Per Christum

In July 2003, I was preparing to enter seminary to study for the Episcopal priesthood. That same summer, the Episcopal diocese of New Hampshire elected a man in an openly gay relationship, Gene Robinson, as bishop. I knew the sparks were going to fly at General Convention a few months later, since the convention had to approve the election. As a “closet conservative,” I was bothered by this, quietly mind you, for fear of getting kicked out of the postulancy process. I was baffled by the lack of concern about Robinson’s consecration at my local seminary, and in the wider Episcopal church. I eventually came to the conclusion that the Episcopal church really was Protestant, and willing to “go it alone” for the sake of its own view of “social justice” (heck, the word “Protestant” was in the official name of the Episcopal church up until a few years ago…that should have been a clue). So I decided to attend local American Anglican Council gatherings, banding together with a few other traditional-minded Episcopalians in the Southern Ohio area. I made quite a few friends during this time. However, in 2004, after concluding that the “Network” of conservative Anglicans was more talk than action, more process than result, I finally became open to the Catholic Church, and became Catholic in August of 2004. Almost five years later, it is interesting to see where everybody in our original group of orthodox Southern Ohio Episcopalians has ended up

[Note: this list is not meant to be comprehensive of all Southern Ohio conservative Episcopalians. However, this covers many of the people on a Southern Ohio AAC priests, seminarians, etc, email list I used to belong to, and includes those I knew at least somewhat personally. Those that I had never met or whose whereabouts I am unsure of, I didn't mention].

- One priest, Fr. David, the smartest of all of us, and a reader of this blog, is still an Episcopal priest in Southern Ohio faithfully doing God’s work under the radar. At Fr. David’s initiation, a few of us entered into some internet discussion with progressives in the diocese, to see if we could find some “common ground.” Sadly, this endeavor showed us that progressives and conservatives in the diocese truly were fundamentally opposed to one another on a variety of issues. Should we meet for someone Speedway coffee soon, Father?

- One of the group’s organizers left his local Episcopal parish in 2004, and now works with an Anglican group that meets (or at least used to) at a Reformed Episcopal parish. He still seems to be involved in the Southern Ohio American Anglican Council. Andy’s former parish, once pretty conservative, now goes out of its way to emphasize how “inclusive” it is, and how the congregation has transformed itself in the last few years to become more diverse (a buzzword-rich way of saying they don’t think homosexual sex is a sin anymore)…which is what happens I guess when a good chunk of conservatives leaves a parish.

- A former priest (and friend) of mine now pastors an Anglican parish (with the AMIA I think) a few blocks down from the old parish I once attended. I notice the former parish has declined in numbers quite a bit, down to about 20-30 on a given Sunday. I decided to become Catholic around the time this local church split. I believe Fr. Rick and his congregation are meeting in what is (was?) a Christian coffeehouse.

- Another friend, and former priest, at an Episcopal church in London, Ohio, became Catholic around the time I did, and his wife (also an Episcopal priest at the time) eventually joined him, obviously giving up any possibility of her being ordained in the Catholic Church. Rick is now studying for his PhD at a Catholic University. Interestingly, he started out pretty “progressive,” but after immersing himself in Scripture and the Church Fathers, came to a more traditional view of sexuality. Rick, Fr. David, Jonathan, and I were on the Theological Commission of the Southern Ohio American Anglican Council (it sounds more official than it was; it was mostly all of us getting together for some coffee and good discussion).

- Early in the controversy, a deacon in the Southern Ohio diocese left and joined the Vineyard. At this time I cannot recall her name.

- I am not sure what became of Deacon Will. Last I knew he was considering more evangelical options, if he ever decided to leave the Episcopal church.

- I haven’t heard from John for awhile. During his transitional diaconate he was functioning in the same parish that was sponsoring me for postulancy. He left the Episcopal church for Rome, I think just before I did, but I can’t recall exactly. He is currently studying for ordination under the pastoral provision. I asked my current bishop, Bishop Campbell about John a few months ago, and he responded, “he is still in the process.” I found a link to a letter John had written to his Episcopal parish right before he became Catholic.

- One priest, a lady with what is typically a man’s name, left the Episcopal church for what I believe was a Baptist or maybe even charismatic church.

