|
"The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke."
Psalm 104:31-32 KJV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message from Bishop David Anderson
|
 | |
Bishop Anderson
|
Dear Friends of the battle to restore orthodoxy to the Anglican Communion,
The Constitution of the United States of America has a clause in its First Amendment prohibiting the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion by its citizens. At first this was applied just to the Federal government itself, but by 1925 the Supreme Court, in Gitlow v. New York, applied the First Amendment to all states through a concept called "incorporation," and using a section in the Fourteenth Amendment called the Due Process Clause.
The purpose of the constitutional amendment was to prevent not only establishment of one church as the official church, something the signers of the Constitution were familiar with from Europe, but also the bestowal of favoritism on any one church such that it had the effect of establishment. The irony is that some of the courts have wound up doing something very similar to what they prohibit the governments, federal and state, from doing - treating some churches one way under the law and other churches differently, thus bordering upon favoritism.
I am not aware of any state that allows under either property law or trust law for one individual to establish a trust claim on another's property without their agreement. This is quite sensible. As applied to churches, if a church really is hierarchical, then it can structure its property ownership, titles and deeds to reflect its hierarchy, and have the titles, deeds, etc. reflect the ownership that is claimed. If a church is non-hierarchical, then the title and deeds can reflect that as well. Any decisions about church property can then be decided on neutral principles of law, treating all churches equally and simply looking at the relevant documents related to title, deed, mortgage, etc. Churches like the Roman Catholic or Mormon that are very much hierarchical, can simply reflect this in their property documents, and are fully protected. Churches that are not hierarchical, such as the Episcopal Church, would reflect local ownership in the documents.
|
|
|
|
The problem comes when a church wants to protect itself from both local liability and upkeep, but mysteriously claim that it is actually the final owner because of a trust established by it (in many cases without the local property owners' agreement or even their awareness of such a trust). A classic case of a church's success in having it both ways can be seen in this Canadian case: An Anglican diocese in Canada was involved in lawsuits by children abused while attending school at Indian Mission Chapels. The diocese faced huge financial judgments from a court. The court wanted to seize church property to satisfy the award, but the diocese claimed that the local property didn't belong to them, it belonged to the local congregations. This was accepted and prevented the court from ordering the property to be taken and liquidated to satisfy the award. However, a few years later when some congregations wanted to leave this Anglican diocese, the diocese successfully asserted that it did indeed own the property, and eventually evicted the local congregation and seized the property. Both theories can't be true at the same time. The law either failed the local congregations who built and paid for the property and then lost it, or it failed the Indian Mission students/First Nation children who had been abused while in the church school's custody.
Among recent state Supreme Court decisions, only South Carolina and Oregon have seen the obvious problem of one party imposing a trust on another's property without their agreement or permission, and have ruled against the assertions of The Episcopal Church in one case and the Presbyterian Church in another case regarding ownership of local parish property. It is a pity that more courts don't see the problem that they are in fact moving toward favoritism and even establishment by judicial misunderstanding.
On another subject, there seems to be an emerging popular religion made up of so called "progressive" religionists who base their moral values on feelings. In a time of political correctness, being nice and having everyone be a winner seems to hold sway. In this view, when people die, all go to a better place and no one goes to hell, not even folks who have done really bad things. A popular saying is, "Well, he's in a better place now!" It is not our place to consign people to heaven or hell, of course - God has a monopoly on that job - but in our attempt to say comforting things, I sometimes think we may be too quick to say "he's in a better place" - because actually he or she may not be, but that is for God to decide.
The popular religion is based on a works theology concept, so you never know your fate until you get to the pearly gates and old St. Peter adds up your score: black ink and you get in, red ink and you go the opposite direction. Popular religion doesn't embrace salvation by grace. And today's perception of bad behavior has been modified so that you must never say critical things about anyone's decision or behavior, and everyone surely gets into that better place because everyone is a winner. Sin is no longer a permitted word in this new religion, and speaking negatively about homosexual behavior is especially forbidden. Christians are still allowed to exist in this new religious world, but we cannot say anything that contradicts the prevailing religion, which includes the views that "Gay is Good" and "Bible is Bad."
So a 34-year-old NBA center, Jason Collins, announces that he is homosexual, and the popular religion applauds his honesty and his courage. Commentators in news and sports talk about this breakthrough in positive terms, not realizing or caring that behavior based on this orientation is forbidden in the Bible of Christians and Jews. To point out that this behavior is sin and has bad consequences is seen as simply awful and unloving. Christians in the media only have freedom to agree with the popular religion of the age, and are not allowed to speak their real opinion or speak from their own religious tradition.
