Anyway, we agreed to meet the rep at a coffee house here in town.  We were wondering how we would recognize her when a woman walked in and focused her eyes on my wife, who focused right back, both faces registering surprise. 

“Wait, you’re Melissa?”

“And you are Michelle.”

Melissa embraced her and they had a whispered conversation.  I didn’t know what was going on at that point so I sat and tried to look like I was forming informed, intelligent evaluation of my coffee’s aroma.

It turned out that the two of them had worked at the same place not long after we moved to Sioux Falls.  And they did not get along or part on friendly terms.  I remembered Melissa’s horror stories at the end of some work days, but I never knew the last name of her antagonist, so no flags went up when I made the appointment to meet about insurance.

In very few words, they owned what had been, laughed a bit, and then built a new connection.  The meeting about insurance was fruitful.  Michelle made it a point to ask good questions and personalize the plan options to our needs.  Then we visited for a good while, and got to know one another better.  (There’s a prequel, in which God’s grace is clear: for several days before the meeting, Melissa had found the years-ago conflict with Michelle popping into her thoughts “for no reason,”  stoking a desire to let it go.)

See, when I look at what Melissa and Michelle did, with God’s grace, that strikes me as “reconciliation.”  Two people had two stories of the same conflict, and put that behind them to be in the same place with a common purpose. 

Before my question, I’ll share some reconciliation work in progress.

I have a division in my parish.  It isn’t about faith, it is about personalities and styles.  I have a good bunch of “doers” or “actives,” who are happiest (and quite effective, actually) when they are busy with “projects.”  Most of them are older or retired, with time and energy to share.  They do a lot of good for the church, but they will do stuff like take over space without considering who else might be using it.  They once carpeted and painted a room that really needed it, but never spoke to the Sunday School leader who needed to use it that weekend..  It took a good deal of pastoral work to keep her in the congregation.  And the group is not shy about claiming, “We do EVERYTHING around here.”

My other group tends to be younger, more interested in getting a Biblical and prayerful foundation before leaping into action.  Some of them are fiery, some are introverts.  In many cases they are raising kids and/or working, so coming over to the church to do grunt work isn’t a big draw.  Worship and teaching fire them up.  And so they do not make the dramatic, visible, material stuff happen at the church (although some of them are very quietly our most generous givers).  They are slow to “jump on things” until relationship impacts are thought through.

As you might imagine, these two groups can grate on each other.  They can form bad opinions of each others motives, devalue each others efforts, and generally not play together well in the sandbox.

My pastoral work is to struggle with my own biases and guide, exhort and sometimes warn both groups to value each another and work together to build up the one body into which Christ has joined them.

This, too, strikes me as reconciliation.  They are telling two different stories of our one congregation, and the work is to help them find their way into a common story that lets them work together toward shared goals.

So, my honest question: Isn’t what the Archbishop of Canterbury calls “reconciliation” more aptly called “peacemaking”?  It is one thing to get a cessation of hostility - and that is a holy thing that our Lord blesses and that a conflicted, violent world certainly needs.

But reconciliation means moving beyond the conflict and its sustaining narratives to find a common story, leading to common purpose and effort.  And that simply isn’t something that can be achieved between groups like TEC and orthodox Anglicans, who tell two different stories and work to spread the influence of those narratives to others.

This is not a snark.  Jesus tells us to be peacemakers; he also tells us to reconcile with our brothers and sisters in him.  It just seems to me that the Archbishop has picked the wrong word for what he’s doing and that the noble task he’s about - being a peacemaker - is better served by accurate use of the words Jesus gives to the church.

May we all be blessed to know the Word more fully as we walk through these Three Sacred Days with him.

Second, the crisis that Truro brings to the Communion.

Simply put, Baucum/Truro have crystallised and provided validation to what is becoming increasingly clear is Justin Welby’s approach of non-discipline of heretics in the Communion as long as they will “play nice” and “reconcile” according to his own understanding of that term.

Here is Baucum’s own reflection upon the recent Reconciliation Conference he attended in Coventry (my emphasis):

The reason we were invited to have such a role at Coventry is because +Justin Welby, the then new Bishop of Durham had already heard our story last May at HTB and was deeply affected by Truro’s marriage of doctrinal and relational orthodoxy.  He wanted the Church of England to witness what he witnessed.  I am humbled that he is holding our example up as a model for his archiepiscopacy.  The doctrinal conflict - neither in Virginia nor the Communion - has been resolved but our ability to relate to each other without enmity while still in conflict is the kind of model ++Welby promotes as a pathway toward reconciliation. This hard won space is not an end in itself, but creates a place where the doctrinal and relational wounds of the Church can be healed.  I am grateful that Archbishop Welby holds up Truro’s relation to the Episcopal diocese of Virginia as a model for the rest of the Anglican Communion.

As we’ve noted recently, the process that ++Welby is setting up is not one that disciplines TEC’s heretical leadership but, rather, allows space for “conversation” with them despite the differences. Most notably (and most crucially) it continues to treat them as authentic Christian leaders.

And Truro/Baucum have lapped it up and become the poster boys for just another variation of Indababble.

And so here is the crisis for the Communion. Welby shows no indication of bringing Godly and necessary discipline. Rather than doing the right thing, demanding that repentance precede reconciliation and a place at the table for the heretics, he is instead promoting a place for them. It was entirely right that we welcomed his appointment. Here was a man with clear evangelical convictions who, perhaps, would have called TEC and the Church in Canada to account. But, sadly, it seems that he is pushing for a different outcome. He is endorsing a process that itself endorses heretics as authentic and honoured Christian leaders.

Here’s what I wrote back in November when his appointment was imminent,

Globally we will all be watching to see if he takes a firmer line with the liberals than Williams did. The ABC has incredibly powerful influence whatever he chooses to do. Williams’ inaction spoke volumes - so what will Welby do? We will, of course, be hoping he will chart a far better path, recognising that the job of the Archbishop is not simply to “chair” the Communion but to guide it and drive away false teaching. Welby has a bit of a reputation in his own diocese for not upsetting apple carts. That will have to change if he is to be the man who can help pull us back to where we should be. At a minimum we’re sure to see him advocating hard for the Covenant - but will he go further and speak out clearly against revisionism? Only time will tell.
So we wait with great anticipation. My mind is that it could go either way.
...
there is the other possibility; that he will be the conservatives’ Rowan Williams. When Williams was first appointed the liberals were delirious with happiness since they knew he shared their convictions. That praise soon turned to criticism and worse when he failed to deliver for them. There is a chance that Welby could do the same for us. Perhaps, like Williams, he will be so keen to hold everyone together at the table that no-one will end up wanting to come to dinner. That would be tragic and, surely, he would have the wisdom not to repeat Williams’ mistakes, but ought not to be naïve about the possibility.

I am genuinely disappointed to have been proven right on this matter. It really grieves me.

But here we are. And the critical thing we need to get our head around here is that Baucum/Truro have not only allowed themselves to be part of this capitulation to the liberals’ desire to be recognised as authentically orthodox but have actually pursued the agenda.

In doing so they have not only brought a crisis to the ACNA, but to the Communion as a whole which could only have been held together by genuine discipline but now looks closer to a final split than ever before. Can any of us really see the GAFCON movement embracing this “reconciliation” process as it currently stands?