- Fr. Ron, another member of our group, seems to be in the midst of some controversy right now. As he and his situation have been mentioned on Stand Firm, I don’t have a problem mentioning his parish. It is interesting right now, because Saint Matthew’s Anglican and Saint Matthew’s Episcopal both have websites, and both claim the same address. Apparently, the Episcopal loyalists get the Saint Matthew’s building back on June 1 (if a bulletin text from an Episcopal parish in Oxford, Ohio is right…I worked with the rector of this parish quite extensively, and even though I now oppose women’s ordination, I recognize the good work she is doing for the Lord). The Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio’s website lists Fr. Ron as “temporarily inhibited.” I figured Stand Firm or Kendall Harmon would be all over this, but apparently negotiations are happening under the radar.

- Jonathan and I became Catholic in August of 2004. We both now teach at Catholic high schools and operate various Catholic websites

Why did I write this post? The other day I was thinking back to those times, and how much I was struggling with my place in the Episcopal church, and within the Church in general. I didn’t struggle alone, but with friends and companions in the fight for orthodoxy. Nonetheless, I realized that over the last (soon-to-be) 5 years, most of us have left the Episcopal church, and many of us have left Anglicanism. It is kind of depressing in a way, but I know for a fact that many of our little group that have left are happy with the decision, and those who have stayed are joyful in their calling as well. It also shows just how many self-described orthodox in Southern Ohio have left the Episcopal church; If this is happening all over the country, TEC is most certainly moving even more leftward by default.

I often think maybe we should all get together for some coffee in London, Ohio, just for old time’s sake?? We’ll just have to make sure it isn’t Speedway coffee, for Fr. David’s sake, because Speedway coffee is rank heresy.

I just watched A Man for All Seasons two days ago and I must admit that I liked it very much. It is a relatively old movie (1966) but a good movie nevertheless. Personally, it was very inspirational to realize just how strong St. Thomas More’s faith was. In fact, his faith and love towards God was so strong that he preferred to be executed than to act against what he so firmly believed. Truly, St. Thomas More is a “Man for All Seasons”!

ST. THOMAS MORE, PRAY FOR US!!!

During his visit to the U.S., Pope Benedict XVI addressed obstacles to Christian unity at an ecumenical gathering. Without naming the Episcopal church, the pope seemed to be addressing them and other mainlines that act in the name of being “prophetic” at the expense of classical biblical and historical Christianity. The pope worries, as do many conservatives in the mainlines, that some Christian leaders are embracing the same type of relativism popular in secular culture. Over at Kendall Harmon’s blog, there is discussion about the pope’s address. However, some have suggested Benedict was actually addressing innovators in the Catholic Church that employ similar reasoning as progressives in the mainlines; his words are appropriate for both.

I think the pope is right-on here. The mainline pursuit of a certain interpretation of “social justice” is straining ecumenical relationships. When I was in graduate school, many students and professors strongly advocated changing classical Christian positions on various moral and social issues, and disobeying current canons and rules if necessary. I found that the driving force behind this change was a trendy and militant concept of “justice” and “being prophetic.” This drive for change was so strong, that it didn’t matter who or what was trampled along the way: canons, Scripture, Tradition, ecumenism, church members, etc. Two examples of this attitude stand out in my head. The first was a future Episcopal minister who said she didn’t care what the Bible or Tradition said about same-sex unions; for her, it was a “justice issue,” and that settled it. The second was when I let a professor know that I was concerned about the effects the consecration of Gene Robinson would have on ecumenism. “What about Rome?” I asked (at a time when I was not considering joining the Catholic Church). He said, “who cares what Rome thinks!” “Why does everybody always ask what ‘Rome’ thinks?” There you have it: being prophetic trumps ecumenism, biblical teaching, and just about anything else. The Episcopal church (and, to a lesser extent, other mainlines) is pursuing its modern vision of “justice” at the expense of ecumenism and, if statistics are any indication, members.

Now, let me say, the mainlines have every right to do this, and pursue ecumenism in their own way (as the Catholic Church does). However, Catholic , Orthodox, and evangelical leaders are not fooled: many mainlines are pursuing a revisionist agenda (”revisionist” in the sense of rethinking classical Christian doctrines and morality), and they can’t claim to be theologically orthodox and morally traditional when their actual policies and actions show otherwise. A vague concept of “resurrection” is not a substantial point of unity; sharing belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is. If the mainlines want closer ecumenical relations with Rome, Constantinople, and even evangelicals, then they are going to have to rethink recent deviations from Scripture and Tradition in the name of being prophetic; if they don’t want it, that is fine, but neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism is going to betray Scripture and Tradition for the sake of being “relevant” in 2008.

