Search
Stay Connected
Who's new
- NeilWilliams
- EldaHall
- kenshaw007
Recent comments
- As Christians, I wish we'd
13 weeks 1 day ago - I failed to mention, H/T
13 weeks 5 days ago - And the drift of the AMiA is
13 weeks 5 days ago - We have been doing the same
51 weeks 4 days ago - I remember that day well,
1 year 6 days ago - I didn't know He was looking
1 year 3 weeks ago - Sorry to miss you. I was up
1 year 5 weeks ago - David,
I didn't realize you
1 year 5 weeks ago - I hope this event was well
1 year 14 weeks ago - great post
1 year 21 weeks ago
Must Read AMiA Rant (Part 2)
Joel Martin nails it regarding the complete and total abandonment of Anglican patrimony by Anglicans. You all know this goes beyond AMiA, even though AMiA seems to be currently leading that race to the bottom. See also Part 1 of Joel's ACNA rant concerning women's ordination in ACNA (AMiA, really), as seen from the reformed perspective.
----
ACNA Fail – Part 2 « A Living Text
I am also sick and tired of the AMiA’s plunge into pop evangelical faddishness. Take a look at this picture:
Does anything about this say “Anglican” to you? It might as well be a gathering of Calvary Chapel pastors in Costa Mesa – scratch that, they would all be wearing Hawaiian shirts. But you get the point. No collars, no stoles, just a bunch of guys who look just like the corporate world we live in. There is nothing sinful in this, but it illustrates the larger point. The AMiA winter conference doesn’t meet in a sacred place, it meets in some auditorium with pastel and purple backdrops. It uses the same soft-rock bland worship that you can find at a million other churches in the USA. Speakers don’t wear collars. Bishop Murphy gushes about stupid books from the corporate world that push some sort of trendy nonsense.
The message seems to be, “Anglicans are just like every other evangelicals except that we have a prayer book we may or may not use once in awhile.” If there is no difference, what is the point of being Anglican? Being culturally relevant is fine, blending in to the point of disappearing is another.
This web site, including original text and images, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Comments
I quite going to church when
I quite going to church when the 1928 BCP was destroyed in favor of a Rod McKuen book of sappiness. So I'm an expert in knowing what it's like to maintain one's standards at the expense of one's happiness. Any church that bunny-hops around hugging one another whilst wailing about "Jayzuss luvs us all" is not Anglican in my book. We "frozen chosen" had the proudest denomination in America - and now it's a train wreck all in one generation. Thank you hippie and draft-dodgers - now members of the House of Bishops...I mean Clowns.
I thought that AM were now
I thought that AM were now your "Mission Partners", where is all the love and commaradarie which ac/na was gushing with just a few weeks ago?
AMiA is becoming a mission
AMiA is becoming a mission partner soon. They started out less than a year ago as enthusiastic founding members of ACNA, then they changed their minds. I for one don't completely understand it. There is still friendship & shared ministry, but there are definitely wounds. Does that answer your question?
Could there be
Could there be considerations--beyond clothing and "sacred" buildings? Like evangelism, church growth, new church plants, preaching the Word of God? Thank God for the wisdom of these wise and godly Anglican leaders, who have the nerve to take it on the chin with the upholders of religious customs, for the sake of building the Kingdom of God.
Paul, remember that nobody's
Paul, remember that nobody's sacrificed more property or comfortable religious customs recently than ACNA parishes. My parish, for instance, has lost all of its physical and monetary possessions as have many others for the sake of evangelism and church planting throughout the ACNA province.
The questions for AMIA here are, "why and in what ways are you Anglican?" Their answers to those questions match less and less with their actual actions.
Is this a satire, or
Is this a satire, or serious?
Are you really saying these guys are not Anglican because of their CLOTHES?
We've come a long, long way since the "Fond du Lac Circus" (If you are too young to have ever even heard of it, look it up)
Now, it's being dressed like A NORMAL PERSON that is an outrage?
Are beliefs now totally irrelevant to Anglican identity?
PS - when they put all the real Christians in prison, they're probably going to issue us new clothes anyway, so what does it matter what we wear now?
On the contrary. Beliefs are
On the contrary. Beliefs are more relevant than ever. Real beliefs affect actual behavior in time, space and relationships, especially for sacramental Christians. And no, clothing is not the most important thing. It is one of many observations which suggests the AMiA are disguising or rejecting their Anglican identity to the point of complete obfuscation. The question remains for AMIA. "Why and in what ways are you Anglican?"
