The leader who serves…The leader who empties himself for those he comes to…The leader who washes his disciples’ feet…The leader who gives his life for others…. This is the Jesus we follow, whose apostles and witnesses we are and want to be.
In a very profound way this is why we are here, here in Jordan and before many days in Jerusalem, here on pilgrimage in the Holy Land. We have come to re-claim our roots. Our roots as Christians, our roots as Anglicans, our roots as leaders: a pilgrimage back “to the old, old story” – the story of Jesus: His Incarnation, His Holy Nativity and Baptism, His teaching and His ministry, His Cross and Passion, His Death, His Resurrection, His Ascension, The Coming of His Holy Spirit, the original Apostolic Witness to Him. We want to tell this story clearly in our time, without loss or compromise in translation or transmission, and most certainly without individually or corporately getting in the way of the story.
In North America we have an expression: “Your actions speak so loudly I cannot hear what you are saying.” Often the Church is guilty of actions that make it very hard to take seriously – to “hear” – the words we speak. Bishops can be especially guilty of this, but so also can other Church leaders. Jesus, to our knowledge never dressed in purple, lived in a palace or stayed in a fine hotel. (These things are not in themselves destructive, but they can be dangerous!) In my part of the world, at least, we often live and act as Lords – we often live and act as if we were the ones who made the rules and set the agenda – yet
we speak of one who entered in a manger, lived among the people, had no place to lay his head, sought out the sick and troubled, died on a cross and borrowed a tomb. We are here on pilgrimage to remind ourselves of the kind of Lord we follow and the kind of leaders we want to be. We want our actions – our manner of life – to match the story, to serve the story – the old, old story. We who are gathered here do not want to be obstacles to the reception of the story. No, we are on pilgrimage to better be the vehicles – transparent vehicles – of the story.We who are gathered here recognize that the Reformation (Elizabethan) Settlement of Anglicanism has disintegrated. We know that we are at a turning point in Anglican history, a place where two roads diverge. One road is faithful to Jesus’ story. The other road is about some other story. We can take the road that is “strait and narrow,” or the one that is “wide” (to use Jesus’ own description of the choice.) The choice before us is a choice before all Anglicans. It is just as certainly a choice before the upcoming Lambeth Conference. Which road will the Anglican Communion take?
© 2004-2012 Gri5th Media, LLC.
All rights reserved.
[45 : 1.9018]
Welcome to Stand Firm!
Bishop Duncan: Anglicanism Come of Age: A Post-Colonial and Global Communion For The 21st Century
Thursday, June 19, 2008 • 5:24 pm
99 Comments •
|
Wow. What a tremendous start to GAFCon. I always have high expectations when I hear +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted speak. Especially when he gives a major address like this one, or his rousing speech at Nashotah House in the fall of 2206, or his marvelous address at the Hope and a Future Conference in Pittsburgh. And I wasn’t disappointed. This is vintage Bishop Duncan stuff. Incredibly inspiring, boldly visionary, with a passionate intensity of spirit that matches the depth and profundity of his understanding of the issues. He cuts to the heart of the matter and expresses the choices before us with a clarity that can’t be evaded. And +Duncan is only one of the brightest stars in the constellation now gathered in Jerusalem. God has raised up, Christ has called, and the Spirit has empowered some truly outstanding leaders who are worthy successors to the apostles in the likes of +Bob Duncan and +Jack Iker, of +John Guernsey and +Bill Atwood, of +Martyn Minns and +John Rodgers, of ++Peter Akinola and ++Henry Orombi etc. Paraphrasing the epitaph adorning the tombstone of the great English Puritan leader Richard Baxter, “In the worst of times, they are the best of men.” I will gladly and enthusiastically follow them, without reservation. I hope everyone will read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this admirable speech. I will probably read and ponder it many times in the days and weeks to come, as I have his previous major speeches. I will only raise two quibbles here. First, I do NOT agree that Anglicanism at its best represents “Mere Christianity” with no special, distinctive features of its own. Of course, we have unique, distinctive features, as outsiders have always been able to tell. English theologians Paul Avis and +Stephen Sykes have written about this at some length, and I’m convinced they are correct. C.S. Lewis himself wouldn’t have considered what he termed “mere Christianity” synonymous with Anglicanism, devoted Anglican layman that he was. And secondly, I’m uneasy about Bishop Duncan’s passion for recovering a true Book o COMMON Prayer across the whole Communion, especially if that means retreating to something like the English BCP of 1662. That reversal of so much progress made in the recovery of our patristic liturgical roots since the Liturgical Renewal movment began worries me. Now granted, the call to create a new “Instrument of Unity” in a new universal BCP that could function the way that the old Prayerbook tradition did up until the 1960s is more muted here than it is in his eloquent speech at Nashotah on “The Future of Anglicanism.” But it’s still there, and it’s disturbing. As he said back then, a church with a living magisterium such as the Roman Catholics have in their pope, or the Eastern Orthodox do in their Patriarchs, can perhaps afford not to have a universal liturgy. But a tradition like Anglicanism that lacks such a centralized, living magisterium can’t. And to my mind, that is a great reason precisely to develop such a living magisterium, albeit with appropriate safeguards to prevent tyranny. But it is abundantly clear to me at least, that anarchy is a MUCH greater danger than ecclesial tyranny in our day and among us Anglicans. But having noted those two points, I stress once again that this is a splendid speech. The New Reformation is here. It has already begun. Anglicanism, and all western Christianity is at the most important crossroad since the 1500s. Most of all, I wish to affirm my wholehearted and resounding agreement with +Duncan that what he calls “the Reformation Settlement” (which I also agree is more apt than the more common phrase, the Elizabethan Settlement) is disintegrating rapidly and I think irreversibly. A new Global and Post-Colonial Settlement has already begun, and it will be forged much more at GAFCon than at Lambeth. And my earnest hope is that this news Global Settlement will not only be “post-colonial,” as he rightly notes, but also an emphatically “post-Christendom Settlement.” But that challenge remains one that we still haven’t yet begun to face with the seriousness that is required. But for now, I’m thrilled. This is fantastic. This is Luther-like language. There is absolutely no doubt where +Duncan stands, and I love that about him. And he isn’t alone. GAFCon is also, among other things, as he himself points out, the second meeting of the Council of Bishops of the CCP, which has grown since the first meeting even though the APA has dropped back to observer status. Hip, hip hooray for +Duncan the Lion-Hearted. Hip, hip hooray for GAFCon. Hip, hip hooray for the CCP. On with the New Reformation. “Let goods and kindred go…” David Handy+ |
|