Back in 2003, when Gene Robinson, an openly gay man in a partnered relationship, was consecrated a bishop, many conservative Episcopal congregations considered departing. Soon after this consecration, five congregations in the diocese of Ohio left the Episcopal church. I don’t have the exact dates, but I recall these parishes leaving around 2004. I always wondered what happened between the Ohio diocese (which encompasses most of Ohio north of Columbus) and these parishes, because they represented about 20% of the diocese of Ohio’s average Sunday attendance, and they seemed to have left without much publicity. Apparently the Diocese of Ohio was willing to let these parishes go amicably (although if you look at current diocesan statistics, they are obviously still included in the stats). But not anymore.

It now seems that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts-Schori is pressuring the Ohio diocese to sue these parishes, four years after the fact. This comes after a defeat for Schori and TEC in Virginia. The Episcopal Church has apparently spent over 4 million dollars pursuing breakaway parishes in that state. The major legal issues TEC faces in pursuing breakaway parishes seem to be whether the Episcopal church is a hierarchical church and whether a true split has occurred in the Episcopal church. If the latter is true, then Virginia law allows the parish to depart with property. It seems as if the Virginia court assumes that there is a split happening in the Episcopal church, and it may well be right, since there are quite a few parishes, and even a diocese, departing.

The important question, though, is why would the leaders of the Episcopal church, the center of love, inclusion, and tolerance, spend millions of dollars to sue parishes that apparently amicably departed four years ago at the discretion of the bishop of Ohio? Well, I may have an idea. I have found that some who throw around the words “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “tolerance” are often some of the most non-diverse, exclusive, and intolerant folks around, especially if you don’t happen to agree with them on their pet issues. Those who for years complained they were oppressed by powerful church leaders are now in charge and wielding similar oppressive power like there is no tomorrow. Looking back, conservatives in the Episcopal church have been pretty darn tolerant of divergent views compared to those now in power.

I am relieved that I am no longer fighting from the inside in these debates (when I became Catholic I was glad to leave the strife behind, even though I sympathized with the conservative side). In some ways, I now sympathize with the National Episcopal church wanting to keep its property. However, unlike in the Catholic Church, where parishes are clearly owned by the bishop, I think there really is a question of to whom these properties belong. Personally, I have always thought that departing parishes should just leave the buildings behind so there is no question of scandal, and it seems to me that both sides in this debate are causing plenty of scandal, to the detriment of the gospel message (although I am not sure this message is really that clear in many TEC parishes). On the other hand, I can sympathize with those who say, “we have paid for the building, kept it up, and grown a thriving parish in spite of our bishop and diocese.”

Now I am more than aware that the Catholic Church has had (and currently has) leaders who lacked a good sense of faith and morals, and thus acted primarily out of power, but two wrongs do not make a right. In a modern age where information reaches the whole world in minutes over the internet, I don’t think an increase in expensive litigation is going to further the mission of the Episcopal Church, but then again, I am not exactly sure what the mission of TEC is these days.

I would not be Catholic today if it were not for John Paul II. I began to think about it this week as I reflected on his death three years ago. Basically, my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism (more details can be found here) probably never would have occurred if it weren’t for the late holy father.

First, his personality and spiritual integrity loomed large. While most of my Episcopal leaders were effete elitists, John Paul was a true man, and a man of the people at that. He brought down communism, spoke out on behalf of the poor, and also found time to record a CD; he was a true Renaissance man. His charisma didn’t hurt either: as a lifelong U2 fan, I admit that the photo of him wearing Bono’s “fly” sunglasses impressed me.

Second, the wisdom flowing from his encylicals and other writings encouraged and touched me in so many ways. Unlike the watered down vagueness of my mainline Protestant background, I knew any teaching coming from the Vatican would be solid, meaty, and well-reasoned, even if at the time I couldn’t quite agree with every word of it. Reading the brilliant Catholic Catechism, a product of John Paul’s pontificate, finally answered my most stubborn Protestant objections at a crucial time.