When it comes to Anglican identity, if it doesn't walk like a duck or quack like a duck, perhaps it's not really a duck. Maybe it's a duck working undercover for the CIA.
Will the real Anglicans
Will the real Anglicans please stand up? I find it amusing that the "conservatives" are starting to cannibalize themselves. I expect the "liberals" will start to do it to each other soon enough. I once counted myself a conservative in the Episcopal church (not born into the church mind you, but by choice). I have since walked, then run, from all forms of Episcopalian/Anglican-ism. While I miss the liturgy, I do not miss the dreck that has come to define this denomination.
This is very much the
This is very much the question of the day, isn't it, Jmark? What does it mean to be Anglican? Do you have a suggestion? Will you report back here when you find that dreckless church? Someday, you and I both will be part of a community without any drecky people in it. Until then, you'll need dreck boots, I'm afraid.
People are surprized to learn
People are surprized to learn that most of the folks in the Anglican Mission are not "evangelical." They are Convergentist. Back in September 2009 Mandate published an article bu Gillis Harp, titled "Navigating the 'Three Streams': Some Seconds about a Popular Typology." In that article Dr. Harp examined the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement. While Convergentism is the dominant ideaology in the Anglican Mission, it has its adherents in the ACNA. Even Archbishop Bob Duncan has used Convergentist language and themes in his addresses andsermons.
Whether clergy wear collars is unimportant as many Anglican clergy in Australia, the UK, Latin America, and South Africa do not wear clerical collars but shirts and ties or even open collar shirts. Even in the USA there are areas where, if you wear a clerical collar, you are marked as a Roman Catholic priest and folks won't have anything to do with you. Anti-Roman Catholic sentiments run deep in those areas. Roman Catholics are not Christians and their priests are leading them down the broad road to perdition.
Conservative Evangelical clergy would not be caught dead wearing a stole or eucharistic vestments which in their minds are associated with the doctrine of sacrifices of the Masses which the Thirty-Nine Articles reject as "blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits." On the other hand, Convergantists are quite happy to wear stoles and eucharistic vestments. They are happy to use copious amounts of incense too.
Anglican Mission clergy are not Baptists in vestments and Anglican mission congregations are not Baptists with prayer books. This is old stereotype of the folks of the Anglican Mission that does not hold water. The Anglican Mission has its own traditionalist Anglo-Catholic wing as well as a small Conservative Evangelical wing. However, the most Anglican Mission folks are Convergantists. Convergentists see their particular view of the "AnglicanWay" as the natural evolution of Anglicanism. They have embraced the dynamic theory of the Anglican via media of nineteenth century former Unitarian Frederick Denison Maurice, which is an adaptation of Edward Pusey's theory of the Anglican Church being a third brand of Catholicism with the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Maurice postulated that Anglicanism is evolving. This theory was very popular in the twentieth century particularly in the Episcopal Church and among liberals. According to Convergentists the three streams of Catholicism, Pentecostalism, and evangelicalism are coming together in what is the latest evolution of Anglicanism. Convergantists emphasize practice and piety and do not press doctrine. Due to their theologica shallowness, which they share with popular North American evangelicalism, they have been described as "mushy Christians."
To read more about Convergentism and other developments in the Anglican Mission I recommend the following articles on my web log Anglicans Ablaze:
Navigating the “Three Streams”: Some Second Thoughts about a Popular Typology
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/05/navigating-three-streams-som...
News Analysis: Anglican Mission chooses Ministry Partnership over ACNA Membership
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/05/news-analysis-anglican-missi...
Like Silver Refined in a Furnace
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/05/like-silver-refined-in-furna...
Authority, Mission and the Anglican Church in North America - Part VII: Orthodox Faith and Practice in the ACNA
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/04/authority-mission-and-anglic...
Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America – Part VI: Ecclesiology
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/04/authority-mission-and-anglic...
The Anglican Mission and the Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic: A Contrast in Ecclesiology
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/04/anglican-mission-and-diocese...
