies of the C of E unmistakably take such a position. But there is great (and not so great!) variety within Anglicanism today and much confusion about what it means to be an Anglican - not to mention what it means to be Reformed or Evangelical!

For these and other reasons, The Church Society's new Reformed Evangelical Anglican Library, edited by Rev'd Lee Gatiss is to be welcomed. They've kicked off with some Whitefield and I look forward to seeing what the subsequent publications will be.

Top 33 Preaching Topics

I wonder how our preaching priorities compare to the topics covered in the sermon in The Books of Homilies?

This nicked from Wikipedia:

The 'Former Book' of homilies contains twelve sermons and was mainly written by Cranmer. They focus strongly upon the character of God and Justification by Faith and were fully published by 1547.

The homilies are:

I. A Fruitful exhortation to the reading of holy Scripture.

II. Of the misery of all mankind.

III. Of the salvation of all mankind.

IV. Of the true and lively faith.

V. Of good works.

VI. Of Christian love and charity.

VII. Against swearing and perjury.

VIII. Of the declining from GOD.

IX. An exhortation against the fear of death.

X. An exhortation to obedience.

XI. Against whoredom and adultery.

XII. Against strife and contention.

The 'Second Book' contains twenty-one sermons and was mainly written by Bishop John Jewel. It was fully published by 1571. These are more practical in their application and focus more on living the Christian life.

This volume includes:

I. Of the right use of the Church.

II. Against peril of Idolatry.

III. For repairing and keeping clean the Church.

IIII. Of good works. And first of Fasting.

V. Against gluttony and drunkenness.

VI. Against excess of apparel.

VII. An homily of Prayer.

VIII. Of the place and time of Prayer.

IX. Of Common Prayer and Sacraments

X. An information of them which take offence at certain places of holy Scripture.

XI. Of alms deeds.

XII. Of the Nativity.

XIII. Of the Passion for good Friday.

XIIII. Of the Resurrection for Easter day.

XV. Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament.

XVI. An Homily concerning the coming down of the holy Ghost, for Whitsunday.

XVII. An Homily for Rogation week.

XVIII. Of the state of Matrimony.

XIX. Against Idleness.

XX. Of Repentance and true Reconciliation unto God.

XXI. An Homily against disobedience and wilful rebellion.

Green Belt

Apparently "Bishop" Gene Robinson and the Lesbian and Gay "Christian" Movement (LGCM) will be pushing practicing homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle at Green Belt. Anglican Mainstream are protesting. The Church Mission Society (CMS) who are "associates" of the festival say they are unhappy and support Lambeth 1.10, which I found heartening. The ABC who is a Patron of Green Belt has not commented to my knowledge. (CEN, p3)

York church celebrates medieval mass

The Church of England Newspaper (CEN) reports in brief on p3 that All Saints North Street, York was packed out for The Mass of Our Lady which has not been celebrated since 1558. They fail to mention that it is presumably completely illegal?

Individual Salvation a heresy?

US presiding "Bishop" Katherine Jefferts has lost the plot big time. What's new?

If the Church of England Newspaper is to be believed, the so-called Bishop has said that "personal salvation is a heresy." This is stupid madness.

Now, I'm all for emphasising the corporate and cosmic aspects of salvation. Glorious.

But the thing is, an "us" or a "we" always includes "I"s and "we"s. There is no corporate salvation without individual salvation and no individual salvation without corporate salvation (assuming more than one person be saved!). It is the One and the Many, again, or the Holy Trinity, as some traditionalists like to call it.

If all Ms Jefferts meant is that salvation is never merely private and personal then I think we could all agree. Salvation is individual but not individualistic, personal but not personalised or private.

As Rev'd Dr Mark Thompson said: the Presiding Bishop's "ignorance of the Bible and Christian theology is nothing short of breathtaking." Perhaps she is deliberately distorting.

What a silly mess.

When is a "church" not a church?

I think we can say that The Episcopal "Church" (TEC, American anglicans) - or rather, denomination, as a denomination - is no longer a church. There may be churches among them, and Christians in those churches, but it seems to me that when a denomination deliberately, repeatedly and publicly declared its intention to blesses gross sin, disregarding the Word of God and the gospel it is no longer a church.