Over the last twenty-four hours New Yorkers have been shutting up the windows, stocking up the supplies, including water, and clearing terraces in readiness for hurricane Sandy’s coming ashore tonight. Winds of more than 75mph are forecast together with heavy rains over the next day or two. Already rising seas and waterways surrounding Manhattan are flooding the low-lying parts of the city.

The subway has been closed since 7:00PM last night (Sunday) and the regular sounds of sirens have all but ceased. Eerily, the city is quiet. With many stores closed, traffic is light and only a few people are out on the streets. Even the Stock Exchange is closed because of what is reckoned to be the largest Atlantic storm on record. In the face of the power of this weather system, wise leaders have ensured that New York, the city that never sleeps, is put ‘on hold’.

Times like this remind us not just of the tremendous power of weather – the wind and the sea – but of the awesome power of the creator who made them.

It gives us pause to ask, ‘What greater powers could God exert?’

We might also ask whether God works through the power of the storm to wake us up, not so gently, to life’s larger realities. Asking this is not saying that God does not care about us, or what we might be going through: he does. Psalm 46 speaks of God being “our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble”. But the Psalm goes on, “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). It is a word to everyone to stop and consider. Jesus echoed this thought when he warned us to turn back to God (Luke 13:1-5).

During a hurricane, wisdom tells us to stay inside. Compassion for the many who will suffer directly because of this massive storm calls us to pray that God in his mercy will hold back the worst of the storm’s power. Grace calls us to be ready to do what we can to assist those in need. Above all, we need to use this opportunity as a wake-up call – to sort out our relationship with God and to order our lives, our values and our priorities in the light of the reality that God is not only there but is the Lord.

John G. Mason

Christ Church New York City

October 29, 2012

Recently 2 pieces highlighted the diversity here.

First, the good. The Christian Post Singapore has a wonderful interview with former Anglican Bishop of Singapore and Archbishop of South-East Asia Moses Tay. Tay, some may know, was one of the original Anglican Mission in America consecrators.

 In many cases those who would go on to impact other lives have experienced adversity of some sort, which failing to break them have contributed toward their depth and maturity.

The world for the Right Reverend Dr. Moses Tay had for all practical purposes collapsed around him a mere two months before he was to be ordained Anglican Bishop of Singapore - his first wife had died after a difficult battle with congenial aneurism.

Along with the pain of bereavement came speculation over why it happened by those who had prayed and seen visions.

The event had come as a shock to the many who having witnessed miracles of healing expected one, and most held the view that it was opposition by the devil himself to the ordination.

Opinion was split over whether it all happened because the devil was determined to attack the then Bishop-Elect or because sin gave him an opportunity to do so.

It’s all well worth reading - here is a man who understood what ministry was.

Hearing and obeying God has played a key role in Bishop Tay’s life and is, in his perspective, what Christian ministry is all about.

God prompted him to enter fulltime ministry while he was still a medical doctor when He led him to pray for a patient who accepted Christ and died two days later. The Lord also gave him opportunities to speak and to conduct regular Bible studies with church youths. And then he became involved with Christian organisations.

Highlighting the grace of God as essential for effectiveness and longevity in ministry, he says: “I think it’s the sheer grace of God that you’re called to serve and when you hear and obey, even longevity is not a question.”

As a response to God’s call, ministry is not so much about “how long you survive” but “how do we walk with God,” emphasises Bishop Tay.

And his response to low income is fascinating.

Adding to Bishop Tay’s troubles was the fact that much preparation had already been made for his first wife, a leading officer in a maternal healthcare clinic, to be the main breadwinner for the family with children - remuneration for the Bishop was not sufficient in those days.

In his words: “We were willing to slog to support ministry with children growing. Suddenly she’s gone. I was left alone. No more financial support. No more home support.”

...

He had a 60-hour workweek involving receiving visitors, attending board and clergy meetings, office administration, preaching, visiting the 25 parishes at the time and five other countries.

Compare that attitude to the news reports just surfacing (BBC and Singapore Straits Times) about the “pastor” of City Harvest, a prominent prosperity gospel “church”

The founder of one of Singapore’s richest churches has been charged for misuse of church funds.

Pastor Kong Hee is accused of appropriating up to S$24m ($18.8, £12m) to fund the singing career of his wife, Ho Yeow Sun (also known as Sun Ho).

He faces a lengthy jail term if found guilty, local media reported.

Four other executives of the City Harvest Church have also been charged, following a two-year investigation.

The five, who were arrested on Tuesday, have been offered bail of S$500,000 each. Their passports have also been impounded and they have been suspended from their duties.

Mr Kong and church board member John Lam Leng Hung face three charges of criminal breach of trust.

The other three church executives face charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts. They are due back in court on 25 July.

Mr Kong and his wife have always maintained that her pop music career is a way of reaching out to non-Christians.

Misused funds

City Harvest Church, which is registered as a charity in Singapore, posted a statement on its website saying it was ‘‘not in a position to comment further’‘. It said church activities and services would carry on as usual.
A statement released by the Commissioner of Charities said the funds were ‘‘used with the purported intention to finance Ho Yeow Sun’s secular music career to connect with people’‘.

‘‘There was a concerted effort to conceal this movement of funds from its stakeholders,’’ the statement said.

The body has also suspended eight church officers from their duties - including the five who have been charged and Ms Ho.

The church said on its website that it had more than 23,000 members as of December 2010, although reports estimate its congregation at more than 30,000.

It also has affiliate churches in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, Brunei and Australia.

More details in the ST article.

I know which side I’m glad to be on.

2. The current situation within The Anglican Catholic Church in Australia.

a) Bishop John Hepworth: following lengthy communication with Bishop Hepworth, I have taken the very serious decision of suspending Bishop Hepworth as Ordinary to the ACCA. He is no longer in control of the ACCA, and may take no decisions concerning its management and may make no appointments of any sort whatsoever. It is with deep regret that I have to inform you that further steps against Bishop Hepworth are being considered in the light of a document sent out by Bishop Hepworth openly advocating schism within the TAC. These steps are deemed necessary in the best interests of the church in Australia and indeed the whole of the TAC.

b) Vicar General Owen Buckton: is appointed as Administrator of the ACCA with the full confidence of the College of Bishops of the TAC and is mandated to take control of all matters material to the management of the church in Australia as of 18 May 2012. All clergy and laity in the ACCA are urged to give Fr. Buckton their full and prayerful support. This is mentioned as a result of a message to me with the copy of an ad Clerum from Bishop Hepworth, sent out after his suspension, and in defiance of the respectful instruction that he steps aside as Bishop Ordinary of the ACCA. Fr Kinmont is NOT the recognised Vicar General of the ACCA.

c) Bishop David Robarts: An attempt was made by Bishop Hepworth to have Bishop Robarts suspended in Australia for daring to seek clarification on serious matters pertaining to the management of finances in the ACCA. No due process for the removal of a Bishop, as set out in the TAC Concordat was followed, and at the College of Bishops meeting in February 2012, it was confirmed that Bishop David Robarts is and will remain a full and active member of the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion. He continues to minister with our full support and blessing.
It is our understanding that an Ordinariate will be set up in Australia on 15 June 2012 in Australia, and that Bishop Harry Entwhistle will be departing the ranks of the TAC on that date. Matters in Australia will proceed under Fr Buckton, and he is mandated to do all that would be required to address areas of grave concern within the ACCA.

In response (it appears) Hepworth has issued his own letter - received from a source. Since I can’t find the original online I’ll quote it in full.

June 11, 2012

My Dear Fathers, Brothers and Sister,

For some weeks, a number of us (including our founding Primate Archbishop Falk) have been praying and working on a response to the activities of the minority of our brothers who have seized control of our Communion and seek to pervert it to anti-catholic ends. Their actions are already destroying much of our work over the past twenty five years. Our Roman Catholic friends (and there are many, including the new Australian Ambassador to the Holy See) have been dismayed.

The document that is attached is the result of our efforts. (An identical document is attached in two versions of Word.) Neither Archbishop Falk nor I seek to lead this body. We are simply asking two things:

1. Your preparedness to attach your name so that the document can be published among our communities and more widely, and to seek the concurrence of your clergy and people in whatever way might be appropriate to take this proposal to the next stage.

2. To attend a meeting, with a clergyman and lay person from your Diocese or community as appropriate, in England from 9th - 11th October this year, to determine the shape, life and leadership of the Fellowship.

The Rev’d Dr. John Fleming, a long time friend of many in the Traditional Anglican Communion, and in his third term with the Vatican-based Pontifical Academy for Life, has been suggested as an ideal person to be the mentor mentioned in the document.

Each of us needs to commit ourselves to the prayerful defense of each other at this time. The Roman Catholic Church needs to know that there are Traditional Anglican Communion bishops still committed to the promises of Portsmouth.

I am prepared to collate the signatures and circulate the document with names attached for you to publish. This is urgent.

I should also wish you to know at this time that Lay Canon Woodman is seriously ill as a result of the stress of the vicious attacks on her and her property by the group led by Samuel Prakash.

This is being sent to the following, all of whom are invited to indicate support: the bishops names will appear as a block, followed by Traditional Anglican Communion clergy and laity; it is not intended to name our Catholic supporters in the published document, but we value knowing you are with us:

Lay Canon Woodman, Dr. John Fleming. Archbishop Falk Bishops Moyer, Entwistle, Hudson, Banzana, Kajiwarra, Nona, Garcia, Campese. Dr Labusga (Argentine), Father Kinmont (VG Australia), Father McManus (England), Father Chadwick (France) And to our former brothers in the episcopate Father Robert Mercer, Peter Wilkinson and Carl Reid, seeking their prayers, understanding and fellowship (will Peter please inform Robert?.

With every good wish,

John

Archbishop John Hepworth
P.O. Box 746
Blackwood SA
5051 Australia

*****

Dissident TAC Group Forms Saint Benedict Fellowship

June 11, 2012

We are bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion who signed the Portsmouth Petition and the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the altar in the midst of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. We understood then, and continue to understand, that our signatures had the sacred nature of an oath.

We are bishops who rejoiced at the proclamation of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus by Pope Benedict XVI, which so amply fulfilled the dreams we had dared to express in our Petition, and the dreams that others had expressed to the Holy Father.

We number among us the bishops and Primates who commissioned, led and supported the cause of Anglican/Roman Catholic unity over the past thirty years, who were supported by their clergy, laity and synods, and who sustained isolation, ridicule and hardship.

We have experienced the difficulties and trauma of the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution, and understand the hurt and frustration of many of our brothers and sisters at this time.

We accept the responsibility bestowed on us by the vows taken at our Episcopal consecration, and will continue to do all that is required of us to sustain those entrusted to our care. We will defend them against those who have chosen to reject those things to which we committed ourselves and our Communion at Portsmouth. This rejection deeply saddens us as we are confronted with a breach of collegial trust, commitment and unity. We are committed to leading the people entrusted to us for as long as that might be necessary, understanding that our own future is not and must not be a consideration in our leadership.

We resist the temptation to form yet another church among the myriad and scandalous world of Continuing Anglicanism. Equally, we cannot in conscience allow those who now repudiate all that we have sought and achieved to go unchallenged.

We have formed ourselves into a sacramental fellowship, under the patronage of Saint Benedict, in order to minister to and sustain each other and those Anglicans who share our desire for the full, global implementation of the Apostolic Constitution.

We pledge to do only those ecclesial actions necessary to sustain our dioceses and communities, to strengthen, enrich and sustain the Anglican treasure that is our heritage and that is so warmly endorsed in the Apostolic Constitution, and to take council amongst ourselves and amongst those whom we lead.

We pledge to sustain the warmest bonds of Christian love for those who have already come into “the fullness of Catholic Communion” under the Apostolic Constitution.

To this end, the bishops, with representatives of their clergy and people, who seek to create this Fellowship will meet in the Northern Autumn. It is our intention to invite a mentor acceptable to us and to the Catholic Church to assist us in our deliberations. This first meeting will determine the minimal structures necessary for the faith, good order, sacramental life, communication and mutual support within the Fellowship.

So let’s see if we can summarise this. A segment of an Anglican group falls out with the leadership over, not least, allegations of financial irregularities. Rather than reconciling they seek to set up their own mission body in their own right. For some reason it sounds hauntingly familiar…

Just bumped into a human interest piece called “Putting the ‘fun’ in funerals.”  As you might imagine, it takes broad swipes at the church while hymning the next new thing:

Allen, who died at age 81 of cancer, didn’t want a “traditional, sad funeral,” said his widow, Ellen, who described him as spiritual but distanced from organized religion.

Wanna know why church funerals seem sad to so many?  Because there’s nothing joyful about handing over to God some person, albeit a very nice person, who never understood, embraced and lived for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

I am glad that folks who don’t believe the Gospel are choosing to do non-church funerals.  I know I speak for many clergy when I say that I get a sinking feeling when I get a request to “do a funeral” for some person who wasn’t part of the church.  If the Gospel means nothing to the departed or the family, a Christian service will of course seem ponderous and sad - because the death of any person apart from Christ is just that. 

But on to some compare and contrast stuff:

Allen’s memorial “shouldn’t be morbid,” said his longtime friend and golfing partner, Bubby Klotter. “He was a very gregarious person. It’s pretty consistent that he would be remembered this way…

Christian burial (and Christianity generally) is faulted for emphasizing afterlife over this life.  A hard core non-believer would go on to say that Christian burial is an exercise in what Freud called an illusion - anesthetizing our pain and fear with made up stuff about an afterlife. 

Do the “spiritual, not religious” do better?

No.  They practice plenty of denial and myth-making themselves.  This usually gathers around phrases like the golf buddy’s quote above: it’s about how we are remembered.

I was at a seminar with a hospital grief counselor.  He did a simple exercise with our group of about thirty people.  He asked if we remembered our parents’ names and what they did for a living.  All the hands went up.  Then he asked the same about our grandparents.  Way fewer hands.  Then he went to great grandparents and maybe one or two hands went up.  His point was that our lives are largely forgotten within one or two generations.  All the blather about “leaving a legacy” and justifying our life by “the memories we create” is empty.

“...A lot of that [non-religious funerals] is being driven by the baby boomer spirit,” said Chris Hammon, executive director of the the Louisville-based Wayne Oates Institute, which trains ministers in integrating spirituality, health and ethics.

“We seek to embrace life a lot more than death — even in death,” he said.

So the “spiritual, not religious” are saying, “We need to do something that makes us feel good in the face of death.”  Any honest pagan should say “Hey, wait, that’s even worse than what those Christians do.  The Christians grieve the death and seek comfort in an illusion of afterlife.  These ‘spiritual, not religious types’ are even in denial about the grief part.”

But that shouldn’t come as a surprise since it’s the “baby boomer spirit” driving this.  My self-absorbed generation binged on divorce, abortion and sundry other dysfunction from which our surviving offspring are still in recovery.  Everything comes down to “me feeling good,” and the FUNeral as a self-medicating space that can’t admit to grief or God’s judgment is an expression of that neurotic disposition.

Am I being mean and harsh?  Not really.  The “spiritual, not religious” are the ones painting the work of the church as “sad and morbid.”  I am simply asking if they offer a better way.  And by any honest appraisal of the ways humans navigate death, they ain’t.

To summarise, Rwanda and the ACNA are more than willing to help resigned AMiA bishops move into the ACNA if they wish, but they must be “Prepared to engage a process of full reconciliation with all parties wounded through the actions of recent months”. Or, more simply still - the ACNA won’t take you unless you go back to Rwanda and say sorry.

A quite excellent response from them.

April 28, 2012

To All Confessing Anglicans in North America: Greetings in this happiest of seasons, when we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and grow in the knowledge of what it means to live as people who have been “raised up with Christ.” (Colossians 3:1-4)

We have just completed a rich week of blessing and encouragement at GAFCON’s Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’ Leadership Conference at St Mark’s Church in Battersea, London. We joined 200+ delegates from over thirty nations as we listened to God’s word, worshipped, prayed, studied, and talked. It was deeply encouraging and challenging to share with people who serve Christ faithfully with great sacrifice in the face of revisionist opposition or outright persecution from the unbelieving world. We thank the Lord Jesus for his faithfulness and for the Gospel by which people are being saved and his Church is growing.

While in London, we had the opportunity to talk at length together about the continuing turbulence from the separation of the Anglican Mission in America from its founding church, the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The House of Bishops of Rwanda has recently declared the establishment of a Missionary District in North America (PEARUSA) as its only continuing work on this continent and has offered a deadline of August 31 for clergy and churches to determine their future jurisdiction. There are three options available: remain with Rwanda through PEARUSA, transfer to another Anglican jurisdiction through letters dimissory, or follow the Anglican Mission into its new venture. Provision and procedure for each of these options is available or is being developed as rapidly as possible. (These materials will be available through the www.pearusa.org website as they are developed.)

At the same time, there has been a great deal of confusion recently around the issue of the resigned bishops of the AMiA, their relationship with Rwanda, and their possible relationship with ACNA. We write this communiqué together primarily to address that confusion.

1. Archbishop Rwaje and the House of Bishops of Rwanda have established April 29 as the deadline for the resigned AMiA bishops to declare their intention for future jurisdiction. Having declared their intention, he is willing to work with those bishops seeking letters dimissory to another jurisdiction in the weeks and months ahead.  (April 29 is simply a deadline for declaring intention and direction.)

2. The Anglican Mission is seeking canonical residency in the Church of the Congo, and those bishops and clergy that have applied for letters dimissory to the Congo are being processed according to standard Anglican procedure.

3. Several AMiA bishops have approached the ACNA, through diocesan bishops or directly with Archbishop Duncan, concerning transfer into ACNA. Archbishop Duncan has established a clear path for this process:

  • Following normal transfer process, any bishop seeking transfer must initiate the request with Archbishop Rwaje. He will respond individually to each bishop appropriate to his situation.

  • An AMiA bishop received into ACNA will be received in the following manner:

  o   Graciously and willingly, as the Lord has received all of us, and with the understanding and expectation that God’s love constantly transforms and renews us into the image of Christ

  o   Into a diocese or diocese in formation, that is, through proper ecclesiastical interaction between Rwanda and the diocesan bishop

  o   As an assisting bishop, which does not automatically seat one in the ACNA College of Bishops

  o   Able to give episcopal care to former AMiA churches and clergy that follow them into that diocese, under the blessing of the diocesan bishop

  o   Prepared to engage a process of full reconciliation with all parties wounded through the actions of recent months

In these matters, we are united in heart, soul, mind, and action.

This has been a painful and difficult time for many.  Nevertheless, we are confident that the Lord, in his sovereignty, is building his church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. We are confident that this will ultimately redound to the Glory of God, in this life and the next. We rejoice at the growing closeness and partnership within the GAFCON provinces and particularly between our respective provinces. We rejoice at our growing joint missionary effort through PEARUSA. We can honestly say that we pray for our brothers and sisters in the AMiA, asking God’s grace to be fully poured out on them and the Gospel to be proclaimed faithfully through them. We pray for further reconciliation and friendship, as the Lord gives grace.

Finally, brothers and sisters, be strong in the Lord and the strength of his might.  Continue to serve the Lord in faith and humility. Pray for us, as we pray for you.

In the love and truth of Christ,

Archbishop Robert Duncan
Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje

Others are beginning to point out the inconsistencies in what has happened, and never one to avoid being tarred with the same brush I wanted to add my voice to the mix in one of the areas that particularly concerns me - the preaching of the Word of God.

Truro’s Rector, Dr Tory Baucum, released the script of his sermon (11 March 2011) which set out some of the reasoning behind their decision. He begins with one of the Beatitudes,

Matt. 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied

and rightly notes, as many before him have done, that this draws upon Psalm 1,

Psalm 1:1-3, 6 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers.
But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers . . . .
For the Lord knows the way of the righteous but the way of the wicked will perish.

It’s a striking Psalm, opening up the Psalter with the call to a righteous life and the promise of blessings for the man who pursues it. Of course, it is not simple moralism that is being held out to us, for only one Psalm later we see the true source of that blessing.

Psalm 2:12 ...Blessed are all those who take refuge in [the Son].

And so the Psalter launches into its many a varied psalms, each of which in their own way call us to a righteous life and to trust in the Son, the Christ, by holding Him out to us as the only one to ever truly fulfil those opening words of Psalm 1.

Baucum’s description of Psalm 1 is also very helpful,

The blessed life is the unassimilated life.  It does not meld with the ungodly.

Indeed, and that life does not necessarily mean avoiding the ungodly as Baucum goes on to explain,

It is the differentiated but connected life.  One can choose to not assimilate into an ungodly life but still engage it.

And we would all still agree, I trust. As he goes on to note, Jesus was criticised by some for hanging out with sinners. But here, I fear, is where the logic of the sermon begins to unravel for it fails to engage with the force of what is being described in Psalm 1.

Baucum,

Jesus could walk, stand, sit and even eat with sinners, because he first delighted to walk, stand, sit and eat with his heavenly Father who loved them so.

But is that what Psalm 1 is talking about? Not really. The dynamic movement of walk, stand, sit is not simply about spending time with someone. It’s more than that. The foolish man begins walking with them, an entirely relational activity. But he then finds himself stopping his walk and standing with them. And then, before he knows it, he has sat down. In the seat of the mockers. Those that mock God. The idiot (for that is what he must surely be shown to be) is now indistinguishable from them. Who would you expect to find when you came to that seat? Well; it’s original owner, the mocker. But instead we have our anti-hero who has allowed himself to, in Baucum’s words, become assimilated. He is now a mocker himself, and it began because he wasn’t wise enough to not go on that walk in the first place, didn’t have the sense to listen to someone else’s advice. Instead he lapped up the drivel that the wicked and sinners fed to him. And now look at where he parks his backside. It certainly isn’t righteousness he will be feeding on tonight.

