And his text is here. (There’s a summary at the top, the full text is below. Finally–a readable, comprehensible, intellegent statement about the Anglican Communion from the person who is supposed to be at its head.

It’s not a spanking; it’s clear reflection. I appreciate the way that he frames the issues. Speaking as a straight white guy I think that he presents clearly the difference between civil rights and the Church’s support of those civil rights and the theological and biblical status of homosexual partnerships. He also makes specific mention of my own objection to to Bishop Robinson’s consecration–that the US church consecrated a bishop in a sexual relationship outside the bounds of the canons and the liturgy. (And for the record, I’m still annoyed that GC06 didn’t address this.) Some of my brother and sisters who aren’t straight white guys may feel differently about the archbishop’s words here–and if so I’m sure you’ll tell me…

I will say that this paragraph was an opportunity for the archbishop to say something about church support of harshly discriminatory civil laws in Africa–especially Nigeria–and that opportunity was not taken.

The discussion of truth and unity is helpful as well, pointing out the inevitable tension between unity and the *search* for truth. This line in particular caught my eye: “The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right.” I imagine that some people are going to object to this discussion of truth because they are of the mind that the Church doesn’t need to search for truth–it already has it. It has Jesus, it has the Bible and the Sacraments, what further need to search? I would agree with the archbishop: we are still searching. Each sunrise dawns upon a new world and while God’s truth abideth still, we must figure out how to be the incarnate body of Christ each new day in spite of and through our sins and limitations.

The focus throughout the document on local communities was helpful for me. I liked that he kept returning there. Particularly helpful was the comment that local churches have some of the same issues that international bodies do. National church bodies do not and cannot decide everything on behalf and in place of local communities. That’s true across the board whether you’re talking NYC, Plano or Lagos.

The covenant as described here sounds like a good idea. And they whole “opting in” and the whole “constituent” and “associate” thing makes sense . . . except that we have the whole local problem that he just pointed out. Here’s the thing. We are an episcopal church; we do bishops. His talk of local communities would be one thing if we were congregationalists, but we’re not. It would be nice if any given local congregation could decide to either opt in or out, be a constituent or be an associate but I simply don’t see how that could work with our polity. It’s pretty clear that the covenant will be constructed in such a way that TEC will probably fall as an “associate” body. So–on a par with the British Methodist Church. I can’t imagine that the British Methodist Church contributes a whole lot to the Anglican Communion’s operating budget. I’m not saying nor do I want to be understood as saying that TEC’s money should buy its position or that other churches should compromise so we will foot their bill. I’m more noting this as an oddity.

Well, there will be much discussion about this in coming days. My own hope and prayer is that this may be a first signal that the archbishop is coming out of his shell. He has considerable theological and spiritual gifts; that’s why he was appointed to the position. Unfortunately, he has not been using them in a public fashion in dealing with our current crises. We need more statements like this! We need to know what he’s thinking. Thoughtful contributions will help our situation, and are a hell of a lot better than the rhetoric spewing that has characterized the discussion thus far.

Update: A quick survey of what other people are thinking about this is annoyingly predicatble–they’re trying to assess from this who wins and who loses. In doing so, I fear they’re missing the point… But I like Joe’s response.

The Daily Office lectionary is currently heading through a bit of Numbers 16 which brings us the interesting story of Korah, Dathan, et al. and their confrontation with Moses and Aaron.

Here’s the quick summary. Korah, Dathan, and a whole bunch of ther folks are Levites. Early in the Torah, God had called the Levites to serve in the temple and these folks are part of the batch who are not of Aaron’s lineage. So they will never be priests. Korah and the leaders confront Moses and Aaron and accuse them of usurping the priestly authority of the whole people. As a priestly people, any of them should be able to offer sacrifice. Today’s reading ended with the scene of the showdown–the two opposing groups are getting ready to present incense offerings to the Lord…

Given discussions around here recently on a number of issues, priesthood of all believers, sacramental efficacy, biblical interpretation, etc. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts and comments on this text.