Third, he was ecumenical, yet honest. I knew that John Paul loved me and respected me as a Protestant, so much that he refused to lie or hide the truth of the Catholic Faith. He believed I was a Christian, but called me to the perfect and fullest expression of that Faith. In short, he loved me and others like me enough to tell the truth of Christ’s Church with the gentleness of a true pastor.

Although my academic interests, liturgical orientation, and goals for the Church may be closer to Pope Benedict’s, John Paul’s witness brought me and countless others to Catholicism and for that I will be eternally grateful.

Ven. John Paul II, pray for us!

The Venerable Carolina Cannonball informs:

The installation of Reginald Weller as Bishop Coadjutor of the Episcopal Diocese of Fond du Lac, WI on November 18, 1900 caused a bit of scandal. It was labeled the ‘Fond Du Lac Circus’ because the traditionally vested episcopalian bishops looked a bit too “popish”.

As a matter of fact, “The liturgical use of the mitre was revived in the Church of England in the latter part of the 19th century, and is now fairly widespread.“

I think it has had a good run… after 100ish years, it might be time to retire that trend and move on…

H/T: http://mcj.bloghorn.com/

To date I have seen this single article cited time and again… What confirmation do we have?

Clarence Pope Returns To The Episcopal Church…Again?

Let us keep him in our prayers.

Get a whiff of the +Schori Easter Message 2008.

Yea… I really can’t make stuff like this up.

This weekend, several of Per Christum’s contributors met for the first time at a little gem of a shrine in Carey, Ohio called the National Shrine of Our Lady of Consolation. Don’t worry, this post will not be a travel log. I would like to share a couple of thoughts, though, on the Catholic devotional tradition which is misunderstood by non-Catholics and taken for granted by Catholics.

While at Carey, I had in the back of my mind something I had read last week in a combox over at Midwest Conservative Journal, a blog serving mostly Anglican refugees of the Episcopal Church. One commenter had this to say:

Then I stepped into an active Roman Catholic church in Istanbul. The first thing that met my eye was a large statute of Jesus with the exposed and raised heart painted red. Nothing like this is seen in ancient Christianity. I don’t like it at all.

This is a common complaint of Anglicans and other Protestants who have considered the Catholic Church. “Catholics are just so tacky.” Yes, well, kitch is something that modernist Catholicism has been trying to rid us of for 40 years. Sadly for them, the tide is turning and the Catholic devotionalism of the ages is back with a vengeance. But, just what is going on with these statues and candles, plaster, bold paints and paraffin?

Frankly, it can be a bit daunting to talk about Catholic devotional life because it is not a purely rational reality, but a dimension of the Catholic faith rooted in layers and generations of pious expression. I am sure others have done much better, but I will offer some of my thoughts.

First, what is piety? It is perhaps a bit odd to the modern mind, but piety is an essential Catholic experience. Piety is religiously inspired emotion. To have pious feelings is to feel close to God in a spontaneous and uncanny way manifest emotionally, whether by tears, a profound peace, joy, hope, or contrition leading to reconciliation. A pious experience can move one to a profound inner silence or inspire a giddy chatter. It can take the form of a new insight or realization that make the hairs on the back of the neck stand or give one goosebumps. It can be a big spiritual breakthrough or catharsis or a confirmation of past spiritual movements. It can be a movement of the Spirit to take action or to stay put. It can take the form of words coming to the mind that are an answer to prayer or a great stillness. No matter how the pious feelings come they always have some things in common: a feeling of closeness to God, and a deep sense of well-being.

The Catholic devotional tradition, then, is a collection of prayers, religious art, stories, practices, promises and the like which capture the pious experience of some in order to communicate it to others. For instance, one person meditates on the person of Jesus and writes about his mercy. Another meditates on those writings on Christ’s mercy and writes new meditations on his having a merciful spirit or a merciful heart. Another meditates on his merciful heart and images of Christ comes to them pointing to his heart. Others try to capture those visions in paintings and statuary. Others write prayers and litanies inspired by meditation on the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Later another person has another similar image of Christ’s heart and other prayers that come. And on and on. The development of the Sacred Heart devotion and the derivative Divine Mercy devotion happened over at least 6 centuries! And they all point back to scripture, so this devotion is really as old as the Church itself.

And each Catholic meditating on the Sacred Heart will have his own personal experience of it, his own insight, his own way of relating to the images and prayers.

