At first glance, the title of this post should seem oxymoronic. After all, Anglicanism is by definition the shape the Church of England took after the Reformation (and later its sister churches in the British Colonies) and the primate of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence, how could something even be considered “Anglican” without Canterbury? My answer to this question is that Anglicanism is not a bureaucracy, but a tradition. It had its roots in the experience of the English Church throughout history and was expressed most definitively in the period after the Reformation in the development of the Book of Common Prayer. If the current elite at Canterbury wishes to overthrow the developed tradition of the Church of England in the matter of a few decades, that does not mean Anglicanism has changed, but that they are no longer truly Anglican at all.

It is fairly clear from his writings that ++Rowan would like to side with the revisionists but thinks their powerplay tactics are ill advised. He does not object to the apostasy of the Episcopal Church because it is wrong, but rather that it is against the will of the communion. With the will of God not being part of his decision making equation, it seems the Archbishop hopes to bide time until his views become the received view of the Communion as a whole.

From the way things are moving, he may not have long to wait. The Anglican Churches in the Global South have had far their fill of Western apostasy and now have called their own conference - the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) - shortly before the Lambeth Conference where Anglican leadership traditionally meets. Many bishops from the Global South are choosing GAFCON over Lambeth and it is likely the bishops attending will represent a far greater percentage of the communion than those attending Lambeth. Many see this not only as a rejection of the apostate teachings of Western Anglican leadership, but also of the leadership of Canterbury during the current crisis.

With such an obvious slap in the face of the Archbishop imminent, a future split in the Anglican Communion seems likely. The departure of so many churches would only leave Anglicanism with a group of dying Western apostates and others who have not the courage to take a firm stand. Eventually, the obvious decline of vitality within the remnants of the Anglican Communion would cause many fence sitters to depart as well. Canterbury would then be relegated to the leadership of apostate caretakers of architecturally interesting but increasingly empty buildings.

For the vibrant Churches of the Global South, they have little to fear. They will continue to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and continue to make converts. As they also grow in strongholds of Islam, they will also give up martyrs for the cause of Christ. It is they, and not their decadent Western peers, who are the true Anglicans and the true Christians. As the Rt. Rev. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria (the largest church in the communion) has stated, “You do not need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus.”

Nor do you need to go through Canterbury to be an Anglican. We have a rich tradition that expresses the Holy Scriptures through the collected wisdom of the Church through her history. This tradition certainly has always had Canterbury at its theological center, but when this center veers from the revealed Word of God we must choose Scripture over geography no matter how sentimental our feelings may be for that location.

On the surface, the forces behind the spread of secularism and Islam would appear to have little in common. Secularism is essentially a movement against a place for religious belief in public life, while Islam holds the complete subservience of the public sphere to Islam through the imposition of Sharia law. But, as Richarad Bastein points out in an article at Mercator.net, things may not always be as they seem. Just as similarities were notable between the seemingly opposed forces of Nazism and Marxism, so links can also be seen between Islam and secularism.
Read the rest of this entry »

Systematic doctrine is almost never enough. Here is a poetic stance on the crucifixion, sent by our Cantor, Jeff Holston.

___________________________________

Philosophers have measured mountains,
Fathomed the depth of seas, of states, of kings,
Walked with a staff to heaven, and traced fountains:
But there are two vast, spacious things,
The which to measure it doth more behove:
Yet few there are that sound them: Sin and Love.

Who would know Sin, let him repair
Unto Mount Olivet; there shall he see
A man so wrung with pains, that all his hair,
His skin, his garments bloody be.
Sin is that press and vice, which forceth pain
To hunt his cruel food through every vein.

There is no neutrality within the spiritual realm, and this includes the use of clerical attire and liturgical vestments. If one does not choose to wear, say, an alb, to minister in, why does he choose a suit or a polo shirt? A modern pastor may say that he is attempting to “become all things to all people,” as if St. Paul used that statement for a license of some sort. And where does this philosophy end? If the majority of the culture is, for instance, wearing bathing suits, does this mean that the pastor should do the same? Or is there an actual moral standard to be met? If there is, then what should this standard be? Has the all-things-to-all-people concept really done the Church much good? Is it effective for creating a conscience within society? Does the more modern concept demonstrate modesty and sobriety?

I am “high church” in my choosing of vestments and I currently wear what my current priest requires me to wear, which is the white alb, as a postulant. As an ordained Anglican, my priest uses a black cassock with a surplice. I understand that the black cassock is traditional to the Church of England, but I prefer the alb with either a stole or a chasuble, depending on the Eucharistic duties, of course. Early writings of the fathers show that the priests were required to wear all white, signifying the purity of Christ. The white alb also seems to be more accepted by today’s culture - not that that is the standard, but it is always nice when we can be traditional and accepted!  The alb is a little sleeker than the cassock - with the thin white surplice, and the alb, to me, seems to make a bolder statement.

Jesus Wore Clerical Attire

If it is such a noble thing for a pastor to compromise his standard of dress to appease the modern culture, then one has to wonder why Christ did not do such a thing.

Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” - John 1:38

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” - Mark 10:17

The question that arises from these passages is just how the people knew that Jesus was a Rabbi. It can safely be assumed that they knew he was a Rabbi due to his rabbinical attire!

The following verses show that people did not immediately recognize Jesus as a Rabbi, but this was due to his need to go to the feast “in secret.” 