Or “No, Owlfish, I really am a medievalist and do write about my dissertation here, not just the endless internecine feuds of the Anglican Communion…” but that seems a little verbose for a post title

As many of you know, I’m a dbase guy(and fund-raiser) in my day job. I’m a big fan of using technology in academic work, especially using dbases and web resources for sourcing etc. However, I’m also well positioned to know the limitations of such approaches. When doing source studies, anybody can do word searches on phrases. But even a big, well-structured dbase is no excuse for actually mastering your body of texts. I’m most often reminded of this by pure serendipity.

I’m currently reading through Bede’s Gospel Homilies looking at how he organizes and composes them. I’m seeing how and when he cites authorities and what terminology he uses in discussing the exegetical craft. Great stuff. I ran across something yesterday that brought me up short, though.

Æ’s Letter to Sigeweard is, essentially, the very first English language introduction to the Scriptures. It’s a quite a long treatise for him, running 1274 lines in the most recent modern edition. He works through the various books of the canon, noting who wrote them, offering brief synopses on occasion, and generally orienting a reader to the Scriptures. It’s very different from a modern intro in important ways. One of which is that he uses a common feature of apocalyptic—periodization of history—as an organizational feature. It’s part of an emphasis on people rather than books—he’s is as interested in the authors as the texts.

The periodization scheme that he uses is unusual. He begins by inserting “age” references as notices in the body of the work as in these representative examples:

208-11: Here was the first age of this world (from Adam to the Flood), and the next age was until the time of Abraham the ancient patriarch.

270-4: The third age was until the time of David, the greatest king of Abraham’s kin…

The full scheme is this:
1st age—Adam to the Flood
2nd age—The Flood to Abraham
3rd age—Abraham to David
4th age—David to Daniel
5th age—Daniel to Jesus
6th age—Jesus to the Eschaton
This set-up comes as no surprise whatsoever. This is all laid out clearly in Augustine’s writings, particularly in De Cat. Rud. 28 but also in Tract. In Ioh. 9.6:

Thence down to the time in which we are now living are six ages, this being the sixth, as you have often heard and know. The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; and, as Matthew the evangelist duly follows and distinguishes, the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from the carrying away into Babylon to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. Moreover, God made man after His own image on the sixth day, because in this sixth age is manifested the renewing of our mind through the gospel, after the image of Him who created us; and the water is turned into wine, that we may taste of Christ, now manifested in the law and the prophets. Hence “there were there six water-pots,” which He bade be filled with water. Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy.

Bede also picks this same scheme up in his homily on John 2 appointed for early Epiphany (I only have vol. 2 in my bag or I’d cite it). So—no mystery here.

Where things get weird is when Æ adds to the scheme at the end of the letter:

1185-94: The sixth age of this world stands from Christ’s ascension until the Day of Judgment of which no man knows but the Savior. The seventh age is the one which spans these six from Abel the Righteous until this world’s end, not for living men, but for souls who have gone forth to the other life where they rejoice, waiting yet for when they will arise to everlasting life (just as we all shall) whole from the dead before our Lord. The eighth age is the single eternal day after our resurrection when we will reign with God in soul and in body, in eternal blessing; that single day will not end. Then the saints will shine just as the sun does now.

The six-age scheme we know, but how about these last two? These aren’t familiar additions to me. Furthermore, they have a different feel to them—less chronology based. Well…in reading through Bede I found this passage:

[Christ] was crucified on Friday, rested in the sepulcher on Saturday, and rose from the dead on Sunday, indicating to his elect that they must toil by good works throughout the six ages of this world amid the dangers of persecutions, and that they should hope for a [period of] rest for their souls in the next life, [enjoying] a kind of perpetual Sabbath. Besides, this, on judgment day, the Lord’s day as it were, they are to celebrate the recovery of their immortal bodies, in which their souls may thenceforth enjoy heavenly happiness without end. (Bede, Homilies on the Gospels, vol 2., trans. Martin and Hurst, CS111, p. 59)

This, in turn, led me to look closer in Augustine which turned up this from De Cat. