From The Priory

Interesting quote…

T. Justin Read-Smith — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:07:00 +0000

I have spent the last two days being sick. It is always interesting to me how when I’m sick I have to stop, even if I don’t want to. So in the past couple of days, I’ve been given the freedom to read what I want, when I want, and to think about some of the things I’ve not had the time to think about.

One of the blogs I check on a regular basis is Internet Monk (iMonk). He’s been doing a series on the ‘evangelical liturgy.’ Though I am not specifically in agreement with some of what he says, there are points which shine forth. Today was one of those nuggets.

Read it and think about it….

“In most worship services, we need liturgy to do for us what we are lazy and unwilling to do for ourselves.” iMonk 23/09/09

Bishop of Rochester – Michael Nazir-Ali

T. Justin Read-Smith — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:47:58 +0000

Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali gives a ‘farewell’ interview to the Telegraph. There is a phrase I particularly enjoyed – principled comprehensiveness. What a phrase…. It completely dismantles the critique of conservatives/orthodox/…[insert cliche here] by progressives for not being comprehensive enough.

Read the entire interview here.

Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, responds to ++Cantuar’s ‘reflection’.

T. Justin Read-Smith — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:15:53 +0000

I have just one question for Bishop Wright regarding the following:

and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’. (ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact. (emphasis mine)

Which of you is right? The ++ABC warns against speaking in terms of schism and excommunication’, but shortly after, you state that “schism has already happened…” It appears that the ++ABC is simply not willing to recognise the facts on the ground, no matter his assent to the destructive actions of GC. This is what some commentators have noted as ++Cantuar’s Hegelian dialectic. If ++Cantuar is unwilling to recognise the schism, in concept or otherwise, the quick action called for by +Durham will not come. Then where does that leave us? I’m afraid we’ll be, yet again, in the developing Anglican purgatory…

Read the whole thing here.

Technorati Tags: ABC, Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, Anglican Communion, TEC, TEC Conflict, GC09, ABC reflection

Matt Kennedy’s take on the ABC’s Statement

T. Justin Read-Smith — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:30:47 +0000

Short, concise and clear. Definitely a contrast to the ABC’s statement. Read it all below.
(Hat tip: StandFirm)

My Take on the ABC’s Statement

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 • 5:53 am

Greg pointed out that I’m one of the only SF writers who has not yet published an analysis of the ABC’s statement. I told him that I’d decided to let the little dogs yap around in the yard first before the big dog (that’s me) steps in. I think he understood.

So here it goes…

I know that many at SF are not pleased with the ABC’s statement and compared to the kind of robust response to outright heresy you might expect from a functional Christian community, yeah, I agree, it’s sickly and weak. But hey, it’s the Anglican Communion — a messed-up family of 38 including at least four naked uncle Joes who routinely arrive at family dinners already toasted and end up naked in the corner wearing lampshades. If you want to keep people like that at the table without actually doing anything to help them, you gotta make some compromises. The Archbishop understands that.

That’s my take.

Technorati Tags: StandFirm, Archbishop of Canterbury, TEC, GC09, Anglican Communion

ABC responds to GC09

T. Justin Read-Smith — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:55:16 +0000

The blogosphere is alive with the sound of typing… The ABC has finally put into words his response. If you haven’t read it all already, read it here.

What has really struck me, as I’ve been wading through the pages upon pages of responses to the ABC, is how the responses have fallen to one side or the other of the Atlantic. It appears that major responses on this side of the pond have ranged from hesitantly hopeful to overtly so. As one might expect, on the other side of the pond, blogs like StandFirm are less than pleased. (And I would tend to agree with them.)

However, I did truly appreciate the translation Peter Ould did of the ABC’s comments, though I believe he is too optimistic in response. There comes a time when words, however well crafted, are simply that – just words. I can sense the pleasure many commentators have gotten deciphering the intent and subtleties of Archbishop Williams’ words. But when will it end? Only God knows… But it appears that there is no impetus by the ABC or TEC to rush or push this forward. Moreover, I tend to agree with a commentor on Ruth Gledhill’s blog about +Cantuar’s suggestion of a ‘two-tiered’ Communion.