Now, it is certainly true to affirm (as Baucum helpfully does) that Jesus was not subject to this weakness of will. He fraternised with the enemy out of love for them. But then He was Jesus, that’s what He did. But it’s simply not accurate to state that Jesus walked, stood and sat with them, at least in the sense that Psalm 1 speaks. This is simple logic - for the Psalmist says that the righteous man simply should not do such a thing and, as we have noted, the paradigm for that righteous man is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I’m not sure why Baucum goes this way with his sermon. The cynical man might argue that he needed some justification for what he was about to announce, that he himself had chosen to “walk, stand and sit” with Bishop Shannon as he leads Truro Church in their own quest for righteousness - I couldn’t state that with any certainty since none of us can see inside his heart. But what I want to state with some degree of assurance is that it simply doesn’t make sense!

1. Baucum states, “I have treated Bishop Shannon as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and with the respect that is due a fellow Christian.”
2. If Baucum (as representative of Truro Church) is the one who will walk, stand and sit with Bishop Shannon then Bishop Shannon must be a “wicked, sinning scoffer” (to quote Psalm 1). And yet Baucum does not identify Shannon in this way, at least he treats him nothing like it.
3. Even if that were the case, the Psalm tells him to do no such thing! He should not walk, stand or sit with him!
4. However, if Baucum (as representative of Truro Church) is the one who will walk, stand and sit with Bishop Shannon as Jesus did with many sinners, then Bishop Shannon is to identified as a sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness. This is a remarkable identification for a bishop in the church of Jesus Christ and certainly not “a fellow Christian”.
5. If Bishop Shannon is to be identified as the “wicked sinning scoffer” of Psalm 1 or the “sinners” of Jesus’ day then he simply could not be affirmed as a bishop in the church of Jesus. The very notion is ludicrous.

Of course, at this point, I want to point out that I have absolutely no qualms with identifying Shannon in such a way. His single-minded pursuit of TEC’s liberalising agenda puts him firmly in that category. But this is not how Baucum identifies him. In fact, Shannon is worse than that, he is no pagan idolater that King David is describing, or 1st Century Jewish publican - he is a senior pastor in the church of Jesus who will be judged most severely for what he has done, not least to Truro Church itself. Even if Jesus spent time with sinners, as He certainly did, then the closest contemporary equivalent for Shannon is not the publican called to repentance but the teacher of the law in the temple who Jesus blasted for misleading the people of God and Jesus’ dealings with them was of a marked contrast to the publican. Very marked indeed.

But if that is not who Shannon is, if he is indeed a godly bishop, then Truro faces a real crisis for they are continuing to pursue division with a man they should willingly submit to. We had no qualms at Stand Firm in pointing out the error on the part of many in AMiA in pursuing such a course of action. So we ought to do it again now.

If Bishop Shannon is still a good and godly bishop, and not teaching blatant untruth, then Truro’s continued pursuit of separation is rebellious treason. But if he is such a thing, a wolf of the worst kind, then why are they walking, standing and sitting with him, and encouraging others to do the same?

First—representatives attended from 109 churches.  Typically when touting their astounding growth AMiA leaders have claimed around 150 parishes and around 150 “in formation.”  That latter cluster has always been a suspect number since I’m rather familiar with AMiA congregations “in formation” judging by the recent history of the past seven years, here on the ground in the Upstate of South Carolina.  But I think the 150 or so claimed as actual congregations is a fairly “real” number.

Second, the three options being explored for congregations are interesting:

Those who desire full participation in an existing diocese of ACNA
Those who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR while also forming a subjurisdiction of ACNA
Those churches who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR by establishing a missionary jurisdiction in North America

And third, the clear invitation to “all churches and clergy that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas to be part of this process.”

Below is the statement as received via email:

Moving Forward Together Statement
Raleigh, NC
January 18, 2012

On January 16-18, 2012, over 300 laity and clergy, representing 109 churches that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, gathered at the Church of the Apostles, Raleigh, NC, for a sacred assembly. The assembly was hosted by Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of Rwanda (PEAR), who sent three other bishops (Alexis Bilindabagabo, Laurent Mbanda, Louis Muvunyi) as delegates, and were joined by US bishops Thad Barnum and Terrell Glenn. Archbishop Robert Duncan and Bishop Julian Dobbs of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) joined the assembly as honored guests.

The assembly was a rich time of worship, prayer, and communion with God. In the traditions of classical Anglicanism and the East African revival, the assembly featured both form and flexibility, which fostered dialogue, reconciliation, healing, and—most importantly—listening to the Lord. A way forward was unclear at the outset of the assembly, but by its conclusion the next steps for moving forward together were evident.

Emphasizing collaborative leadership as an Anglican distinctive, Archbishop Rwaje and the House of Bishops asked Bishops Terrell Glenn and Thad Barnum to create a short-term team to give oversight and care for all clergy and churches that have been a part of the AMiA’s and desire to remain resident in Rwanda. This team is to be characterized by a spirit of openness, collaborating freely with clergy and laity throughout its constituent churches. Its structures are to be temporary and easily dismantled once its task is completed. It will be a team actively connected to the House of Bishops of Rwanda.

This team is charged with:
Care, healing, encouragement and guidance for churches and clergy in all ongoing efforts of mission and ministry, in all things personal, corporate, ecclesial and structural;
Ongoing mobilization and distribution of financial support and guidance for church plants and church planting;
Continuing support for those in process of ordination and those whom God might raise up to join in the work of planting churches and carrying out the work of Christ’s church;
Developing temporary structures necessary to support and accomplish these tasks.

For this task, Bishop Glenn was asked and has agreed to serve as the team’s leader. He will recruit and recommend to Archbishop Rwaje temporary canons and regional leaders who will serve those churches and clergy moving forward together in regional groupings throughout North America. Additionally, as a result of the generous offer of Archbishop Bob Duncan, this team will work freely and collaboratively with partner churches and bishops in ACNA for the support and care of churches and clergy as needed.

Bishop Glenn has appointed the following clergy to serve in this temporary process: the Rev’s Steve Breedlove, David Bryan, Dan Claire, Chip Edgar, Alan Hawkins, Clark Lowenfield and Ken Ross. Others may be added in the weeks ahead as needed structures come into focus.

For the duration of its service, this team will communicate its progress and its finances on a monthly basis to constituent and interested congregations and clergy. Feedback will be welcomed.

Archbishop Rwaje charged the team to create a task force to work collaboratively with representatives of the ACNA and PEAR to explore and develop plans for long-term structures that will serve the following needs of our congregations:
Those who desire full participation in an existing diocese of ACNA
Those who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR while also forming a subjurisdiction of ACNA
Those churches who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR by establishing a missionary jurisdiction in North America

It is anticipated that these long-term, permanent structures will be established within the next 6-12 months. As congregations and clergy transition into them, the work of the interim team will be completed.

We invite all churches and clergy that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas to be part of this process: we need your voice so that we can move forward together.  Please contact Bishops Glenn or Barnum, or any member of the temporary team, to signify your interest in moving forward together. Starting on or before January 23, contact information can be found at www.pearusa.com.

We are deeply thankful for all those who joined together in Raleigh during this gracious time of fellowship and we are thankful for our bishops who have given us a way forward for these next days ahead. Please pray continually and fervently for all those who are seeking to serve the work of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church in the days and months ahead, and please communicate freely and frequently your thoughts, ideas, questions and concerns with this team.

On behalf of all who attended the Sacred Assembly,

The Most Rev. Onesphore Rwaje, January 18, 2012

First Steps Toward Reconciliation
And Why I Decided to Stay in Rwanda By Thaddeus Rockwell Barnum

On August 31, I heard a word I never dreamed I’d hear.

