The Anglican Rite in the Roman Church

Northern Michigan episcopal election fails to receive required consents

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on July 27 notified the standing committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan that the necessary consents to the ordination and consecration of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop were not received within the prescribed time period and therefore his election was "null and void."

In Thew Forrester's case, standing committees had until July 19 and bishops with jurisdiction had until July 25.

"I have been extraordinarily blessed and honored to walk with my friends from the Diocese of Northern Michigan over these past months as their bishop-elect. I treasure the support they have extended me and my family, as well as that I have received from Hong Kong to Holland and from Great Britain to New Zealand, and indeed from so many throughout The Episcopal Church. As we live and move and have our being in Christ, there is truly a Holy Wisdom in all that is unfolding, and as St. John of the Cross affirms, a grace in 'all that happens,'" said Thew Forrester in a statement.

Members of the standing committee couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Thew Forrester, chosen during a special convention on February 21 to succeed James Kelsey who died in June, 2007, had come under intense scrutiny since his election.

Read the rest here.

Ecumenism, the Eucharist and The "Cool Kids"

In the rash of bad decisions made in the final hours at General Convention this summer (along with cutting the Evangelism, Women's Ministries, Anti-Racism Training, and Education to the vanishing point) was a provision to have "Interim Eucharistic Sharing" with the United Methodist Church. Now I say "bad" not unadvisedly. I'm not going to launch into some screed about how the UMC isn't really a Christian Body and Church, or that it is invalid at some key level. Rather, I am pointing out that there is far to much work that needs to be done before we can even go there.

Methodism and Anglicanism have a common heritage, but the relationship is rocky. In the end, American Methodism was founded by a precipitous act by John Wesley to ordain two men to come to the new nation to act as superintendents, not Bishops, for the nacient Methodist meetings here. Coke and Asbury's names are today remembered in the Publishing Company of the UMC. There was an implicit rejection of the Historic Episcopacy (Not to mention the slightly different concept of Apostolic Succession) in this action. When the old Southern and Northern Methodist Churches, as well as the EUB, merged, they decided upon the tittle of "Bishop" for their District Superintendents but decidedly left out any idea of the Episcopacy that smacked to much of being "Catholic." To this day, if you really measure up the two services for Making Bishops in the Methodist Book of Worship and the Book of Common Prayer, you will note a few differences. In the BCP the idea is that there is a conferring of a separate Order of Ministry and that the recipient will share in the Office of the Apostles. The UMC service of "Consecration" is the elevation of a senior Presbyter, granted special authority and set aside in that role, but still a presbyter. In there lies the difference.

The reason that this becomes important is that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886 and 1888 defines the "inherent parts of [the] sacred deposit" that we Anglicans consider to be non negotiable. The Fourth Article of the Quadrilateral outlines that we hold the concept of the Historic Episcopacy to be essential to our understanding of the Church, and that we expect to meet it in some form in any other Church with whom we are to attempt parity with. In the Case of the ELCA we were willing to accept their Presbyteral Ordinations in the same spirit that similar ones were received in England after the Restoration. When there are no bishops available and the Church needs to survive, they are acceptable. Loss of the Historic Episcopate due to the forced merger of Reformed and Lutheran Bodies in Germany in the 18th century was, in part, the pretext for our embrace of them. We also have made it so that their Bishops will be in the Historic Episcopate and the Apostolic Succession and the agreement is such that all of their Pastors going forward will be ordained by their Bishops. We are working a type of union within both our and their categories and it's still fairly touch and go.

With the United Methodists, however, we have all of that touchy and unpleasant baggage. Wesley acted outside of our Anglican tradition, even as it was understood at the time, in order to tend to his groups in the United States. That rejection, and the continued rejection of the Historic Episcopate is a major issue that should be addressed.

Another part of this is, and this may sound odd, is that we don't see eye to eye about the nature of the Sacrament it's self. I'm serious. The first problem is the one many people see as being the silliest. You see that Lambeth Quadrilateral I mentioned before has as its third article a commitment to the two Dominical Sacraments using the "elements ordained by Him." At issue here is that the UMC has a doctrinal and social commitment to using pasteurized grape juice ala Welches, and not wine. As the UMC Book of Worship puts it:

"Although the historic and Ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by the United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late 19th century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation for children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence." (pg. 28)

We'll not stop for to long and ponder the implications of this pastoral concern. That the only one that seems to not be tied up with 19th century pietism and general Victorian prudishness about alcohol (in particular when dealing with children) is concern for those for whom alcohol is poison. The proper way to respond to the needs of alcoholics is one that needs to be discussed and dealt with. The TEC's insistence that reception of one species or the other makes for a full communion may be a part of the answer, but such theology seems to be missing in the formularies of the UMC. However, that all is beside the point if one is willing to ignore such a difference in the basic idea of the proper administration of the Sacrament and paper over it.