“And secondly, I’m uneasy about Bishop Duncan’s passion for recovering a true Book o COMMON Prayer across the whole Communion, especially if that means retreating to something like the English BCP of 1662. That reversal of so much progress made in the recovery of our patristic liturgical roots since the Liturgical Renewal movment began worries me. “ Retreating? Liturgical Renewal -is that what gave the Anglican Church of Canada the Book of Alternative Services? The fact that this worries you worries me. But that’s OK, I’m sure you’re in the majority, even in the Common Cause world, and I’ve given up anyway, because I know that despite what Bp Duncan wrote they’ll never get the Puritan Pope Jensen or most of the rest of you to use the Prayer Book. So take heart, and instead of worrying about what Bp Duncan wrote, read that “One Faith” thing that also just came out of GAFCON, in that they pay the usual rote “orthodox” lip service to the BCP, 39 Articles and the Ordinal but promise that we will have an exciting new “Anglican liturgy for the 21st Century” so warm up your overhead projector! As for me, I’ve been an Anglican for 50 years and I can’t stand it anymore. In all that time there has been almost unending strife, and I have watched this tradition slowly destroyed and now it’s dead. I am heartbroken and this GAFCON church will just break my heart even more because it won’t really be Anglican. And why would it be anyway? What does Anglican mean? Anyone? And eventually it will tear itself apart all over again over women’s ordination. The Anglican Church is finally collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions, contradictions it has carried around for five centuries. It’s a cultural phenomenon whose time has come and gone. This is obviously in God’s plan. For me, the thing to do is go. Absolutely put it all behind me and join a church that knows what it is. |
|
Am I correctly reading the passage where Bp. Duncan matter of factly states that the Articles are no longer widely subscribed to? Since when did subscription to the Articles of Religion become optional? If that is where all this is headed with the North Americans in Common Cause, then my Mission and I may need to re-assess what we are doing. Although my family and I have been Anglican for only eight years, my Grandmothers were both C of E and Church of Ireland, respectively, and growing up in Toronto fifty years ago I recall what the Anglican Church once was. I can relate very much to the frustration and sadness that Hopeless Percy has expressed. I’m a presbyter, so I can provide for most of the liturgical needs of my family and those in my charge, but what of the laity? Regardless of what GAFCon does or what happens with Common Cause, we shall stick with using the 1662 BCP and the Ordinal, the Articles of Religion in their plain and intended meaning, the Homilies and the Authorized Version of scripture. I have used the term Anglican Survivalist before half-jokingly but I do feel that there is a very real possibility that those who hold dear these things I’ve mentioned may have to withdraw into the catacombs, as it were, by gathering with just a few people in their homes, relying on visiting clergy and reading prayers together with their families in order to keep the flame of the English Reformation alive. |
|
Yes, it’s true in the Episcopal Church, RMBruton. A priest told me (proudly) that the 39 Articles were never ONCE MENTIONED in his seminary experience. The American Prayer Book did not explicitly call the 39 Articles simply “historical documents” until 1979. My 1928 BCP presents them as still binding: “As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of Our Lord 1801.” This is how they were taught to me (well before 1979), as foundational tenets of the church. The 1979 BCP hides them in the middle of other materials in a section called “Historical Documents of the Church.” The English BCP of 1662, still the official book and the one most familiar to the global Anglican Communion, reads as follows: The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral adapted Articles VI, VIII, XXV, and XXXVI into its statement (Lambeth, 1888): (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. Although there had been longstanding debates about the interpretation of the Articles (particularly those concerning the Church of Rome), I believe that it is relatively modern to relegate them entirely to history as though they are not tenets of our faith. Here is a little general commentary about the points in the Quadrilateral: “The first point, concerning what Anglicans call ‘the suffiency of Scripture,’ takes its language directly from Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith, foundational to Anglican Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics since the sixteenth century. As such, it has been widely accepted as written. Similarly, the second point describes the sine qua non of Catholic faith since antiquity, and so likewise has enjoyed broad acquiescence. To the extent that it has been controversial, the controversy has centered entirely on those parts of the Communion that have sought to expand a sufficient statement of faith to include other formulae. The third point has been controversial among some Anglicans as being inappropriately limited. In particular, many Anglo-Catholics have maintained that the five other sacraments should be included as essential marks of the Church . . . . By far, the most controversial point has been the fourth, which many believe could open the door to challenging the Church’s episcopal tradition of apostolic succession.” |
|
Interesting speech, wonderfully inspiring in parts and clearly Christ-centred in its humility. I am not sure that I accept all his conclusions. What concerns me with one possible outcome that could flow from this [perhaps the conclusion that Alice Linsley has come to] is that it would leave the majority of churches in the Communion [like the CofE] with their moderate to conservative majorities in the lurch if the impetus to separation is followed. What I imagine is going on and might be the outcome of GAFCON is that these churches and individuals will bind together in common interest and support; have lost confidence in the some of the instruments of Communion [and let’s face it there are some serious unanswered questions about RW’s peculiar actions] but I imagine that a likely outcome would be this: GAFCON/the GS says [in time] “Here we are, this is what we believe, here we stand. Most of us are out of Communion with some or all parts of TEC. We have had enough of the flapping around and the shennanigans. We are in Communion with each other because we share the same understanding of our Saviour and his sacrifice for us. So, you in the rest of the Communion, where do you stand? Who do you say that Jesus is? Do you believe what we do? Are you in Communion with us?” I certainly would hope that of the two GAFCON will not precipitately go for some separatist scheme but for the more constructive latter statement. |
|