I was on a monthly AMIA Council of Bishops (COB) phone call when our Chairman presented us with “options.” He asked, 1- if we wanted to stay in Rwanda; 2- if we wanted to go to ACNA or, 3- if we wanted to start a new Missionary Society. He asked each of us to respond.

“Option?” I shot back. “There are no options. We’re in relationship with Rwanda and Rwanda with us.”

Just a year before, we announced to our brothers and sisters in ACNA that we chose to be a Missionary Partner with ACNA because our identity was clear. We are Rwandans. We can’t be in two provinces. We can’t have two archbishops. We belong to an Anglican jurisdiction. It’s how we started. It’s who we are.

For ten years I have served in the episcopal office. On the document of my consecration, it states that I was “chosen a bishop for the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda.” As I traveled the country helping to start new churches, preaching, confirming, ordaining, I did so as a missionary bishop in the Anglican Communion under this Rwandan authority.

And now, for the first time, I was faced with the word, “option” and the possibility—the real possibility—that division was just around the corner, crouching at the door.

* * *

A month prior, in our July conference call, I’d learned that the June House of Bishops (HOB) meeting in Rwanda was difficult and chaotic. Their own House was negotiating change in leadership. There were new bishops and a new Archbishop. It was clearly confusing for our AMIA Chairman to witness this unrest but the plan forward seemed both clear and helpful: 1- for our Chairman to return to the next HOB meeting in Rwanda in September and, 2- for the Rwandan bishops and the AMIA bishops to meet together for a time of fellowship and prayer after the Winter Conference, January 2012.

But even more helpful was the miraculous gift that came in mid-September.

Before their HOB meeting, the Rwandan bishops came together in a retreat to seek the face of God. Led by retired Bishop John Rucyahana and focused on the biblical theme of reconciliation, the Lord did a powerful work in their midst. He brought them together in such a profound way that Archbishop Rwaje would later write, in a

letter of December 9, “...our House of Bishops continues to enjoy an unprecedented level of unity and fellowship in the Holy Spirit during this time.”

The Lord had faithfully seen them through a most difficult time of transition—a time no different than many of us experience in our local churches with the change of a new rector and new vestry members.

It was my hope that this meant the word “option” was off the table.

* * *

On December 5, my last COB conference call, I learned of a conversation that would eventually take root and change the course of AMIA altogether. Our Chairman reported that in June, at some point during or after the turbulent House of Bishops meeting in Rwanda, retired Archbishop Kolini said to our Chairman that he believed it was time for AMIA to leave Rwanda.

And with that, vision was born.

By mid-summer, our Chairman met in London with AMIA’s retired and founding archbishops. It was here, as I understand it, that the concept of a new AMIA Missionary Society took shape out of a perceived concern that AMIA was suddenly vulnerable to the leadership changes in Rwanda. As this meeting took place, the vision of the Missionary Society—a real, tangible “option”—was as yet completely unknown to, and outside the counsel of, our own Rwandan Archbishop, Onesphore Rwaje.

But it had momentum and strength. It connected the AMIA with our past because our three retired founding archbishops now put their full weight of support behind the vision. And I realized then, even when I first heard of this plan in late August, I knew that the possibility of leaving Rwanda and starting a new Missionary Society was more than just an “option.”

To me, it felt like a done deal.

A deal I knew would divide us. Or at least me. For I actually believed that we, in AMIA, at our very core, were more than canonically resident in Rwanda. We were in relationship with them, and them with us, and if the day ever came for us to be released into something different, something new, it would be have to be done together in prayer, over time, and by the unity and peace that comes from the Holy Spirit.

No, for me, I personally could not take the journey out of Rwanda.

* * *

I have served with our Chairman, Bishop Chuck Murphy, for fifteen years. The brilliance of his leadership to me is the way he sees and casts vision. Time and time again, I’ve watched him gather leaders, present vision, and then break us into groups. He’d get us to talk it out and then come back and share our reflections. One of his most captivating and memorable lines is that, “God speaks to His people through His people.” And I’ve watched him listen to the people around him, take counsel, and move forward with his leaders with impeccable timing, great risk, and in obedience to the Lord.

For some reason, this fall was different.

After Bishop Murphy shared the vision of the Missionary Society with the Rwandan bishops in their September meeting, the African response was clear. Archbishop Rwaje wrote, “...the Missionary Society was a new concept that was still a confidential matter in the process of conception. The agreement was that we would have a joint design group to prepare a presentation to the December 21 House of Bishops” (letter from Archbishop Rwaje to Bishop Murphy, October 31).

The vision wasn’t off the table. They just wanted to take it slowly, step by step.

Bishop Murphy wanted to press forward. He packed the fall with meetings to cast the new vision. He met again with AMIA’s retired archbishops (sans ++Rwaje) in early October. He met with the AMIA Network Leaders in Arkansas and again in South Carolina with senior rectors from all over the Mission. This time, he decided, he didn’t want to break the leaders into groups and get their feedback. He would, he said—later, down the road, but not yet.

The feedback came anyway; feedback that would hit the internet and rock the Anglican world with fact, speculation, confusion and opinion. Like a wild virus, the internet took on a life of its own and often led, in a number of cases, to slander, accusation and bitter gossip—primarily directed against our Chairman.

The result wasn’t for us to step back and slow down as our Archbishop advised. Instead, the frenzy of the internet somehow became our frenzy and everything sped up with speed way beyond control.

* * *

It was clear the Rwandans were troubled by what they were hearing.

Retired Bishop John Rucyahana wrote an open letter to Bishop Murphy in late October urging him to slow down, take counsel with the Province of Rwanda, and to be assured that Rwanda remains “committed to AMIA.” But even Rucyahana

couldn’t explain how his retired Archbishop “Kolini who led AMIA as a mission of Rwanda and now moves with AMIA out of the Province during his retirement.”

Archbishop Rwaje wrote once, then a second time, “to halt the advancement of the society.” But the Chairman chose to ignore the Archbishop’s directives.

This was proven at the November AMIA Council of Bishops meeting in Myrtle Beach as the new Missionary Society took center stage. Except for Bishop Terrell Glenn and me, all the bishops declared their enthusiastic support of the Society, our Chairman, and our most respected retired archbishops.

But for me, I announced, I’d not be going into the Society. I knew there’d be clergy and congregations that would want to remain in the Province of Rwanda, under the authority of our Archbishop, and would not want this change. I asked my colleagues to support me in pastoring these churches.

Although my proposal was accepted, another story, a bigger story had emerged. For it was at this meeting Bishop Terrell Glenn submitted his resignation from the AMIA Council of Bishops citing a broken and unreconciled relationship with the Chairman. This resignation became the headline news coming out of our November COB meeting.

A story of an unreconciled relationship among leaders.

A prophetic story. For in less than a month’s time, more relationships were about to break.

* * *

Archbishop Rwaje and Bishop Murphy met together face to face in November. It seemed, on the surface, that this meeting went well and that these two men were walking together. But deep, unresolved issues lay underneath the surface.

On November 30, after taking counsel with the House of Bishops, and in unity with them, Archbishop Rwaje decided to release two letters. The first was to all AMIA clergy and congregations. He wanted “to re-assure you of our firm stand with you” and to exhort us to “stand firm in this difficult and trying times.”