The other issue is one that, the well written and theologically sound This Holy Mystery aside, there is no real parity between what Anglicans think of the meaning of the Sacrament and that of the UMC. That a major part of the "method" for which Weslians are names was regular reception of the Eucharist is down played if not actively forgotten now. Any sort of theology that even dares approach even the lower end of the Anglican spectrum of the Real presence is shrugged off. There is a need for the UMC to find it's voice on the Eucharist more definitively so that we may know what it is, exactly that we are sharing. The Prayer Book, in almost all of it's iterations starting in 1549 taught some form of Presence. The brief Second Book of Edward VI had the lowest and the proposed Scottish Prayer Book one of the highest. It is a part of our theological heritage that has been a part of our distinctiveness for a long time. We have no one voice on the "how", but pretty strong on the "what," the UMC is still trying to reclaim both. It is not, however, the job of TEC to do that work for them.

Not that any of these considerations matter that much to many at General Convention. Such matters, like real evangelism and the need for a fully funded educational office, are matters anadiaphoron, a thing indifferent. Most matters of theological distinction are really rather unimportant to many in power in our Church. That may seem harsh, in particular those who I just accused of being indifferent may object, but the accusation stands. Trivialities and feel good affirmations as well as sociology and political aphorisms have replaced the hard work of theology. There is a long, low roar of impatience that crescendos into a high pitched whine when ever the topic comes up. It could be simply a matter that almost every seminary is really a school of social work with a few, often resented, theology classes tossed into the mix. Most of our clergy are simply untrained in dealing with complex issues of theology and the culture of the Church has become one that, essentially, down plays such issues as unimportant.

In my last post I mentioned that there is a group of men and women who could best be defined as "The Cool Kids." These are people whose opinions matter in TEC in a way that the rest of our do not. They are the ones who reacted to strongly to the rejection of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester's election, and couldn't quiet understand that theological scruples really existed in a strong enough form to cause "good Liberals" to not support him. They are the same ones who don;t quite yet grasp the point that it is not a failing on the part of younger people to not fit into the same categories of taste and interest; and to like traditional music, or worship and not go running whole hog after new liturgies or new expressions. A desire to experience and use the old is seen as an aberration that must be stopped. It is the same air of assuredness that leads to the echo chamber like atmosphere of Committees like the SCLM, and to weaken the resolve of those who are on the Legislative committee to ruefully send the mess forward to the Bishops because to send it back to the SCLM would have hurt their feelings and it unChristian to harsh on a mellow.

now that I have, in part, defined the "Cool Kid's" I'll stop this post and move onto one about Evangelism, and why our Church seems to hate it.

Holy Women, Holy Men

Blessed feasts of blessed martyrs,

holy women, holy men,

with affection’s recollections

greet we your return again.

Worthy deeds they wrought, and wonders,

worthy of the Name they bore;

we, with meetest praise and sweetest,

honor them for evermore.

12th-century Latin text,

translated John Mason Neale

#238, The Hymnal 1982

The 2006 General Convention, meeting in Columbus, voted to approve an "A" resolution from the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music (SCLM) to substantially revise the Lesser Feats and Fasts book, the "sanctoral" or "Book of Saints" the Episcopal Church uses for it's, well Lesser Feasts. They then produced (as one member put it a tad condescendingly put it) what "General Convention wanted." They have proposed a massive reorganization of the Book, complete with a new name "Holy Women, Holy Men," based off of the lyric quoted above. It is comprised of 112 additions, several adjustments, but no subtractions. I was surprised by and then a bit turned off by the size of the change, but decided to focus my thoughts into one or two spots. I also kept many of my reflections to myself as I watched the discussion unfold on the blogosphere and the HoB/D list.