ESPN, the sports channel, has a program called "Outside the Lines," and during a
 | |
Chris Broussard
|
discussion of the Jason Collins announcement, ESPN's NBA reporter Chris Broussard said that he thought homosexuality was a sin. Oops! Only religious progressives and gay advocates have free speech rights. Traditional Christians are supposed to have no opinion, keep their opinion to themselves, or agree with the popular culture's religion. Outrage from the predictable quarters followed Chris Broussard's remarks. The discussion on the show was about Jason Collin's coming out, but clearly the only acceptable comment would have been approval. How could anyone say something so hateful as to label a behavior as wrong, never mind that most of the world thinks it to be wrong, and the Bible of Jews and Christians says so.
"If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that that's a sin," said Broussard, comparing homosexuality to any other sex outside of marriage. "If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ."
ESPN, failing to note that Chris was entitled to his opinion, released a statement saying, "We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today's news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins' announcement." But is there really diversity if only one point of view is tolerated? Clearly ESPN is fully committed to whatever is the generally prevailing public religion and doesn't want to offend any gay activists or sponsors, and any unpopular diverse points of view should be quiet and stay off camera. Should Broussard's comments have required an ESPN apology? Would it have been less offensive if Broussard had said that homosexual behavior was wrong and left out the word "sin?" I don't think so. It doesn't appear that ESPN really wants diversity at all.
The gay culture has captured many of the formerly Christian churches, nearly all of the media venues, and many of the state legislatures and courts. It is going to be more and more difficult and yet more and more important for orthodox Christians to speak clearly, loudly, without vitriol, but very much to the point. There will be penalties attached to your free speech, imposed by your neighbors, employers, media, courts, even family and perhaps church, but I encourage you to speak the truth with grace and power. All of us are sinners and all of us need to work on one or more areas of our life to let that area be more Christ-like. Yet all of us must speak God's truth and offer God's reconciliation to all who will listen.
Please pray for Chris Broussard, that he will weather this storm anchored in the strength of Christ.
Blessings and peace to you in this troubled time,
+David
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
|
|
Message from Canon Ashey
| 
Power glorious beyond ourselves
"I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know... his incomparably great power... which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead." Ephesians 1:18-20 NIV
Dear Friends in Christ,
One of my favorite prayers is the one on Good Friday which begins "O God of unchangeable power and eternal light; look favorably upon your whole Church, that wonderful and sacred mystery..."
Well, truth be told, there are many times when I find "the Church" neither wonderful nor sacred. Some days, the best I can say is that it is a mystery. Why do church leaders at every level get sidetracked by personal agendas that are more self-serving than Kingdom serving? Why do we (including myself as I hold up the mirror) get sidelined by fears, anxieties, and relational conflicts within the church? Why do we seem to have so much structure, so many "meetings" and so little mission and outreach? Why do we seem to have so little grief for people who are perishing for lack of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, so little risk-taking in striking up conversations with strangers that might just lead to eternal turning points?
Although I see less of this among Anglicans in the Global South, it's still there. I rediscovered New Testament Christianity and the Acts of the Apostles literally jumping off the pages of the Bible on short term mission trips in Uganda and Kenya. I am inspired by the life, witness and sacrifice of leaders and followers throughout the Anglican churches in the Global South! But everywhere I go, from North America to the UK to Africa, I see some church leaders living and leading at a level that is less than what Christ and the Bible offer us. It breaks my heart. I'm guessing that's why I feel so deeply about what the AAC is doing in clergy leadership development.
It's very easy to see what's wrong and to become weary in well-doing. But what can we do to overcome that weariness so that we "faint not"? (Galatians 6:9)
Maybe we have started with a diagnosis of the human dilemma that just doesn't do justice to the depth of the problems within all of us. And on the other hand, perhaps we are minimizing the power of God that is available to us through Jesus Christ. This is exactly what John Stott says in his Easter devotion on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, "The Symbol of Power," in Through the Bible through the Year:
"We are always in danger of trivializing the gospel, of minimizing what God is able to do for us and in us. We speak of becoming a Christian as if it were no more than turning over a new leaf and making a few superficial adjustments to an otherwise secular life. But no, becoming and being a Christian, according to the New Testament, is an event so radical that no language can do it justice except death and resurrection - death to the old life of self-centeredness and resurrection to a new life of love."(1)
I'm sorry, but I just don't have it in me even on the best days to overcome self-centeredness and to be sacrificially loving in every way to everyone I encounter. It's just not in my "nature" to be so. I suspect the same is true for you as well! Is there any power beyond ourselves glorious and graceful enough to enable us - to enable everyone - to overcome self-centeredness and love others as Jesus does?
YES! There is such a power, as Stott goes on to observe:
"The resurrection of Jesus Christ also assures us of God's power. For we need God's power in the present as well as his forgiveness of the past. Is God really able to change human nature, to make cruel people kind and sour people sweet? Is he able to take people who are dead to spiritual reality and make them alive in Christ? Yes, he really is! He is able to give life to the spiritually dead and transform us into the likeness of Christ."(2)
HE IS ABLE - through the same power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Thank God for his incomparably great power! (Eph. 1:19) Thank God we have a power beyond ourselves to lead, to witness, to love others, and to heal and change from the inside out.