Rt Revd Tom Wright argues in the Times Online that the TEC has deliberately formalised schism, torn the Communion and walked apart. To my mind they can no longer be seen as authentically Anglican. Wright talks a lot of sense in that article, though I think he is wrong about the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Even if Anglicanism is already a confessional fellowship, it is no bad thing in such circumstances to have another confessing fellowship that fellowships more closely and confesses more loudly and soundly on the matters in dispute.

FCA UK launch

Some jottings on the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) UK launch, which has grown out of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON):

As I was going to the loo and grabbing a coffee, I missed most of the excerpts from a letter from Her Majesty the Queen.

There was a great deal of purple around so I may get some of this wrong, but the Archbishops of the Southern Cone and of Sydney were present. The Archbishops of Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda and the former Archbishop of Kenya sent greetings. The Bishops of Rochester, Chichester, Exeter (?), Birmigham (?), Lewes and Fulham were present and the Bishops of Chester and Winchester and the Bishop-elect of Southwell sent greetings.

It was great to have our own Bishops, John Hind and Wallace Benn there. John Hind argued for the unity of faith, morals and order and it would be worth tracking down the quotation he used about tripe and onion soup which first may perhaps have corriander added to it, with few people noticing or caring, but which can soon become beans and bacon soup and not tripe and onion at all. Wallace Benn showed what partnership (koinonia) means in the letter to the Phippians. He said he was unimpressed by some in the UK who claim the name of evangelical but are sniffy and iffy about ACNA in its stand against secularism.

Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) said that "Affirming Catholics are neither Affirming nor Catholics!". He warned against a canonical fundamentalism that puts the rules of an institution above the Bible. He criticised the trend to eliminate the fundamental "metaphors" of Scripture, such as all language of Father and Son. He argued that calling the Father alone Creator is like calling your mother on the phone and saying, "Hello, Life-giver, please may I speak with my sperm-donor". He argued that definitive, permanent, complete revelation cannot be replaced with evolution.

Bishop John Broadhurst said: "When I was ordained I didn't believe in the devil. I now believe Satan is alive and well and lives in Church House!". He claimed that too many people believe in the system and the C of E and not the gospel. What is authentically Christian is more important than what is authentically Anglican.

In a videoed interview, Canon Dr Jim Packer argued that the Prayer Book and the Articles define Anglicanism.

Archbishop Jensen stressed that the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON repudiates any gospel in which human merit is invoked. We take our stand on the Biblical gospel and the authority of Scripture, loyal to the Prayer Book and the articles and combating the cultural captivity of the church.

Rev'd Vaughan Roberts called for united action on the basis of the truth. He said we must resist the salami tactics of the revisionists, slice by slice creating realities on the ground.

Rev'd William Taylor spelt out an agenda of ministry (inc. church planting), ministry (selecting and training suitable candidates), and some "yes"es and "no"s in relation to money, oversight and fellowship.

A student on Cornhill Scotland who had been involved in relief work amongst the homeless said he took the course beacuse he realised "people needed more than soup and soup - the needed salvation."

Someone from the Church in Wales refered to a textbook in which the index contained the following entry: "for Wales, see England".

Be Faithful!

I have just booked my place on the Be Faithful! conference: confessing anglicans in Global & local Mission, London, Mon 6th July, which will launch the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the UK (following on from GAFCON).

The list of speakers (in the flesh or by video link) is impressive: Paul Perkin, Wallace Benn, Michael Nazir Ali (preaching at the closing Communion), John Broadhurst, Chik Kaw Tan, Peter Jensen, Vinay Samuel, James Packer, Keith Ackerman, Caroline Cox, Vaughan Roberts and other national and international visitors to be announced. Tunes: Stuart Townend. Something for everyone!

See you there?

Anyone want to travel up together from Eastbourne? Meet you on the train?!

See: www.fca.net

For online booking to to www.anglican-mainstream.net

Illegal Sign of the Cross

I understand that under the Lincoln judgement it is illegal for a Church of England minister to make the sign of the cross while conducting public worship?

Rod Liddle on the C of E and Islam

In an article in the Spectator dated Tues 7^th April, Rod Liddle argues that the C of E has accommodated itself far too much to pleasing society at large and has sold out to modern liberalism, current political fashions and multiculturalism. It’s horray for the Bishop of Rochester and for the Bishop of London and boo to the Bishops of Oxford and Manchester and the ABC.

