|
"Ye are My witnesses," saith the LORD, "and My servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me." Isaiah 43:10 KJ21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message from Bishop David Anderson
|
 | |
Bishop Anderson
|
Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Anglican family, Over the last few months, the Anglican Mission and its relationship with the Anglican Province of Rwanda has been a subject of intense interest on blogs and internet postings. Various letters have circulated, and most of you have read them. This week, the Archbishop and Primate of Kenya and chairman of the GAFCON Primates Council, Eliud Wabukala, released a communique from the recent meeting in Nairobi between representatives of several Anglican provinces in Africa including Rwanda, and the Anglican Mission (AMiA) chairman, Bishop Chuck Murphy, and AMiA Suffragan Bishop John Miller. At the same time, the statements and papers from the Anglican Mission Winter Conference are now available, as is a communique from the Raleigh meeting of Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of Rwanda (PEAR) representatives, Bishops Alexis Bilindabagabo, Laurent Mbanda, and Louis Muvunyi, as well as 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 in Raleigh as honored guests with many clergy and laity wishing to remain tied to Rwanda. I am admittedly a bit perplexed, since the pieces do not match up well. Perhaps you are better at seeing a seamless garment in all of this, but I haven't grasped it yet. To me, it looks like different people still have different versions of what was or was not agreed upon, and that doesn't augur well for things working out nicely. I am also perplexed by how three retired Anglican Primates, Emmanuel Kolini, Yong Ping Chung, and Moses Tay, can extend to the Anglican Mission the type of Anglican bona fides and connectivity that their prior relationship with the Province of Rwanda provided. Yes, it is gracious of the three former Primates to come together to offer oversight to the Mission, but the concept of a personal prelature isn't really Anglican, and certainly not when the individuals are retired and out of office. They are still bishops of the Church of God, here and in the hereafter, but in retirement their prior authority and power has been given to their successors, and they function in their episcopal office at the direction of their College of Bishops and current Primate. The Anglican principle is that everyone in authority is under proper authority, and no one is above that authority.
|
|
|
|
I pray all this gets sorted out quickly, and proper connections are reestablished. Meanwhile, I wish the new Rwandan/former AMiA bishops Thad Barnum and Terrell Glenn and those who will work with them in North America the very best, and indeed I wish my colleagues in the Anglican Mission the very best, but do wish that they would come back and reunite with both Rwanda and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).
In closing, I note that the spiritual and theological fractures that split the Episcopal Church and are currently threatening the entire Anglican Communion are also splitting the Lutheran Church and now, most recently, the Presbyterian Church USA. The issue of whether to adhere to basic orthodoxy is causing a tectonic fracture across much of Christendom as it exists today. I pray that we might remain faithful to the received Gospel of Jesus unto the end and be found faithful by him at his return. Amen.
Faithfully in Christ,
+David
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
|
Chaplain's Corner
|
 By The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey
Chief Operating and Development Officer, American Anglican Council
Dear Friends in Christ,
I wish to make a view brief observations about the Report of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Church of England General Synod which was released today and which we have published in this Update. As you will recall, this Report was requested by the CofE General Synod's response to a Private Member's Motion seeking recognition of the ACNA. The American Anglican Council was there at the Synod on behalf of the ACNA, both before and during the debate, to counter misinformation by TEC about the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), and to provide updates on litigation, canonical abuses and the realignment of Anglicanism in North America. Our brief, "TEC: Unjust Episcopal Acts," clearly helped shape the debate.
