A friend who goes to my old parish is big into the importance of strategic planning. He has been using his expertise and training in that area to help the parish develop and hone its vision and mission, and to plan for the future for the glory of God. After working with him briefly on that, and doing some of my own thinking and reflection on the subject, I am more and more convinced that not only parishes, but also dioceses and provinces, need to take strategic planning more seriously. It is very simple: if there is no plan for anything - nothing will happen. Put another way, if you aim at nothing you will hit it. Making a strategic plan is saying: "This is where we want to be in X years, and this is how we are going to get there." Any serious business would have a plan, and let's face it: the church has a lot in common with a business.
I think one of the reasons continuing Anglicans have been so ineffective, maligned, and marginalized over the years is because of a lack of strategic planning and vision on the part of the leadership. Lofty but vague ideas such as "preserving orthodoxy" or "standing for tradition" are not good enough to serve as a strategic plan. A plan is more precise than that, and includes specific actions to be taken. Plans that need to be made, or concerns that need to be addressed with a plan, include: standards for parish catechesis; church planting and missions; ministrial credentialing; ecumenism and inter-church relations; development of educational and other resources (publications, etc.); fundraising; and the list could go on forever.
One of the things that mitigates against developing such strategies is a misunderstanding of our heirarchical form of church government. It is often wrongly assumed that a top-down form of government means that the bishop and the standing committee has to do everything, and have their hands in everything. When a diocese or province is small, that model works fairly well, and is probably essential. But as the church grows, those peoples' work loads soon become maxed out, so any further growth becomes impossible. Then things begin to grind to a halt, and no more progress is made. Establishing new committees to oversee particular initiatives, such as an education committee that would develop diocesan catechetical standards and resources, is a way to relieve the bishop and the standing committee from unneccesary work, and a way to make better use of our existing human resources. It is also a way to get more people (especially the laity) invovled in the church. Many hands make light work. This in no way undermines our biblical model of church government, but rather enriches it, and helps make us more faithful to St. Paul's teaching of the Church as a "body". The bishop, as chief pastor of the diocese, can be the figurehead, cheerleader, and facilitator of such a process.
I would like to see the bishops and standing committees of all continuing Anglican provinces develop a strategic five-year plan and vision for their Church so as to make better use of their time and resources, and to advance the Kingdom of God and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is ultimately a question of stewardship - how are we going to spend our time and money? Are we going to get the most out of it, or very little out of it? A plan would help us be more effective. It would also help us focus on ministering to people instead of squabbling with each other.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Consecrations Performed by Bishops Outside of the Offical Anglican Communion
In his book A Guide to the Sacraments, John MacQuarrrie makes this comment in one of his chapters on ordination:
"Even in quite recent times, individuals who have at some time received episcopal ordination (or consecration) but who are not acting in the name of any church or with the consent of any church authority have ordained (or gone through the motions of ordaining) deacons, presbyters, and even other bishops. Whether their actions are valid must be considered doubtful, though I have said a number of times in the course of this book that the action of the Holy Spirit cannot be limited to what is permitted by ecclesiastical laws." (pp.200-201)
He seems to be condemning episcopi vagantes, or "wandering bishops", who were not part of established churches, and who sometimes ordained and consecrated men without flocks. But his remarks could possibly be construed as condemning Anglicans like we continuers, and others who had to take "extreme" measures to preserve and continue the orthodox faith. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but the thought did cross my mind.
All of this was in the back of my mind while doing research recently on Samuel Seabury for a talk I had to give at the local Scottish Society. I came across this insightful passage in the newly published Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer:
"There he met with an obstacle: the establishment of the established church, and specifically the oath of allegience required of every new bishop. Seabury, no longer a British subject, could hardly take such an oath. The English bishops, though not unsympathetic, could not dispense with it on their own. The government, for largely political reasons, declined to cooperate. So it was that in November 1784 the service at which Dr. Seabury became Bishop Seabury took place in Aberdeen and the ordaining prelates were Nonjuring Scots, who themselves were not bound to the Anglican establishment." (pp.172-173; my emphasis)
The lesson here is that being outside of the "official Anglican establishment" doesn't necessarily unchurch anyone.