The response has been mixed. The Establishment Left of TEC has received this, predictably, with open arms. The Conservatives were equally predictable in their rejection. Apparently, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" has been amended to end with "in a predictably automatic way according to camp." The rest of us, many of whom you will note over at the side of your screen, were mixed in our reactions. I had several little things that stuck in my craw, some of that will be below. Other people had other issues. So, after a while, I went through and I googled a few of the names I was unfamiliar with. I was underwhelmed by most but one or two stood out as particularly good and others as bad. What kept coming to me was the question of why so many, and why some of the people chosen. Rather than indulge in to overly wrought a discursive essay, I'll simply list and briefly explain some of my problems.

1. Saint John of the Cross: This is the most complicated of my objections, so I list it first. I'll start with my general queasy feeling towards "San Juan de la Cruz" being listed in the book. If we were to take the time to list any other saint by their native name it wouldn't bother me as much. As it is, it is just a precious little addition to make the whole mess more "multi-cultural." Second, the date, November 24th, given on the Calendar for John is unexplained. Admittedly, back in the mists of time that was the date for John's commemoration. His death date is December 14th, that is his commemoration in the Roman Catholic and other Western Churches. In the 19th century his day interfered with the octave of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and so was moved to the day that he joined the Carmelites as John of St Mathias. In the 1950's Rome saw that as silly and moved him back to his first date of commemoration. Why then do we put him there? Even the Church of England commemorates him in December. I would guess that this date matches Ye Olde Kalendar in the Anglican Breviary, one of the many Anglo-Catholic books which has enshrined the 19th Century as the epitome of the Churchs' life and history. No doubt that was one of the reasons, but I'll not lay money on it. Now, there is a perfectly good person in HWHM, Henry Budd, one of the first Anglican Religious in the US, if not the Communion. My question would be though, why not commemorate him on a date of "event" and not put John in his place with the rest of the Church? This isn't just a question of being picky for it's own sake, but rather for the sake of continuity, or dare I say, Catholicity. (I'll also add that I think the collect is trite and precious.)

2. John Muir: He was an agnostic if not an atheist. To be more exact he was raised in the Church of Scotland then in one of the Cambelite sects because his father didn't think that the CoS was keeping it real enough. Later in life he would reject the concept of God all together "as purely a manufactured article as any puppet of a half-penney theater." How is he an example to the Faithful? He is rammed rather uncomfortably in with Archdeacon Hudson Stuck who was an old time social reformer type and outdoors-man. He helped climb Mount McKinley and was active in passing labor laws and teaching discipleship as caring for one another. I haven't found much that identifies the good Archdeacon as an Environmentalist, but my research is incomplete. What I find objectionable is that a faithful Christian is given second billing to a man who had no such faith, no matter how admirable he may be otherwise.

3. Charles, King and Martyr: This is a reverse objection to the one above, but they are connected. Why, after all this time, do we not include him on our calendar? He is present as a feast on the calendars of many of the other Anglican Churches in the World, and he was a Christian faithful to the catholic faith he had received. He died, in no small part, because he refused to compromise on the good order of the Church and was executed by the Puritans because of it. That there is no room on our calendar for him, but there is for Muir is I indicative of part of the trouble. You see Muir is popular with the "cool kids" of the Establishment in TEC, but Charles II is not.

4. The Amazingly Elastic Standards: Here are the standards of inclusion on the Calendar as outlined in 2006. Here they are for the new book. Now, using the standards as given there why would, say Muir, a Cambelite Agnostic/Atheist get recognized when Charles II isn't? I'm being deadly serious here. Are we to assume that the Sierra Club is now a devotional society of TEC? Are we to discount the Anglican credentials of Charles and the fact that he has a devoted society that has lobbied for him, as well as a well defined devotion dedicated to his memory? This is just one example of the "cool kids" making a decision and roling with it. I could list Barth, Fannie Crosby, or Kierkegarrd as example of other faithful Christians who seem to not fill in all the criteria for the calendar but are there and people like Laud, Church, Charlotte Young, or Auber are not.

5. Those Who Have Left Us: HWHM adds three names that stood up and slapped me when I saw them. John Henry Newman, GK Chesterton, and Elizabeth Anne Seaton all left the Anglican faith for "greener pastures" in the Bark of Peter. I am deeply ambivalent about this, in particular with Chesterton who could be very sardonic about Anglicanism. Newman requires his own post.

A bit later I'll expand upon what i mean by "The Cool Kids" and my feelings about the elitism that runs around in our Church.

Episcopal "Reform of the Reform"

"The Episcopal Church is passing through a watershed era. I believe that as the Baby Boomers begin to fade out and Generations X and Y begin asserting our voices, yet more changes remain on the horizon. As these changes are coupled with the growth of information technology, emerging/evolving soical media, and widespread social changes, I think we’re only at the start of a larger, more complicated, more convoluted process than we may suspect."