I don’t get this at all. How is it a COMMUNION if there are two tiers? With all do respect, Archbishop Williams, you are a learned theologian and you know that two tiers do not make for one communion in any sense of Christian ecclesiology. You clasp onto TEC and try to keep them in the communion while TEC is delighted in a subdued fashion to see her conservative members leave and offer no such hand of pastoral affection. My Lord, this is not a paradox! This is a contradiction!

Posted by: Richard | 28 Jul 2009 06:06:19

In the end, for me (personally), I do not see how a Covenant or any other possibility short of expulsion from the Communion, will address the actions of TEC sufficiently. As a priest in the CofE who is American, I am bewildered at the lack of understanding on this side of the pond in regard to what is taking place in North America. I am all for reconcilliation and the gospel imperative of forgiveness. I too have read the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, etc. But we are beyond these. We have a church which espouses a ‘doctrine’ which contravines Holy Scripture, and here I am not speaking about sexuality. When does a church cease to be a Christian church?

I had a conversation once with someone on this very issue. We were discussing the whole situation in North America. The argument arose that sexuality was a second order issue, but we could at least agree on the essentials. I responed by asking: ‘What were those essentials?’ The response came, Well, the creeds for instance. ‘But this is the problem.’, I said, ‘We have a church which no longer believes the Creeds as they have been handed down. So where does that leave us?’ And the response to this was: So why haven’t we done anything about this? All I could do was shake my head and say: ‘I don’t know.’

And I still don’t know why we won’t act. The time has come, and some would suggest, that it has gone. Because of this people have acted in their own capacities to address the issue. I am not suggesting one ’strategy’ over another. I have friends who are in all ‘three camps‘, as Sarah Hey has noted. I am not advocating one over the other. We must all discern our own call and in the process not denegrate each other.

This being said, there comes a point where we must do something. Is this not the acusation leveled at the Christian church today, when people say that the Church is irrelevant to contemporary society? Moreover, is this not the internal critique made by neo-monastic communities/fresh expressions/emerging communities? Are they not trying to overcome this inactivity? By not acting, are we simply caught up in the Enlightenment understanding of propositional theology being the endall/beall of doctrinal significance?

There does come a time to act. And if now is not that time, then when? I have a tendency to agree with David Ould when he states:

…Canterbury is vitally important, evidenced not least by the profoundly negative impact that Williams’ inaction has had on the Communion. So a call now for Williams to go, in the light of his inactivity, is not to undermine Canterbury but, rather, to hold it in a very high place. For the sake of the reputation of his very high office he must vacate Augustine’s Chair.

I would be very hesitant to go as far as David Ould does, but what are the other options? A two-tiered Communion? As already noted, that is no Communion at all. It is a contradiction. I hope and pray that the Communion will come to some sort of conclusion. Yes we do live in tension, in a Kingdom of now but not yet. However, is this what that truly means? Heresy in tension with the gospel? I cannot agree with that assessment. I pray that the ABC is not left behind due to inactivity. It would be a truly sad day if that were to ever be the case. My concern is that the ABC will be left at the table with no one with which to talk. Both sides will have left and the ABC will be left alone sitting at the table. What a sad day that would be….

My intellectual doppelganger? Sort of…

T. Justin Read-Smith — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:08:24 +0000

Well, it appears that I’ve met my intellectual doppelganger. Or at least someone who sees the wisdom of a church model based on “The Abbey Church.” Definitely worth a read. One small drawback is the lack of space for the sacramental in his vision. But it is not surprising due to his context (Baptist).

Check out the whole article here.