Hopeless Percy (#4), I’m sorry if my comment above only added to your grief and pain. I know you are not alone by any means in your devotion to what I call “the Old Anglicanism,” and especially in your love of the old Prayerbook tradition (represented in the English BCP of 1662, the American BCP of 1928, or the Canadian BCP of 1962). I was not intending to belittle that at all. But yes, I do think the Liturgical Renewal movement (which began among Roman Catholics, remember, and was not at all anti-traditional) represents tremendous improvements on that precious heritage. To put it bluntly, the Anglican Prayerbook tradition (note: small “t”) is merely the middle link in the chain back to the earlier patristic Tradition (note capital “T”). And when there is a comflict between them, I generally (though not always) prefer the patristic Tradition to the English Reformed tradition, because in many crucial ways I am more of a biblical Catholic than a liturgical Protestant. That raises lots of basic questions or issues that still have to be answered or solved as this New Reformation evolves and unfolds. We don’t have all those answers now. But that is the nature of life in this world; we work things out as we go. I can live with that uncertainty. I can’t live with heresy. As for your pointed questions about what it means to be “Anglican” anyway, well, that is very much at the heart of this whole struggle. I would say that the Quadrilateral is our best clue to the essence of Anglicanism. But time will tell. In the meantime, I validate the legitimacy of your grief and pain. The Anglicanism you knew and loved indeed is no more in the western world, except in isolated outposts that cling nostalgically to it but have no real influence or future. But from my point of view, that Old Anglicanism, grand and glorious as it was, had and has to die, in order that the even greater New Anglicanism can be resurrected in its place. And the New Anglicanism that results from this New Reformation will be MORE biblical than the old one, not less. It will be MORE richly and authentically traditional too, i.e., in fuller and deeper accord with the Tradition that really counts, the patristic Tradition, not the Reformed tradition. And above all, it will be much, MUCH MORE evangelistic and missionary-minded than the old Anglicanism ever was, given its state church character. The best is yet to come! The glory days for orthodox Anglicanism are NOT in the past, they are still in the future. On with the New Reformation. David Handy+ |
|
Richard (RMB, #5), Yes, you are most certainly correct in reading +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted as matter-of-factly conceding that the grand old 39 Articles (and the two Books of Homilies from the Reformation era too) are most definitely defunct and have been relegated to the historical archives in much of contemporary Anglicanism. And not just in North America or among liberals either. For the plain fact is that they are very much products of what John Henry Newman called, “an uncatholic era.” That is, they are ONE-SIDEDLY Protestant. Already in the first half of the 1600s, under the catholicizing influence of the Caroline Divines, that imbalanced emphasis on just the Reformed side of Anglicanism began to be corrected (and it was “meet and right so to do”). And thus we ended up with something like the strange, incoherent amalgam represented by the 1662 BCP, which was essentially the Elizabethan or Reformation Prayerbook text of 1559 with catholicizing or Laudian rubrics. For instance, the 1662 rubrics explicitly call the prayer over the bread and wine “the Prayer of Consecration,” a notion abhorrent to Thomas Cranmer, who in good Zwinglian fashion believed that only people, and not inanimate objects, could rightly be blessed and consecrated. But while I myself would readily admit that I consider certain aspects of the 39 Articles outdated and obsolete and unacceptably imbalanced in the Protestant direction, I also hasten to add that there is much in them that remains valuable and highly relevant. And above all, that is true in the strong, ringing affirmation in the Articles of Religion of 1571 with regard to the supremacy of Holy Scripture, as seen in articles VI and XX etc. It is high time for us Anglicans to reaffirm the parts of the Articles that remain in force and binding. And that is what something like the new proposed Covenant should do. As it is currently, by relegating the 39 Articles to the oblivion of irrelevance as MERELY a dry, dusty historical relic of our past, as the liberals do, we end up with a creedal vacuum at the heart of Anglicanism. And that is an untenable and impossible situation. For much too long now, many Anglicans have actually BOASTED that we aren’t a creedal or confessional church (such as the Lutherans or Presbyterians clearly are, or at least used to be!). That simply has to change. No church that claims continuity with “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” can long function in a healthy way without a working creed that is compatible with the classic creeds. So I agree with you, Richard, in a very real sense. We most definitely need a working, binding creed. But the 39 Articles just won’t fill the bill. They are FAR too one-sidedly Protestant for the orthodox Anglicanism that exists today, on this side of the Caroline Divines and the Tractarians. The catholic wing of Anglicanism is here to stay. But so is Sydney, with its proud reaffirmation of that strong Reformation tradition that you prize so much (and rightly so). Both the Reformed and the Catholic wings of Anglicanism are here to stay and will have to be synthesized in whatever new creed gets drafted in the future, hopefully the near future. David Handy+ |
|
Pageantmaster, what is happening is that the CoE and TEC are not left in the lurch, so to speak, but put into a hopefully temporary ‘time out’ in order to decide whether they are indeed truly practicing Christians or not, whether they will recognize their error or not. |
|
As I had always understood it, the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral was never the statement of what “mere Anglicanism” was. It was rather a statement of the characteristics required in other Christian churches with whom we could consider ecumenical relations—that is, “mere Christianity.” In addition to the quadrilateral, Anglicans were defined by Articles and Prayer Book. No one could disagree that the Articles spoke to their time. Some of them are anachronisms, and many of them focus on the hot topics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and may not speak directly to the problems of today; but many of them are essential and necessary statements of doctrine. Working through this is one of Anglicanism’s current tasks. But to say, Fr. David Handy, that we don’t need a Prayer Book! —when the existence of a common liturgy is what defined us, in addition to valid ordinations. When my father went to England, North Africa, and Italy with American troops in WWII he knew that wherever an Anglican/Episcopal service was being held, his church was there. Today, I can’t even visit around my home city and find the same liturgy. What’s wrong with trying to recover that? Without a Pope or Patriarch, Common Prayer is what marks us as a communion. If you’re saying it probably won’t be in Shakespearian English, I have to admit, with regret, that you’re right. But the Prayer Book is our heritage, and it is a goodly one. |
|
