Sanctus

"First they came for the Catholics. . ."

2012-01-30T09:09:00.000-05:00

Even after getting a smackdown from a unanimous Supreme Court over its attempts to impose its will on the church hiring practices, the Obama Administration is continuing to press ahead with its ungodly agenda of eliminating conscience provisions for religious institutions providing health insurance for employees. Not surprisingly, the first target is the Catholic Church. The bishops, however, are not taking this affront to religious liberty lightly.

The Catholic Church is fighting mad with the Obama Administration, and nearly every Catholic sitting in a pew this weekend heard the reasons why.

The Health and Human Services Department recently announced it will require all employers (with few exceptions) to provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.
This meant that religious institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, or other Christian institutions would be compelled to violate their conscience by cooperating with that which they believe to be wrong. Currently many of these institutions purchase health-insurance plans which do not provide free coverage of these services.

To give an analogy, it would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews who don't follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis. The law wouldn't technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.

Well, the Catholic Church isn't lying down and taking this.

In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here's the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here's another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

The Obama Administration's seeming animosity toward all things religious is unprecedented in the history of the nation and it is not just Catholics who need to be concerned. The church involved in the hiring dispute, after all, was Lutheran. As I have noted before, we do not want to see the day when another Martin Niemoller pens a poem beginning with, "First they came for the Catholics. . ."

N.T. Wright's Kingdom New Testament: Reading through the Gospels during Lent

2012-01-29T16:53:00.000-05:00

N.T. Wright's latest offering is The Kingdom New Testament, a contemporary translation that is certain to challenge and edify readers. It is not too early to start thinking about what disciplines you will be following to enhance your spiritual life during the Lenten season. Getting re-acquainted with the Scriptures through a fresh translation is a discipline worth considering. Click here for a reading plan which will cover the four Gospels from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday. As the year progresses, I will post additional reading plans to cover the remainder of the New Testament.

I would suggest this reading plan be used not merely as a daily devotional (we have the Daily Office for that), but as an opportunity to do some serious, in-depth study of the Scriptures. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. You might even want to start a small group to meet regularly and discuss what God is saying to you through his Word.

East Africa Revival Network combats spread of Islam in Tanzania

2012-01-28T17:25:00.002-05:00

H/T to Joel Martin for this news about another missionary initiative out of Rwanda under the leadership of Bishop Alexis Bilindabagabo.

Islam is growing fast in Africa. Already more than 50% of the inhabitants of Africa are Muslim. It has been stated and echoed again and again by Muslim leaders that Africa will become the first “Islamic Continent”. They are very serious about this. The Iranians, Libyans, the Saudis,and many other members of the 57 nation Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) are pouring many millions of dollars into African nations to build mosques, Islamic schools, clinics and to support a literal army of Islamic teachers and preachers. East Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and the Eastern Congo) is a priority target for Islamic takeover because of it’s poverty and the ancient roots of Arab businessmen here Tanzania is alreaddy more than 30% Muslim, the tipping point for domination is about 40%.

At a Jerusalem Conference of church leaders Bishop Alexis Bilindabagabo was approached by two Tanzanian leaders who said, “You there in Eastern Rwanda still have revival. The churches in the path of the Islamic takeover in Tanzania are weak, worldly, or fractured. Can’t you come over and help us before the Muslims takeover? Otherwise Christians wll become a persecuted minority.”

Bishop Alexis had experienced cruel ethnic persecution in Rwanda and had been forced to be a refugee from his own country three times. He heard their cry and prayed. Then he invited these two Tanzanian leaders to the East Africa Revival Convention held in his Gahini Diocese each year and by faith announced God had raised up 18 laymen who were experience and committed evangelists to send to Tanzania to work with the churches there that are directly confronted by the Islamic Invasion. Out of this was born the Vision for an inter-denominational, international ministry of partners that would enlarge and accelerate the Mission to confront the Islamic Challenge with a revival of an evangelistic, missionary, church planting spirit.

The website is still under construction, but information on how you can support this initiative will eventually be posted here.

"Not Sufficiently Redemptive" -- by a long shot

2012-01-28T15:53:00.000-05:00

The late E. Stanley Jones (whose works I have excerpted here, here, and here) would often critique essays submitted to him for review by affixing the letters “NSR,” on the top of the page. It was an acronym meaning “Not Sufficiently Redemptive,” reflecting the great missionary’s belief that the article in question was not up to the standards of Christian charity. I recalled hearing that story from one of Brother Stanley’s protégés as I read an article on the current Anglican unpleasantness, referenced here by Joel Martin (neither he nor I will dignify the full article by linking it), which makes no pretense of objectivity as it maliciously smears several people, including Bishop Alexis Bilindabagabo, a friend of mine.

A basic rule of journalism is to report, as accurately and fairly as possible, both sides of a story. When an accusation is leveled against one party by another party, it is the responsibility of the journalist to give the accused party an opportunity to respond. Such may seem like a lot of hokey idealism in a day and age when “gotcha journalism” is so prevalent in the secular world. For Christian journalists, however, the bar of objectivity and fairness ought to be set much higher. Presenting an accusation as though it is an undisputed fact without giving the accused party opportunity to refute it is lower than even some secular journalists will go.

During the recent Sacred Assembly in Raleigh, Bishop Alexis made reference to a previously published article which was even more malicious than this latest piece. Despite the author’s outrageous accusations, +Alexis offered him forgiveness and said he harbored no ill will. No doubt, he would offer the same for the author of the present article. If ever there were a time to turn the other cheek in the interest of achieving reconciliation, it is now.

Reconciliation, however, is a two way street. The ball is now in the court of those who have, for whatever reason, chosen to part company with the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. It would be a most encouraging overture on their part if they would counsel their media mouthpieces to refrain from expending cyber ink on articles that are “Not Sufficiently Redemptive” – by a long shot!

Cranmer's Curate on Western liberal disdain for African orthodoxy

2012-01-26T09:54:00.000-05:00

Across the pond, Julian Mann offers encouragement to orthodox Anglicans in the two thirds world (i.e. Africa) while reminding them that their ostensibly open-minded "liberal" counterparts in the West hold them and their theology in utter contempt.

African Anglicans should not be deceived by the supportive noises from Western liberals.

The true opinion of Western Anglican liberals towards two thirds' world biblical orthodoxy came out at the Lambeth 1998 Conference. African Anglicans' commitment to biblical orthodoxy on Christian faith and morals is 'pre-scientific' and 'primitive'.

The former Anglican Bishop of Newark in the United States, Dr John Spong, spoke for them all when he denounced you for bigotry over Lambeth Resolution 1.10.

The reality is that the theological liberals dominating the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Western Anglican Provinces do not want your passionate biblical orthodoxy on their cultivated elitist lawns.

If they were genuinely affronted by Islam, then they would proclaim the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ in their own Provinces and wholeheartedly oppose Sharia Law.

If they were genuinely impressed by your biblical orthodoxy, then they would not promote the 1960s' feminist agenda in their own Provinces.

If they were genuinely impressed by your church growth, then they would not promote the critical attitudes towards the Bible that undermine the gospel and displease God.

Western political correctness is in a dilemma over Africa and that is reflected in liberal Anglican attitudes towards you. You are perceived to be the victims of white Western imperialism and financial exploitation. But they do not like many of your attitudes.

When you are victimised, then the supportive noises became louder but such noises do not negate the fact that, fundamentally, they dislike your biblical orthodoxy.

Also, because many of your countries are in the Commonwealth, institutional church liberals in the English hierarchy do not want to risk upsetting the Queen by being too rude about you.

So please keep on contending for the biblical gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ against theological liberalism in the Anglican Communion. If you allow revisionism any house room whatsoever, then it will became a parasitic tapeworm within you and sap the biblical vigour of your churches.

It is important, also, to note that a similar, albeit non-theological, disdain for all things African is beginning to wield its ugly head among "conservatives" on this side of the Atlantic. It is of utmost importance that orthodox Anglicans in the West continue to stand as one with our African brothers and sisters as we move forward together.

George Weigel: Child sacrifice in the 21st century

2012-01-25T12:01:00.000-05:00

George Weigel reflects on the America created by Roe v. Wade. This article is neither for the faint of heart nor for those whose hearts have become so calloused as to believe "the fundamental constitutional right" to abortion somehow ensures "that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

The Hebrew Bible is not for the squeamish. And its harshest maledictions are called down upon those who practiced the abomination of child-sacrifice.

Thus the Psalmist:

“They sacrificed their sons and daughters to the demons/they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood./Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the harlot in their doings./Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage./… they were rebellious in their purposes, and were brought low because of their iniquity” (Psalm 106:38-40, 43).