The C of E has forgotten its purpose. Why, exactly, does it exist?

Rod Liddle offers an Easter message to the leaders of the Church, who have ditched its traditions and reduced it to a sort of superannuated ad-hoc branch of social services. It has lost all sense of mission and direction. Whatever happened to muscular Christianity?

…

We do not hear very much from the Church of England about the plight of Christians, and particularly Anglicans, in hostile foreign environments. Under the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the church does not like to make too much of a fuss about murdered priests in the Sudan, the constant fears of samizdat believers in Riyadh, the continued state persecution in Turkey, the perpetual discrimination in Indonesia and Malaysia and Bangladesh. Or about the Punjabi Christian dragged before a court in Pakistan accused of having sent a blasphemous message on his mobile phone, the Muslim hordes screaming for the death sentence outside the court. The thousands of Christians in Bauchi, Nigeria, watching their homes burned to the ground and their leaders attacked by, again, Muslim mobs. The beatings and murders in liberated — yea, praise the lord! — Afghanistan. We don’t hear much about that stuff from anyone, be it the BBC, our politicians or most notably the Church of England.

You might expect the C of E to feel at least a little bit uncomfortable that Anglicans were being strung up or burned alive in the middle east and elsewhere. But it does not seem to be an enormous issue for the prelates. The problem being that it would bring Rowan, and the church, into conflict with the very Islamists with whom they are thoroughly enjoying their important ‘inter-faith dialogues’, by which they seem to set so much store. These inter-faith dialogues have never, ever, to my knowledge, touched upon Islamic persecution of Christians: all the traffic is in the other direction, and the Church of England thinks it is all going swimmingly.

The C of E is very pleased and proud of its inter-faith dialogues — largely, I suppose, because when conducting them it always adopts a strategy of total capitulation, much as it does before any and every assault upon its ideology, be it from Islam or from the decadent depredations of modern Britain.

There may be another reason for Nazir-Ali’s Lenten undertaking, then. It may be that he is sick to the back teeth of the leadership of the Church of England. He has not said that he is, but he is a polite and affable chap apparently. But he has had this to say recently; he has lamented a ‘gradual loss of identity and cohesiveness in (British) society’ which he feels is down to the abandonment of biblical values. He thinks that we reside in a ‘values vacuum’. He has also complained that British people suffer from a ‘historical amnesia’ — by which he means that we prostrate ourselves to apologise for slavery while forgetting that we also ended slavery, while the Africans cheerfully continued with it.

We forget to celebrate our tolerance and diversity, our willingness to allow the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship. Nazir-Ali concluded by saying: ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’ You could not get a better description of the Church of England today, I would argue. It is a church which has manipulated itself into a position whereby it can accommodate any adjustment to its own faith and ideology in order to make sure that it is in step with what it believes to be popular thinking.

…

But that is the view the Church of England, or much of it, has of itself these days. As a sort of superannuated ad-hoc branch of social services: non-judgmental, non-partisan, wholly secular, not Christian at all really, when it comes down to it.

Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans

Following on from GAFCON, individuals or groups who agree with the Jerusalem Declaration and the goal of the FCA can now sign-up for membership at http://www.fca.net/.

Principles of Principled Irregular Action

It may be that some contemporary conservative evangelical (Anglicans) have written on this. If so, please point me to it.

But it seems to me that ideally it would be good to be really clear about the principles of principled irregular action before we acted.

Ecclesiastical

It seems to me that “the gospel dictates” that I should have a curate or plant a church in X street are not obviously good principles for irregular action. In the club of the Church of England those things might not be your decision and you are free to press for the rules of the club to be changed or to leave the club if you think the gospel dictates it. Disagreeing with your bishop on tactics does not mean you should act irregularly in an Episcopal church, even if you want to see a kind of reduced episcopasy in which the local church is acknowledged to be the centre of the action. A non-Anglican church could be planted. Perhaps an un-ordained person could be employed.

My bishop is a false teacher promoting homosexuality and therefore I need some alternative Episcopal ministry (in this club) would seem to me a far stronger case for irregular action.