Katherine (#16), Hold your horses. I didn’t mean to suggest that there is no need for a broad sort of consensus on what sort of liturgy we Anglicans share in common. Of course, common prayer is at the very heart of Anglicanism and has been the MAIN glue holding us together. Naturally, I don’t intend to throw that baby out with all the dirty bathwater we must get rid of in the New Reformation. But my essential point was that since the 1960s there is no longer a single Prayerbook tradition anymore in worldwide Anglicanism. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if new BCPs in provinces around the AC had to get some kind of approval from a central authority which has yet to arise. That is part of what it means to morph into a true worldwide COMMUNION of interdependent national or regional churches and for us to become truly a conciliar church instead of the mere federation of highly autonomous churches that the AC has in fact become in recent decades. As I interpret it, this fabulous, programmatic speech by the visionary +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted is calling for the adoption of a new Instrument of Unity or Communion represented by some kind of agreement on our liturgical foundation, or something that will set the parameters for current liturgical use. The temptation will be to simply resort to turning to the grand old BCP of 1662 as that standard, since it is used in so much of the Global South as the basic norm, with certain special provincial modifications in each place. I would strongly resist and deplore that simplistic way of trying to resolve the problem. As I intimated above, I think the tempting cop out of just reverting to 1662 (or even including alongsside it the American 1928 BCP, which still stands recognizably in the same Cranmerian tradition) would amount to an unacceptable and unwise “retreat” from many of the precious gains of the Liturgical Renewal movement. There is a very great deal in the 1979 BCP that I value very highly, not because of its own merits as because it represents a recapturing of so much of the precious patristic Tradition of the early centuries. In the end, if the evangelical, low church wing of Anglicanism and the catholic, high church wing are ever going to hang together and truly synthesize into a genuine hybrid, it is going to have to be on the basis of the patristic inheritance that we share in common. That is the only pace where real convergence is possible, for the patristic church was truly evangelical, catholic, and charismatic all at once. Or so I believe. I hope that clarifies things. I respect you, Katherine, and I suspect we aren’t as far apart as you may have thought on the basis of my unguarded language in my post above. David Handy+ |
|
David+, |
|
A follow up to my #18, Let me illustrate. The AMiA churches have recently published what is called “The Anglican Prayer Book.” If you haven’t seen it, it is a little 227 page gem in a blue hardback cover. It represents exactly the sort of thing I am arguing against, a mere reversion to the Cranmerian BCP tradition. In the section on “the Holy Communion,” it gives three eucharistic prayers, those of the English 1662, the American 1928, and the Canadian 1962 BCPs, and it treats them all as acceptable variants. But otherwise it largely follows the classic 1662 pattern. There is no Easter Vigil. There is no Sacrament of Reconciliation, etc. etc. And the liturgy for Holy Baptism is remarkably close to 1662, with the SEVERE FLAWS that mar the 1662 book (like godparents speaking for the child: “Do you wish to be baptized?,” the priest asks. And they answer for the child, “I do!” That is patently absurd, but that’s what kind of nonsense AMiA is encouraging. And I say that as a priest now serving an AMiA congregation! And who did the Anglican Mission in the Americas turn to as the guru who guided this new transalation and mild updating of the classic BCP, none other than the notorious president of the Prayer Book Sociey, the (infamous) Peter Toon. Enough said. David Handy+ |
|
<blockquote>Consider these offerings from the website of the Diocese of Northern Michigan, whose |
|
David Handy+, I’ll accept your sympathy as genuine, I think. At any rate we seem to agree that this in fact “a new thing” since we have both declared “Old Anglicanism” dead. Anyway, I’m sure I’m not the only one out here who is bitterly disappointed to see where this is going on, like, day one. Do you think this is really going to end the strife? It looks to me like all the same issues that have been around since the 1970s are still going be battled over in the GAFCON Communion. This really is about the ick factor, despite all the fine ecclesiobabble about it being only symptomatic of a more profound disorder. Further to that, and with regard to the 39 Articles, ever since John Henry Newman wrote Tract 90 and taught us all how to lie, and then left, there’s no reason to trust anything an Anglican says, particularly the clergy, and especially the shower who call themselves bishops. |
|
Fr. David Handy, the baptism is the first thing I was going to refer to. Read the 1928 baptismal service, and then the 1979. Something much closer to the 1928 is an essential, in my opinion. I think the same will apply to the Ordinal, although I have not studied this in detail. What are your other problems with the 1662 - 1928 tradition? The lectionary? The collects? Cranmer did not just begin from scratch with a new order. The vast majority of the Sunday lectionary and the collects are from ancient sources in accordance with ancient practices and are therefore in great part representative of the patristic tradition you and I both cherish. The 1979 is a concession to modernity. It assumes that the people of God are not going to read Scripture or pray during the week. The Prayer Book provided for the essential story of Christ and the church being told in a routine way on Sundays and feast days, and provided a daily lectionary which combined with Morning and Evening Prayer provide a complete reading of the Bible plus prayer for every day of the year. In my 1928 parish we read the Psalm and Old Testament lessons provided in the lectionary for the Sunday in question. I see no reason why additional services and rites such as you describe cannot be authorized. My rector already uses forms for these. Their placement in the formal Prayer Book would seem to be exclusive towards our evangelical brothers. Is that what we want? So I suppose I need to know rather specifically what you don’t like about the Prayer Book other than its anachronisms. And the clunky baptismal service you cite just needs correcting. |
|
#13 Floridian Notwithstanding the arrogant and disobediant Dr Dudley [where the suspicion remains that he was put up to what he did by TEC influences in his “Anglican/Episcopal” church, you will find no authorisation of SSU’s or SSB’s. I cannot say with certainty that they never take place in disobediance to the clear teaching of the CofE. How do you imagine that “time out” will assist us? What do we do with our strong working relationships with dioceses in Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda? Respectfully we are probably considerably more conservative than many who have gone to GAFCON. Jesus is Alive! |
|
# 20 David, I agree with you about the AMiA green book version of the 1662 Prayer Book. Or I guess it’s blue in the hardbound version. I fully understand what your saying on Liturgical Renewal. I’m now sure of the reason to hit upon Peter Toon. He just did the job he was asked to do. An everyone knows where he stands on “Which Rite is Right.” I wonder have you seen the Anglican Service Book published by The Church of the Good Shephard in Rosemont, Pennsylvania? |
|
Pageantmaster, I was recently perusing “The Ugley Vicar’s” parish site. They have a Prayer Book service every Sunday! You have no idea how unusual this is in the U.S., where the powers that be did everything possible to blot out the Prayer Book, in most dioceses forbidding its use. A whole generation of American Episcopalians are totally unfamiliar with it. |
|
My apologies, Pageantmaster. My picture of the CoE has no basis in personal experience, but comes from the blog comments I’ve read: low attendance, churches closing, so-called ‘gay’ priests and bishops, from RW and his cohorts. I hope you mean all of them. I realize there is a vibrant growing evangelical Anglican faction in England, but are there some of these churches within the CoE? |
|