And the prophet Ezekiel, delivering the word of the Lord:

“And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?... Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you, and diminished your allotted portion, and delivered you to the greed of your enemies…” (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 27).

Thirty-nine years after Roe v. Wade created an unrestricted abortion license in the United States, and during the week when hundreds of thousands of Americans pray and march for life, all Americans ought to ponder these words—and the kind of country to which Roe v. Wade led.

It was supposed to be a country in which women were liberated; it became a country in which women were ever more the victims of predatory and sexually irresponsible men, left alone with their “rights” to find a technological “fix” to the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy. It was supposed to become a more humane country; it became a country in which morally coarsened pundits can describe as “extreme” and “weird” the faith-filled response of the Santorum family to the loss of a newborn shortly after birth. It was supposed to be a country of greater equality; it became a country in which the fantasies of those who believed that America was for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants only, with emphasis on “white,” were realized beyond the wildest imaginings of the most crazed racists and eugenicists of the 1920s.

These hard truths have too often been hidden, especially where abortion is widely prevalent. Thus it is to the immense credit of the New York-based Chiaroscuro Foundation that it has compelled the New York City Department of Health to itemize separately abortion and pregnancy statistics in its annual reports. The 2010 numbers, just released, would make both the Psalmist and Ezekiel blanch:

Of the 208,541 pregnancies in New York City in 2010, 83,750 were terminated by abortion: 4 in 10. Among non-Hispanic blacks, there were 38,574 abortions and 26,635 live births: thus for every 1,000 African-American babies born, 1,448 were aborted. Those numbers were even more chilling among non-Hispanic black teenagers: for every 1,000 African-American babies born to teenagers, 2,630 were aborted. The overall teenage abortion rate was 63 percent in a city where 16 percent of all pregnancies were teen pregnancies.

New York City is not America, of course. And there is encouragement on various fronts in the battle for life. The national abortion rate is down over the past several decades. Science has vindicated the pro-life position. The pro-life/pro-choice opinion balance has tilted, if slightly, in favor of the pro-life cause. Younger people are more likely to be pro-life than aging baby-boomers. Legislated regulation of the abortion industry has driven abortuaries out of business in many places.

Yet the fact remains that America is a country in which almost 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in the willful, violent death of the unborn child. And this slaughter of the innocents has been going on, often in higher percentages, for almost four decades.

As the Psalmist and Ezekiel might have told us, feeding the demons inevitably leads to a terrible hardening of sensibilities. The warnings from ancient Israel about where that hardening leads are worth pondering in this election year, and indeed in every year.

Phelps Family Chapel targets Paterno funeral

2012-01-25T11:06:00.001-05:00

Here they come again. That handful of sons, daughters, nephews, and and long lost cousins that collectively constitute the Fred Phelps Family Chapel, a.k.a. Westboro Baptist Church, is gearing up for another funeral protest. According to the Religion News Blog, the family spokesdaughter has tweeted out the marching orders.

The Westboro Baptist Church — a hate group masquerading as a Christian church — has announced its next publicity seeking opportunity.

The hatemongers, whose despicable teachings and practices make it theologically a cult of Christianity say the group will picket the funeral of Joe Paterno.

The legendary college football coach died from lung cancer last Sunday.

“Joe Paterno is dead. WBC will picket his funeral,” Margie Phelps, daughter of Westboro’s leader Pastor Fred Phelps, wrote on Twitter. “He’s in hell. Don’t partake of your neighbor’s sin!”

I noted some time back that this "cult of Christianity" has a rather conspicuous aversion to invoking the name of Jesus. Recently, Greg Griffith noted the same aversion within another "cult of Christianity" which views homosexuality in a decidedly different light. This is neither ironic nor coincidental. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of any cult, regardless of its theological bent, is a denial of the Incarnation. An aberration that relies on a preponderance of words has no use for the Word made flesh.

39 years and 51 million deaths later . . .

2012-01-23T13:21:00.002-05:00

Kyrie, elesion.

Christe, eleison.

Kyrie, eleison.

Benedict warns of erosion of religious freedom . . . in America

2012-01-23T13:14:00.001-05:00

Religious freedom is a foundation of American liberty. That foundation is being eroded, however, according to no less an authority than Pope Benedict XVI. CatholicCulture.org reports on the pontiff's recent address to U.S. bishops.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a solemn warning about the erosion of religious freedom in the United States, in a January 19 address to visiting American bishops.

The Holy Father told the American prelates, who were making their ad limina visits, that “it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” He added: “The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life.”

The US should be a land thoroughly committed to religious freedom in light of its history and the fundamental principles of the nation’s founding, the Pope argued. He said:

At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
The loss of religious freedom, the Pontiff warned, is “a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself.” He explained: “When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.”

Pope Benedict urged the American bishops to take every opportunity to defend religious freedom and to promote moral reasoning based on the natural law. He reminded them that the natural-law tradition does not impose restrictions on true human freedom. That tradition, he said, should be properly understood as “a ‘language’ which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world.”

The Pope said that he was dismayed by reports from the American bishops about new threats to religious freedom. He mentioned especially the initiatives that would “deny the right of conscientious objection” to people who are morally opposed to “cooperation in intrinsically evil practices.” Here the Pontiff was obviously referring to policies that would require health-care personnel to cooperate in abortions, or force both public officials and private individuals to participate in the celebration of same-sex marriages or refer children for adoption by gay couples. The US bishops have sharply criticized the Obama administration for its unwillingness to afford "conscience clause" protections to religious believers.

An AP story on the Pope's address accurately reported that American Catholics have been divided on the duties of Catholic lawmakers regarding policies that violate the precepts of Church teaching. The AP story concluded: "In recent years, a small but growing number of local bishops have publicly told Catholic lawmakers who support abortion rights not to present themselves for communion because of their stance on the issue."

The tongue tells the tale

2012-01-23T13:03:00.000-05:00

One of the reasons many, particularly in the Protestant tradition, have become ambivalent about the Epistle of James is a misunderstanding of the type of literature it is. Whereas Paul, being himself a Pharisee trained under the respected teacher Gamaliel, wrote from the perspective of Christ being the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. James wrote from a different, but equally important, perspective.

The great tradition of Hebrew wisdom was embodied by Solomon, the wisest of Israel's kings and perhaps the wisest man who ever lived. Proverbs is his most memorable work, as well as most of the book of Ecclesiastes and the dialogue with his beloved, the Song of Solomon. Several non-canonical books of the Apocrypha are also attributed to him.

James was steeped in this tradition. Consequently, his epistle is a collection of wise sayings and godly counsel. Perhaps the most practical of all his wisdom is his advice concerning the tongue. "How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire," he writes, echoing Solomon. "And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness" (James 3:5-6). James sees the tongue as the epicenter of human evil, untamable by any human being. It exposes the double-mindedness of man, his utter inability to live consistently in obedience to God. For while we may, at one moment, use the tongue to "bless our Lord and Father," we may, at the next moment, use it to "curse people who are made in the likeness of God" (James 3:9).

This kind of forked-tongue double-mindedness, says James, "ought not be so" (James 3:10). Human beings are created to obey God at all times, not only to honor him with our lips, but also to glorify him with our lives. The tongue tells the tale, whether we are truly honoring God or vainly invoking his name. We cannot control the tongue unless we are submitted unreservedly in absolute obedience to God. For only then can our tongue praise his name and our lives reflect his glory.

Mother Teresa: "Let us bring the child back"

2012-01-22T14:34:00.000-05:00

In 1994, Mother Teresa addressed the National Prayer Breakfast. In an unequivocal defense of the sanctity of human life and a call to everyone to seek true peace by caring for the most defenseless among us, she declared that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace today. . . because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself." On this Sanctity of Life Sunday, the anniversary of the abominable Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is fitting that we meditate again on the words she spoke that day.

On the last day, Jesus will say to those at his right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me."

Then Jesus will turn to those on his left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink, I was sick and you did not visit me."

These will ask him "When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or sick, and did not come to your help?"

And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto the least of these you neglected to do unto me!"

Let us thank God for the opportunity He has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, joy and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what that good news was when he said, "My peace I leave with you, My Peace I give unto you." He came not to give the peace of the world, which is only that we don't bother each other. He came to give peace of the heart which comes from loving, from doing good to others.

And God loved the world so much that he gave His Son. God gave His Son to the Virgin Mary, and what did she do with Him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child - the child in the womb of Elizabeth - leapt with joy.

While still in the womb of Mary, Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth. And as if that were not enough - as if it were not enough that God the Son should become one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb - Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love.

He died for you and for me, and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street - not only of Calcutta, but of Africa, of everywhere. Our Sisters serve these people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as He loves each one of us. Jesus gave His life to love us, and He tells us very clearly, "Love as I have loved you."

Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for Him to do good for us - to save us from our selfishness and sin. He gave up everything to do the Father's will, to show us that we, too, must be willing to give everything to do God's will, to love one another as He loves each of us.

St. John says you are a liar if you love God and you don't love your neighbor. How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live?

Jesus makes Himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and He says, "You did it to me."

I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and, maybe, forgotten them. I saw that in the home these old people had everything: good food, comfortable place, television - everything. But everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on his face.

I turned to Sister and I asked, "Why do these people, who have every comfort here - why are they all looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling?" (I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people. Even the dying ones smile.) And Sister said, "This is the way it is, nearly every day. They are expecting that a son or daughter will come visit them.

See, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our family we have someone who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we willing to give until it hurts, in order to be with our families? Or do we put our own interests first?

I was surprised in the West to see so many boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was: "Because there was no one in the family to receive them."

Our children depend on us for everything: their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy that they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married, or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets, and get involved in drugs, or other things.

We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere: "Let us bring the child back." The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things - to love and to be loved. This is the only way that our children are the only hope for the future. As other people are called to God, only their children can take their places.

But what does God say to us? He says, "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of My hand." We are carved in the palm of His hand - that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception, and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.

From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy.

I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, of loving; through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

That is why I never give a child to a family that has used contraception, because if the mother has destroyed the power of loving, how will she love my child? I also know there are great problems in the world, that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, to destroy love, to destroy life.

The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: "You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other." And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.

One evening, we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in the most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: "You take care of the other three. I will take care of the one who looks worse." So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, and she said one thing only: "Thank you." Then she died.

I could not help but examine my conscience before her. I asked, "What would I say if I were in her place?" And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said, "I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain," or something like that. But she gave me much more - she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face.

Then there was a man we picked up from a drain, half eaten by worms. And after we had brought him to the home, he only said, "I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for." Then after we had removed all the worms from this body, all he said - with a big smile - was: "Sister, I am going home to God." And he died.

It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man, who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel - this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich, even when they are materially poor.

And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Bear the good news to your own people first. And find out about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are?

I had the most extraordinary experience of love of a neighbor from a Hindu family. A gentlemen came to our house and said, "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children, their eyes shining with hunger. (I don't know if you have ever seen hunger, but I have seen it very often.) And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her.

"Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew. And who were "they?" A Muslim family. And she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening. I wanted them - Hindus and Muslims - to enjoy the joy of sharing.

Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me, "Are you married?" And I said, "Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse - Jesus - because He can be very demanding. Sometimes this is really something true. And there is where love comes in - when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy.

If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak - the unborn child - must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!

Why didn't Jesus strike back?

2012-01-21T11:17:00.001-05:00

Once again, an excerpt from E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Mount:

"Why didn't Jesus strike back when he was struck on the cheek in the judgment hall? Didn't he have a just right to do so?" asked a Hindu at question time.

"Yes," I replied, "I suppose he did have a just right to strike back; but if he had done so, I would not be talking about him to-night. He would be too much like me. But he turned the other cheek, and where did the blow fall -- on the other cheek? No, no -- on your heart and mine."

That is power -- supreme power, the only real power. Had he struck one blow in return, it would have been the death-blow to his own gospel. For Christ conquers not by the quantity of his muscle, but by the quality of his spirit. Had he struck back, the blow with which he struck others would have struck him and at the same moment would have smitten to the earth every hope that we had placed in him. But, thank God, he refused their weapons and used his own. And we are at his feet.

AMiA and Rwanda: The saga continues

2012-01-20T14:46:00.001-05:00

If George Conger has put the pieces of the puzzle together correctly, the communique issued by the Archbishop of Kenya earlier this week was not an agreement, but a framework for an agreement which the AMiA leadership has, apparently, already laid aside.

Bishop Chuck Murphy along with the other former bishops of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) have rejected the protocol for reconciliation with the Church of Rwanda brokered by the Archbishop of Kenya at the 4 January 2012 meeting in Nairobi.

Speaking at a conference in Houston this week, Bishop Murphy reiterated his plans to form a mission society with an international focus from the remnants loyal to him within the former AMiA. The decision to repudiate ties with Rwanda severs the last link to the Anglican Communion for Bishop Murphy and his faction within the AMiA.

Bishop Phillip Jones, one of the resigned suffragan bishops told the Houston Conference, the new group no longer sought to be Anglican or to work within the confines of the Anglican tradition. The Murphy group wanted to be attached to some wider organization, but in its current form it was a non-institutional entity with a global focus, that did not need to be Anglican, Bishop Jones said according to those present at the meeting.

On 17 January 2012, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala released a letter summarizing the 4 Jan meeting in Nairobi. Present at the gathering were Bishop Murphy and Bishop John Miller from the U.S., Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and Bishop Laurent Mbanda from Rwanda, Archbishop Ikechi Nwosu from the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Wabukala from the Anglican Church of Kenya and four other Kenyan bishops.

Archbishop Wabukala opened the meeting by stating his hope that the parties could be reconciled. The statement noted that Bishop Murphy “began by expressing his profound regret for the broken relationship and stressed his commitment to lead AMiA as a single-minded mission agency. “

He added that he had been “deeply distressed by the public accusations” leveled against him, but remained “determined” to carry on the work he began in 2000.

Archbishop Rwaje “acknowledged his deep distress at the broken relationships” and lauded the work of the AMiA over the past 12 years. However, he was perturbed by the “continuing role” played by retired Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, the “lack of financial transparency and the recently announced plans to separate from the Church of Rwanda and function independently without adequate prayer or consultation.”

The Kenyan archbishop reported that after lengthy discussion the parties agreed that “forgiveness should come from both sides of the divide,” and that Rwanda would “stop looking at AMiA‘s mistakes,” wiping the slate clean. Both parties would also “start the process of forgiveness” and acknowledge the wrongs “between them.”

The agreement also called for the retired archbishops who had been supporting Bishop Murphy to work [with] the “incumbent Archbishop of Rwanda” and for the retired archbishops to acknowledge the “ecclesiastical authority” of Archbishop Rwaje.

The Murphy faction of the AMiA “agreed that they remain canonically under the Church of Rwanda” and would put on hold for six months “plans for restructuring” the organization.

The next step would be for the two leaders to work with their bishops to “begin the work of reconciliation between both groups.”

However, while Bishop Murphy has said the work of reconciliation is continuing, the wider agreement appears ready to collapse as Bishop Murphy told those attending his Winter Conference that they would not accept the authority or directions of Rwanda, sources attending the Houston conference told The Church of England Newspaper.

However, a communique from the Houston conference expresses gratitude "for the recent meeting in Kenya convened by the Most Reverend Dr. Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop of Kenya and Chairman of the GAFCON Primates’ Council" and "welcome[s] his continued involvement in this process." There is also a commitment on the part of the AMiA bishops to "prayerfully and diligently seek appropriate Anglican jurisdictional connections."

The language of the Houston document is somewhat ambiguous. It is one thing to say "thanks" to Archbishop Wabukala and "welcome his continued involvement in the process." It is quite another to sign on to the unequivocal conditions articulated in his communique. Likewise, seeking "appropriate Anglican jurisdictional connections" may include but may not necessarily be limited to seeking a new canonical residence within the worldwide Anglican Communion.

This sad story continues to unfold but, after the uplifting sacred assembly in Raleigh this week, I remain hopeful for a positive outcome in the great biblical tradition of Luke 15:11-32.

The Friday Funnies: Dr. Terry Tommyrot destroys the "Dawkins Delusion"

2012-01-20T12:27:00.001-05:00

"Does Richard Dawkins exist? Many people would say yes. Terry Tommyrot thinks otherwise. In a revealing interview on "The Big Questions", Dr. Tommyrot explains how belief in Richard Dawkins is, in fact, a harmful delusion, and how it can be explained scientifically."

Jones: Passive resistance, civil disobedience, and the method of Jesus

2012-01-20T10:23:00.000-05:00

Here are a few more paragraphs from E. Stanley Jones's The Christ of the Mount. Written in 1931, on the cusp of the myriad of crises which ultimately led to World War II, the book reflects, in its more dated material, what turned out to be the great missionary's overly optimistic assessment of the world situation. However, much of what Jones wrote about the principles set forth by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount remain relevant today. In particular, his reflection on what distinguishes the method of Jesus from the popular secular methods of passive resistance and civil disobedience is quite pertinent for a day in which organized protests and "occupation" movements garner so much attention in the media and considerable sympathy from church organizations that have strayed from their biblical moorings.