"Even in quite recent times, individuals who have at some time received episcopal ordination (or consecration) but who are not acting in the name of any church or with the consent of any church authority have ordained (or gone through the motions of ordaining) deacons, presbyters, and even other bishops. Whether their actions are valid must be considered doubtful, though I have said a number of times in the course of this book that the action of the Holy Spirit cannot be limited to what is permitted by ecclesiastical laws." (pp.200-201)
He seems to be condemning episcopi vagantes, or "wandering bishops", who were not part of established churches, and who sometimes ordained and consecrated men without flocks. But his remarks could possibly be construed as condemning Anglicans like we continuers, and others who had to take "extreme" measures to preserve and continue the orthodox faith. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but the thought did cross my mind.
All of this was in the back of my mind while doing research recently on Samuel Seabury for a talk I had to give at the local Scottish Society. I came across this insightful passage in the newly published Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer:
"There he met with an obstacle: the establishment of the established church, and specifically the oath of allegience required of every new bishop. Seabury, no longer a British subject, could hardly take such an oath. The English bishops, though not unsympathetic, could not dispense with it on their own. The government, for largely political reasons, declined to cooperate. So it was that in November 1784 the service at which Dr. Seabury became Bishop Seabury took place in Aberdeen and the ordaining prelates were Nonjuring Scots, who themselves were not bound to the Anglican establishment." (pp.172-173; my emphasis)
The lesson here is that being outside of the "official Anglican establishment" doesn't necessarily unchurch anyone.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Look, a new jurisdiction! (and more blogs)
Raise that total number of continuing Anglican jurisdictions to 80! I just saw a CD in the record store by John Mayer called "Continuum". Since it has the word "continuum" it must be another one of those pesty "continuing Anglican" jurisdictions! Quick, alert VOL and Anglicans Online! And a google search on "continuum" reveals video games, and many other things that are also probably continuing Anglican jurisdictions!
Please note, I am being sarcastic here. This just goes to show you that not everything that says "continuing" or "continuum" is legitimate. On that note, I want to highlight four new blogs that have recently come to my attention:
Ecclesia Anglicana Continua - by the Very Rev'd Erich Zwingert, SSC (APA priest)
John One Five - by the Rev'd David Baumann, SSC (FiFNa priest)
Apology of Miscellanies - by Mr. Andrew Presler (APA postulant)
Apologetics Galore - by Mr. David H (APA layman)
The first one is especially helpful in light of recent discussion as to what is a legitmate "continuing" Anglican church. What a joy it is to see how alive and well traditional Anglicanism is! On "Apologetics Galore" there are some great pictures of the new building of St. Barnabas (APA) in Georgia. I look forward to seeing what these gentleman have to say about things, and encourgae everyone else to do the same.
Please note, I am being sarcastic here. This just goes to show you that not everything that says "continuing" or "continuum" is legitimate. On that note, I want to highlight four new blogs that have recently come to my attention:
Ecclesia Anglicana Continua - by the Very Rev'd Erich Zwingert, SSC (APA priest)
John One Five - by the Rev'd David Baumann, SSC (FiFNa priest)
Apology of Miscellanies - by Mr. Andrew Presler (APA postulant)
Apologetics Galore - by Mr. David H (APA layman)
The first one is especially helpful in light of recent discussion as to what is a legitmate "continuing" Anglican church. What a joy it is to see how alive and well traditional Anglicanism is! On "Apologetics Galore" there are some great pictures of the new building of St. Barnabas (APA) in Georgia. I look forward to seeing what these gentleman have to say about things, and encourgae everyone else to do the same.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Current Reading
After being interrupted by a million things, I have finally finished reading A Guide to the Sacraments by John MacQuarrie. I would not recommend this book as an introduction to the sacraments or to sacramental theology as it is not very detailed, but I do think that it would be good for someone immersed in a Ludwig Ott/Francis Hall approach to the sacraments to read, as it discusses them on more of broad, conceptual and philosophical level in the context of postmodernity. Like a lot of MacQuarrie's works, it is mind-expanding and quite thought-provoking. The older books like Hall and Ott have their place - one must know and master the traditional formulations and ideas - but they are unsuitable in and of themselves in today's postmodern situation.