In this visit to Carey, my meditation on the Sacred Heart was on how Christ was wounded in the heart and that it is out of his having been wounded by us and for us, that he also understands us in the various wounds that we have. Somehow, it is through the wounded heart of Christ that he heals our wounds, we who have first wounded him.

Okay, that is not a bad meditation. It may not be very original or theologically sophisticated, but that little insight meant the world to me yesterday afternoon. In having that little moment of insight, I received what I had come a 5 hour drive for. It was the grace that I had not known that I had come for but that God wanted most for me. It was the grace I had not known to pray for.

And it had nothing whatsoever to do with taste, good, bad or otherwise. I do not feel drawn to the Sacred Heart for artistry as my tastes are more Lloyd-Wright. But I am always attracted even to the most brutish of Sacred Heart images because they communicate something of the pious experience of their makers. And my gaze upon their folk art craft can be a new occasion for the encounter with Divine Mercy. If Anglicanism is even a little bit about style, then that is an obstacle. Christ’s suffering and death are hideous, heinous, gruesome, horrid. And yet it is by these stripes that we are healed. If Christ had had good taste, he’d have found a more aesthetically pleasing way to achieve his ends. “Foolishness to the Gentiles and scandal to the Jews.” Were not these objections also a matter of taste?

From Sacramentum Vitae: Struggling with incoherence

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has called for “plural jurisdiction” in Britain, with Sharia law governing those Muslims who want it and British law everybody else. (What happens when a husband wants it and a wife doesn’t is an interesting question.) Of course the outraged reaction of most Britons, well expressed here, is justified. But the amusing thing is that Williams is exhibiting the same incoherence on this political point that he has cultivated in theology as he presides over the slow implosion of the Anglican Communion itself. In a show of apparent realism, he suggests that Sharia courts may “unavoidable” anyhow. Yet he backtracks when it’s pointed that Sharia law is incompatible with the notions of women’s rights and gender equality that he has so vigorously defended. As John O’Sullivan asks: “[I]s sharia unavoidable or not? If it is, then women’s rights will simply have to give way. But if women’s rights can be protected against it, then sharia isn’t unavoidable - and we need have none of it.” So, which is it? Williams doesn’t say.

Such incoherence is of a piece with the relative silence of Western feminists about the oppression of women in Islam. Leftists in general cannot decide whether the notions of human rights to which they appeal as though universal are nonetheless trumped by multiculturalism or not. If intolerance must be tolerated, even within our midst, when shown by people who are not otherwise “people like us,” then are there universal human rights other than the right to define oneself over against others? Why or why not?

Largest Anglican Parish in Canada Secedes over Same-Sex Blessings
By John Connolly

VANCOUVER, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Citing disagreements over homosexuality, the largest Anglican congregation in Canada voted overwhelmingly to break with its diocese and join a conservative Anglican movement based in South America. St. John’s, a parish in the upscale neighborhood of Shaughnessy in Vancouver, voted to leave the Diocese of New Westminster on February 13… The full text of the story is available at: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/feb/08021505.html

I wish them well. I hope they are able to find a seperate peace.

It does occur to me that for the time being, they will still be in communion with all the elements of Anglicanism they find problematic, just switching bishops to one who better suits their understanding of orthodoxy. I think that begins to open another discussion: Does authority dependent on the consent of the governed constitute any form of authority at all? Is that a model for episcopal government or de facto congregationalism?

It is understandable that Canadian Anglicans might experience a warmness when looking southerly mid-February. For more orthodox sunshine and warmth year round, it may be time to cast their gaze more Romeward.

Nice try. John Boyle Ashford of Kent, UK writes a positive review on his blog, South Ashford Priest, of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William’s advocacy for Sharia Law’s inclusion in Britain. The article is titled: Bishop Burkha or Williams the Wise?

Here is the crux of his point of view:

I think [RW's] basic point is that society is made up of more than what makes a state. A totally secuarlised legal system places too much emphasis on individual acts and not enough on the context and cultural background of those acts. People are related to one another in all sorts of ways and it is those relationships that must be taken into account to define what is just and equitable.

A legal universalism is, therefore, unhealthy in any society, a universalism that states that the State and its legal system is supreme. Such a system, born out of the Enlightenment, becomes intolerant of the free desire of people to relate to one another in particular ways. It should be possible for different systems to exist within a State that, as it were, moderates the systems in the society to ensure that both the individual and the common good may be protected.