The Report of the Archbishops is short, and with less clarity than you or I might have desired. But it reflects a particular culture that abhors a "winner-takes-all" outcome, having fought civil and religious wars where such an outcome was only narrowly averted, and with much bloodshed. In that light, here are some important observations about the Archbishops' report that are, on balance, positive for ACNA:
1. The ACNA as an institution was not rejected, as TEC and its proxies no doubt desired. Our Anglican "bona fides" will be subject to review and discussion while the wounds remain fresh from the realignment here in North America. The Archbishops state that the concept of membership in the Anglican Communion is not straightforward (Paragraph 8). Within that declaration, they discuss the role of both the ACC and the assent of 2/3 of the Primates of the Churches already listed in the current schedule of membership as providing a basis for membership. But in contrast to previous statements by ++Canterbury and the Secretary of the Anglican Communion, there is no insistence here upon the ACNA submitting an application to the ACC or following its "schedule" as necessary steps for recognition. I believe this is a significant concession between the lines to those who have challenged the purported authority of the ACC to make such decisions, especially in light of actual precedent where it was recognition by the Primates that gave membership within the Communion.
2. Given the likely wish of TEC to have the ACNA rejected, I believe it is a back-handed compliment to the development of the ACNA as an Anglican Church within the Communion that the Archbishops found it necessary to allay TEC and The Anglican Church of Canada's fears by reaffirming their communion with TEC and ACoC.
3. With respect to the question about the interchangeability of Holy Orders between ACNA and the Church of England, Paragraphs 11 and 21 make clear that the ministers of ACNA stand in exactly the same place in relation to the CofE as other clergy in the Communion.
Of course, this leaves many questions unanswered. If ACNA clergy seek to be licensed in the Church of England under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure of 1967, how will their applications be received? Will they be received and recognized? Or will they be delayed and put off like the clergy validly ordained in the Anglican Church of Kenya for the Anglican Mission in England, who are still waiting? We will be watching carefully to see how evenhandedly the Archbishops proceed, in keeping with the report.
Where then do we go from here? On mission, of course - to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit so that people everywhere (and particularly here in North America) will come to know Christ as Lord and to put their trust in Him as Savior, in the fellowship of the church!
We are not wasting our time here at the AAC. I bid your prayers as we carry on two important missionary initiatives in the next ten days.
Tonight, we begin session 4 of the Sure Foundation Project, "From Maintenance to Mission: Becoming an Outreach-focused Church." I am delighted that the Rev. Mark Eldredge (AMiA) from Christ Church in Jacksonville will be joining me tonight and tomorrow as we share with churches here in the Anglican Diocese of the South how to reach their neighbors within their geographic community. Among the topics we will cover are: "Discovering my Life's Mission and Spiritual Gifts for mission," "Building bridges instead of walls - reaching out as Jesus did," "Fifteen paradigm shifts in becoming an outreach focused church," and practical exercises in identifying (through demographic studies and assessments) the people in the community each Anglican church is being called to reach, and how to reach them with the transforming love of Jesus Christ, beginning in the next 90 days.
On Monday I will fly to Washington state to join 26 ACNA clergy and three bishops for our Clergy Leadership Training Institute I am blessed to have Bishops Kevin Allen of Cascadia and Trevor Walters of ANiC co-leading this CLTI on "The Character of the Leader." Among the topics we will be addressing are "How to get enough oil and not burn yourself up," "A leader who listens to leadings," "The well defined leader," "Inner conflicts in the leader that create conflict," and "How to stay in the blue zone rather than the red zone of conflict." We will also provide afternoon times for spiritual direction, confession and coaching.
I hope and pray you feel as excited as I do about the future of Anglicanism in North America. Let's stay focused on mission - on living our lives and ministering as Jesus would. Please pray for us as we do this through the American Anglican Council, and give generously to our mission!
Yours in Christ,
Phil+
|
Communique from Archbishop Eliud Wabukala on the reconciliation meeting between the Anglican Church of Rwanda and AMIA
| Source: Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans via email
On Wednesday January 4th, 2012 a reconciliation meeting was in Nairobi, Kenya, held
 | |
Archbishop Wabukala
|
between the leaders of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda (PEAR) at the invitation of the Most Rev'd Dr. Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) and Chairman of the Primates Council of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON/FCA)
Present were the Most Rev'd Dr. Eliud Wabukala (ACK), the Most Rev'd Onesphore Rwage (PEAR), the Rt. Rev'd Lauren Mbanda (PEAR), the Rt. Rev'd Chuck Murphy (AMiA) and the Rt. Rev'd John Miller (AMiA). Also present were the Most Rev'd Ikechi Nwosu (Church of Nigeria), the Rt. Rev'd Joseph Kanuku (ACK), the Rt. Rev'd Timothy Ranji (ACK), the Rt. Rev'd Julius Kalu (ACK) and the Rt. Rev'd Dr. Gideon Githiga (ACK).