The second letter was a godly admonition sent to Bishop Murphy and copied to our Council of Bishops. It was a strong rebuke stating: “You have misused the authority given to you by the Archbishop in advancing your New Missionary Society interests. We wrote you a letter twice to halt the advancement of the society, and you have ignored us…”

If only this letter had been private. It wasn’t. An unknown source had released it to an Anglican journalist who was about to take it public. And once again, what was meant to be done in private was now exposed for all the world to see. But worse, far worse, it seemed to some to color the way the Archbishop’s letter of godly admonition was received. Was it possible Rwanda released it? some asked. And if that was true, how could the admonition be, in itself, godly? But surely an orthodox Archbishop’s godly discipline can’t be ignored, and ruled ungodly, simply because it was leaked to the press?

We were suddenly at the crossroads—those rare moments in life when a decision is required that will impact the lives of many and define us for years to come.

* * *

Early Monday morning, December 5, I wrote Bishop Chuck and copied two of my colleagues as witnesses. I begged him to comply with the Archbishop’s admonition. I wrote, “If we have any authority as bishops to bring ‘godly discipline’ then we’ve got to model being under and complying to ‘godly discipline’ ...“Model being under authority for us, for the Mission. Don’t let us divide… For the sake of the Mission, for the sake of all who look to you as a model of godly leadership, come under the discipline of your Archbishop.”

A half hour after sending this letter, I was notified that the COB was about to have an emergency conference call and that each of us (except Bishop Terrell who had formerly left the COB) was being asked to issue our formal resignation along with our Chairman as bishops of the Province of Rwanda.

This was it. The moment of decision. AMIA bishops were being asked to leave a paper trail of their decision. Not once did any of the bishops ask to take time in prayer over this momentous decision or to consult their Network leaders, clergy and lay leaders.

At noon, during the call, the formal letter of resignation was read out loud. In the letter, apologies were made and gratitude was extended for years of relationship. But, at the end of the letter, the brokenness of the relationship was exposed as our Chairman compared AMIA to the nation of Israel leaving the Egyptians (Africa). The implication, I knew, would be devastating for our African brothers to hear. How would they bear being compared to the Egyptian nation under the judgment of God?

And with that, I listened as all my colleagues resigned—all but me.

* * *

Two days later, I had opportunity to speak with Archbishop Rwaje. I apologized to him that we were unwilling to comply with his godly admonition. I apologized for the insulting words of the past months—none which hurt more than the phrase “reverse colonialism” (implying AMIA wasn’t going to be controlled by Africa)—and then for the hurtful comparison of being compared to the Egyptian nation.

News went everywhere: AMIA was no longer under Rwanda. The subtle implication was that the Rwandan House of Bishops brought this on themselves with internal strife and divisions and that there were forces in the Mission that were simply out to get the Chairman.

Spin spun and spun again.

The only thing that mattered was the tragedy itself. The Mission was bitterly divided. Christians who have labored in the gospel vineyard for years were now turning ploughshares into swords. Sides were being taken. Some to remain in AMIA. Some to remain in Rwanda. Some to make the move to ACNA.

Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today and a member of an AMIA church, called it simply what church history has always called division in the Body of Christ that is not over foundational Christian doctrine.

He called it “schism.”

* * *

For the sake of the gospel and for the unity of the Body of Christ, Archbishop Duncan of ACNA has taken a leading role in beginning steps toward reconciliation. He has assured Archbishop Rwaje of his support as a fellow GAFCON primate and has committed himself and ACNA leaders to a process of restoration with the AMIA bishops who resigned from Rwanda.

These are beginning steps.

“I want you to know,” wrote Archbishop Rwaje in his Christmas letter, “that we grieve with you over the resignation of our friends, brothers in Christ and fellow bishops in AMiA. I am thankful for the support shown to the Province of Rwanda by my friend and colleague, Archbishop Robert Duncan. I share the same confidence that with God nothing is impossible. (Luke 1:37).”

“We are brokenhearted,” he continued, “over the shame that this division has brought to our Lord and to his bride. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is the power to heal all our wounds, and we trust that he will repair and restore what has been so badly broken. Forgiveness and reconciliation are Gospel imperatives for all Christians, and especially for us here in Rwanda. As you continue to move forward in mission in 2012, please do so with mutual respect for one another, fostering open communication, trusting relationships, and accountability to those whom the Lord has called us to serve and lead.”

With that, he announced that he would fly to Raleigh, North Carolina in January 2012 and meet with the clergy and congregations who’d like to come together for a time of “worship, confession, prayer and study of God’s word.” Because he knows that’s where reconciliation starts.

By coming together. By confessing our sins. By asking the Lord to do what we ourselves can’t do for the sake of His great name; for the blessing of His Church; and for our witness of the peace and unity of Christ to a world in desperate need of Him.

These are the first steps.

(for more information about Mission Rwanda and the Moving Forward Together conference with Archbishop Rwaje, stay tuned to www.missionrwanda.org)

The timeline of the abuse appears to have taken place from age 15 to 27—technically well-beyond the legal definition of abuse of a minor.

And I am not sure how to take a married man with three children saying this: “Perhaps it [my love of the church] is the only real love that I have ever known, and it is a love distorted and beyond my reach over all of my adult life.”

At any rate, the depth of depravity and evil described by the story—not merely by the perpetrators but also by those who covered it up is devastating.  I can hardly imagine such bullying, threats, corruption, and evil from the bishops and clergy involved.

The story is from The Australian, where there is more:

As a child and teenager, he only ever wanted to be a Catholic priest but as his statement to Monsignor Cappo in March 2008 sets out, his nightmare began [at age 15] at the minor seminary where he completed Years 11 and 12 and where a prefect took him to the room of John Stockdale. The older seminarian plied him with wine, cheese and fruit and the prefect left, leaving him alone with “Stoker”. Stockdale warned he could be expelled for being there and his touches quickly became sexual before “he began painful and vigorous sex”, Archbishop Hepworth recounted in a statement to the Adelaide Archdiocese on March 25, 2008.

He said he went to bed that night confused and in pain after the violent anal rape. By his account, he wondered if what had happened was sinful and whether he should receive communion the next morning and confess it.

He was warned by the prefect next day that he would be expelled if he mentioned the encounter. The prefect later befriended Hepworth’s father, who used to tell his son, “Stick with (the prefect) . . . and you’ll be OK”.

The pattern of abuse was to be repeated at monthly intervals for about two years until the prefect who had introduced him to Stockdale “passed him on” to a Melbourne priest visiting Adelaide, Ronald Pickering.

“He expected and forcefully demanded sex,” Archbishop Hepworth recalled in the same statement. The encounters continued, in Adelaide, Melbourne and in Oxford during a liturgy conference to which he was sent by his then-archbishop.

Working in several Adelaide parishes - Goodwood, Colonel Light Gardens and Glenelg - after ordination, Archbishop Hepworth recalled in his statement how he “had learned some resistance” in rebutting the homosexual approaches of Pickering and others and began studying at Flinders University, a process he found “liberating”. He holds several degrees.

But as a young priest, he was invited to the beach by two priests. According to Archbishop Hepworth’s statements, after walking on the beach one night, one of the priests “stripped off and began wrestling with me”.

“He was stronger than me,” Hepworth said. “Or perhaps I was just weary of it all . . . I remember cold, wet sand and forced sex.”

The statement recalled that the foray to the beach had been “my conscious last attempt to ‘belong’ among the diocesan clergy”. It was also the turning point that made him determined to escape.

“I have had a vivid memory of that event, and of the guilt the next day as I drove back to Adelaide,” Hepworth said.