However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews. Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the Temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” - John 7:10-15

Clerical attire, such as the collar, sets a man apart for his service, and keeps him accountable to the public. One of the very problems with the Church today is that they refuse to take dominion - as commanded by God - of the culture. When a priest or deacon wears his collar in public he makes a statement to the public that the Church is alive and well, and the Church is available for their needs. Not wearing clerical attire, for a pastor, is like not wearing a uniform for a police officer. No one can reach out for help if they do not know whom to reach out to.

The clerical collar, as well as the liturgical vestments, prevent the people from judging the pastor according to his style; whether or not he is fashionable or “cool.” Clerical attire can also help set a conservative tone within the church. However the pastor dresses, the congregants will dress a step or two below. For example, if the pastor wears jeans and a Hawaiian shirt, the congregants will likely wear shorts and flip-flops. Clerical attire sets standards, and sinful man needs standards to be set, especially from the clergy.

Clerical attire is apostolic. The apostles dressed in robes. This is an important standard to follow, not because robes are holy in and of themselves, but it is important because the apostolic standard, which was in place for hundreds of years, prevents the Church from fully embracing modernity, which is a slippery slope to liberalism and other New Age heresies. Clerical attire can help prevent apostasy.

I will conclude this discussion by mentioning the fact that the future of the Church, according to the Bible, involves the wearing of robes, the attire we use to anticipate this glorious state of the Church:

Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads.  - Revelation 4:4 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. - Revelation 6:11 [ A Multitude from the Great Tribulation ] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands…” - Revelation 7:9Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?” - Revelation 7:13

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.  - Revelation 19:13
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. - Revelation 19:16

I have noticed that within many Protestant circles theological discussion - especially in the “Bible only” camps - can sometimes actually be an hindrance to the Christian’s sanctification. Yes, that’s right! What happens is that these groups of Christians thrive on reinventing the wheel, becoming preoccupied with “wrestling with the Scriptures,” rather than living and believing the Scriptures. It becomes a type of legalism, where one feels sanctified because they are “in the Word.” I hate to say this, but you are not in the Word just because you are in a wrestling match with the Bible. The Word is the logos, the living being of Christ that involves the spiritual formation of souls. The Word is not God reduced to the English or even Greek and Hebrew vocabulary. The Word of God is His revelatory will for mankind found within the Scriptures, but as they illuminate themselves through the authority of His Church, not as they illuminate themselves through Nelson Printing Press, or any other schmo that takes his own authority to become the standard-bearer. 

The Word of God is what the Bible is saying and doing, not just what the Bible said or once said. Some theology-buffs may now be howling outside their windows through the authority of what their seminary teacher taught them about hermeneutics, so please allow me to qualify: Certainly there is a place for what is called The Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic, but what happens is that this form of studying the Bible is often not properly embraced, even by seminarians, and one suddenly becomes a theologian overnight from proof-texting verses; then goes to his friends and spreads this germ, and born is a Bible study.

This sounds like your typical overzealous Baptist/Evangelical, right? Yes, but it is within the higher churches, also, just on a more sophisticated level. What happens here is that rather than wrestling with Bible verses, they wrestle with theological positions that have not yet blossomed. They create false dichotomies of argumentation by splitting a traditional doctrine in two and then pitching them against each other. One perfect example of this would be the “Law and Gospel” debate; as if the Gospel does not include Law and the Law does not include Gospel. Or how about this one: The Five Points of Calvinism; not that the Five Points are heretical, but the five points cannot be understood very easily outside the context of many other biblical concepts; and after one understands these concepts, the Five Points begin to look like unreasonable dichotomies. Yes, that is right. When something so powerful like the Gospel is reduced to five propositions, mass friction is bound to happen, resulting in explosion.

If you are looking for dogma, as you should be, then look no further than the ancient creeds, as well as the catechism and Canons of the Church, which will lead you to all sorts of ethical and soteriological standards, including standards of worship. But, if you are not looking for dogma, and you simply want to feel like a theologian, then there is always a divisive debate-circle or modern/independent church,  just waiting to suck you in.

This website has acquired tens of thousands of hits over the past year and so it is time to place it at the top of the web searches for Anglicanism in Phoenix, Arizona. This is done by typing the words Anglican and Phoenix, Arizona as many times possible in order for the search engines to catch the site. The Continuing Anglican Church is alive and well in Phoenix Arizona, but so is the liberal “Anglican” church.  We must rise above the liberals on the search engines by creating Anglican sites such as this one, right here in Phoenix, Arizona, so that when an enquirer punches in the words Anglican Phoenix, AnglicanThought pulls right up. This will prevent the Anglican (Episcopal) enquirer from thinking that the only Anglican/Episcopal churches in Arizona are liberal. Phoenix, Arizona is primed for new Anglican movement. One can find a variety of Continuing Anglican churches in the valley simply by typing the words Anglican/Episcopal and Phoenix into a search bar. One day all the conservatives will leave the Episcopal Church of the United States and will be in need of a conservative Anglican/Episcopal church. Hopefully those conservatives - or would be conservatives - here in Phoenix, Arizona, will find this site on Google, and will discover the riches of the historic Anglican faith.

For all of you who are uncomfortable about kneeling while praying to and worshiping God, here is an article by a well known pastor - whose name I will not mention, in order not to stumble the weak hearted. Great clip! Hope you enjoy.

Read the rest of this entry »