Well, I seem to have ended up provoking a storm here, which wasn’t my intention. TJ and Katherine have both raised major questions and/or objections, and I’m sure RMBruton could as well, not to mention others who haven’t weighted in yet. I didn’t mean to hijack this dicussion, and I’m open to others pursuing other aspects of this marvelous speech by +Duncan. But let me start with TJ and respond to his #19. Yes, I certainly would agree with you that one of the sorriest features of the 1979 BCP was its woefully inadequate new catechism. As many readers will know by now, there is a major new catechism being produced by an elite committee of GS leaders, under the guidance and direction of Michael Poon of Singapore. I look forward to seeing what they come up with. I’m sure it will be a vast improvement over the dismal 1979 version, which downplays the reality of sin and the need for radical converwsion in so many ways. OTOH, I don’t think Newman’s approach to the 39 Articles with his notorious Tract 90 will EVER have a place in the New Anglicanism. It was rightly regarded as evacuating the Protestant 39 articles of all real meaning. There are forms of Anglo-Catholicism that are compatible with Anglican tradition, but full-blown Tridentine Catholicism isn’t one of them. Those who are really committed to the truth of the decrees of Trent will inevitably swim the Tiber, or perhaps linger (ironically) in some little fragmentary continuing church conventicle. For example, I can easily see the New Agnlicanism revising the language of the 39 Articles about the canon of Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate those of us (and here I include mhyself) who regard the seven “Deutero-canonical” books of the so-called “Apocrypha” as fully part of the canon, albeit at a secondary or lower level of inspiration and authority. That is, on that particular point I do indeed find Trent more congenial than Article VI of the 39, but that most assuredly doesn’t apply to ALL the decrees of Trent (not least with regard to the crucial doctrine of justification). And yes, I deplore as much as you do the ridiculous statements put out by the notoriously heretical Diocese of N. Michigan. The late +Jim Kelsey was an extreme example of the false gospel of inclusivity, of idolizing toleration as the greatest of virtues, and attacking intolerance (especially of heresy and immorality) as the worst of vices. Lord, have mercy on us all. I hope that sheds more light than heat. David Handy+ |
|
#30 I was brought up with it. It grounds one’s being language, poetry as well as one’s faith. The Bebo generation struggle with it and therefore require pre-digested MacLiturgies. Hopefully they will grow into it. You can listen to choral evensong live or recorded at 4pm Sundays [our time] here |
|
#31 and #33 Floridian Some of the biggest churches in the CofE are Evangelical and orthodox in belief. Think Truro/the Falls. These are the growing ones. They are not only growing but are planting as well in new churches as well as helping struggling churches around the country. A lot of the parishes in the country are fairly moribund. Full of faithful elderly parishioners attached to the 1662 Prayer book, anglo-catholic and just Common Worship prayer book worshippers. There is a great deal to do. There are of course liberal churches and some in London who probably have gay [but required to be celibate] priests, but most of us don’t notice as by and large these churches are fairly empty, although I believe Dr Giles Fraser’s is fairly busy with young parents keen to get their children into the excellent church schools in Putney. |
|
Katherine (#24), bob+ (#27), Floridian (#29) etc., I’m sorry for perhaps hijacking this thread. My comments about the classic BCP tradition concerning the baptismal rite and my passing derisive comment about Peter Toon were only illustrative, minor points. I regret that they may have been overly provocative and thus distract attention away from the key points of this splendid, programmatic speech by the brave Bp. of Pittsburgh, who is also of course the Moderator of the ACN and the CCP. But briefly, so as not to ignore your questions to me, there are many problems with the whole way Christian initiation is handled in the classic BCP tradition. And I think that’s fundamentally due to the unquestioned assumption of a Christian nation and an established state church that underlies that old BCP approach. For example, that Christendom/Constantinian mentality is clearly seen in one of the rubrics that was part of the BCP all the way from 1549 up to and including 1928, but quietly and rightly dropped in 1979. And that’s the rubric that MANDATES that priests are to regularly instruct the people to rush all newborn children to the font and get them baptized pronto (lest they die unbaptized). I’m so glad that was omitted in 1979. Also the whole structure of the 1979 rite represents a return to the patristic norm in many ways, including such things as the addition of the (optional) baptismal anointing with chrism, the renewal of baptismal vows, the restoration of the great baptismal Easter Vigil as the best context for baptism, treating baptisms as primarily events of the whole family of God welcomning a new member, not primarily an event for the natural family into which a child is born, and so insisting that baptisms be done on Sundays as part of the parish worship etc. As for Peter Toon, perhaps all I should say is that I am no fan of the whole Prayer Book Society that he leads. There are lots of reasons why he puts me off and I find him obnoxious. That is NOT true of +David Moyer, rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA. The two men are very different, it seems to me. I welcome Fr./Bp. Moyer’s attempt to render the Rite II style liturgy in old-fashioned, Elizabethan (Rite I) language. But that’s because Bp. Moyer doesn’t idolize the English BCP tradition as Dr. Toon does. I’m not sure it’s necessary or helpful to go into a lot of details here. Suffice to say for now that putting Rite II into Elizabethan language still accepts the validity of the liturgical renewal movement’s restoring of many of the aspects of the earlier and more universal (and theologically sound) patristic Tradtion. The Cranmerian tradition is far more medieval in character in some ways, even while it’s much more Protestant in other ways. And in general, I view those medieval developments as corruptions and regrettable perversions of the healthier patristic pattern. These are big and complex topics. I’m sorry if I caused offense by letting my low opinion of Peter Toon become a distraction on this thread. David Handy+ |
|
I am quite orthodox and am certainly a fan of the 1979 Prayer Book, and particularly its focus on the centrality of Baptism. The Thirty-Nine Articles were perhaps a good statement of the borders of Anglican theology and practice. They are not by any means a complete statement of the theology of Anglican Christianity. David, people like you and I need to write some things that would be a good start on that. I would note that very often, statements of what Anglican theology should be are written by historical theologians and systematic theologians. I’d suggest that biblical scholars should start things moving this time. Rudy+ |
|
Rudy+ (#38), Thanks. I second your idea. Maybe we could get driver8, or Occasional Reader, or art+, or Rick in Louisiana etc. to join us in some kind of collaborative project. Or perhpas my mythical fan club needs to stop being a joke and actually do something constructive. Any orthodox biblical scholars out there who want to join the NRAFC and publish some edifying, accessible essays or other works that could help get us all onto the same page, or at least into the same ballpark? David Handy+ |