The Chairman made it clear that while there had been a painful and very public breakdown in the relationship between the leadership of the Anglican Mission in America and the Anglican Church of Rwanda he was confident that by God's grace reconciliation could be achieved and harmony restored. He invited both sides to present their concerns openly and urged all present to listen prayerfully.
Bishop Chuck Murphy began by expressing his profound regret for the broken relationship and stressed his commitment to lead AMiA as a single-minded mission agency. He was deeply distressed by the public accusations made against him but remains determined to fulfill the mandate that had been given to him and Bishop John Rodgers when they were consecrated in Singapore in January 2000, by Archbishops Kolini and Tay.
Archbishop Onesphore Rwage also acknowledged his deep distress at the broken relationships since he counted Bishop Murphy to be a friend of many years. He also expressed his appreciation for the amazing work that has been accomplished by the AMiA. His concerns were focused on the confusion brought about by the continuing role of the former Archbishop, the lack of financial transparency and the recently announced plans to separate from the Church of Rwanda and function independently without adequate prayer or consultation.
After a lengthy discussion between all parties, including those present as observers, the following points were agreed to :
1. They were all resolved that forgiveness should come from both sides of the divide.
2. The founding Fathers (Archbishops Kolini, Young and Tay) should work together with the incumbent Archbishop of Rwanda with the former acknowledging the ecclesiastical authority of the latter.
3. The Church of Rwanda agreed to stop looking at AMiA's mistakes and look forward and walk together for the sake of the Gospel.
4. AMiA agreed that they remain canonically under the Church of Rwanda and accept the doctrine of forgiveness.
5. The Archbishop of Rwanda and Bishop Murphy agreed to start the process of forgiveness with both acknowledging that things went wrong between them. They both agreed that when they start talking together the misunderstandings will be clarified and corrected.
6. AMiA agreed to continue to work with the Church of Rwanda and that other plans for restructuring will be put on hold for six (6) months to allow time for healing and for other fruitful discussions.
7. The next steps for the two leaders would be for the Archbishop of Rwanda to talk with his House of Bishops and for Bishop Chuck Murphy to meet with his Council of Bishops to begin the work of reconciliation between both groups.
Archbishop Eliud commended those gathered for their hard work and determination to allow the Holy Spirit to break down barriers of misunderstanding and begin the process of healing and restoration. He assured them of his prayers as they move forward together walking in the light of God's amazing grace.
On behalf of all those who gathered
The Most Rev'd Eliud Wabukala
January 17, 2012
Back to top |
Raleigh Meeting: Moving Foward Together statement
| Source: Anglican Mainstream
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
 | |
Archbishop Rwaje
|
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....
The rest of the statement may be found here.
Back to top |
| Church of England Report on ACNA | Source: Church of England General Synod
January 20, 2012
(Note: the AAC welcomes the statement below, particularly what it says in paragraphs 11 and 21, and that the ministers of ACNA stand in exactly the same place with relation to the CofE as other clergy in the Communion.)
The Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America
1. On 10 February 2010 the General Synod debated a Private Members Motion  concerning the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The Motion passed by the Synod, incorporating an amendment moved by the Bishop of Bristol on behalf of the House of Bishops, was as follows:
"That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011
2. This note constitutes our response to the request in the final part of the Synod motion. It is necessarily a report on work in progress since the consequences of the establishment of ACNA some two and a half years ago are still emerging and on a number of issues any assessment at this stage must necessarily be tentative.
3. We are grateful to the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) for devoting some time to studying the relevant issues and drawing together for us a range of resources on the underlying ecclesiological questions.
