Category: Anglican

1. All persons present in the time of divine service shall audibly with the minister make the answers appointed and in due place join in such parts of the service as are appointed to be said or sung by all present.

2. They shall give reverent attention in the time of divine service, give due reverence to the name of the Lord Jesus and stand at the Creed and the reading of the Holy Gospel at the Holy Communion. When the Prayers are read and Psalms and canticles are said or sung, they shall have regard to the rubrics of the service and locally established custom in the matter of posture, whether of standing, kneeling or sitting.

Canons of the Church of England – Divine Service B 9 Of reverence and attention to be used in the time of divine service

Canons, you ask? What are canons? Canons are the rules that enable Christian discipleship and the freedom that results from it. They enable learning, formation, discipline and the mutual service of Christian love. Ask your clergy how the canons enable us to learn mutual love, and whether they are grateful for the good ruling, practices and traditions of the faith they have received. We don’t need to make this faith up, you see, because it has been given to us. It is a gift, and as we recognise it for what it is, we also pass this gift on, undefaced.

In the Church of Uganda, Anglicanism has been built on three pillars: martyrs, revival, and the historic episcopate. Yet each of these refers back to the Word of God, the ground on which all is built: The faith of the martyrs was maintained by the Word of God, the East African revival brought to the people the Word of God, and the historic ordering of ministry was designed to advance the Word of God.

So let us think about how the Word of God works in the worldwide Anglican Communion. We in the Church of Uganda are convinced that Scripture must be reasserted as the central authority in our communion. The basis of our commitment to Anglicanism is that it provides a wider forum for holding each other accountable to Scripture, which is the seed of faith and the foundation of the Church in Uganda.

The Bible cannot appear to us a cadaver, merely to be dissected, analyzed, and critiqued, as has been the practice of much modern higher biblical criticism. Certainly we engage in biblical scholarship and criticism, but what is important to us is the power of the Word of God precisely as the Word of God – written to bring transformation in our lives, our families, our communities, and our culture. For us, the Bible is “living and active, sharper than a double-edged sword, it penetrates to dividing soul and spirits, joints and marrow, it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The transforming effect of the Bible on Ugandans has generated so much conviction and confidence that believers were martyred in the defense of the message of salvation through Jesus Christ that it brought.

Archbishop Henry Orombi What is Anglicanism?

5.1.7 Bishops cannot exercise their responsibility for liturgical leadership effectively without support and advice. We recommend that every diocese should have a Diocesan Liturgical Committee or equivalent group, which should relate directly to the Bishop. Its task is to hold an overview of the liturgical life of the diocese, to offer advice to the Bishop and others on liturgical matters when needed, and to work closely with diocesan CME departments in providing training opportunities for clergy, Readers, and other ministers. It may be asked to help the Bishop in his oversight of Fresh Expressions of church within the diocese (cf. para. 6.5.1 below). It may also be tasked with planning special diocesan services (e.g. for diocesan conferences), but its role is more strategic than tactical. In general, it should seek out good practice, inside and outside the diocese, and help it to be followed more widely. Within the DLC, it may be helpful to have an individual who is identified as the Bishop’s Adviser for Liturgy, or as Diocesan Worship Development Officer.

Transforming Liturgy – report to the General Synod of the Church of England

We must not let our poor beleagured bishops feel that they are on their own, so they must have good advisors and teachers. But equally, something as central to the office of bishop as the liturgy cannot be delegated

The Communion has grown and developed through the missionary vision and labours of, among others, Evangelical Anglicans in the Church of England. Evangelicals have never understood the Church of England as simply the national church of the English people but part of the worldwide church of Christ sharing in his mission. We should have a vision for a global communion committed to mission and to partnership together in mission with other provinces. The covenant process provides a means of developing structures for such a missional vision. It also offers the hope of being able (in a theologically rich and biblically based form of a covenant) to express biblical and creedal faith and to develop the structures of a distinctive global Anglicanism which is both Catholic and Reformed and which will help us work for the unity among all his disciples for which Christ prayed.
Conclusion

There are no solid reasons – either in principle or pragmatically in the current political context – for evangelicals or anyone else to object to Synod making a commitment to positive participation in the covenant process. There are many reasons – theological and political – why evangelicals and others who share our commitments to world mission, to learning from Anglicans around the globe, to safeguarding biblical faith and to facilitating harmony among Anglicans should wish the Church of England wholeheartedly to support the covenant process. Indeed, in terms of our life together as a Communion, the covenant process is – like the Windsor Report in which it originated – now ‘the only poker game in town’. If the Communion is to have a future together then the form of this will be discerned in and through this covenant process. For the Church of England to abandon that process through non-participation, or destructive participation, would therefore be for the eye to say to the hand ‘I don’t need you’ and for us as a province to embrace a vision of Anglicanism in which every one does what is right in their own eyes.

Andrew Goddard The Anglican Covenant

Though we are fundamentally encouraged by the Windsor Report, and note that its recommendations reflect the major insights of our common ecumenical documents, there are two points also found in the ARCIC [Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission] texts which we hope can be more clearly articulated and directly addressed in the ongoing reception and implementation of the Windsor Report.