"Aren't we non-Christians more Christian than you Christians in that we act on the principles and methods of Jesus and you don't?" has been asked again and again at the question hour since this movement began. I have had to answer that the method that Ghandi and his followers have adopted is very closely akin to the method of the Sermon on the Mount, and in acting on this they have been more Christian than we have usually been. And yet I cannot identify the two methods -- the method of Civil Disobedience and the method of the Sermon on the Mount. When constitutional means are not open there are three ways by which righteous ends may be gained apart from war -- Passive Resistance, Civil Disobedience, and the Method of Jesus. Passive Resistance is the method of bearing passively imposed wrongs and penalties in the hope of calling attention to the wrongs and thus gaining redress. Civil Disobedience is the choosing of certain laws and regulations to be disobeyed in order that by their disobedience and the bearing of consequent suffering, a larger end may be gained in the changing of the whole system of which these particular oppressive laws and regulations are thought to be representative. The difference between Passive Resistance and Civil Disobedience may be illustrated thus: It is Passive Resistance when a man drafted for war refuses to be drafted and goes to jail instead; it is Civil Disobedience when a man, opposed to war in general and desiring to oppose it, chooses the draft law as the test-point, deliberately breaks it before it actually touches him and tries to get others to do the same. The one is passive and personal, the other is active and collective. The one chooses to break the law when it is specifically imposed, the other chooses the law to be broken when not specifically imposed on him.

The method of Jesus is different from either and yet it sums up both and goes beyond each. It has within it the passive elements of the first and the active elements of the second, but it adds a third -- an active offensive of love on a higher level. Passively bearing a wrong is not enough; nor is going out and precipitating a crisis in order to bear the penalty of that precipitation enough. You must add an element, the vital element that may be lacking in each -- the active and audacious offensive of love. Without this element the whole thing will fail. It is this plus that puts soul into it.

Because this element of active love has been absent very often in the Civil Disobedience movement many an Englishman fighting on the other side could see nothing but lawlessness in the act of civil disobedience. He met the breaking of law by the imposing of the penalty of law and felt that he was righteous in doing so. And especially did he feel that way when in the faces and attitudes of the civil resisters he could see only hate toward him. He was untouched, for the thing that might have touched him was not there, namely, an active love.

It is for this reason that Jesus, after talking about turning the other cheek and going the second mile, immediately adds that we are to love our enemies and do good to them that despitefully use us. He links the passive resistance of evil and the active love of the enemy who does evil and makes them one. Without this active love the method of conquering by turning the other cheek is savorless salt. It may do harm. Without this active love, going one mile, and even going two, may do harm to the oppressor and the oppressed in that it may produce contempt in the mind of the oppressor and may further weaken the oppressed. One may allow himself to be smitten on the other cheek, but in his heart of hearts he may be saying, "Yes, but I hate you and will get even with you if I can." That kills the active element that would work on the heart of the oppressor and renders the method sterile. Love gives the method life. That which made the death of Jesus different, in addition to the character of the sufferer, was the fact that out form him went an active love toward the men that put him to death and which expressed itself in the prayer for his enemies, "Father, forgive them." That spirit wrested the offensive from their hands and turned the tragedy into a triumph.

The audacious offensive of love

2012-01-19T18:10:00.000-05:00

Conventional wisdom, fueled by pompous comedians and other uninformed sources, holds that audience members at Monday night's Republican debate in South Carolina "booed the golden rule." Candidate Ron Paul bore the brunt of audience displeasure by suggesting a "golden rule of foreign policy," not doing to other countries what we don't want them to do to us.

Like so many politicians who attempt to invoke biblical metaphors, Congressman Paul did not do his homework here. Likewise, media personalities who have made hay over South Carolina voters "booing the golden rule" have failed in their responsibility to do adequate biblical fact-checking. The "golden rule," stated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12 is traditionally rendered (in King James language), "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "Don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you." The difference is subtle, but profound.

Any number of ancient philosophers taught a negative ethic of refraining from doing evil to others in the hope that others would reciprocate. Jesus, however, taught something wholly different, and quite revolutionary. The ethic of the kingdom of God is not passively refraining from doing evil in hope of reciprocation, but actively seeking to do good without regard for what others might do in return. The former is rooted in a desire for self-preservation; the latter in a devotion to giving oneself in selfless service to others.

E. Stanley Jones, the great missionary to India, was well acquainted with the passive resistance ethic of Ghandi. He was convinced, however, that Jesus taught a higher ethic. In his classic exposition, The Christ of the Mount, he makes the case for active resistance as the true ethic of Jesus and the kingdom of God.

Jesus is not teaching passive resistance, but an active resistance on a higher level. The account does not say, "If a man smite you on one cheek, let him smite the other also," but it does say, "Turn to him the other also." It is this audacious offensive of love that forces the man to go further and thus break down. He tries to break your head, and you, as Christian, try to break his heart. In turning the other cheek you wrest the offensive from him and assume moral charge of the situation. You choose your own battleground, and your own weapons, you refuse his and compel him to stand on ground with which he is not familiar and to face weapons he does not know how to face. If a man compels you to go with him one mile, you are his slave; but if you voluntarily go with him two, then you rise from your slavery, confer a bounty on him and thus become his master. If he sues you at law and takes away your coat, you are his servant, but if you confer on him your cloak also, you assume the mastery by your own moral daring.

Allowing a man to smite you on one cheek, and letting him have the coat, and submitting to him when he compels you to go one mile does little or no good. The fact is that it does harm to the man who does it and to the man who submits to it. It is the other cheek, the cloak also and the second mile that do the trick. It is this plus that turns the scale. The one cheek, the coat and the one mile--this is passive resistance; but turning the other cheek, giving the cloak also and going the second mile--this is active resistance on the plane of unquenchable good will. Passive resistance may reveal nothing but weakness; this active resistance of love reveals nothing but strength.

John Wesley: On Schism

2012-01-19T17:11:00.001-05:00

John Wesley never left the Church of England despite the fact that Methodists in America, following the end of the Revolution, formally organized as a separate entity (something of a political necessity at the time) and their British counterparts did the same shortly after their founder's death. To the end, Wesley maintained his belief, first expressed early in his ministry, that the Anglican Church came "nearer the scriptural and primitive plan than any other national church upon earth." Besides several letters and a treatise in which he firmly opposed separation, Wesley preached a sermon, "On Schism," in which he not only deplored the evil of schism but also defined it within the narrow biblical parameters which, then as well as now, were often ignored. I have previously posted an excerpt from this sermon but, in light of the current unpleasantness, I think it appropriate to post the the full text at this time.

That there might be no schism in the body. 1 Corinthians 12:25

1. If there be any word in the English tongue as ambiguous and indeterminate in its meaning as the word Church, it is one that is nearly allied to it, -- the word Schism. it has been the subject of innumerable disputes for several hundred years; and almost innumerable books have been written concerning it in every part of the Christian world. A very large share of these have been published in our country; particularly during the last century, and the beginning of the present: And persons of the strongest understanding, and the most consummate learning, have exhausted all their strength upon the question, both in conversation and writing. This has appeared to be more necessary than ever, since the grand separation of the Reformed from the Romish Church. This is a charge which the members of that Church never fail to bring against all that separate from her; and which, consequently, has employed the thought and pens of the most able disputants on both sides. And Those of each side have generally, when they entered into the field, been secured of victory; supposing the strength of their arguments was so great, that it was impossible for reasonable men to resist them.

2. But it is observable, that exceeding little good has been done by all these controversies. Very few of the warmest and ablest disputants have been able to convince their opponents. After all that could be said, the Papists are Papists, and the Protestants are Protestants still. And the same success has attended those who have so vehemently disputed about separation from the Church of England. Those who separated from her were eagerly charged with schism; they as eagerly denied the charge; and scarce any were able to convince their opponents either on one side or the other.

3. One great reason why this controversy has been so unprofitable, why so few of either side have been convinced, is this: They seldom agreed as to the meaning of the word concerning which they disputed: and if they did not fix the meaning of this, if they did not define the term before they began disputing about it, they might continue the dispute to their lives' end, without getting one step forward; without coming a jot nearer to each other than when they first set out.

4. Yet it must be a point of considerable importance, or St. Paul would not have spoken so seriously of it. It is, therefore, highly needful that we should consider,

I. The nature, and ,

II. The evil of it.

I.

1. It is the more needful to do this, because among the numberless books that have been written upon the subject, both by the Romanists and Protestants, it is difficult to find any that define it in a scriptural manner. The whole body of Roman Catholics define schism, a separation from the Church of Rome; and almost all our own writers define it, a separation from the Church of England. Thus both the one and the other set out wrong, and stumble at the very threshold. This will easily appear to any that calmly consider the several texts wherein the word "schism" occurs: from the whole tenor of which it is manifest, that it is not a separation from any Church, (whether general or particular, whether the Catholic, or any national Church) but a separation in a Church.

2. Let us begin with the first verse, wherein St. Paul makes use of the word. It is the tenth verse of the first chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Words are, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms" ( the original word is schismata) "among you." Can anything be more plain than that the schisms here spoken of, were not separations from, but divisions in, the Church of Corinth? Accordingly, it follows, "But that ye be perfectly united together, in the same mind and in the same judgment." You see here, that an union in mind and judgment was the direct opposite to the Corinthian schism. This, consequently, was not a separation from the Church or Christian society at Corinth but a separation in the Church; a disunion in mind and judgment, (perhaps also affection) among those who, notwithstanding this, continued outwardly united as before.

3. Of what nature this schism at Corinth was, is still more clearly determined (if anything can be more clear) by the words that immediately follow: "Now this I say," -- this is the schism of which I speak; you are divided into separate parties; some of you speaking in favor of one, some of another preacher, -- "Every one of you saith," (verse 12) "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," or Peter. Who then does not see that the schism for which the Apostle here reproves the Corinthians is neither more nor less than the splitting into several parties, as they gave the preference to one or another preacher? And this species of schism there will be occasion to guard against in every religious community.

4. The second place where the Apostle uses this word is in the eighteenth verse of the eleventh chapter of this Epistle: "When ye come together in the Church," the Christian congregation, " I hear that there are division" ( the original word here also is schismata, schisms) "among you." But what were these schisms? The Apostle immediately tells you: (Verse 20) "When you come together," professing you design is "to eat of the Lord's Supper, every one of you taketh before another his own supper," as if it were a common meal. What then was the schism? It seems, in doing this, they divided into little parties, which cherished anger and resentment one against another, even at the solemn season.

5. May it not be observed, (to make a little digression here, for the sake of those who are troubled with needless scruples on this head) that the sin which the Apostle charges on the communicants at Corinth in this chapter is usually quite misunderstood? It was precisely this, and nothing else, "the taking one before another his own supper;'" and in such a shocking manner, that while "one was hungry, another was drunken." By doing this, he says, "ye eat and drink" (not "damnation:" a vile mistranslating of the word, but) judgment, temporal judgment, "to yourselves:" Which sometimes shortened their lives. "For this cause" -- for sinning in this vile manner -- "many are sick and weak among you." Observe here two things: First, What was the sin of the Corinthians? Mark this well, and remember it. It was taking one before another his own supper; so that while one was hungry, another was drunken. Secondly, What was the punishment? It was bodily weakness and sickness; which, without repentance, might end in death. But what is this to you? Your cannot commit their sin: Therefore, you cannot incur their punishment.

6. But to return. It deserves to be seriously remarked, that in this chapter the Apostle uses the word "heresies" as exactly equivalent with the word "schisms." "I hear," says he, (verse 18) "that there are schisms among you, and I partly believe it:" He then adds, (verse 19) "for there must be heresies" (another word for the same thing) "among you, that they which are approved among you may be made manifest." As if he had said, "The wisdom of God permits it so to be, for this end, -- for the clear manifestation of those whose heart is right with him." This word, therefore, (heresy) which has been so strangely distorted for many centuries, as if it meant erroneous opinions, opinions contrary to the faith delivered to the saints, -- which has been made a pretense for destroying cities, depopulation of countries, and shedding seas of innocent blood, -- has not the least reference to opinions, whether right or wrong. It simply means, wherever it occurs in Scripture, divisions, or parties, in a religious community.

7. The third and the only remaining place in this Epistle, wherein the Apostle uses this word, is the twenty fifth verse of the twelfth chapter; where, speaking of the Church, he seems to mean the Church universal, the whole body of Christ) he observes, "God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked, that there might be no schism in the body:" (Verse 24, 25) He immediately fixes the meaning of his own words: "But that the members might have the same care one for another: And Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with is or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.": We may easily observe that the word Schism here, means the want of this tender care for each other. It undoubtedly means an alienation of affection in any of them toward their brethren; a division of heart, and parties springing therefrom, though they were still outwardly united together; though they still continued members of the same external society.

8. But there seems to be one considerable objection against the supposing heresy and schism to mean the same thing. It is said, St. Peter, in the second chapter of his Second Epistle, takes the word Heresies in a quite different sense. His words are, (verse 1) "There shall be among you false teachers, who will bring in damnable," or destructive, "heresies, denying the Lord that bought them." It does by no means appear that St. Peter here takes the word Heresies in any other sense that St. Paul does. Even in this passage it does not appear to have any reference to opinions, good or bad. Rather it means, They will "bring in" or occasion, destructive parties or sects, (so it is rendered in the common French translation) who "deny the Lord that bought them:" Such sects now swarm throughout the Christian world.

9. I shall be thankful to any one who will point to me any other place in the inspired writings, where this word "Schism" is to be found. I remember only these three. And it is apparent to every impartial reader, that it does not, in any of these, mean a separation from any Church or body of Christians, whether with or without cause. So that the immense pains which have been taken both by Papists and Protestants, in writing whole volumes against Schism, as a separation, whether from the Church of Rome, or from the Church of England, exerting all their strength, and bringing all their learning, have been employed to mighty little purpose. They have been fighting with shadows of their own raising; violently combating a sin which had no existence but in their own imagination; which is to once forbidden, no, nor once mentioned, either in the Old or New Testament.

10. "But is there no sin resembling what so many learned and pious writers have termed Schism, and against which all the members of religious communities have need to be carefully guarded? I do not doubt but there is; and I cannot tell, whether this too may not, in a remote sense, be called Schism: I mean, "A causeless separation from a body of living Christians". There is no absurdity in taking the word in this sense, though it be not strictly scriptural. And it is certain all the members of Christian communities should be carefully guarded against it. For how little a thing soever it may seem, and how innocent soever it may be accounted, schism, even in this sense, is both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences.

II.

1. It is evil in itself. To separate ourselves from a body of living Christian, with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the law of love. It is the nature of love to unite us together; and the greater the love, the stricter the union. And while this continues in its strength, nothing can divide those whom love has united. It is only when our love grows cold, that we can think of separating from our brethren. And this is certainly the case with any who willingly separate from their Christian brethren. The pretences for separation may be innumerable, but want of love is always the real cause; otherwise they would still hold the unity of he Spirit in the bound of peace. It is therefore contrary to all those commands of God, wherein brotherly love is enjoined: To that of St. Paul, "Let brotherly love continue:" -- that of St. John, "My beloved children, love one another;" -- and especially to that of our blessed Master, "This is my commandment, That ye love on another, as I have loved you" Yea, "By this," saith he, "shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another."

2. And as such a separation is evil in itself, being a breach of brotherly love, so it brings forth evil fruit; it is naturally productive of the most mischievous consequences. It opens a door to all unkind tempers, both in ourselves and others. It leads directly to a whole train of evil surmising, to severe and uncharitable judging of each other. It gives occasion to offense, to anger and resentment, perhaps in ourselves as well as in our brethren; which, if not presently stopped, may issue in bitterness, malice, and settled hatred; creating a present hell wherever they are found, as a prelude to hell eternal.

3. But the ill consequences of even this species of schism do not terminate in the heart. Evil tempers cannot long remain within, before they are productive of outward fruit. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. As he whose heart is full of love openeth his mouth with wisdom, and in his lips there is the law of kindness; so he whose heart is full of prejudice, anger, suspicion, or any unkind temper, will surely open his mouth in a manner corresponding with the disposition of his mind. And hence will arise, if not lying and slandering, (which yet will hardly be avoided) bitter words, tale-bearing, backbiting, and evil-speaking of every kind.

4. From evil words, from tale-bearing, backbiting and evil-speaking, how many evil works will naturally flow! Anger, jealousy, envy, wrong tempers of every kind, do not vent themselves merely in words, but push men continually to all kind of ungodly and unrighteous actions. A plentiful harvest of all the works of darkness may be expected to spring from this source; whereby, in the end, thousands of souls, and not a few of those who once walked in the light of God's countenance, may be turned from the way of peace, and finally drowned in everlasting perdition.

5. Well might our blessed Lord say, "Woe unto the world because of offenses:" Yet, "it must needs be, that offenses will come:" Yea, abundance of them will of necessity arise when a breach of this sort is made in any religious community; while they that leave it endeavour to justify themselves, by censuring those they separate from; and these on the other hand retort the charge, and strive to lay the blame on them. But how mightily does all this altercation grieve the Holy Spirit of God! How does it hinder his mild and gentle operations in the souls both of one and the other! Heresies and schisms (in the scriptural sense of those words) will, sooner or later, be the consequence; parties will be formed, on one and the other side, whereby the love of many will wax cold. The hunger and thirst after righteousness, after either the favor or the full image of God, together with the longing desires wherewith so many were filled of promoting the work of God in the souls of their brethren, will grow languid, and as offenses increase will gradually die away. And as the "fruit of the Spirit" withers away, "the works of the flesh" will again prevail, to the utter destruction, first of the power, and then of the very form, of religion. These consequences are not imaginary, are not built on mere conjectures, but on plain matter of fact. This has been the case again and again within these last thirty or forty year: These have been the fruits which we have seen, over and over, to be consequent on such a separation.