4. As was explained in the background note prepared for the Synod debate (GS 1764B), there are at least three different sorts of question, which arise for the Church of England in considering the implications of the creation of ACNA:
What is the range of relationship with other Christian churches that is possible for the Church of England?
How does a particular local Church become accepted as part of the Anglican Communion?
In what circumstances can the orders of another Church be recognised and accepted by the Church of England so that someone ordained in that church can be given archiepiscopal authorisation for ministry here?
5. The location of responsibility for determining each of these questions is distinct.
6. Thus, it is for the decision making bodies of the Church of England to determine the nature of its relationship with other Christian churches. Since the creation of the General Synod in 1970 the mind of the Church of England on such matters has been discerned in the General Synod, which, because issues of theology and ecclesiology are involved, necessarily looks for guidance to the House of Bishops.
7. This has been the case whether the issue has been about the Church of England entering into communion with another Church, as with the Porvoo Churches in the 1990s, or whether it has concerned a formal agreement of a different kind, such as the Covenant with the Methodist Church in 2003.
8. In relation to the second question, the concept of membership of the Anglican Communion is not entirely straightforward. The Communion itself (in common with the Church of England) has no legal personality. In addition (and unlike the Church of England) it does not have a set of canons which set out its core beliefs and regulate aspects of its internal governance.
9. Thus, from the time of the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, those Churches whose bishops have been invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day to attend, participate fully and vote in the deliberations of the Conference have been regarded as part of the Anglican Communion.
10. The creation of a new legal entity in the 1960s - the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) -created the need for a more formalised basis for membership of that body. Under the ACC's constitution a Church can be added to the ACC schedule of membership by decision of the Standing Committee of the Communion and with the assent of 2/3 of the primates of the Churches already listed in the schedule.
11. The third question - how a judgement is made over whether someone's orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England - is not dependent on whether the Church from which that person comes is in communion with the Church of England or a member of the Anglican Communion.
12. The criteria set out in a report of 1980 from the Faith and Order Advisory Group on Episcopi Vagantes remain helpful namely:
"...that the minister of ordination must be a bishop, himself validly consecrated, the recipient must have been baptised, the right matter must be used which is the laying on of hands, and the right form which consists of words of prayer referring to the special gift and showing the object of the laying on of hands."
13. Thus, those ordained in other churches which accept the historic episcopate - for example the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church - may be received into the Church of England and authorised to minister, as may clergy from the Church of England in South Africa.
14. Authorisation by the Archbishop of the Province is considered on a case by case basis and will take a number of relevant considerations into account. It is not the case, therefore, that ordination in another Church of this kind confers any entitlement to minister here. But it does involve the conferring of orders which the Church of England is able to recognise and accept.
15. Where then do matters currently stand concerning ACNA on each of these three issues, namely relations with the Church of England, relations with the Anglican Communion and the ability of ACNA clergy to be authorised to minister in the Church of England?
16. The Synod motion rightly began by referring to "the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada." That distress, in which we share, is a continuing element in the present situation and is likely to remain so for some considerable time.
17. Wounds are still fresh. Those who follow developments in North America from some distance have a responsibility not to say or do anything which will inflame an already difficult situation and make it harder for those directly involved to manage the various challenges with which they are still grappling.
18. We would, therefore, encourage an open-ended engagement with ACNA on the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet, especially given the strong feelings on all sides of the debate in North America.
19. The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church (TEC). In addition, the Synod motion has given Church of England affirmation to the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the Anglican family.
20. Among issues that will need to be explored in direct discussions between the Church of England and ACNA are the canonical situation of the latter, its relationship to other Churches of the Communion outside North America and its attitude towards existing Anglican ecumenical agreements.
21. Where clergy from ACNA wish to come to England the position in relation to their orders and their personal suitability for ministry here will be considered by us on a case by case basis under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.