|
#37: The Bishop of Arkansas, +Larry Benfield, as rector of Christ Church, Little Rock, put together a service sheet that was Rite II in traditional language, it was beautifully done. I am sure they would send anyone a copy. I prefer the ‘28, which I use for weekday services here at Trinity, Pine Bluff, and for my personal devotions. We use Rite I at 8am and Rite II at 10:30, but you would be surprised at how traditional a service it is, even in “modern” language (though the Rite II’s, A,B,C,D. et.al., in my opinion, already seem so dated in places). I would go to my Bishop’s example with the service sheet and traditional (and I mean Elizabethan) if I didn’t feel it was important that everyone be familiar with their BCP’s. I make a point of seeing that as many of our parishioners as possible have as nice and lasting a copy as we can afford to provide, and then are encouraged to bring and use them at Church. Of course, I also believe that the ‘79 has some wonderful personal and small group services, individual prayers for special occasions, etc.. I do think that MP and EP as Sunday Services in the ‘79, and I apologize for the use of a technical term here, suck. I think they desecrated these services, the great Litany, and dropped the Bidding Prayer, to create the void that would force Holy Communion as the primary service on a Sunday. It’s too bad, really, because I think one of the reasons our evangelism efforts fail is because MP was such a visitor friendly service, and Communion such a daunting service (it takes awhile to consider the theological ramifications, as well as to feel truly comfortable receiving—-and we “shove” it on everyone to our and their detriment). |
|
Fr. Handy, |
|
At our church, we use the 1928 Morning Prayer (for the reason you describe, Fr. Van) on the Sundays we don’t have a priest. We have no control over what we get on the Sundays when we do. I do like some things in the 1979 book - the Great Easter Vigil being one. But I prefer 1928, and look forward to getting a copy of the 1662 Prayer Book, which I have never actually seen. |
|
David+, |
|
Well, David+, you’re right that this isn’t the place to pursue this, so I’ll quit in just a moment. I have my Prayer Book here with me, and I looked at this baptismal rubric which bothers you so. It says,
It goes on later to provide for adult baptisms, calling for adults to be prepared for baptism with instruction, prayer and fasting. Not so different, really, from what you call for. I’m quite willing to go back to the very hopeful things I am hearing from Jerusalem. As this thread indicates, this isn’t going to be easy, but we are on the road at last. |
|
oscewicee: I think you can find the 1662 text on line, maybe someplace like Anglicans on Line. Probably there are other places too. However, the ‘28 flows far more beautifully, and restores some of the mystery of the 1549. I am not as thrilled with Rite I because I prefer an Eastward facing altar, and the ‘79 is stilted to make it more difficult if the priest is not facing the people. |
|
Although I’ve come to this thread a little late, I want to follow up on some of David Handy’s posts. Along with Bp. Duncan, I believe that the BCP has acted as Anglicanism’s magisterium. I, too, want to see a truly common liturgical life. As an REC priest and one who was just awarded his Ph.D. for a study on orthodox Anglican identity, I wanted to cling to the 1662 exclusively. But as I studied early church history, how the Prayer Book was created, and the contemporary global situation, I’ve come to the conclusion that liturgical inculturation is a necessity. On the other hand, what we’ve gotten is liturgical chaos. Some of you have been discussing the state of the Church of England. My research and experience indicates that Evangelicals in the C of E don’t use the BCP and often color outside even the generous lines of Common Worship. Along with David Handy, I’ve come to believe that we’ve been given a golden opportunity for a New Reformation. But it will have to be one that reaches beyond the Anglican Settlement of the 16th and 17th centuries. For the first time in a very, very long time, we are being asked to understand authority and ecclesiology without reference to the State and its by-products, such as the Prayer Book and Articles. If the Catholic aspect of Anglicanism is to survive, we must go all the way back to the patristic era, and not just the Reformation. In fact, in a way, the Catholic “aspect” of Anglicanism is not just one stream. It’s more like the noun which the Reformed, Evangelical, and Charismatic adjectives modify. |
|
#25 - ah Pageantmaster, would that were true. There are far too many churches using the drab liturgy of Common Worship (does what it says on the tin) in the C-of-E. It never ceases to amaze me that the Church which helped define the English literary identity has been willing to jettison one of its strongest weapons - the beautiful liturgy. And don’t even get me started on modern translations of the Lord’s Prayer! |
|
Pageantmaster: Nothing makes the heart and spirit soar like choral Evensong (1662). On my few trips to England, I have always availed myself of it as often as possible. I can think of no more uplifting service. Nor can I think of any tradition as beautiful as Anglicanism expressed in its cradle country. What a gift God has given the world in His Son, Jesus Christ, and what more wonderful way to express His revelation as in our heritage as Anglicans, Lord Have Mercy, Christ Have Mercy, Lord Have Mercy. |
|
I love the English choral tradition, but I can’t think that all the 1662 liturgy and grand cathedrals accomplish little spiritually without a church dedicated to making a stand for the The Way, the Truth and The Light. The COE as a whole doesn’t seem particularly interested in being a living, counter cultural institution dedicated to fighting the secularlism of their own society and government, rather than being a cultural institution dedicated to preserving tourist attractions and coming up with ex post facto religious sounding justifications for whatever the State feels like doing (even if that means abortions and same sex unions). |
|
#51 Fair points - the 1662 is under pressure, it was universal in my youth. Evangelicals/Charismatics are some of the worst offenders. You can always find a service through the Prayer Book Society’s database. Common Worship seems to have settled down a bit from some of the horrors of the 1970’s. The Lord’s Prayer/s - um yes. #52 I always listen to the BBC broadcast on Sunday afternoon if I cannot get to it. Quality varies. The Anglican tradition has a lot going for it at its best. |
|
AndrewA, I think it is a mistake to underestimate the power that beauty has to stir and lift the soul, whether it is the beauty of words about God or the beauty of a space given to his worship and expressing that worship in its windows, where the “old, old story” is told visually, and in its heaven-directing lines. |
|
