It’s great to see many of the conservative bodies breaking away from ECUSA to find another Bishop to align under. But my question is: What is so wrong with the Continuing Anglican movement that these break-offs cannot seem to submit to a Continuing Bishop? Wasn’t it the continuing Anglicans that first recognized the error of the ECUSA church, back in the 60s and even as far back (concerning the REC) as the late 1800s? The Continuing churches such as the REC, APA, ACA, etc., already have bishops with apostolic succession, that are more than capable of being an Archbishop of a unified Anglican church in America.
It appears that we are beginning to align with Bishop Akinola, of Africa, which is great news. But what does this convey to others about the Continuing movement, as well as America as the Christian country that it was supposedly destined to be? Will the Continuing churches eventually dissolve and become absorbed by the Third World movement? And, will America itself be swallowed up by one of the Third World countries after we align with a Third World Bishop? Do not underestimate the influence of the Church!
God may indeed use one of the more liberal, future presidents like Clinton or McCain to continue to merge us with other countries through trade and military, and maybe even immigration. Meanwhile, we are aligning ourselves with a Bishop in another country.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the direction we are headed is in some way disastrous. I’m just attempting to sort the confusion out. If the Continuing Anglican church needs a Bishop outside America, then that’s what she needs. And if America needs to be absorbed by another country to remain conservative, then that is what she needs. But if we are to remain an independent country, we will eventually need a Bishop that resides in our country. Otherwise, we will be looking at some of the same problems that the Anglican settlers had in the 1700s with the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
By request, we have added a new website to the sidebar, that is well worth noting: Christ Church Anglican of Phoenix, AZ. I recently visited this church on Good Friday and can personally attest to its soundness. A breakaway from the fallen ECUSA, Christ Church Anglican has done what many are frightened to do, but what many are yet to do in the future: seek unity through godly bishops and parishioners whom adore the Christ of the Bible and not the christ of modernity.
This looks very hopeful. And look, there are a substantial amount of men on the front of the site. This is even more encouraging! Many of us long for the day when men will become real men and will be able to recognize other real men. It seems that in our day pastors and ministry leaders, even in conservative circles, are recruiting women for the work that men are to be doing. It is good to see that real men within real Anglican churches are going to battle for the Church.
Today is the feast day of St. Valentine. There is not a whole lot known about the Valentine (Valentinus) that is celebrated today, but apparently we have found the way to celebrate what God has done through him. If you are a heathen, you can celebrate via the emperor cult (Americanism), and not “commune” with the Church on this holiday. The choice is yours! Or is it?
Today is the Feast Day of King Charles I, father of nine children and the only post-reformation Saint of the Anglican Church. Charles was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1625 until his execution by parliament on January 30, 1649. He is considered a martyr by Anglicans due to his “Christian Kingship” and “defender of the Anglican faith.”
A few of King Charles’s last words, right as he placed his head on the guillotine-block were, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.” This was the abolishment of the English Monarchy.
Charles appointed Laud as Bishop of the Church in an attempt to thwart Calvinism. Calvinistic doctrine could have taken the Church into a bold new world. The problem, though, was that most of the Calvinists of that time were Presbyterian in polity and government, and thier standard of worship included many Anabaptistic leanings. The king could not win the hearts of the newly formed Scottish and English Puritans. The Puritans went as far as creating their own confessions and catechisms (Westminster) in spite of the fact that the Prayer Book and 39 Articles of Religion (with Calvinistic theology included) had been established for almost a century.
After the execution, Oliver Cromwell, a very radical Puritan, assumed control over England and became “Lord Protector” of England. The puritan polity did not last long and the Monarchy proved its strength and historical momentum by re-establishing itself in 1660.
