Prosperity Gospel & the cost of standing firm

Matt Kennedy’s piece over at standfirm made me think of this timely message. Pray that common cause maintains this type of faithfulness.

 

AMIA’s Mission

Here is a little bit about one of our partners discussing their core values. I hope the whole partnership can adopt this emphasis on the lost.

 

I thought the revolution would be difficult….This is easy

This is part II of an ongoing series on the actions that led to the creation of and my support for common cause.

In our last installment of as the church turns Gene Robinson had just been confirmed by a roughly 60 - 40 vote by the bishops at the 2003 General convention. His consecration was scheduled for that November. We again forget that the primates had met in May of 2003. The meeting in October obviously to prevent or address the consecration was “extraordinary.” Hear the words of our beloved leader Rowan

“I am clear that the anxieties caused by recent developments have reached the point where we will need to sit down and discuss their consequences. I hope that in our deliberations we will find that there are ways forward in this situation which can preserve our respect for one another and for the bonds that unite us.”

In retrospect I can see the hints of trouble even in remarks like this. Notice that Rowan does not see the events as being wrong. They “cause anxiety” and “have consequences.” How about saying that ECUSA (this was before the name change) was radically changing something as core to our identity as marriage & sexuality. If you do this I as leader of the Communion will break fellowship with all who support this. In Southern parlance this is known as “nipping this thing in the bud.” But again I did not see that. I saw that Rowan recognized the problem and had come to help us. I had not yet found out about his previous beliefs about “the body’s grace.”

 

A Common Competition

One of the goals of common cause is to create a “biblical united orthodox Anglicanism in north America.” Liberals consider common cause to be the epitome of conservative purple fever. I am wrong in asking if things like the following contribute to some people’s skepticism about common cause. From Cana’s Website:

CANA’s distinctives:

» indigenous ecclesiastical structure with representative leadership by CANA clergy and lay delegates

» healthcare, retirement, and insurance plans for clergy and congregational employees

» CANA’s episcopate, clergy, and laity reflect the diversity America with significant numbers of immigrants and minorities

» committed to modeling the possibility of respecting both integrities regarding the ordination of women within one ecclesial body

» an American financial structure with no requirements to provide financial support to its founding province

» established after TEC had rejected the Anglican Communion’s unanimous recommendations in “The Windsor Report”

» congregations retain all rights to their property

I understand that each member of common cause needs to maintain its own unique ethos, but it seems to me that an “indigenous ecclesiastical structure” is a slight dig at I don’t know AMIA, Uganda, & Kenya! I thought Common Cause was the new ecclesiastical structure. This seems to be saying to disaffected Episcopalians we are the best of the fragments. I am not sure what you win by being the best of a divided Anglicanism. This is not the revolution we signed up for. Am I reading too much into this?

Take a look

 

Oh to be Young and Ignorant!

It must be confessed that I am no unbiased observer. I began my life in the goodship Episcopal in the fall of 2002. Before that I had been a card caring evangelical. I had read my way into the church via books like Evangelical is not enough and Evangelicals on the Canterbury trail. Being from the south I had met a few weird Episcopal priests, but I had absolutely no idea how crazy we really were. I joined with the hope of reforming the church from within. Nothing is too hard for God right? I was in seminary and had only been confirmed for about eight months when Gene Robinson was confirmed in the summer of 2003…

Gene the Beginning…

Since Gene was elected within 120 days of general convention it was necessary to vote on his worthiness for the office at General Convention. In all the fog it has been forgotten that the vote to confirm Gene Robinson though theologically insane only passed by roughly 60-40 split. This was in the house of bishops. To read pronouncements from the left in the time that has followed you would think that Bishop Duncan and Bishop Iker were the only persons who strongly opposed this. I am not sure there shouldn’t be some kind of superextramajority rule when it comes to leaving the Christian faith. I also wonder sometimes what happened to those 37 + other bishops. About 10-12 would later join the Network. Did the others give up the game? How would the network or the Anglican Church worldwide have been different if it began with 30 dioceses instead of ten? I remember when I discovered that only ten dioceses would join the network I was a little disappointed. Surely the international church would step in and discipline the heretics and proclaim us the true Episcopal Church. I did not know much about Archbishop Rowan Williams, but heck England had given us all the good theologians anyway. After all wasn’t Carey who proceeded him an Evangelical. N.T. Wright was a bishop in the Church how bad could it be? Surely our Mother Church would step in and save us. Do you remember the hope we had in those days? Oh to be young and ignorant of the politics of church life!

To be cont….

 

Edge of the knife?

The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail. But hope remains, if friends stay true- Lord of the Rings (the film version)

It is my goal to provide a place for members of and inquirers into the common cause movement to dream, plan, pray, and hope for a faithful place to be Anglican in North American. There are many places in the Anglican blogosphere to keep us up to date with the latest communiqué from Africa, England or God-forbid New York. There are fewer places to ponder what comes after the “current unpleasantness.” What will become of the various Anglican fragments? Are the skeptics right? Are we doomed to do what conservatives or “Protestants” always do? Will we eventually split after the common enemy of liberalism is defeated? What will victory look like? What are the nonnegotiables that are necessary to make common cause a viable church? What is failure? Is a federation of nongeographical groupings enough? What about mission and evangelism? Can we come to a common understanding of the sacraments and a respect for our diversity of worship?

I have a sufficiently high doctrine of sin to believe that the common cause movement can fail. The desire for power and having the biggest most influential jurisdiction could overcome the desire of the people on the ground. The people want unity. Is their a Boromir among us? In the coming weeks I will be doing a series on the events of the past four years. So much ink has been spilled that is it easy to forget what has been said and done since this movement began. Following that I would like to do an in-depth study of each of the members of the common cause movement. Who are these brothers and sisters to whom we are yoked? What are their stories? Who are their leaders? Hopefully from this we will emerge with a better understanding of our challenges and opportunities for the future. In the mean time pray for the church. Pray for the lost who do not know Jesus. Praise God that in some small way we have been counted worthy to participate in the redemption of all things through Jesus Christ our Lord.