My reading schedule, incidently, consists of short reads and long reads read concurrently. The sacraments book was a quick read, as it is short (200 pages) and the topic is familiar to me. My "long read" has been "Jesus and the Victory of God" by N.T. Wright. I plan on getting a few more short reads in while reading this long one.
So, my next "short read" is actually going to be a re-read: Creative Fidelity by Francis Sullivan, SJ. This book is required reading at many US Catholic seminaries. I had to read it as part of my Fundamental Theology class. The author was a professor at the Gregorian University (where many future bishops and theologians of the Church go) for many years. It is about how to weigh and interpret the documents of the magesterium. This book is so important because it shows that nothing can escape the need for interpretation and reinterpretation, not even papal documents. It discusses what dogma is; what magesterium in its various forms is; how to identify defined dogmas in papal documents; the disagreements Catholic theologians have on what these defined dogmas are and how the number of them has shrunk over the years; and it gives examples of interpretation in action. It is a very well-written and fascinating book that should be read by every Catholic and Anglican.
One of the most interesting parts about it is the afterward, where Sullivan (who, to my knowledge, is considered a centrist/conservative theologian) addresses Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by JPII, which is about the ordination of women. Sullivan does the "Catholic fudge" and says that the magesterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue, and that CDF's 11/18/1995 statement saying it has been infallibly taught, and that it is part of the Deposit of Faith is wrong. Hmmmmm. Fascinating. Then he writes: "The changes in church doctrine that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all." (pp. 181-184)
Yikes.
My reading schedule, incidently, consists of short reads and long reads read concurrently. The sacraments book was a quick read, as it is short (200 pages) and the topic is familiar to me. My "long read" has been "Jesus and the Victory of God" by N.T. Wright. I plan on getting a few more short reads in while reading this long one.
So, my next "short read" is actually going to be a re-read: Creative Fidelity by Francis Sullivan, SJ. This book is required reading at many US Catholic seminaries. I had to read it as part of my Fundamental Theology class. The author was a professor at the Gregorian University (where many future bishops and theologians of the Church go) for many years. It is about how to weigh and interpret the documents of the magesterium. This book is so important because it shows that nothing can escape the need for interpretation and reinterpretation, not even papal documents. It discusses what dogma is; what magesterium in its various forms is; how to identify defined dogmas in papal documents; the disagreements Catholic theologians have on what these defined dogmas are and how the number of them has shrunk over the years; and it gives examples of interpretation in action. It is a very well-written and fascinating book that should be read by every Catholic and Anglican.
One of the most interesting parts about it is the afterward, where Sullivan (who, to my knowledge, is considered a centrist/conservative theologian) addresses Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by JPII, which is about the ordination of women. Sullivan does the "Catholic fudge" and says that the magesterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue, and that CDF's 11/18/1995 statement saying it has been infallibly taught, and that it is part of the Deposit of Faith is wrong. Hmmmmm. Fascinating. Then he writes: "The changes in church doctrine that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all." (pp. 181-184)
Yikes.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Happy Birthday
November 7th was the two-year anniversary of this blog. I wish to thank everyone who reads and comments. You all have taught me a lot. Blogs are a lot of work to maintain - a monster that must constantly be fed. In that sense blogging is somewhat annoying. But all of the people that you "meet", and the interesting discussions that you have make it worthwhile. I like to think that this blog, those who comment, and those blogs which I link to, contribute something to peace, unity, and goodwill amongst traditional and continuing Anglicans.