Now this is insightful while still being completely wrong. On the theoretical level, a couple of points:

1. Positive law comes from the Enlightenment, yes. The Enlightenment is at the heart of the culture clash between the West and Islam. Aspects of the Enlightenment include dependence on reason for policy, not mere authority. Something is not true just because the grand poobah said so, but because it is reasonable. The Enlightenment is the champion of human rights, of democracy as well. To say something like positive law arises in the Enlightenment is to pay it a complement and make argument for its appeal to universality, not to reduce it to something narrow and culturally bound. That is, if there is something good in Sharia Law that is lacking in the British system, let the Muslims argue for it rationally and convince others through the proper channels and have it enshrined as “positive law.”

2. If “universal law” has its weaknesses, it’s opposite, “relative law” is an absolute evil to be avoided at all costs. One cannot simultaneously work for social cohesion and adopt laws relative to particular religious persuasion or ethnic heritage such that social differences are emphasize and perpetuated. Should relative law be enshrined, then the future of Britain will not be decided by reasonable discussion and law leading to assimilation, but by birthrate wars.

3. The Catholic question on adoption (or abortion in hospitals in California, or, or, or) can be dealt with by encoding religious freedom into positive law and having courts sort out the issues where legal goods compete.

4. Legally contextualizing discreet acts is terribly dangerous when looking a Sharia Law which is opposed to Western ideals of human rights. This is as true for divorce as for theft.

Doing my rounds on news sites, I just found the whole of today’s news at http://www.lifesite.net/ worth taking a look at. Unable to decide on just one or two, thought I would just link to all of today’s stories - take a look at ‘em and add http://www.lifesite.net/ to your favorites. - Provided you don’t take PC off, of course!

Action Call to Save Samuel Golubchuk - How Canadians starve people to death too. Interestingly, it is your doctor in Canada who gets to decide…

UK Anglican Bishop Fined (95,000 dollars) and Sent for “Re-Education” in Gay Employment Case Behold secular Sharia!

Canadian Environmental Guru: Jail Politicians Who Deny Climate Change

Jamaican Religious and Civic Leaders Respond to Proposal to Decriminalize Abortion

Spanish Presidential Candidate Says He Would Eliminate Homosexual Adoptions

Bush’s Them and Us - “Abortion on Demand” vs “Adoption and the Right to Life”

If a University Forbids a Pro-Life Club, Pro-Life Students Should Not be Forced to Pay

Most of this news is depressing crap. So to end on a high note a little something from B-16 and a photo from when he was Pre-16.

Pope Benedict: State must Defend the Right of a Child to a Father and Mother

Speak truth to power, Holy Father!

Among the ecclesial communities of Anglicans and Lutherans various levels of inter-communion (i.c.) currently exists.

In the US & Canada, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canda and the Evangelcal Lutheran Church of America & Evangelcal Lutheran Church of Canada are all in communion. The Episcopalians/Canadian Anglicans are in turn i.c. with the wider Anglican Communion, a portion of which in turn is i.c. with the Lutheran Churches in Northern Europe, which are, in turn, i.c. with the Evangelcal Lutheran Church of America & Evangelcal Lutheran Church of Canada.

As it stands now, the result of these working agreements is that with the consecration of any new Episcopal or Lutheran bishop here in North America or in Europe among the above noted parites, bishops from each group take part. Ostensibly this is done to “restore apostolic succession” to the episcopate of Lutherans… It also seems to be a move made to answer the objections of some in the AC who have concearns about the validity of Lutheran orders…

I guess in the mean time, with the Porvoo, Called to Common Mission and Waterloo agreements that bind or at least bring together these various communions at various levels, Anglican parties holding to the necessity of Apostolic Succession will roundly ignore the lack (some would propose) thereof in the Lutheran bodies they now work with. Conversely Lutherans with serious reservation about “yoking extra-scriptural concepts of Apostolic Succession” to episcopacy are hoped (I can only guess) to not push the issue to a confrontation.

(Interestingly, many Lutheran bodies - including the Synod set up by Swedes in America - now part of the ELCA - did not use episcopacy for governance, and had a generally more congregational or presbyterian outlook on the nature and theology of ministry, government and ordination.)