Contents:
- Background of The Apocrypha
- Canonical Development of The Apocrypha
- Historical Development of The Apocrypha
- Anglicanism and The Apocrypha
- Conclusion
At the heart of the political struggle between Western and Eastern Christians in Russia and other portions of Eastern Europe today are sharply competing theologies of mission. Some of those missiological differences reflect more general differences in theological emphasis. Eastern Orthodox tend to emphasize the altar over the pulpit, the liturgy over the homily, the mystery of faith over its rational disputation, the priestly office of the clergy over the devotional tasks of the litany. Western Christians generally reverse these priorities - and sometimes accuse the Orthodox of idolatry, introversion, and invasion of the believer’s personal relationship with God.[There are vast differences in the theology of mission work here.] Western Evangelicals, in particular, assume that, in order to be saved, every person must make a personal, conscious commitment to Christ - to be born again, to convert. Any person who has not been born again, or who once reborn now leads a nominal life, is a legitimate object of evangelism - regardless of whether and where a person has been baptized. The principle means of reaching that person is through proclamation of the gospel, rational demonstration of its truth, and personal exemplification of its efficacy. Any region of the world…is a “mission field” - regardless of whether the region might have another Christian church in place. Under this definition of mission, Russia and its people are prime targets of Evangelical witness.The Russian Orthodox Church, too, believes that each person must come into a personal relationship with Christ in order to be saved. But such a relationship with Christ comes more through birth than rebirth, and more through regular sacramental living than a one-time conversion. A person that has been born into the church has by definition started “theosis” - the process of becoming acceptable to God and ultimately coming into eternal communion with him…Proclamation of the gospel is certainly an important means of aiding the process of theosis - and is especially effective in reaching those not born or baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church. But, for the Russian Orthodox, mission work is designed not to transmit rational truths, but to incorporate persons into communion with Christ and fellow believers.
This theology leads the Russian Orthodox to a quite different understanding of the proper venue and object of evangelism. The territory of Russia is hardly an open “mission field” which Evangelicals are free to harvest. To the contrary, much of the territory and population of Russia are under the spiritual protectorate of the Russian Orthodox Church. Any person who has been baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church is no longer a legitimate object of evangelism - regardless of whether that person leads a nominal Christian life….Only of that person actively spurns the Orthodox Church is he or she a legitimate target of the evangelism of others.
The Patriarch [of the Orthodox Church] is not only complaining about improper methods of evangelism - the bribery, blackmail, coercion, and material inducements used by some groups; the garish carnivals, billboards, and media blitzed used by others. The Patriarch is also complaining about the improper presence of missionaries - those who have not come to aid the Orthodox Church for its own souls on its own territory. The Patriarch takes seriously the statement of St. Paul, who wrote: “It is my ambition to bring the Gospel to places where the very name of Christ has not been heard, for I do not want to build on another man’s foundation” (Rom 15:20).
- John Witte Jr., The Local Church In A Global Era, p. 182
A few days ago, I wrote on the secularist attacks on the celebration of Christmas. Yet they are not the only ones who have a problem with the Church deciding to celebrate Christ’s birth on that day. In some of the more sectarian regions of fundamentalism, you will see the same thing. Every year as the Christmas season looms, they repeat the imperative first uttered by the Dr. Seuss character the Grinch: “I must stop Christmas from coming, but how?”
Read the rest of this entry »
While Matthew’s account of Jesus’ words at Caesarea Philippi (discussed earlier) is the most commonly cited passage by Catholic apologists to defend the institution of the papacy, the passage concerning the “Council of Jerusalem” in Acts is most frequently cited to point to the exercise of papal authority. The setting was the controversy over St. Paul’s mission to the gentiles - particularly his insistence that they need not become Jews to follow Christ. This was anathema to some among the Jewish followers of Jesus and the resulting friction between the two factions necessitated a meeting among the leaders of the fledgling Church.
Read the rest of this entry »
The one thing I love so much about the Anglican church is that it actually has a standard: The Book of Common Prayer. I first began my more serious studies at a very staunch Reformed Presbyterian seminary that taught the validity of the Old Testament laws and their application to modern times - via New Covenant philosophy of course. But the irony of this particular theology is that it holds to no standard of worship! They speak of what is called the Regulative Principle, which essentially teaches that if it is not found in the New Testament it cannot be practiced. But this would limit the theology of worship to a completely fragmented state (also it would mean that no musical instruments could be used). The New Testament was not given to us in a propositional form. There is no New Testament Leviticus. The truths of the Bible were meant to be handed down to bishops and pastors, as St. Paul explains. Like all modern ethics, there must be a theological standard set in order for the standard to maintain its form through generations. And it was precisely the bishops and pastors of the Church of England (with the help of other Reformers) that were able to set this standard for us in these confusing times of moral relativism.
The question is: Does your church have a theological standard for worship? Or, can the pastor make up whatever he wants, whenever he wants? Is he bound to the history of the Church? Or, can he submit to the trends of modernity? If he can’t conform to modernity, who says that he can’t? Is there any historical succession of ethical standard within your authority structure? What will happen to your movement in three or so generations from now? Will your “conservative” worship survive?
To conclude, I would like to refer my readers to what I believe is the result of standardless worship in the Church, known as the Emergent movement.