Thanks to all who have interacted with my earlier comments. I think I should probably step aside and not continue to inject some of my own somewhat idiosyncratic opinions into this thread. I hope we can discuss other key aspects of this incredibly hopeful and visionary address by +Duncan. There is a great deal in it worth pondering and talking through its many implications, besides the part about the need for a common way of praying and thus a common way of believing (and vice versa) that we’ve been focusing on up to this point. In particular, I’d suggest that two points are especially significant and rather controversial. First, who among us agrees with the valiant Bp. of Pittsburgh that the “Reformation Settlement” is now obsolete and a new settlement must be worked out to take its place? Many (though perhaps not all) of us so-called “Fed Cons” will likely agree with him, but a lot of faithful conservative Anglicans obviously don’t (including the so-called “Com Cons,” the Windsor Bishops or perhaps I should now say the CP (“Communion Partners”) bishops, the distinguished scholars at ACI and the evangelical moderates in England in Fulcrum). And I’m not suggesting a mere rehashing of the same old arguments over that issue here, but rather I’m hoping for a vigorous discussion of the specific points that the bold Moderator of the CCP makes in this rousing speech. And second, I think it would be especially worthwhile to tackle that last point that +Duncan makes about the need for some new ecclesial structure, including new Instruments of Unity or Communion to replace those that have failed us, including Canterubury. What do you all think of that highly debatable claim? David Handy+ |
|
64, I’m certainly not doing that. I absolutly love the beauty of the English worship tradition. The problem is when a beautiful, even “orthodox” liturgy is contrasted with a lax or downright erroneous teaching from the pulpit and in the classroom. It would be interesting to know if they are teaching the kids in the choir schools the same type of religious pluralism and “Well, it would be nice if you wait to marriage, but if you don’t make sure that you are using a condom so you don’t give your girlfriend… I mean ‘partner’ any diseases, and if she gets pregnet well there is always abortion as an option…” junk that is starting to become fashionable in Episcopalian youth education. Again, I can’t speak from first hand experience, but from a distance things in England aren’t exactly looking promising. |
|
Charles Erlandson (#48), I’m glad you chimed in. Better late than never. And I hope this thread goes on for quite a while; there’s so much rich fodder for discussion in this visionary address by +Duncan. But mostly I just wanted to say to you Charles, CONGRATULATIONS on finishing your Ph.D. Far too many people never get beyond the ABD stage (All But Dissertation). You made it. Bravo. Perhaps we should get acquainted privately offline. If you’re interested, use the account system here at SF to send me a private email and I’ll happily respond. David Handy+ |
|
FrVan, just to be clear, I gave than as an example of the erroneous thinking that is becoming common in Western Anglicanism, not as anything that I support. I don’t think you’ll have to look hard to find an Episcopalian church or school that teaches along those lines. The question of just what the Church of England is teaching kids these days would be interesting to answer, given their apparent unwillingness to engage against secularization of their country. |
|
74, but an appropriate subject for a church window? I think not. Anyhow… to lighten the tone of my rhetoric some. I certainly hope that the Church of England is orthodox in theology and earnest in its dedication to evangelism, but IMHO at the top levels it isn’t doing a particularly good job at show that to the world, and things like slapping bishops with fines reeducation for refusing to hire those whose lifestyles would be a stumbling block to youth as youth workers is not a healthy sign. The CoE’s alliance with the State has always been questionable, IMHO. My real point, however, which I hope that gets lost, is that the finest liturgy, music and buildings is are MUST serve as the centerpiece for the passionate and correct teaching of the Word, not as ends unto themselves. So to me fighting about what music you use or what prayerbook you use takes second place to ensuring that the ministers and teachers are faithful and orthodox in their teaching. |
|
#69—You make an important point. But surely it is better for the people who are subjected to such a sermon to also be exposed to the beauty and theological soundness of the 1662/1928 BCP, rather than the banality and watered-down theology of some of the 1979 BCP. As Kendall Harmon has pointed out, it is now canonically legitimate to celebrate Holy Eucharist without any general confession. (In fact, in much of my diocese, general confession is omitted from Easter till the end of Pentecost). Most Rite II services omit the Prayer of Humble Access. And then there’s version C…to which no one should be exposed under any circumstances. |
|
AndrewA, all I can tell you is that there is a stained glass window in my church that has helped me get through or recover from some really dreadful homilies. And I have been told by two different people, one of whom was Baptist, that the window is a sermon in itself. It touches the people who see it, and it points them toward Christ and the far greater beauty of God. It signals the hope that is given to us. |
|
Pageantmaster, I would like to know more about the Evangelical movement in England today. I know some of its impressive history in the nineteenth century. I’m particularly interested in the Keswick Conference, which I believe has met since the nineteenth century in Cumbria. I understand that it helped to swell the missionary movement from England to some of our present provinces. I wonder if the conference is waxing or waning in strength. |
|
[15] AndrewA, You wrote:
It is interesting, but not really surprising. In fact, I think that it is not so much putting them in that position so much as it is highlighting just how firmly entrenched in that position they are and always have been. Those people we today call liberals are not liberals, at least not in the sense in which the term was historically applied, they are progressives, and what is at the root of progressivism is the idea that Man<sup>1</sup> is intelligent enough to not need anything other than his own Intellect and accurate information in order to plan his way out of any difficulty (notice anyone missing in that picture?). And if you don’t believe their premise, then you are either not using your intellect, or you are too pitifully unintelligent to understand what a glorious and potent actor is Man, a conclusion that they will be only to happy to communicate to you, however politely or not as their mood determines. Their Weltanschauung is at the root of the progressivism that we today routinely refer to as liberalism. It is every bit as much so as it was when the Enemy provided the rationalization in the Garden that God’s reason for forbidding consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was because, if Man partook of the fruit, then Man would become like God, knowing good from evil, i.e., having all the answers without recourse to revelation from the Creator. It was also every bit as much so when it was defined as National Socialism, International Socialism, or any of the other human-originated, earthly Utopias that were, in fact hellish dystopias, whether you or I happen to identify each as of the “left” or of the “right.” Blessings and regards, ———————- |
|
Andrew A—no, but I’ve had similar experiences. My gut reaction, perhaps like yours, is that this is gross hypocrisy masquerading as piety. However,I’m wondering how this affects the average person in the pew. Based on my own experience, most people aren’t especially thoughtful about any of it. I hope, perhaps too optimistically, that some of the traditional service might sink in as well as the awful sermon, and inform people’s lives. The RC church holds that it is good for unbelievers to be exposed to the Host displayed in a monstrance, so that they would benefit from the good influence around them. I can’t say that I’m terribly convinced by that argument so far as the Host is concerned, but I supposed I like to think that the right words might wear off on people. |