To confuse the issue further, Anglican communion intercommunion agreements extend to most Ultrajectine bodies, Moravians and a handful of ecclesial communities that were formed through mergers that included Anglicans (Church of North India, Church of South India). In turn what understanding those bodies have of each other, or of the Lutherans, seems to vary, though from what I can gather, it is unclear that much consideration of how these inter-communion agreements carry over to different bodies that aren’t signatories of inter-communion agreements.

While certain evangelical elements in the Anglican communion have been upset with TEC for the consecration of openly gay, practicing and promoting homosexuals, it has already been the case that they were (on paper) already i.c. with Ultrajectines (Bonn Agreement, 1931) who already bless same sex unions and have no impediement on the ordination of practicing and promoting homosexual men and women.

As it stands right now…
… the Church of England is i.c. with the
… Church of Sweden which is i.c. with the
… ELCA which is i.c. with the
… Episcopal Church which is i.c. with the
… Moravian Church which is i.c. with the
… United Methodist church which is i.c. with the
… African Methodist Episcopal Church which is i.c. with the
… African Methodist Episcopal Church which is i.c. with the
… Disciples of Christ which is i.c. with the
… United Church of Christ which is i.c. with the
… International Council of Community Churches which mostly seem to have open communion, but I don’t know that they would be conisdered i.c. with
… the Church of England.

What does it mean to be “in communion” to begin with?

Lord Carey a former Archbishop of Canterbury has simultaneously castigated ABC Rowan Williams for his suggestion that Sharia Law have a place in Britain and stated that this row should not lead to his resignation.

While the first point is obviously needed, the second in my estimation is either useless chivalry or another case of Anglican ineptitude regarding the preservation of its own existence.

RW’s statements about Sharia Law in Britain were unwise on a variety of levels, the least of which is legal:

1. It is bad law. The meaning of law is that it binds citizens universally. His proposal introduces as the very least a kind of tiered system of citizenship.

2. The tendency of Muslims to refuse assimilation and their growing numbers constitute a grave threat to European civilization which is shrinking and losing confidence in itself while enduring the animus of world wide Islam. Submission to Islamicists will only weaken a future for Christianity in Britain and set a bad precedent in the EU leading to further acquiescence.

3. Islamicists do not recognize a distinction between “good” Sharia Law and “bad” Sharia Law. Give them some Sharia Law and they will demand more and more.

4. As head of the established Church, RW’s duty is to work tirelessly for the gospel, for the evangelization of all peoples in his realm, including and perhaps especially Muslims. The job demands a lion, not an erudite hand wringer.

5. These statements demonstrate that his analysis of Britain is more sociological than theological. This is perhaps the most grievous aspect of the current problem. RW is abdicating his role as national theologian/pastor in favor of being some kind of national social theorist.

6. RW has shown his hand already in telling ways by holding secretive liturgies with liberal gays and feminists while publicly playing the objective arbiter. Even prior to this Sharia row, he has shown himself unfit to represent historic Christianity. His preferential option for the heterodox has demonstrated that he, if not all Anglicanism, is no longer “catholic” in its theological/moral reasoning. Nor is it Protestant, but secular.

7. As a national figure for the English people RW has abandoned Englishness as a definitive quality of the nation. Were I English, I would consider this treasonous.

I realize that this is a harsh assessment of RW’s tenure and that not all will agree. For a model of strong leadership with a plan, we need only look at HH Benedict XVI.

Some have compared RW’s row with Benedict’s row after Regensberg. Not so fast. First, Benedict raised ire for a quote of someone else with whom he did not agree and RW has gotten in trouble for what he himself actually has said. Second, Benedict did not and never will sell out Catholicism which it is his charge to champion while RW has repeatedly undercut the very institution he was appointed to lead.

In my opinion RW needs to step down and find a nice academic corner where he can spin theoretical yarns among Oxford emeriti who will nod at his wit and not take him too seriously.

I should add that I have a real esteem for classical Anglicanism and owe a personal debt of gratitude to Truro Parish, Fairfax, Va. which at a critical time in my personal history was extraordinarily formative for me. I believe that Anglicanism could have been a very important ally for the Catholic Church in addressing our present cultural moral collapse, except for the bad leadership which has allowed Anglicanism to be part of the problem rather than the solution. I feel terribly for those classical Christians caught in Anglicanism, of which my father is one. For those who have attatched themselves to the “rock” of Canterbury especially in CANA, AMiA, etc., it must be terribly deflating to find there only quicksand. I pray they find the rock they seek. God Bless them.