Having in the previous pat of this essay summarized the beliefs of the Catholic Church concerning the papacy and pointed out where Anglicans would disagree, I will now move to the consideration of the most common passage used to support Catholic teaching on the subject and take a close look to see if the claims meet a reasonable standard of evidence.
Read the rest of this entry »
As an Anglo-Catholic, I am quite accustomed to being tagged with the moniker “Catholic without a pope”. While it is certainly true in one sense, there is an underlying assumption that the papacy is of the essence of catholicity and the rejection of the papal office is somehow a deficiency of Anglicanism in this regard. At the heart of this issue is what does it mean to be catholic and can there be a “reformed catholicism”? We can argue about Mary, purgatory, ad infinitum but no question is more at the heart of the issue than that of the papacy. If what Rome claims for its see is true, then all the other questions fall into place simply because Rome says so. If what Rome says is not true, then while the papacy may be an instrument of unity, this unity could maintain error as well as truth. What then does the evidence say?
Read the rest of this entry »
We Protestants love to point the finger at the Roman Catholic Church to show how incredibly apostate they are by mentioning their cases of sexual misconduct. But the fact of the matter is that the Protestant church is very likely to have many more abuse cases. The Protestant church is documented at about 260 per year, and the Roman church is at about 228. The article above mentions how it is much easier to track the Roman cases since they are much more unified than the Protestants. This implies that there are many independent churches that the media sources do not know about. The argument that Rome is apostate or in someway evil based on the sexual misconduct cases is very weak. We would do best staying out of that arena.
Take a look at these Reformed Episcopal Church missionary photos. The Anglican church is alive and well in Africa.
In this article, Albert Mcllhenny from christianbookreviews.net gives us an excellent overview of the current situation within global Anglicanism. Some may ask why it is even necessary to track such things, but we must take into account the fact that Anglicanism is the mother of the American church as well as the sister of the Eastern and Roman churches. The Anglican church has been around for centuries and has given our country will and meaning. The tradition will always live, whether it’s given to a greater movement or regained as a leading example of Christendom.
_____________________
The current difficulties that the Anglican Communion is facing over the revisionist agenda promoted by the Episcopal Church - its member church in the United States - and others in the West are pushing worldwide Anglicanism into a time of crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that a decade from now the ecclesial structure of Anglicanism will be remarkably different from its current state. The question that cannot be answered at this point is whether the Anglican Way can be survive the consequences of the upheaval.
Read the rest of this entry »
Although there are certainly valid reasons for Christians to be upset with the ‘established church,’ I think it is fair to say that the fragmentation of Christendom is well-rooted in the arrogance of unsubmissive Christians who seek to crown their own works. Ever since the Reformation, countless Christians have desired to be teachers and pastors (and spouses of such), without going through the pains of theological study and humble submission to church authority.
Every Protestant is guilty of this to some degree. Rome would not recognize our reformation as legitimate to the common cause of the kingdom and so we are now “on our own,” so to speak. Does the reformation give us license to form new unions every time there is a disagreement within the church? Whatever happened to martyrdom? If something is worth dividing over, it must be worth dying for -No? “How does one die for the church when they will not literally kill you, like they would in pre-reformational times?,” you ask. You dedicate yourself to the greater cause of the gospel until you are excommunicated. But this would be the extreme case. Most Christians would not face excommunication if they stood for their beliefs, rather, they would face some basics pains of things, such as exegetical study and submission to authority. Most think they know more and are more godly than the authority, though, and so they leave to become part of a different union.
Cultural diversity also comes into play within the fragmentation of the Church. Those that are lesser educated and not likely to be accepted into leadership in larger denominations choose to be a part of the newer denominations that only require you to have a general knowledge of the Bible to become a leader. Many of these people do begin to learn some of great doctrines of the Church that they should have learned in the seminary format, and thus begin to impress the socks off of their more ignorant congregation. These leaders spoon-feed their congregation truths so that the people become completely dependent on them; not that the leaders could give them full portions if they wanted to, they actually can’t as they have never had full portions themselves.
From the Roman Catholic Church down, each denomination below the next requires less and less from their ministers.
1. The liturgical church (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.) requires less than the Roman Church.
2. The Baptists require less than the liturgical church.
3. The Non-denominational church requires less than the Baptist church.
4. The Charismatic church requires less than the Non-denominational church.
5. The Christian cults and home groups require less than the Charismatic church.
The lower the church the higher the unwillingness to submit to the higher standards. I am an Anglican and do believe that there is more humility and submission in the Roman church (I grew up in the Roman church), but I simply cannot tolerate their Marian doctrines as well as other dogmas they carry. Sure, many Baptists may say the same thing about the Anglican church - that they cannot stomach our doctrine - but are they correct in their assessments? And how do they know they are unless they have spent ample time studying the leading scholars and teachers of the Anglican faith, not to mention the participation of the Eucharist (and its power)?