Rowan Cantuar: Sentamu Ebor:
December 2011
Published by the General Synod of the Church of England
and on sale at the Church House Bookshop
31 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BN
Copyright The Archbishops' Council 2011
A pdf of the report can be found here.
Back to top |
| Commentary on VA court decision: Once burned, twice shy | Souce: Anglican Curmudgeon
January 14, 2012
By A.S. Haley
Judges do not like being reversed by higher courts, although it is a constant possibility that comes with the territory. (One federal trial judge once told me point-blank: "I just get paid to make decisions. The Ninth Circuit gets paid to make them right.") The recent decision by Fairfax County Circuit Judge Randy Bellows comes after his first set of decisions, carefully researched and painstakingly supported with references to the record, was reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court in a rather slapdash effort which essentially told him nothing more than: "We don't think so. We don't agree with your reading of the [division] statute [Virginia Code § 57-9]."
So it was back to the drawing board - and this time around, Judge Bellows has done everything in his power to make certain that he cannot be reversed again. He has carefully and thoroughly laid out all of the precedents he is bound to follow (there were not as many of them last time, under the division statute), and has even consulted other decisions at the trial court level (which are not binding on him). He has applied those precedents literally, taking them only for what they say, and nothing more - so that if the Virginia Supreme Court wants to reverse him this time, they will first have to reverse themselves....
In the final analysis, however, Judge Bellows has pointed up the extreme hypocrisy of current Virginia law with regard to church property disputes. For this entire structure that he has been at pains to erect is necessary only because of one thing: the Supreme Court of Virginia, while giving lip service to so-called "neutral principles," is in actuality still in thrall to the artificial dichotomy it draws between "hierarchical" and "congregational" churches. The outcomes of any given case turn not upon the neutral principles themselves, as they should, but instead upon the category into which a court places the disputants at the outset.
Are the parties members of a congregational church? Fine, then the majority decides who keeps the property - no other result is possible, unless the articles or bylaws spell out some different requirement, which is highly unlikely.
Are the parties in a "hierarchical" church? Well, then, that makes all the difference! For just because the Church is hierarchical, that gives it all kinds of privileges which congregational churches can never have - such as the ability to bypass the Statute of Frauds, and acquire a "proprietary and contractual" interest in a parish's property without that interest ever appearing of record in a chain of title, without ever having to contribute any money to its upkeep ("not necessary to demonstrate a 'proprietary interest'," says Judge Bellows, citing the Virginia Supreme Court), and without that interest interfering in the slightest way with the parishes' use of their property until such time as they want to affiliate with a different denomination. Then all the alarm bells will go off, the gendarmes will swoop down, and the parishes will learn whom they really have been supporting all these years....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
New Presbyterian denomination named
| Source: Courier-Journal
January 19, 2012
By Peter Smith
The new denomination being organized by Presbyterian conservatives now has a name: the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The name was unveiled Thursday at a meeting in Orlando, Fla., being attended by about 2,150 people.
It comes in the wake of last year's decision by the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to begin ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians.
The conference is also proposing ways that congregations can stay within the denomination even while dissenting on that policy change. Early indications are that many attending the conference prefer that option rather than a split with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top
|
NY bans worship services in schools, protesters arrested
| Source: World magazine
January 12, 2012
By Tiffany Owens
NEW YORK-Police Thursday arrested 43 New York City pastors and lay people who were protesting the city's ban on church use of public schools for worship services. The ban is scheduled to go into effect Feb. 12.
The arrests came after more than 200 people gathered in the rain outside a Bronx public school where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was giving his State of the City address. After singing songs and cheering speeches, protesters walked out in orderly groups of five to eight to kneel in front of barricades and pray. Police warned them to leave and then made arrests on charges of disorderly conduct.
The New York Board of Education wants to ban religious use of schools on Sunday mornings or at other times the schools are otherwise unused-even though the churches rent the space, dropping an estimated several million dollars per year into the city cashbox. If the ban prevails, more than 150 congregations will have to move to other meeting space starting next month-and that's hard to find in New York City....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