Civil

Say for example, that the local council had refused you permission to hold an open air service on the sea-front on a Saturday afternoon in July, this would not seem to me to require civil disobedience. Of course, we must obey God not men and we must preach the gospel whether the local authority likes it or not, but we are not commanded to hold services on the seafront on Saturday afternoon. It would seem to me to be a mistake to go to prison over this one.

Resources

John Calvin and Samuel Rutherford on tyranicide might provide some resources. Their kind of programme might be: (1) plea (2) flight (3) fight. Fights should only be started by lesser authorities, not by private individuals.

Further political analogies might help. For example, presumably we expect diocesan bishops to behave more like constitutional monarchs rather than absolute rulers. Some of us may even live in a constitutional monarchy in a law abiding way if we’d rather have a republic.

Congessing Anglicans (FOCA)

All Anglicans are, of course, confessing Anglicans, or at least ought to be. We say the creeds each Sunday. We are officially committed to the doctrine of Holy Scripture which is set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bare witness. It is a great shame if some Anglicans are not saying the creeds and some others are saying them with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

Lambeth sorting it all out?

It seems to me that there is much that is true and useful in the Windsor Continuation Group's presentation to the Lambeth conference dated yesterday, which is reported by the BBC here. It takes the situation seriously and (given its brevity) reflects on it legally, theologically and practically.

It remains to be seen, of course, what if anything will actually be done at Lambeth and afterwards. I can see that we need to take time and listen and not rush in, but on the other hand, the presentation itself uses words like "urgent" and "quickly". I'm not clear exactly what time-scale is envisioned. There is a fire and we should be putting it out now.

It's all very well saying that there are "wrongs" on both sides. No doubt. Everyone would agree that alternative episcopal oversight is irregular and not ideal. But it is hardly of the same order as living in a homoerotic relationship, or blessing or consecrating those who do so. We know from the Word of God that those who willfully do such things and do not repent will not inherit the Kingdom, whereas to my knowledge no one would want to say that Archbishop Greg Venables is courting damnation. We are in danger of swallowing a camel and straining out a gnat. Adequate provision must be made as soon as possible for traditionalists who in conscience cannot accept revisionist changes.

There needs to be a clear call to repentance from those who have blessed same-sex unions or consecrated practicing homosexuals. Practicing homosexual bishops should resign and if they do not do so they should be removed.

All being well (which is a big "if", of course) hopefully then alternative episcopal oversight will not be necessary and there could be a regularisation.

It seems to me that a Unity Covenant should be more explicitly theological and doctrinal than seems to be proposed, where the emphasis is more on people and structures.

Anglicans, "Gays" and Women "Bishops"

Here's the text of the handout I prepared for our discussion / Bible study on Anglicans, "Gays" and Women "Bishops":


Readings: Gays - 1 Cor 6:9-11
Women bishops - 1 Timothy 2

Hope you’re not too sick of these issues – v. topical – better for midweek than Sun –
Ask the vicar what he thinks and what we are going to do about it!
Important issue – laity as well as clergy need to be informed
Something might happen soonish!

Jim Packer’s talk and comments on the church website – not just repeating that

Anglicans

Confused and competing versions of “Anglicanism” – for some, “Anglican” virtually = inclusivism!

Historical definition:

A catholic Reformed church

Evangelical origins at Reformation

“Legal” Definition:

Evangelical constitution – BCP, 39 Articles, Ordinal - Canons

Sound basis today – Scripture, Catholic Creeds & “historical formularies” – Declaration of Assent (CW)

Practical arguments:

“A good boat to fish from” – hatching / matching / despatching – “I am C of E” – the church people don’t go to – culture affirming – by law established - not a cult, a useful badge to wear

Strengths of Anglicanism: e.g., infant baptism, liturgy (depending on your view of these things)

Problems with Anglicanism: Liberalism (and Anglo-Catholicism) – theological colleges, administration, hierarchy

The High, The Low, The Broad: A confused trumpet blast?

A lack of moral and theological church discipline

Presenting issues: gays & women bishops – what next…?!
Fundamental issues: scriptural authority, creation order of M & F, church etc.

Gays

The problem of terminology

Practising homosexuality not homosexual “orientation” (?!) / temptation – nature / nurture not the main issue

Luther on temptation – you cant stop the birds flying over your head but you don’t have to let them nest in your hair – its not a sin to be tempted, the Lord Jesus Christ was tempted!