Pentecost is coming on Sunday, May 19, and with it the promise of the Holy Spirit - the continuation of that same power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. If there is anything Christian leaders and followers need today it is power, spiritual power, to change the world. We need a fresh outpouring of God's Holy Spirit to enable us to reach the least and the lost with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.
I want to know that resurrection power of Jesus Christ, even if it means sharing in the fellowship of his sufferings (Phil. 3:10). I need the resurrection power of Jesus Christ. I rejoice that the same power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead is available for his bride, the Church. I aim to call on that power in every way I can.
How about you?
Yours in Christ,
Phil+
The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey
Chief Operating and Development Officer, American Anglican Council
-----------------------------
(1) Stott, John R.W., Through the Bible, Through the Year, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), p. 282
(2) Ibid.
Back to top |
|
Anglican Perspective: Why GAFCON II?
| Why should there be a second Global Anglican Future Conference? Canon Phil Ashey discusses some of the reasons.
View Anglican Perspective here.
Back to top |
|
[TEC Diocese of] Los Angeles wins summary judgment in Newport Beach property case
| Source: Anglican Ink
 | |
St. James Anglican, Newport Beach
|
May 2, 2013
By George Conger
The Bishop of Los Angeles had no authority to give the parish of St James in Newport Beach a written waiver exempting the congregation's property from the reach of the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon, an Orange County Superior Court Judge has held.
In a ruling for summary judgment handed down on 1 May 2013 Judge Kim Dunning ordered the parish to hand its multi-million dollar properties over to the Diocese of Los Angeles.
The decision was unexpected, Daniel Lula - an attorney for the parish - told Anglican Ink, as the matter had been set down for trial later this month....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
Fresno Judge Denies ECUSA [TEC]'s Motion for Summary Judgment
| Source: Anglican Curmudgeon
April 30, 2013
By A.S. Haley
There is very good news for the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, now under the leadership of Bishop Eric Menees. Last Thursday, the Fresno Superior Court (Jeffrey Hamilton, J.) filed his decision adopting his tentative ruling of March 6 as his final ruling with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication filed by the plaintiff rump diocese and its bishop, Bishop Talton, and joined in by ECUSA itself.
The ruling denies ECUSA and its totem plaintiffs any summary judgment, because it finds that there are disputed issues of fact still to be resolved in connection with the Diocese's right to withdraw from ECUSA, as it voted to do in December 2007. In so doing, it adopts the "neutral principles of law" approach prescribed by the Court of Appeals, and it correctly applies that approach to find that the plaintiffs failed to show, as a matter of law, that anything in ECUSA's Constitution or canons, or anything in its long history with the Diocese, restricts the right of a Diocese to disaffiliate....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
GAFCON 2013
| Source: Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans 
May 4, 2013
The Second Global Anglican Future Conference will be held in Nairobi, Kenya, 21st-26th October 2013. The focus will be on our shared Anglican future, as we engage with the missionary theme, 'Making Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.'
The first conference, GAFCON 2008, was held in Jerusalem. GAFCON gave birth to a movement, the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. The aims of the GFCA are to proclaim and defend the apostolic gospel within and beyond the Anglican Communion and to recognise and share fellowship with orthodox Anglicans globally, especially those who have been disaffiliated by false teaching and behaviour.
We continue to face the triple challenge of sceptical secularism, militant religion and compromised Christianity. GAFCON 2013 has been summoned so that GFCA can help both plan for and experience the future of the Communion of which we, with many others, are part.
The invited delegates, laity, clergy and bishops, are united by their commitment to the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement as well as the aims of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. They will assemble to listen to God, to pray, to deliberate, and to plan about the Anglican future, seeing it as a great spiritual and missionary fellowship, energised by the defence and proclamation of the gospel....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
West Indies: House Of Bishops Rejects Same-Sex Unions
| Source: The Anglican Diocese of Jamaica & The Cayman Islands
April 26, 2013
The House of Bishops and the Standing Committee of the Church in the Province of the West Indies (CPWI) have stated that the idea of same-sex unions is totally unacceptable on theological and cultural grounds. And they have urged leaders of government, civil society, and the people of the English-speaking Caribbean "to resist any attempt to compromise our cultural and religious principles regarding these matters."
In a statement issued on April 25 from their meeting at the Provincial Secretariat at Bamford House in Barbados, the Bishops and Standing Committee noted trends in developed nations and the international forums in which these nations exercise control "in which matters related to human sexuality have been elevated to the level of human rights and are being promulgated as positions which must be accepted globally." The statement further noted that frequently, failure by developing nations to conform, results in the threat of various sanctions, including the withholding of economic aid.
However the Bishops and Standing Committee cautioned that "the dangling of a carrot of economic assistance to faltering economies should be seen for what it is worth and should be resisted by people and government alike."...
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