“By then, I had an awareness of the illegality of homosexuality, a sense of gross sinfulness, but also a sense of the glamour of the group with which I had been involved.”

His fear of prosecution under the law, he said, prevented him going to the police.

“I want to state quite clearly that I never fully consented to sexual activity with (the priest still working in Adelaide).”

Updates may be found here and over there at Adelaide Now.

There’s an interesting longer comment here.  And some blog material here at Broken Rites and here at Rorate Caeli.

I was there on September 11. Judy and I were living three short blocks from the twin towers. We had awakened that morning to clear blue skies and the sparkling waters of New York Harbor. But it was not to last. We felt the shock when the first tower was hit. We heard the scream of the second jet flying low overhead and the sonic boom that followed when the south tower was hit. We experienced the shaking and the midnight darkness when the first tower collapsed. We saw the dust and ash and the paper on the streets and felt the eerie silence later when we were allowed to leave the area.

It was out of the ashes of 9/11 that Christ Church had its beginnings. In January that year, Judy and I had moved to New York. Redeemer had invited me, an Anglican minister from Sydney, to establish new gospel ministries in lower Manhattan with the intention of forming a new church over the next three years. However, because I had been involved in setting up a new midweek ministry on Wall Street in the spring and summer of 2001, it was agreed that we should form a community with a view to starting a new church. In January, 2004 Christ Church New York City was formally launched.

On this tenth anniversary of September 11, we look back to learn the lessons of that day as well as to look forward.
Ten years ago, in their shock and grief, people everywhere prayed. In the immediate aftermath churches were filled as many looked for comfort and guidance. A great evil occurred that day. Almost three thousand men and women died. Thousands more mourned. Rightly, the lives of individuals and the city have moved on. The Christian motif of resurrection supports this. But it is important that we stop to reflect, and to pray for those who lost loved ones and friends. But many people forget the evil, the horror, the godlessness of actions that took the lives of ordinary people going about their daily affairs. They forget that it was commercial airliners that were crashed into the twin towers and the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

We are the losers if we do forget. Events like 9/11 make us realize that we need more than the wisdom of the world to give us understanding and to comfort the broken- hearted and those who mourn. For example, Psalm 46 tells us:

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.

These words show us that the Bible knows about suffering and evil, especially human evil and its devastating effects on this world. And we see here that God ‘s presence is not dislocated from such evils, nor is it abstracted from them. Rather, the psalm reveals God as being in the midst of the chaos: he is neither the cause of evils but nor is he removed from them. Further, the Bible speaks about human evil. It expects wickedness, and we should never be surprised at the depth of evil. If we reject the idea of God we are nothing but atoms in ordered cohesion, bumping around in time and space. Evil and suffering have no meaning. There is no moral compass.

We live in a world that is in rebellion against God and we should not be surprised at the consequences. The good news is that God has not left us to our own devices: he has committed himself to be involved. We can be confident that when we turn to him he will hear us and sustain us. Psalm 46 continues:

There is a river, whose streams make glad the city of God….God is with her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day.

Why such evil? Why such suffering? At one level we can explain that such acts occur because of human malice and sin. But why would God permit them? The issues of evil, suffering and pain are complex. For the professing Christian, this is the toughest question. And I have to say, there is no complete answer. Not even the Bible claims to give us the answer. It would be wrong of me to say that it did.

However, the Bible is clear about this: justice will be done. Talk of judgment is not popular these days but, if it is not real, there is no hope for goodness in the world. Goodness becomes meaningless. We dare to believe that goodness matters because the God who made the world intends to give his moral verdict on human history. Without judgment life itself is reduced to moral indifference. This is not an invitation to hatred and vindictiveness, for the Bible commands us to be concerned for the best interests of our enemies and to pray for them. The realities of the divine and of ultimate accountability have been integral to the life and practice of this nation from its inception. The first president, George Washington, was inaugurated half a mile from what became the World Trade Center site. In the course of his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, he said:

[We] ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . . .

At the least Psalm 23 should be read at the tenth anniversary ceremony – perhaps by a relative of someone who died on 9/11. This was the psalm that was recited by at least one man on board Flight 93 before the action against the terrorists brought the flight down in Pennsylvania. Later that night the President also read from the same psalm.These are words of comfort.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me…

We now have a clearer picture of God with the coming of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God into the world. Taking on human form he experienced the suffering, the injustice and grief that we are exposed to. Yet he could say, ‘I am the Good Shepherd; I lay down my life for the sheep’ (John 10:11). Through Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection we find freedom from sin, from fear and freedom from self. In Christ alone there is peace and joy, love and hope.

September 11, 2001 prompted thousands to turn back to God. Ten years on we should remember this and turn afresh to God ourselves.

A really encouraging video, I trust…

From The American Catholic blog:

Breaking news as the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America has formally requested to enter the Catholic Church. All 99 parishes and cathedrals!

From NewsComAu:

A DISTRICT Court judge says he is “astonished” an Anglican Church breakaway allowed a priest jailed for sexually abusing three altar boys to re-enter the ministry and commit “strikingly similar” offences.

Judge Sydney Tilmouth today said he found it remarkable that Wilfred Edwin Dennis was left in a position to commit the abuse, after being found guilty of molesting three altar boys in the early 1970s, AdelaideNow reports.

“I must say, whether he volunteered or the church, in effect, was going to do that, its astonishing that he went back to a ministry having (already) gone to jail for abusing altar boys,” Judge Tilmouth said.

“He (Dennis) was back in the position where he could prey on young boys again, he was given a ministry and there were altar boys.”

Dennis, 74, of Vale Park, has been found guilty of carnal knowledge against a separate altar boy, aged 15-16, between 1975 and 1977.

Outside court, his sister said the Traditional Anglican Communion - a splinter group from the Anglican church- had allowed Dennis back into the ministry because they had trusted him.

There is more from the Sydney Morning Herald.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 20, 2009

CANA Praises Church of Nigeria Decision to be in Full Communion with Emerging Anglican Province

HERNDON, Va. (March 20, 2009) – The Convocation of Anglicans in North America praised the unanimous decision of the Church of Nigeria Standing Committee to be in full communion with the emerging Anglican province, the Anglican Church of North America.  The Church of Nigeria is the first Anglican province to formally accept the emerging province as a branch of the Anglican Communion.  CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, which includes about 700 congregations.

“Once again, we within CANA are grateful to the Church of Nigeria for creating a formal branch between orthodox Anglican congregations in North America and the well-respected Province, as the Church of Nigeria did for CANA several years ago.  It is a significant decision that will strengthen the unity among those in the U.S. who wish to remain faithful to their Christian beliefs while remaining in good standing as part of the worldwide Anglican Communion.  Our continued prayer is for Anglicans across the world to be able to stay faithful to orthodox beliefs within the Anglican Communion.  This decision by the Church of Nigeria formalizes that hope,” said CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns.

Available here from Church Society as a pdf.

The reaction of evangelicals in the AMiA to An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) has been mixed. Some are not enchanted with the book but use it because the AMiA collaborated in its production. Others use services from An English Prayer Book (1994), Common Worship (2000), and other sources that contain contemporary English versions of the services of the 1662 Prayer Book. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) has received a warmer welcome from traditionalist Anglicans largely because of the book’s Catholic doctrinal content and other similarities to the 1928 Prayer Book.

h/t ACL

Here is the text of the letter from Cardinal Levada, posted at The Messenger Journal, which is a news source about TAC.