The first point concerns the textâ??s ecclesiological approach itself. While the Report stresses that Anglican provinces have a responsibility towards each other and towards the maintenance of communion, a communion rooted in the Scriptures, little attention is given to the importance of being in communion with the faith of the Church through the ages. In addressing the exercise of authority in the Church, â??The Gift of Authorityâ?? speaks not only of the necessity of a synchronic communion of churches but also of a diachronic consensus; in fundamental matters of faith and discipline, the decisions of a local or regional church must not only foster communion in the present context, but must also be in agreement with the Church of the past, and in a particular way, with the apostolic Church as witnessed in the Scriptures, the early councils and the patristic tradition. While the Windsor Report stresses the catholicity of the Church, we believe that in the discussion that will follow, it might be helpful for the Anglican Communion to place more stress on the Churchâ??s apostolicity. This aspect also has important ecumenical ramifications, since we share a common tradition of one and a half millennia. This common patrimony – what Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey called our â??ancient common traditionsâ?? – is worth being appealed to and preserved.

Walter Cardinal Kasper Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury – on the publication of the Windsor Report

It is becoming obvious that the leadership of TEC means to move resolutely ahead with its mission of civil rights and inclusion, insisting that these are imperatives of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a kind of brand name for American Episcopalianism. (We leave to the side whether inclusion or civil rights are being honored or thwarted by this idea.)

In the light of the failure to respond positively to the communiqué of the Primates Meeting, the course being charted is becoming increasingly clear. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury is prepared to hear out the leadership of TEC on an alternative plan that will deal with the problems it has created for life in Communion. But the disconnect that will result could be palpable, not least because TEC leadership does not acknowledge that it has created a problem that requires any remedy of the kind an Instrument of Unity has recently urged, with urgency. It views the problem as ‘conservatives’ out of step with the enlightened views it holds. The recent reports of Presiding Bishop Schori’s comments make this very clear indeed. She is to be commended for her candor.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will not be accused of failing to go the extra mile in this terrible mess. It might be suspected that his chief intention is to be sure he has a grasp of the facts at close hand. Proximity will in this case surely be a bracing thing.

It is becoming clear as well that a gift is only of any value if it is given and received both. Archbishop Rowan would be forgiven for being puzzled at the failure of conservative Bishops in TEC both to applaud and embrace the communiqué of Dar es Salaam and receive warmly what has been given. Not to gaze on it from afar or speak of its virtues only, but to unwrap and open and take good care of what has been given.

Efforts to delay or to seek another form of ‘peace’ can only be seen as yet another example of American unilateralism. There is nothing wrong, uncanonical, imperial, or otherwise with the communique’s requests. The requests address with clarity and charity a problem that unilateralists in the Communion have created. There is no evidence that the Primates are seeking fresh alternatives to the communiqué they crafted, and Archbishop Rowan is going the extra mile to take the pulse up close. Sadly, the patient is not only quite ill, but in denial as well.

The Anglican Communion Institute A Visit from the Archbishop

The ACI is alive and well but note the new website URL is anglicancommunioninstitute.com

In general, I would counsel complete avoidance of litigation â?? in concert with the explicit teaching of the Gospel â?? and instead encourage civil disobedience in cases where Christians choose to oppose the depredations of TEC leadership. But is this even a witness we are called to make? Anglicanism has its own sorry history of intolerance and injustice within its midst â?? we remember the whole-scale driving out of clergy in and after the English Civil War by both sides â?? and these kinds of conflicts among self-styled followers of Christ have long-lasting and scandalizing results. Simply leaving, however, is something that grates, though perhaps primarily against our pride. I recall only several months ago, at the diocesan convention of Colorado, that a diocesan leader (now appointed by the bishop to a Taskforce on our â??common lifeâ??) publicly confronted me and demanded that I â??and my kindâ?? â??leave the church and let [them] get on with ministryâ??; we were nothing but â??dying embersâ?? bringing division and sowing anger within the church. Part of me would like to prove these kinds of affronts simply wrong. Such a motive, however, would be base. There is no point dying with the church, unless one is ready to struggle for the truth. But there is no point struggling for the truth if the struggle leaves one bitter and hostile, aimed against adversaries instead of praying for them in love. If one is not called to the radiancy of joyful sacrifice, it is better to leave. And hope is radiant and ready.

In the end, however, I would urge our continued hope that the larger Communion â?? and not simply this or that individual leader or group, whose own discernment is often rather limited â?? will offer the kind of encouraging and supportive direction we seek, indeed that they shall in fact come forward with a Pastoral Council capable of meeting the needs of Anglican witness within the United States such as the Communiqué recommended. This would require the kind of corporate vision and courage (not Don Quixote individualism) on the part of â??Camp Allen Principledâ?? bishops that is necessary for them to step forward, offer their own readiness to work with such a Council, and suffer the consequences of their witness and leadership. We are now in the fullness of time for such a demonstration of hope! And we shall all need to hold steady in seeking this direction and support, and come together with a common sense of its need and usefulness.