When I first began this blog it was intended to be annonymous - a way for me to "vent". But as people began reading this thing (much to my surprise, I might add; I remember how shocked I was when I saw that someone had made a comment!), and then people figured out it was me, rather than shutting it down I decided to keep it going and tried to expand it some so as to increase the visibility of "continuing Anglicans" on the web. Prior to this blog there were no "continuing Anglican" blogs that I am aware of (please correct me if I am wrong), save for "Wanna Be Anglican", which, strictly speaking, was REC, and so predates the continuing movement. Now there are a number of good continuing blogs, a continuing Anglican blog ring (special thanks goes to Continuing Home for starting that), as well as more REC blogs. All of this shows that traditional Anglicanism is alive and well, and has successfully begun to move into the 21st century. May we traditional Anglicans go into this new century with a spirit of ministry and evangelism, and with our peculiar gifts and tradition, bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to a world that so desperately needs it. Blessings to all.
J. Gordon Anderson+
When I first began this blog it was intended to be annonymous - a way for me to "vent". But as people began reading this thing (much to my surprise, I might add; I remember how shocked I was when I saw that someone had made a comment!), and then people figured out it was me, rather than shutting it down I decided to keep it going and tried to expand it some so as to increase the visibility of "continuing Anglicans" on the web. Prior to this blog there were no "continuing Anglican" blogs that I am aware of (please correct me if I am wrong), save for "Wanna Be Anglican", which, strictly speaking, was REC, and so predates the continuing movement. Now there are a number of good continuing blogs, a continuing Anglican blog ring (special thanks goes to Continuing Home for starting that), as well as more REC blogs. All of this shows that traditional Anglicanism is alive and well, and has successfully begun to move into the 21st century. May we traditional Anglicans go into this new century with a spirit of ministry and evangelism, and with our peculiar gifts and tradition, bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to a world that so desperately needs it. Blessings to all.
J. Gordon Anderson+
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
What are the 53?
People are fond of talking about the numerous "continuing churches". Just yesterday I read an article on VOL that mentions the "53 continuing churches". I would love to see a list of these. Anglicans Online has a "not in the communion" list, but I don't think it adds up to 53 different jurisdictions (e.g. the "No Way APA" site, which they have in that list, is not a jurisdiction, but an opinion site). The Wikipedia entry on continuing Anglicanism lists some jurisdictions too, but they do not add up to "53". So I don't know where people get this bizarre number from. Honestly, I think much of it is an attempt to discredit the legitimate jurisdictions out there which hold to catholic faith and order (traditional BCPs, a male-only priesthood, authority of the scriptures, etc.).
True, anyone can here in America, or just about anywhere else, can start his own church, hierarchy, etc. And it can be done in the context of any tradition. But that does not mean that all of these churches are "equal", or legitimate. If people are confused about "continuing" Anglicanism, and which jurisdictions are legitimate, they should look at the links in the "not in the communion" list. They will see that half of them are dead, some are "two parish - ten bishop" jurisdictions, and so on. In short, it is very easy to figure out which jurisdictions are legitimate. The legitimate ones have a fair number of established parishes, clear cut rules and laws, organization, and institutions. They are committed to evangelism and ecumenism. So, don't believe the hype. As my former spiritual director put it, "There are 'continuing churches' and then there are continuing churches." I think most people recognize this, and can see this, but still, it bears mentioning.
True, anyone can here in America, or just about anywhere else, can start his own church, hierarchy, etc. And it can be done in the context of any tradition. But that does not mean that all of these churches are "equal", or legitimate. If people are confused about "continuing" Anglicanism, and which jurisdictions are legitimate, they should look at the links in the "not in the communion" list. They will see that half of them are dead, some are "two parish - ten bishop" jurisdictions, and so on. In short, it is very easy to figure out which jurisdictions are legitimate. The legitimate ones have a fair number of established parishes, clear cut rules and laws, organization, and institutions. They are committed to evangelism and ecumenism. So, don't believe the hype. As my former spiritual director put it, "There are 'continuing churches' and then there are continuing churches." I think most people recognize this, and can see this, but still, it bears mentioning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)