6. And what grievous stumbling-block must these things be to those who are without, to those who are strangers to religion, who have neither the form nor the power of godliness! How will they triumph over these once eminent Christians! How boldly ask, "What are they better than us?" How will they harden their hearts more and more against the truth, and bless themselves in their wickedness? From which, possibly, the example of the Christians might have reclaimed them, had they continued unblamable in their behavior. Such is the complicated mischief which persons separating from a Christian Church or society do, not only to themselves, but to that whole society, and the whole world in general.

7. But perhaps such persons will say, "We did not do this willingly; we were constrained to separate from that society, because we could not continue therein with a clear conscience; we could not continue without sin. I was not allowed to continue therein with breaking a commandment of God." If this was the case, you could not be blamed for separating from that society. Suppose, for instance, you were a member of the Church of Rome, and you could not remain therein without committing idolatry; without worshipping of idols, whether images, or saints and angels; then it would be your bounded duty to leave that community, totally to separate from it. Suppose you could not remain in the Church of England without doing something which the word of God forbids, or omitting something which the word of God positively commands; if this were the case, (but blessed be God it is not) you ought to separate from the Church of England. I will make the case my own: I am now, and have been from my youth, a member and a Minister of the Church of England: And I have no desire, no design to separate from it, till my soul separates from my body. Yet if I was not permitted to remain therein without omitting what God requires me to do, it would then become meet and right, and my bounden duty, to separate from it without delay. To be more particular: I know God has committed to me a dispensation of the gospel; yea, and my own salvation depends upon preaching it: "Woe is me if I preach not the gospel." If then I could not remain in the Church without omitting this, without desisting from preaching the gospel I should be under a necessity of separating from it, or losing my own soul. In like manner, if I could not continue united to any smaller society, Church, or body of Christians, without committing sin, without lying and hypocrisy, without preaching to others doctrines which I did not myself believe, I should be under an absolute necessity of separating from that society. And in all these cases the sin of separation, with all the evils consequent upon it, would not lie upon it, would not lie upon me, but upon those who constrained me to make that separation, by requiring of me such terms of communion as I could not in conscience comply with. But, setting aside this case, suppose the Church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scripture forbids, or to omit anything which the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein. And if I separate from it without any such necessity, I am just chargeable (whether I foresaw them or not) with all the evils consequent upon that separation.

8. I have spoke the more explicitly upon this head, because it is so little understood; because so may of those who profess much religion, nay, and really enjoy a measure of it, have not the least conception of this matter, neither imagine such a separation to be any sin at all. They leave a Christian society with as much unconcern as they go out of one room into another. They give occasion to all this complicated mischief and wipe their mouth, and say they have done no evil! Whereas they are justly chargeable, before God and man, both with an action that is evil in itself, and with all the evil consequences which may be expected to follow, to themselves, to their brethren, and to the world.

9. I entreat you, therefore, my brethren, all that fear God, and have a desire to please them, all that wish to have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man, think not so slightly of this matter, but consider it calmly. Do not rashly tear asunder the sacred ties which unite you to any Christian society. This indeed is not of so much consequence to you who are only a nominal Christian. For you are not now vitally united to any of the members of Christ. Though you are called a Christian, you are not really a member of any Christian Church. But if you are a living member, if you live the life that is hid with Christ in God, then take care how you tend the body of Christ by separating from your brethren. It is a thing evil in itself. It is a sore evil in its consequences. O have pity upon yourself! Have pity on your brethren. Have pity even upon the world of the ungodly! Do not lay more stumbling-blocks in the way of these for whom Christ died.

10. But if you are afraid, and that not without reason, of schism, improperly so called, how much more afraid will you be, if your conscience is tender, of schism in the proper scriptural sense! O beware, I will not say of forming, but of countenancing or abetting any parties in a Christian society! Never encourage, much less cause, either by word or action, any division therein. In the nature of things, "there must be heresies," divisions, "among you;" but keep thyself pure. Leave off contention before it be meddled with: Shun the very beginning of strife. Meddle not with them that are given to dispute, with them that love contention. I never knew that remark to fail: "He that loves to dispute, does not love God." Follow peace with all men, without which you cannot effectually follow holiness. Not only "seek peace," but "ensue it:" If it seem to flee from you, pursue it nevertheless. "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

11. Happy is he that attains the character of a peace-maker in the Church of God. Why should not you labor after this? Be not content, not to stir up strife; but do all that in you lies, to prevent or quench the very first spark of it. Indeed it is far easier to prevent the flame from breaking out, than to quench it afterwards. However, be not afraid to attempt even this: The God of peace is on your side. He will give you acceptable words, and will send them to the heart of the hearers. Noli diffidere: Noli discedere, says a pious man: Fac quod in te est; et Deus aderit bonce tuce voluntuti: "Do not distrust Him that has all power, that has the hearts of all men in his hand. Do what in thee lies, and Good will be present, and bring thy good desires to good effect." Never be weary of well-doing. In due time thou shalt reap if thou faint not.

Moving Forward Together: Sacred Assembly roundup

2012-01-19T13:57:00.001-05:00

Over 300 laity and clergy from 109 churches gathered in Raleigh, North Carolina January 16-18 for "Moving Forward Together," a sacred assembly hosted by Archbishop Oneshpore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of Rwanda (PEAR). In his opening remarks, Archbishop Rwaje set the tone for the assembly.

Also in attendance to lend his strong support was Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). In his message during the opening worship service, Archbishop Duncan made an impassioned plea for a united biblical, orthodox, and missional Anglican witness.

A powerful image of that unity was the opening night Eucharist service, led by Archbishops Rwaje and Duncan, with Bishop Terrell Glenn.

The second day of the assembly began with Morning Prayer and a message on spiritual warfare by Bishop Louis Muvunyi.

A highlight of the assembly was an address by Bishop Julian Dobbs of ACNA in which he spoke of "the Anglican Moment."

And so we’re rebuilding biblical Anglicanism across North America, we are building upon:

An Anglican Moment

Nehemiah demonstrated remarkable steadfastness and faithfulness in rebuilding the ruined walls of Jerusalem despite the risks and opposition. He seized upon the place where God positioned him at the time of the Lord’s choosing to do that which the Living God in His sovereignty desired of him.

I firmly believe it just so with us…at this moment, in this place, in our circumstances.

Almighty God has given North American Anglicanism ‘a moment in time’ that we may never see again. As we enter the third year of the second decade of the new millennium, in His great mercy the Lord of the Church has given the Anglican Church in North America a holy opportunity to reexamine our mission, our ministry, our structures, our national and global relationships, our transition from what were deep and disturbing days of darkness to our current juncture, poised on the banks of the Jordan as we make our first tentative steps into the promised land of Anglicanism in North America.

We must pose this question: will we together as Anglicans, ‘forgetting what is behind and straining forward to what awaits us,’ embrace the difficult challenge of our Lord, rise up and embrace the opportunity that is before us, or will we be more content to replicate the patterns and structures of our former days in Egypt?

Egypt is the place that provided respite for the Holy Family when they faced persecution. Egypt is the place from which God led his people through the Red Sea to the land of promise. Egypt is the place where God took his people out of slavery into freedom. Egypt is a reminder that time after time God met His people at the point of their need. And yet, Egypt is also a reminder that God's people often have very short memories. It was only a brief time after their deliverance that they began to complain about the lack of variety of their provisions in the wilderness "We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost - also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic, they grumbled. Once they were safely established in the Land of Promise they also quickly forgot the bondage under which they had suffered in Egypt and began to embrace the very same pattern of life that they had escaped.

The journey of the children of Israel out of Egypt into the Land of Promise presents a warning that is timeless and always contemporary because if our profession of faith is not matched with actions of faithfulness we will also find ourselves back in the land of bondage where our message has no meaning for a sick and spiritually bankrupt world and our lives with no transforming power. We can have all the seemingly godly heritage, all of the historical and religious symbols but if we fail to obey God's call to a holy, faithful lives we will be like withering grass that is simply blown out by the devastating wind of the age.

Our risk, even at this very early stage of our development, is that as we establish this new expression of biblical missionary Anglicism it becomes so much an expression of the former structures that it is very difficult to observe the difference between the past and the present. Hierarchical structures, infighting, power struggles, committees, attorneys, insecurities, leaders who say one thing and do another while some take care to secure their own positions at the expense of others. Let us never forget that Moses discovered that not everyone who departed Egypt with him was united with him in his unwavering commitment to obey the commandments and guidance of Almighty God; should we be surprised to discover that we are not immune from these same trials and challenges?