|
The Telegraph must specialize in jumping to conclusions, gross assumptions and pulp fiction. Here’s a quote from today’s article re GAFCON: “Gafcon is dominated by the single issue of homosexuality; its relative failure should remind us that ordinary Anglicans – and especially members of the Church of England – are not obsessed with sexual mores or gay marriage.” The assumptions that GAFCon is a failure and those attending are obsessed with one issue are quite inaccurate and will come back to haunt the revisionists left with their own man-made religion as the real Church flows on past them filled with life, light and joy. Hopefully, they will someday wake up and recognize they have chosen husks and swill, be able to turn and repent and come home to Jesus Christ. It’s very dark and cold outside the camp, where the roaring lions prowl seeking whom they may devour. |
|
A final note on the topic before I’m away for the weekend: To me there is a lot more to orthodoxy than what liturgy you use and whether or not you have |
|
FrVan, I am not absolutely certain. The closest English equivalent of which I am aware is “world view.” I do believe that it has other under- (and perhaps over-) tones that the English phrase doesn’t quite capture. Although, I am not by any means expert in the German language, my perception is that the German compound noun is broader, deeper, or both, (perhaps more comprehensive might be an even better description) than the standard English phrase to which it is customarily translated. Blessings and regards, |
|
Perhaps off subject, but coming from a non-church household, as a child it was the beautiful language of the BCP1928 that convinced me the church was a right thinking place and had a realistic view of mankind. I was baptized on my 10th birthday by my own volition. The 1979 book revolts me. It has far too optimistic view of man’s status and puts it in Dick-and-Jane language. The Te Deum of 1979 makes me think of Tarzan. 1928 could use some revision, but 1979 doesn’t cut the mustard. As far as patristic over medieval, nonsense! Shouldn’t be an either/or as both traditions have value to offer. To get back on topic, YAAAAAYYYYYY +Duncan. Way to go!!!!!! |
|
#83 Paula However there have been other conventions growing, interestingly among evangelicals across the denominations, not just the CofE. Perhaps the best known of these is New Wine which organises conferences and as you can see from its directory, links similar evangelicals right across the denominations, not just in the CofE. Were it to so organise it could be a very powerful force indeed. Most recently we have seen some new developments and splits. Well established Spring Harvest together with Keswick Ministries and UCCF produced Word Alive which successfully but following arguments which I can’t be bothered to follow, Spring Harvest is once again separate from this, and the others started New World Alive last year. Evangelical churches in the UK are alive and growing, and the links between them here are not just those of their denominations but inter-denominational - people meet and get to know each other through these conferences and form bonds. Something it would be wise for the CofE to remember. |
|
Please go read Bp. Duncan’s speech in its entirety if you haven’t yet. Please let go of the bickering which we Anglicans all enjoy so much (me included, of course!) and just read the speech. The New Wineskin that we all hope for so much may not exactly match the blueprint each of us may have in mind. But if this effort fails to grow and mature, we’re going to be left with no wineskin at all. Pray. |
|
He said this ...and he said that ..., we’re going to do this ... blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. Read the damned documents, put them under a microscope, if you like. I thought they were good, but they didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know before-hand. We won’t know ultimately what GAFCon and Lambeth will or will not achieve until they are over, so you might as well take a break from speculating this to death. I’m reminded of going to watch the Montreal Canadiens play hockey as a boy; some people would bring transistor radios to listen to the play-by-play commentaries when they were right there at the Forum watching the game with their own eyes. I thought it was crazy when I was a kid! Perhaps I’m too old to be sucked-into the frenzy of every Charlie Cheerleader screaming I’m for Duncan, I’m for Akinola or whoever. God gave you eyes to see with and ears to hear with, use them. The truly hard work of being an Anglican is the day-to-day. Get out of bed, wash your face and brush your teeth, read your prayers, study your Bible, go to work and do an honest day’s work, none of this “don’t work too hard” that you get from people in the elevator, to which I always reply ‘why not?’, and put your bloody faith into practice in your own lives. It’s all well and fine if someone want to produce some “new” and “improved” Prayer Book and they think they are smarter or wiser than Archbishop Cranmer. I will stick with the 1662 BCP as it is, the Ordinal as contained therein, the Homilies, which I actually read, and the Authorized Version of scripture. I’m not getting all bent out of shape over any of the superfluous crap, and that’s what it is, bovine skubala. |
|
It is a curious thing Paula, but although many of the conventions are inter-denominational; baptists and community churches you do find in their origins and leadership they sprang from and are grounded in the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Church. Now there’s a thing! One might think that there has been a bit of a revival going on. Of course the biggest thing that has been going on has been Alpha. |
|
I well believe that the Anglican background and Alpha are close to the heart of the revival you describe among English Evangelicals. In America, too, many Christian bodies who do not profess Anglicanism per se have it in their background somewhere or else borrow from it. I confess that, in saying this, I would include the several faces of Methodism and their descendants. And there was a thread here a few months ago that revealed a massive interest in classical Anglican theology at places like Wheaton College. One of the most damaging things that has been happening in the Episcopal Church today is the substitution of so-called “Via Media” programs for Alpha. Parish priests have represented VM as “benign” or “moderate”—and the modish, “up-to-date” but “traditional” way to go. It is part of the insidious movement to empty the church of meaning and, in fact, to empty our theological language of meaning. But I do think Anglicanism has been, and still is, a great mother of powerful religious movements. I believe that it has, through the centuries, been a resource, a reservoir of doctrine and grace, for the renewal of many besides its member churches. I am glad to hear your observation about this, and may the revivals continue. |
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.
Very encouraging…and these leaders are very courageous.
Please go to the GAFCON prayer site to enjoy and pray the most wonderful devotions to help you intercede for this meeting: http://prayer.united-anglicans.org/
There are wonderful quotes from ancient fathers, prayer requests by the attendees, the most appropriate Scriptures. Well worth going there first thing in the morning and/or last thing at night. In fact, I wish they would continue this Anglican prayer site past GAFCON - permanently.