I also recommend the other articles in the Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America. Links to these articles can be found at the end of "Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America – Part VI: Ecclesiology." Among other things they examine the influence of the Anglican Mission and the Anglican Church of Rwanda on the constitution and canons of the ACNA. They are lengthy articles but if readers do not let their length discourage them, they will be reward by a greater knowledge and insight into developments in the Anglican Mission and the ACNA.
All very helpful, Robin.
All very helpful, Robin. Thanks for posting. I learned a new, albeit not very lyrical, word today, "convergentist." I'll spend a little time on your links. Any thoughts on why the AM would leave the ACNA all of a sudden, just months after the honeymoon?
My impression is that the
My impression is that the decision of the Anglican Mission was really not sudden. It appears sudden because we did not learn of it until recently. Part of the problem is a lack of openness and transparency on the part of the top leadership of both the Anglican Mission and the Anglican Church in North America. In part they are afraid that if they are too open and transparent they might be pressured into making decisions that they do not want to make. Someone might get the wrong end of the stick and stir up opposition to a course of action that they are planning to take. Things might get out of hand. Look what recently happened at Nashotah House. Or someone might see the weakness of their thinking and that would also generate an outcry. So they keep information from the folks in the lower ranks until they are ready to release it. Look how the Anglican Mission's decision has affected morale in the Anglican Church in North America. And the spin Katherine Schori has been putting on it: the conservatives are not really united, only a few conservatives have problems with the gay issue,etc, etc.
I can understand the hesistance on the part of the Anglican Mission to dismantle its organization structure and form of ecclesiastical governance that has taken it 10 years to establish. From the perspective of the Anglican Mission it makes sense to do what it has done. Becoming a ministry partner enables the Anglican Mission to stay involved with the Anglican Church in North America and to stay intact. What it is doing is taking a wait and see approach to the Anglican Church in North America, waiting to see what direction the other constituent organizations in the ACNA are going to move and who will assume the helm of the ACNA when Archbishop Duncan steps down and in what direction the new Archbishop will seek to lead the ACNA. If you have a strong organization and the ACNA has a weak one, a merger is going to weaken your organization. It is not going to strengthen the weaker organization.
I do not as I point out in one of my articles think that the Anglican Mission opting for ministry partnership status is necessarily a bad thing. It forces the Anglican Church in North America not to rely on the Anglican Mission as its missionary arm. It forces the other constituent organizations to appraise their own church planting and evangelistic efforts. The ACNA constitution and canons accomodate the Anglican Mission in a number of ways. With the Anglican Mission accepting ministry partner status, the ACNA no longer has to accomodate the Anglican Mission and can make some much needed changes in its instruments of governace. As I have written elsewhere I favor the adoption of a number of provisions from the fundamental documents of the Anglican Church of Australia and the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone and other changes. These changes would strengthen the autonomy of the dioceses or other groupings forming the ACNA and make the ACNA more comprehensive without making it more liberal. They would also make it impossible for any group to impose women bishops on the ACNA since it would require a constitutional amendment and the adoption of such an amendment would require the assent of all the judicatories of the ACNA.
I am a member of the AMiA.
I am a member of the AMiA. I've been a member of my parish for 3 years. Our pastor wears an open collar shirt on sundays, and when it is time to celebrate the Eucharist, which we do every sunday, he puts on his stole. How dare you accuse us of being any less anglican then others. What constitutes an anglican vestments or doctrine? You should be ashamed for talking about your fellow christians in such a way. We in the AMiA are focused on spreading the gospel of the risen savior, not the use of expensive vestments. I am an anglican, no matter what you say.
Joel's post observes that the
Joel's post observes that the AMiA makes obvious strides toward obfuscation of it's Anglican heritage. He moves on to the question which that begs. And I quote,
So, why would the AMiA go to such efforts to a) disregard Anglican practice and b) leave the ACNA so soon after its founding? I find both of those patterns disturbing. At the very least, they foster distrust.
We have been doing the same
We have been doing the same thing for the last 10 years...we call it Methodism.
I can't help but agree. My
I can't help but agree. My AMiA parish's worship style had been drifting into the charismatic for a few years. When our new Bishop, Phil Jones, arrived in an open-collared shirt and khakis and proceeded to have us jump around and shake to "wake up," I knew my days in AMiA were short. One guy even felt comfortable bunny-hopping down the center aisle of the church. It was as reverent as an NBA playoff game.