Ephraim Radner What Way Ahead?

Leander Harding – An Open Letter to Bishops and Deputies who Participated in General Convention 2006

Below are some conclusions I have developed as a result of my observation both by following the official deliberations and through more informal conversations. I wonder if I have heard correctly, and I welcome remarks from bishops and deputies about whether I have an accurate take on the center of opinion in the national leadership of the Episcopal Church. What follows are statements that I believe reflect the consensus of opinion in the national leadership of the Episcopal Church, particularly as reflected in the General Convention that just met in Columbus, Ohio. Do I understand correctly?

As I hear it, you are saying that:

5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.

6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.

8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text, whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church, is inherently an example of over-reaching.

9. Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters affirming the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological certainty on this question which the scriptures and the traditional teaching of the church cannot by virtue of the nature of the documents provide.

10. Christians who feel bound by the scriptures should understand that the fact that there are different interpretations of the scriptures which touch on same-sex attraction means that no single interpretation can possibly be authoritative.

11. Since the scriptures cannot possibly be authoritative on this issue and since self-reported spiritual experience provides the only reliable certainty on the subject, any objections to same-sex blessings on the basis of scripture are irrelevant a priori.

16. It is wrong for any other province of the Anglican Communion to interfere with the leading of the Holy Spirit in this province. What the Holy Spirit demands at any particular time must be determined locally.

19. A variety of interpretations of scripture can be tolerated in the church. But the canons of the church, especially with regard to the territorial integrity of Episcopal jurisdiction, allow for no variation in interpretation.

20. The proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a new Anglican covenant, and for churches to choose constituent or associate status in the communion, represents a dire threat to the capacity of the church to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It represents the prospect of a quenching of the Spirit.

21. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has been uniquely privileged to hear from the Holy Spirit in a way that has been denied to the rest of worldwide Anglicanism, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches and Protestant Evangelicalism. The Episcopal Church must at all costs maintain its witness to the unique agency of the Holy Spirit in its midst. Those who oppose the new teaching are enemies of the Holy Spirit who are making an idol of the past at the expense of the future to which God is calling us.

These numbered observations above are my take on what the dominant party in the leadership of the Episcopal Church is saying.

Leander Harding Do I understand what you are saying?

Report of the Anglican Covenant Design Group

6 Unity of the Communion

(Nehemiah 2.17,18, Mt. 18.15-18, 1 Corinthians 12, 2 Corinthians 4.1-18, 13.5-10, Galatians 6.1-10)

Each Church commits itself:

* in essential matters of common concern, to have regard to the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy, and to support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it.

* to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and discernment to listen and to study with one another in order to comprehend the will of God. Such study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as its seeks to be led by the Spirit into all truth and to proclaim the Gospel afresh in each generation. Some issues, which are perceived as controversial or new when they arise, may well evoke a deeper understanding of the implications of God’s revelation to us; others may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith: all therefore need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.

* to seek with other members, through the Church’s shared councils, a common mind about matters of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.

* to heed the counsel of our Instruments of Communion in matters which threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness of our mission. While the Instruments of Communion have no juridical or executive authority in our Provinces, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.

* to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:

* by submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
* if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the
other instruments and their councils
* finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.

* We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.

Report of the Anglican Covenant Design Group

COMMON DECLARATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI AND THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY HIS GRACE ROWAN WILLIAMS

Forty years ago, our predecessors, Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, met together in this city sanctified by the ministry and the blood of the Apostles Peter and Paul. They began a new journey of reconciliation based on the Gospels and the ancient common traditions. Centuries of estrangement between Anglicans and Catholics were replaced by a new desire for partnership and co-operation, as the real but incomplete communion we share was rediscovered and affirmed. Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey undertook at that time to establish a dialogue in which matters which had been divisive in the past might be addressed from a fresh perspective with truth and love.

Since that meeting, the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion have entered into a process of fruitful dialogue, which has been marked by the discovery of significant elements of shared faith and a desire to give expression, through joint prayer, witness and service, to that which we hold in common. Over thirty-five years, the Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has produced a number of important documents which seek to articulate the faith we share. In the ten years since the most recent Common Declaration was signed by the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the second phase of ARCIC has completed its mandate, with the publication of the documents The Gift of Authority (1999) and Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (2005). We are grateful to the theologians who have prayed and worked together in the preparation of these texts, which await further study and reflection.

True ecumenism goes beyond theological dialogue; it touches our spiritual lives and our common witness. As our dialogue has developed, many Catholics and Anglicans have found in each other a love for Christ which invites us into practical co-operation and service. This fellowship in the service of Christ, experienced by many of our communities around the world, adds a further impetus to our relationship. The International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) has been engaged in an exploration of the appropriate ways in which our shared mission to proclaim new life in Christ to the world can be advanced and nurtured. Their report, which sets out both a summary of the central conclusions of ARCIC and makes proposals for growing together in mission and witness, has recently been completed and submitted for review to the Anglican Communion Office and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and we express our gratitude for their work.

Common Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury His Grace Rowan Williams