If you are in a low church because you do not believe you can serve in a high church, please reconsider your calling and work with the higher church to assimilate you. They are not as mean as you think they are…well maybe some of them are ;) It just takes patience, humility, and some research.
Please allow me to share with all AnglicanThought readers about a significant person and ministry in the life of my family and I. I am a Postulant at St. Andrew’s REC in Phoenix, Arizona where not only am I able to study and practice ministry within the context of a solid denomination and city, but I am also able to be mentored by one of the most gifted pastors in the area (and probably the nation, for that matter). Fr. Steve Rutt (shown in these pics) is a humble and honest pastor who loves every type of people, and is extremely patient and gracious with all those that God puts in his path! But not only that, he is a fantastic preacher and quite a scholar. For those theology buffs out there, Fr. Steve Rutt is your man to meet. As an Anglican, he has been able to take advantage of the liberties to which Anglicanism offers. His theology does not fit one particular mold and so he is therefore able to teach all of the greatest doctrines available. I have been searching and praying for such a mentor and God has answered my prayers!
But there is a bit of a discouraging aspect about the life of Fr. Steve Rutt: You would think that with all the complaining going on in America about ignorant and dishonest pastors, St. Andrew’s would be a huge church, overflowing in every direction. Well, it’s not! And I believe the primary reason for that is due to the arrogance of the Protestant community and their unwillingness to embrace a church that is amongst a lower culture. I’m not blanketing Phoenix here. There are a number of good people and churches that are supporting Fr. Steve’s efforts. But the bottom line is that our church and seminary is located in one of the poorest parts of Phoenix, and many Christians in our day are not comfortable with attending and serving in such a place. Why is this?
In my current studies within my Anglican Spirituality class, I have encountered some lectures by a professor at Fuller University. He has a very good outline of how today’s church believes it is triumphant rather than militant; That is, the church has an over-realized eschatology, and so embraces luxury and material wealth any chance it gets. The church believes that we are so far advanced within the kingdom of God that little work needs to be done and that luxury is simply a fruit of our godly expedition in America.
Dr. John Piper hits on this well in his book Desiring God, where he speaks of what he calls Christian Hedonism. I won’t go into details, but essentially what Piper says is that we, as Christians, should take up a call of spiritual hedonism and live a life of adventure and sacrifice. He argues that our very soul requires and longs for us to embrace persecution of all sorts in order that we come forth refined as gold.
I’m sure that after a severe depression or natural disaster of some sort, Protestants will repent of this triumphalism (hopefully it does not have to happen that way). But meanwhile I think it is best for any of us who are able to communicate these things, to certainly do so; and call the church back to what Christ calls us to.
Keep up the good work, Fr. Steve! and anyone else that works the ministry in honesty.
A friend and I were talking after Evening Prayer last Monday night about this particular subject: that many Protestant churches are not interested in unity, but are more interested in autonomy. Here are seven reasons for seeking unity within the Body of Christ.
~
1. In John 17:20-23 Christ says that He desires for us to be unified. He goes as far as saying that it is for the reason “that the world may believe that you sent me.” He says in verse 21 that Church unity is tantamount to the Trinity!
~
2. Autonomy and division could very well withhold Christ from returning, since Paul gives a prophetic statement in Ephesians 5:27: “That He might present her [the Church] to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”
~
3. Autonomy is the very antithesis of the Gospel (of idolatry and self-service), and so what is a church demonstrating when they refuse to recognize the historic Church (i.e. Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox) as genuine churches (which means they are worth reforming)?
~
4. When Paul says to be “one accord” (Philippians 2:2) he was not making a mere suggestion!
~
5. The more isolated a person (Church) becomes the more depressed they become (Proverbs 18:1)
~
6. Building on another man’s foundation, as Paul puts it in Romans 15:20, especially if the builder is offering a compromised service with all of the typical entertainment vises, is self-seeking and contrary to number 1, above. The modern term for this type of behaviour is called sheep-stealing.
~
7. Claiming that your church began sometime well after the apostolic age - even in the Middle Ages - and that it is not required to seek unity with today’s historically-based churches, is to say that the founder of your church is a prophet and that Christians prior to this “prophetic beginning” were not a part of Christ’s body (salvation as we know it).