Technorati Tags: abbey, church as abbey, monasticism, new ways of being church

I hope Peter Ould is right. We’ll just have to wait and see….

T. Justin Read-Smith — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:46:35 +0000

Waiting for Rowan

Perhaps I should write a play? Move over Godot.

One thought – the longer it takes for the official reply to come, the more it’s clear that Lambeth Palace is taking this very, very seriously. It’s highly likely that Lambeth is talking at the moment, but it’s not trans-Atlantic calls but trans-Mediterranean. When the official response comes it’s going to have to satisfy the conservative Primates, otherwise something bland and non descript could have been issued on Monday.

(Hat tip: Fundamentals of Orthodoxy)
Technorati Tags: Rowan Williams, TEC, GC09, Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglican Communion

An article to wrestle with

T. Justin Read-Smith — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:13:54 +0000

Although this is written from an American Southern Baptist perspective, it encapsulates the issues at play in evangelicalism. Certainly there have been positives gained from evangelicalism. However, the iMonk is spot on when it comes to much of what ails evangelicalism as a whole. If we are to be the church, we must listen to the critique.

Recently, I’ve been dialoguing/thinking/praying in a new way about spiritual formation. His comments particularly on evangelical spiritual formation are particularly relevant.

The commenter is correct, and he isn’t saying “tickle my ears with something new.” He’s saying that the model of Christian spiritual formation now extent in worship is one that sees the 40 minute information dump as the primary means of spiritual growth. The sermon, the sermon and the sermon from the preacher, the theologian and the teacher. Plus a daily quiet time. That’s evangelical spiritual formation in a nutshell.

If we want to form and be formed into mature disciples of Jesus Christ, we would do well to listen to what he has to say.

Read it all here.

Accurate description of the topography…

T. Justin Read-Smith — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:24:18 +0000

Virtue Online lays out in a well articulated article the situation as it stands. Though I don’t always agree with what is written on the site, I do, however, agree with much in his article.

Read it all here.

Is silence complicity?

T. Justin Read-Smith — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:38:17 +0000

As I’m sure we’re all aware there is a deafening silence coming from Lambeth at the moment. I’m with Greg Griffith in regard to this. (read his article here.) But what is interesting to me is also the silence from the conservative blogosphere. Yes there have been the usual responses to the actions of GC09. An excellent article by Bishop Wright in the Times. But now, it is silent…eerily silent. I wonder what is going on behind closed doors.

However, this leads me to the (lack of) response by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am more than aware that there are an extensive amount of complexities at play in the situations. I am also aware that there needs to be a reasoned response, both measured and level. But in the end, the response/statement must come. Or is this our response? If so, (since no one else seems to want to directly say it, I will) is the Archbishop of Canterbury complicit with GC09, TEC and all revisionists who are wanting a ‘fully inclusive’ church? Has he giving his response already?

The longer the silence, the more it appears that way. (Insert well know cliche here) Now this is not earth-shattering news. Some of the more conservative pundits have been alledging this for quite some time. But if this is really the case, then the instrument of Unity that is the Archbishop of Canterbury, is no longer an instrument of Unity or a measure of one’s Anglican identity. If the ABC has given his answer, then where does that leave us?

For all intents and purposes the instruments of Unity only work when we are able to respect and receive the action/statments of said instruments. If we don’t, then how are they unifying? Moreover, to create a fifth instrument of Unity (the Covenant) which allows extreme autonomy to reside in provinces will not provide an unifying effect either. With provincial autonomy being bantered about, I wonder if it is inherent to the Anglican Communion or is a self-serving, cultural infiltration to guard our personal autonomy and thereby celebrate the post-modern/contemporary society’s unwillingness to submit (I use this word in a traditional sense) to any sort of authority at all?

No matter where we end up, it appears that the Anglican landscape has been ultimately altered, more by a wrecking ball than by glacial movement. In the end, we’ll just have to wait. And who said Anglicans don’t believe in purgatory?