Crucial to the rebuilding process is refurbishing and refining, as the prophet Malachi writes: ‘And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. (Malachi 3:3)

Part of any true work of God is the refiners’ fire. No one looks forward to the searing heat and the burning away of the dross; personal and communal…but the Word of God promises us that the result is heavenly gold.

In our refurbishing process, we must also recognize that used bricks are very attractive and sought-after for walkways and fireplaces in new suburbs across America and Canada, but, we must remember that not everything in building materials ages well.

In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman explains how our world has shrunk. Thanks to instant information and rapid transportation, hierarchical structures have been flattened. One global organization that should be ideally positioned for this transformation is the Christian Church. Its Divine founder designed it to be "flat;" small groups with a common vision, a common language of faith, and international networks that crossed national boundaries. As often happens, initial flexibility was soon lost and replaced by more predictable and controllable structures and the early vision forgotten while waiting for another fresh wave of inspiration and creativity.

We are witnessing such a new wave. A prime example is the Anglican Communion - an international community of more than 75 million in 164 countries, ordered into 38 separate provinces.

In the good old days mandates, money and missionaries flowed from the traditional power base of London and, more recently, New York to their grateful recipients in the developing world.

In a nutshell, the flattening of hierarchical structures is a way to be as big as a dinosaur and as nimble as a cat at the same time. Consider a swarm of bees: it can effectively be an animal twenty feet wide, a hundred feet long, with a thousand eyes and sophisticated complex behavior--bigger and smarter than most dinosaurs--but it can turn on a dime (in several directions at once, no less!) and is unburdened by the metabolic overhead of a single huge body.

I want to prayerfully and carefully caution our new Anglican movement, let us not be complacent and reinvent the less effective structures of the past. We must be constantly vigilant against an all-too-human temptation to feel that ‘the past was good enough;’ to live in the continual ‘afterglow’ of the great acts of God in past decades. The constant, forward movement of God the Holy Spirit is ever dynamic. Relationships are new and different and this is to be celebrated and

I am humbled as a native born New Zealander and now a new American to serve as a bishop in the Church of Nigeria, [Anglican Communion] while serving as a bishop of the Anglican Church in North America by right of my standing as a Bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; a Suffragan to our Missionary Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns. These are unusual relationships, but they are kinship that strengthen our shared mission as Anglican Christians in the world who believe that Jesus still says ‘go and recognize our necessary and shared dependence upon Almighty God and the global Anglican family.’

We firmly believe that our realignment is part of an emerging movement of formerly Episcopal churches and now new congregations, church plants, chaplains which are breaking out of their hierarchical straightjackets and connecting directly with local and global parts of the Anglican Communion. What unites them is a vision for global Christianity; a commitment to a common language of faith and abiding friendships that connect across challenging cultural divides.

Remember, Jesus of Nazareth didn't give his life for a structure but rather for a vision of a world where every person can know that they are loved by God and given new hope for tomorrow - whether they live in Kaduna or Kansas City, in Bethlehem or Boston, in Darfur or Durham.

For Moses to reach the Promised Land he had to come to a place called Kadesh Barnea; as all biblically-sound Anglicans undoubtedly know the story. Before the 12 tribes of Israel lay a land flowing with milk and honey; behind them the wildness…but 10 men…just 10 men…sent to check out the land promised to them by God managed to sow such discouragement and then discontent that full-scale rebellion broke out in the camp. The result of their hesitation, vacillation, and..well…cowardice…was 40 more years in the desert and an entire generation lost.

I believe we are at Kadesh Barnea in North American Anglicanism. Remember, there were twelve young men sent into the Promised Land, 10 returned and said ‘it is too hard,’ let those of us entrusted to make decisions for the people of God and those whom we represent hear only the voices of the other two – Joshua and Caleb – who said ‘Do not be afraid, the Lord is with us’ (Numbers 14:9) and let us move forward to lay-hold of that which God is calling us to claim, for,

This is the Anglican Moment,

But, this requires…

A Determined Discipleship - No Matter What the Cost.

In our congregations we should be working to develop a true ‘ mutual company of the committed’ healthy, Gospel-focused place where people are regularly coming to faith, being catechized, worshipping, growing, and serving. We should see this in children’s ministries, youth ministries, adult ministries – we need to be thinking together about campus ministries, we need to be thinking about reaching diverse people groups in different places – city-centers, suburbs, rural areas. Theological training, spiritual formation, vocational assessment, and leadership development should be taking place on the ground in a recognized, growing ‘ mutual company of the committed’ . In other words, we need to be making disciples in our local churches.

A healthy determined discipleship culture is essential as we replant biblical Anglicanism across North America. This is the work of the whole church. It is not just for some, it is for all of us… together!

Being a determined disciple and following Jesus might cost us everything! Do you realize that? As a survivor of the 1950’s Mau Mau crisis in Kenya, once put it, “When they come for you at night and threaten to tie a sack over your head and drop you in the river, then you know whether Jesus Christ means everything to you or whether he means nothing at all.” To these Christians, Jesus Christ meant everything, He meant everything.

Tertullian, the church leader and author in the 2nd and 3rd century correctly boasted, “The blood of the martyrs is indeed the seed of the church. Dying we conquer, the moment we are crushed, that moment, we go forth victorious.”

We are called to a life of dedicated sacrifice. To leave the palaces behind and follow Almighty God – through desert, swamp, mountains and across the wide rivers. To stand firm against the scoffers and the enemy. But, foremostly, we are also called to build – or more specifically in our case – to rebuild.

So let us rebuild the walls. Let us replant biblical Anglicanism across North America. With a Confident Commitment To biblical Truth. A Dedicated Determination To Evangelism. A Radical Investment In Church Planting. A Pipeline For New Leaders and a Determined Discipleship No Matter What The Cost! Let’s trim the sails, head up to a close-hauled course and run with the wind.!

And I am proud to be a Shepherd in this great task as together we continue the struggle, fight the good fight, stand fast in the faith and so…

Votregrâce,l'archevêque, c'est le momentanglicane !

Le Dieu des cieux nous donnera le succès. Nous, ses serviteurs, nous nous lèverons et nous bâtirons

This is the Anglican Moment.

The bishops led a question and answer session, addressing issues and concerns associated with moving forward.

Evening Prayer featured a message from the Rev. Dr. Lyle Dorsett in which attendees were introduced to the "George Gill test." George Gill was an old preacher who would challenge his hearers with a question drawn from 2 Timothy 4:8, "Do you love his appearing?"

The final day opened with the celebration of the Eucharist and a message from Bishop Thad Barnum about the importance of submitting to authority and respecting our elders in the faith ("fathers in Christ"). He told a story of how, as a seminarian, he was directed by his bishop to take a second year of Clinical Pastoral Education and how that experience helped him understand the importance of obedience.

Archbishop Rwaje concluded the assembly by presenting a statement outlining the next steps in moving forward together.

Raleigh, NC
January 18, 2012

On January 16-18, 2012, over 300 laity and clergy, representing 109 churches that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, gathered at the Church of the Apostles, Raleigh, NC, for a sacred assembly. The assembly was hosted by Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of Rwanda (PEAR), who sent three other bishops (Alexis Bilindabagabo, Laurent Mbanda, Louis Muvunyi) as delegates, and were joined by US bishops Thad Barnum and Terrell Glenn. Archbishop Robert Duncan and Bishop Julian Dobbs of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) joined the assembly as honored guests.

The assembly was a rich time of worship, prayer, and communion with God. In the traditions of classical Anglicanism and the East African revival, the assembly featured both form and flexibility, which fostered dialogue, reconciliation, healing, and—most importantly—listening to the Lord. A way forward was unclear at the outset of the assembly, but by its conclusion the next steps for moving forward together were evident.

Emphasizing collaborative leadership as an Anglican distinctive, Archbishop Rwaje and the House of Bishops asked Bishops Terrell Glenn and Thad Barnum to create a short-term team to give oversight and care for all clergy and churches that have been a part of the AMiA’s and desire to remain resident in Rwanda. This team is to be characterized by a spirit of openness, collaborating freely with clergy and laity throughout its constituent churches. Its structures are to be temporary and easily dismantled once its task is completed. It will be a team actively connected to the House of Bishops of Rwanda.

This team is charged with:

Care, healing, encouragement and guidance for churches and clergy in all ongoing efforts of mission and ministry, in all things personal, corporate, ecclesial and structural;

Ongoing mobilization and distribution of financial support and guidance for church plants and church planting;

Continuing support for those in process of ordination and those whom God might raise up to join in the work of planting churches and carrying out the work of Christ’s church;

Developing temporary structures necessary to support and accomplish these tasks.

