The journey continues….

Over the last few days I’ve had several conversations which have ended up leading to a discussion of my vision for my future ministry and where I see my call leading. It has been helpful in the sense that it has made me push in again and discover what God is saying. However, as it many times is for me, the vision that I sense God is calling me to is overwhelming. Mainly it is overwhelming because I don’t know where to begin.

The vision itself is to start an Abbey church. For the time being this is the best description I can come up with. The vision is not to start a new monastic community, but a church which is formed by the monastic life. The community itself would take on a rule of life, commit to certain vows, daily prayer, etc. Those that can would join in on-site, particularly in the daily office.

Most of those who are currently attempting to form an ‘Abbey church’ are along the neo-monastic lines. I believe that they are meeting people where they are. However, most I have heard of or read about seem to have the perennial problem inherent with post-Modernity, that is, a strong sense of personal autonomy, which leads to an avoidance of things such as vows; particularly the vow of obedience.

In many ways, I don’t even know where to begin. But the encouragement is something a friend of mine said to me, “God does not desire an ‘Ishmael’ ministry for any of us, but rather he desires an ‘Isaac’ one.”

Where to go from here? God only knows….

Grasping for limits….

I’m still disturbed by what I read yesterday regarding the ACC and the statement that participation in the Instruments of communion and affirming the covenant are not tied to one another. As I’ve been surfing the blogosphere and reading my usual sites, I noticed a phrase that I think is particularly timely. (HT: Creedal Christian)

there are limits to the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism. Anglicanism is not an “anything goes” tradition. There are boundaries to the faith, boundaries aptly and succinctly summarized in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral’s affirmation of four essentials for the fullness of the Church:

1. The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary to salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
2. The Apostles’ Creed as the Baptismal Symbol and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
3. The two Dominical Sacraments – Baptism and Eucharist – ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by him.
4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

(Bold, mine)

Anglicanism is not an “anything goes” tradition. We would do well to remember this…

Is this the end? Bishop Gregory Cameron says: “at this stage of the covenant’s life, it didn’t want to link those two things – participation in the covenant with membership of the Instruments of Communion.”

Anglican Journal: Delegates weigh ‘tighter time frame’ for covenant approval process

Canon Kearon said that the membership and participation in the communion of provinces which decided to opt out of the covenant would not be altered, while Bishop Cameron had said, “at the moment, there is no linkage” but added that if 15 or 20 member churches approve the covenant “it might move quite quickly and give it more gravity.”

Asked to clarify, Bishop Cameron said, “we’re talking about a dynamic process … a process which is evolving and there’s no doubt that in the original vision for the covenant, it was envisaged that all the provinces of the communion would sign up to the covenant and that it would govern the life of the Anglican Communion in participation in the instruments of the communion.”

As the covenant process has evolved, said Bishop Cameron, “some have started to ask questions about what happens if others don’t sign up.” He added that it was the view of the Covenant Design Group that “at this stage of the covenant’s life, it didn’t want to link those two things – participation in the covenant with membership of the Instruments of Communion. It wanted to keep the two distinct.”

You’ve got to be kidding. Does this really say what I think it does? ‘No, no don’t worry. If you don’t like the covenant you can still participate in the Instruments of Communion.’ I don’t understand. To quote Denzel Washington: “Try explaining it to me like I’m a five year old.” If I read this correctly what they are saying is that you don’t have to sign up to the Covenant, but you can still participate in the Instruments of Communion (i.e. ACC, communion with the see of Canterbury, Primates Council and the Lambeth Conference).

Can anyone give me a different interpretation of the statement? I hate to say it, but if this isn’t the beginning of the end I don’t know what is….

Technorati Tags: ACC, Jamaica, Instruments of Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglican Communion