Read the rest, here.

There are several things in this that I find to be very interesting. The first is the continued statement that those of us who come after the post WWII generation are different and have different needs and desires. One of the key things is that we have lost is any sense of history. We have stopped training clergy in many of our seminaries to be pastoral theologians and educators and turned them into a kind of Spiritual social worker. With the more heavy duty academic work also went an ability to be grounded in the continutity of the Church as a whole. The sloppy things that come out of clergies mouths should be a source of scandal for the Church. A generation of sloppy, amateurish theology and history from the pulpit is combined with a massive amount of bad "scholarship" about the History and life of the Church (Marcus Borg and his hip, yuppie Jesus for the new millennium being chief among them, but Pagels and her amazingly elastic Gnosticism comes in a close second) to make a messy situation.

Some of this is simply an inability of post-modernism to actually construct anything lasting or meaningful. The other part of this is that the post WWII generation tended to be disinterested in building in the Church as much as they were intent on destroying. Diogenies Allen said once that the birthright of the Church had been stolen and destroyed. Part of this destruction is so that those who came after could not return to the past to look for ideas. Rather, the past as drawn by the well meaning, but misguided, intermediate is all that is there, and this image is so incomplete that it is useless. Some of this is a function of a general disdain for History in general, and a substitution for "these are my thoughts on the subject" and a collection of caricatures designed to make the reader feel better about themselves.

What we need is a solid reclamation of our heritage and an insistence upon it as a starting point.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/thew_forrester_election_report.html


The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester cannot receive enough votes from standing committees in the Episcopal Church to be consecrated as bishop of Northern Michigan according to a tally kept by an Arkansas reporter who has been in contact with all of the Church's 110 dioceses as well as the Convocation in Europe.
The Diocese of Bethlehem's standing committee voted not to consent to Thew Forrester's election tonight, becoming the 56th diocese to withhold consent according to the reporting of Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who also reports online at Bible Belt Blogger. If his count is correct, Thew Forrester can only be confirmed if some standing committee's change their votes.
Fifty-six standing committees have withheld consent. Twenty-nine have given consent. Twenty-six have either not voted or not reported on their vote, according to Lockwood.
The Church does not announce the outcome of confirmation balloting until after the 120-day period in which consents may be received. Thew Forrester's consent period ends in late July.

Baptism, Eucharist, and the Hospitality of Jesus: On the Practice of "Open Communion"

Anglican Theological Review ,  Spring 2004   by Farwell, James

The opening of the eucharistic table to the unbaptized is a practice inspired by the radical hospitality of Jesus. Too often, however, the practice of open communion is adopted casually, without the systematic theological reflection called for by something so central to ecclesial identity and mission. Among the issues the practice raises are (1) its reliance on the claim that Jesus would not have shared a ritual meal with his disciples alone, (2) its departure from the paschal ecclesiology at the heart of contemporary liturgical renewal, which links baptism and eucharist to a post-Constantinian understanding of mission, (3) its failure both to appreciate the pastoral value of longing, and to avoid a modernist commitment to the immediate gratification of individual desire, (4) its naive assumption that boundaries are necessarily inhospitable, and (5) its taking the place of genuine evangelism and public ecclesial witness. This essay, while not an exhaustive argument against open communion, addresses these critical issues.

It has become commonplace, in some circles of the Episcopal Church, to argue that communion ought to be offered to the unbaptized in public worship as an expression of the radical hospitality of Jesus. A handful of high profile parishes, in conscientious defiance of the canons of the Episcopal Church that restrict communion to the baptized,1 have undertaken the practice and inspired a number of other parishes to do the same. While the actual practice of offering communion to the uiibaptized does not appear to be widespread, its profile is high enough to have warranted a resolution before the 74th General Convention asking for the appointment of a task force to consider the serious ecumenical and theological ramifications of this growing practice.2 The topic was recently on the agenda of Anglican liturgists who meet annually with the North American Academy of Liturgy. The Episcopal Church is not alone in reconsidering the traditional restriction of communion to the baptized. Recently, scholars and pastors of the Presbyterian Church (USA) devoted a vigorous session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion to this topic, and Methodists have long discussed whether Wesley meant by his claim that the Lord's Supper is a "converting ordinance" that the table should be open to all.

Read the rest here.