For this task, Bishop Glenn was asked and has agreed to serve as the team’s leader. He will recruit and recommend to Archbishop Rwaje temporary canons and regional leaders who will serve those churches and clergy moving forward together in regional groupings throughout North America. Additionally, as a result of the generous offer of Archbishop Bob Duncan, this team will work freely and collaboratively with partner churches and bishops in ACNA for the support and care of churches and clergy as needed.

Bishop Glenn has appointed the following clergy to serve in this temporary process: the Rev’s Steve Breedlove, David Bryan, Dan Claire, Chip Edgar, Alan Hawkins, Clark Lowenfield and Ken Ross. Others may be added in the weeks ahead as needed structures come into focus.

For the duration of its service, this team will communicate its progress and its finances on a monthly basis to constituent and interested congregations and clergy. Feedback will be welcomed.

Archbishop Rwaje charged the team to create a task force to work collaboratively with representatives of the ACNA and PEAR to explore and develop plans for long-term structures that will serve the following needs of our congregations:

Those who desire full participation in an existing diocese of ACNA

Those who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR while also forming a subjurisdiction of ACNA

Those churches who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR by establishing a missionary jurisdiction in North America

It is anticipated that these long-term, permanent structures will be established within the next 6-12 months. As congregations and clergy transition into them, the work of the interim team will be completed.

We invite all churches and clergy that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas to be part of this process: we need your voice so that we can move forward together. Please contact Bishops Glenn or Barnum, or any member of the temporary team, to signify your interest in moving forward together. Starting on or before January 23, contact information can be found at http://www.pearusa.com.

We are deeply thankful for all those who joined together in Raleigh during this gracious time of fellowship and we are thankful for our bishops who have given us a way forward for these next days ahead. Please pray continually and fervently for all those who are seeking to serve the work of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church in the days and months ahead, and please communicate freely and frequently your thoughts, ideas, questions and concerns with this team.

On behalf of all who attended the Sacred Assembly,

The Most Rev. Onesphore Rwaje, January 18, 2012

Raleigh post script: Continue to pray for unity and reconciliation

2012-01-18T19:26:00.000-05:00

The Collect for the Unity of the Church, prayed during the opening Eucharist Monday night in Raleigh, should remain constantly in our hearts and on our lips:

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, so we may be all of one heart and one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For those who have walked away, the door remains wide open for reconciliation.

Tell her we love her
and tell her she's wanted.
One more thing, God,
Tell her please come home!

While the son was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him. And he said, "Let us celebrate for this child of mine was dead and he has come back to life. He was lost and now is found. And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:20, 24)

Moving Forward Together Statement

2012-01-18T18:16:00.000-05:00

Raleigh, NC
January 18, 2012

On January 16-18, 2012, over 300 laity and clergy, representing 109 churches that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, gathered at the Church of the Apostles, Raleigh, NC, for a sacred assembly. The assembly was hosted by Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of Rwanda (PEAR), who sent three other bishops (Alexis Bilindabagabo, Laurent Mbanda, Louis Muvunyi) as delegates, and were joined by US bishops Thad Barnum and Terrell Glenn. Archbishop Robert Duncan and Bishop Julian Dobbs of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) joined the assembly as honored guests.

The assembly was a rich time of worship, prayer, and communion with God. In the traditions of classical Anglicanism and the East African revival, the assembly featured both form and flexibility, which fostered dialogue, reconciliation, healing, and—most importantly—listening to the Lord. A way forward was unclear at the outset of the assembly, but by its conclusion the next steps for moving forward together were evident.

Emphasizing collaborative leadership as an Anglican distinctive, Archbishop Rwaje and the House of Bishops asked Bishops Terrell Glenn and Thad Barnum to create a short-term team to give oversight and care for all clergy and churches that have been a part of the AMiA’s and desire to remain resident in Rwanda. This team is to be characterized by a spirit of openness, collaborating freely with clergy and laity throughout its constituent churches. Its structures are to be temporary and easily dismantled once its task is completed. It will be a team actively connected to the House of Bishops of Rwanda.

This team is charged with:

Care, healing, encouragement and guidance for churches and clergy in all ongoing efforts of mission and ministry, in all things personal, corporate, ecclesial and structural;

Ongoing mobilization and distribution of financial support and guidance for church plants and church planting;

Continuing support for those in process of ordination and those whom God might raise up to join in the work of planting churches and carrying out the work of Christ’s church;

Developing temporary structures necessary to support and accomplish these tasks.

For this task, Bishop Glenn was asked and has agreed to serve as the team’s leader. He will recruit and recommend to Archbishop Rwaje temporary canons and regional leaders who will serve those churches and clergy moving forward together in regional groupings throughout North America. Additionally, as a result of the generous offer of Archbishop Bob Duncan, this team will work freely and collaboratively with partner churches and bishops in ACNA for the support and care of churches and clergy as needed.

Bishop Glenn has appointed the following clergy to serve in this temporary process: the Rev’s Steve Breedlove, David Bryan, Dan Claire, Chip Edgar, Alan Hawkins, Clark Lowenfield and Ken Ross. Others may be added in the weeks ahead as needed structures come into focus.

For the duration of its service, this team will communicate its progress and its finances on a monthly basis to constituent and interested congregations and clergy. Feedback will be welcomed.

Archbishop Rwaje charged the team to create a task force to work collaboratively with representatives of the ACNA and PEAR to explore and develop plans for long-term structures that will serve the following needs of our congregations:

Those who desire full participation in an existing diocese of ACNA

Those who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR while also forming a subjurisdiction of ACNA

Those churches who desire to remain affiliated with PEAR by establishing a missionary jurisdiction in North America

It is anticipated that these long-term, permanent structures will be established within the next 6-12 months. As congregations and clergy transition into them, the work of the interim team will be completed.

We invite all churches and clergy that have been a part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas to be part of this process: we need your voice so that we can move forward together. Please contact Bishops Glenn or Barnum, or any member of the temporary team, to signify your interest in moving forward together. Starting on or before January 23, contact information can be found at http://www.pearusa.com.

We are deeply thankful for all those who joined together in Raleigh during this gracious time of fellowship and we are thankful for our bishops who have given us a way forward for these next days ahead. Please pray continually and fervently for all those who are seeking to serve the work of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church in the days and months ahead, and please communicate freely and frequently your thoughts, ideas, questions and concerns with this team.

On behalf of all who attended the Sacred Assembly,

The Most Rev. Onesphore Rwaje, January 18, 2012

Moving Forward Together: Archbishop Rwaje's opening remarks at the Sacred Assembly

2012-01-17T23:40:00.000-05:00

Moving Forward Together: Address by Archbishop Robert Duncan, ACNA

2012-01-17T23:07:00.000-05:00

Archbishop Robert Duncan emphasizes Anglican Unity in his address at the Sacred Assembly in Raleigh.

Moving Forward Together: Day 2 in pictures

2012-01-17T20:10:00.001-05:00

Bishop Louis Muvunyi preaching on spiritual warfare and putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20) during Morning Prayer.

Bishop Julian Dobbs shares is vision for the future of Anglicanism.

The bishops lead a panel discussion on how best to move forward.

Yours truly with His Grace, the Most Reverend Onesphore Rwaje, Archbishop of Rwanda.

Dr. Lyle Dorsett brought the message for evening prayer, asking the question, "Do you love his appearing?" (2 Timothy 4:8).

Unity, repentance, and reconciliation are main emphases as Moving Forward Together opens in Raleigh

2012-01-16T22:18:00.001-05:00

The conference is called "Moving Forward Together," and if the first day of activities is any indication, we are off to a positive start in that direction. Like most of the attendees here in Raleigh, I have been a regular at the Winter Conference of the Anglican Mission in the Americas for the last few years (although many of us skipped last week's confab in Houston). Elaborate backdrops and glitzy stage art are a signature of the worship experiences at that annual gathering, and there is a place for such extravagance. There is something to be said, however, for simplicity and the two services here this evening brought worshipers into the presence of God without elaborate visual aids.

In his message during the opening assembly, Archbishop Robert Duncan made an impassioned plea for unity among Anglicans in North America while reiterating the importance of a continued vital relationship with the church in Rwanda. During the evening Eucharist service, Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje punctuated the need for genuine repentance and confession of sins in order to bring healing and reconciliation. Bishop Terrell Glenn led worshipers in bidding prayers for reconciliation, unity, the proclamation of the Gospel, and in thanksgiving for the blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins.

Simpler in structure and design, yes, but tonight was a powerful witness for unity and cooperation between North America and Rwanda.

Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies . . .

2012-01-15T14:48:00.000-05:00

. . . you have prepared praise.