Jeffersonian, AMiA doesn't
Jeffersonian,
AMiA doesn't hold the monopoly on irreverence. These kind of things have happened and continue to happen both within and without TEC. I presume, from what you said, that you left, did you find something better? Bear in mind that Continuing Episcopalians are at some level still afflicted with the same diseases they were exposed to within TEC. Many of these newer organizations are acting like petri dishes where the various cultures (or lack there-of) are blooming. Rome is also a cornucopia of irreverence, with its Clown Masses and liturgical dances by nuns in leotards. The trend which I see is more and more people voting with their feet and simply not going to church unless they have to, for weddings or funerals.
Yes, we found a very nice REC
Yes, we found a very nice REC parish just a mile or two farther away. It's refreshing to come out of church refreshed and happy instead of irritated. I agree about the RCC...I was horrified by exactly what you mentioned on a couple of trips to local parishes.
As the author of this
As the author of this horrible and Pharisaical post, I would just pipe in with my two cents:
* Wearing collars marks you out as clergy in the public. This serves a couple good purposes: it might hinder you from sin because people know who you are. It also serves to point you out as a go to person for questions about God and the church. If Father Bob is at Starbucks in khakis and a polo shirt, no one knows who he is. If he is wearing his collar, seekers will mark him out and probably ask him a question or two.
* But collars are the least of the issues for AMiA [and ACNA in general]. AMiA Winter Conferences look like the Vineyard with snippets of liturgy here and there. Authors of weird books come and talk about irrelevant topics, rather than learning more about, say, Hooker, Andrewes, Donne, Cranmer or Jesus for crying out loud. The website of "theAM" tries to look like every other hipster church in the US of A. Todd Hunter was made a Bishop after being Anglican for about two minutes. Todd seems like a good guy, but does he have any grasp of the 39 Articles or anything deep beyond hip guys like Newbigin and Wright? Or is it all about planting shallow churches at any cost?
* Ordaining women is still happening within ACNA. They have merely set the clock back to 1970's Episcopalianism, post-Pike, not much more. There are good pockets, but there are lots of bad ones too.
If it's all just about starting churches that look like Calvary Chapels, then why not BE Calvary Chapel? Why be Anglican?
I concur with you; it is a
I concur with you; it is a continuing trend in the US to dress down et al;remember those West Coast Silicon Valley "Bored" Meetings where all could literally hang from the rafters? Pathetic...as a segway, think of the Pope in baggy pants. Same distressing scenario in many occupations where a uniform,IMO, should be the rule, not the exception. We have sen those perked up bunny nurses in their fatigues,and one could easily confuse the laundry/washer/sweeper temp one in the same.Clothing egalitarianism can be risky,when you are a patient.(Not to mention those who step out on their lunch break in surgical scrubs for a burger and germ hitch. To honor and glorify God and his son,the great cathedrals were built with beauty and holiness in mind by the artists and craftsmen;they didn't do a DADA exhibit, or the abhorrent Piss/Christ atrocity masquerading as Art.Sloppy dressing,sloppy minds.When I need the Last Rites,I want to see a collar,not a televangelist dressed for a picnic.
And the drift of the AMiA is
And the drift of the AMiA is now coming to fruition:
http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/amia-fracturing/
As Christians, I wish we'd
As Christians, I wish we'd judge the fruit, and stop thinking it has to be done 'our' way. One of the things I liked about the Anglican church initially was the breadth of practice allowed for, and I thought celebrated, within its orthodoxy. I'm incredibly turned-off by what comes across as infighting, and a lot of wasted time and energy in doing so. If someone's belief or praxis is going to do injury to the work of the Kingdom of God, then call them on it, in God. On the other hand, God may call you to wear a collar and speak to someone else with a different personality and perspective not to. I'm going to do evangelism somewhat differently from the next guy, and it's not more or less legitimate - it's just different and therefore gets the job done in places your way might not, and vice versa. So it goes for how we worship, what elements of Anglicanism are brought in, etc. I realize I'm tempted to, and am guilty of, judging people's hearts by whether they worship in the way I think they should. Bottom line: the way God has you do it may not be the way God has me do it, and we need to support that, rather than nit-pick about it. Find what's good in what they're doing, the gifts strength that God brings through them, and bless it. And then, even ask if you should apply it! We may do things differently, but we all have things to glean from eachother. Pray for one another, teach each other, but let's get rid of the critical spirit!
Post new comment