A gospel / salvation issue

Public notorious sin

“Ah, but you eat shell fish and that’s forbidden in Leviticus too!”

Romans 1

“that’s just your interpretation” – the clarity of Scripture

The Culture card

Homosexual practice in the ancient world – was it loving, faithful, consensual, adults? (Is it often now?!)

Lambeth statement on human sexuality

A double standard for clergy and laity - Church leaders to set an Example but…

Jeffrey John in UK – not a Bishop in Oxford diocese but Dean of St Albans

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s personal and ecclesial positions

James Jones, the (evangelical) Bishop of Liverpool – confusing article

The blessing of same-sex unions across the Atlantic

Not just a pastoral or evangelistic welcome to gay people but calling good evil and evil good

The Windsor Report & Process

Faithful clergy and parishes sought alternative episcopal oversight – Archbishop Greg Venables of Southern Cone

GAFCON - Archbishop not necessarily essential arbiter of Anglicanism

- Primate’s Council to oversee traditionalist parishes out of fellowship with their own bishops

 Sign petitions at Anglican mainstream – PCC?

Women “Bishops”

A secondary non-gospel / salvation matter of church order?

Impossible or inappropriate? C.f. gay marriages – is it is marriage? Is she a bishop?

Anglo-Catholic type arguments

Jesus and the Apostles were all men
Ministers represent Jesus and have an apostolic ministry
The Catholic church has not had women for 2000 years so how can the C of E make this change on its own

Evangelical type arguments

The Bible forbids women to teach having authority in church – 1 Cor 11
The church as the family of God reflects male / female relationships in the family – Eph 5

Arguments over women priests / presbyters / preachers

Female / male headship – women preachers but not senior pastors / incumbents / presbyters?

Tom Wright, the (evangelical) Bishop of Durham

Culture card – so what? - what is a biblical culture?

The Manchester Report

Possible “solutions”: Third Provence, Flying / Super Bishops, (statutory) Code of Practice, Nothing

 Write to bishops, synod members, MPs, Queen

No women bishops before 2014 ish

“More in line with our culture” or more compromised with the “world”? – married to the spirit of the age, widowed in the next?

See also:

Virtue on line (American evangelical Anglican news service); Reform; Church Society

Presenting & Fundamental Issues

Evangelicals have often argued that though the "presenting issues" which have brought Anglicanism to a crisis are homosexual practice among the clergy and women in the episcopate, the underlying issue, the fundamental issue is the authority of the Bible. I agree. Sometimes hermeneutics have been included. As has God's creation pattern for men and women. We need to think too about our doctrine of the Church and its ministry. There are lots of fundamental issues and they're all related, it seems.

Stand for synod?

Does the vote in General Synod yesterday suggest that evangelicals haven't been as involved in the structures of the church as they should have been?

If I have understood the minutes correctly (I was getting on with ministry not at the meeting!) it would seem, for example, that our own deanery synod has vacancies for reps to the dioceasan synod. If evangelicals put themselves forward and no one else did, surely we'd have more influence?

I can see the case for getting on with gospel ministry in my little patch and not wasting time on all this political stuff, but if we do that, apart from failing in our wider responsibilities to others, sometimes something comes along we don't like - like a woman bishop of our diocese.

Or perhaps evangelicals are already as fully represented in General Synod as our numbers allow? I'm surprised the liberals seem to be able to out-vote the evangelicals and the anglo-catholics so dramatically?

Could I accept women bishops?

I am against women being consecrated bishops, I don't think women should preach to men and they probably shouldn't be presbyters. But could I accept a woman bishop?

After all, there probably are or have been other people whom I don't reckon should be bishops and I would have accepted their ministry unless I was convinced they were New Testament False Teachers.

When I was at Oak Hill I obediently went to chapel (mostly!) when women were preaching and accepted their ministry because I thought that it wasn't for me to decide who preaches in chapel and I am required (by being there) to go. Likewise, it is not (perhaps, sadly! - hee hee) for me to choose the bishops and if we want to continue in the C of E it seems we will soon be stuck with it. Whether we want to stay in is, I think, a different question, but I think we could.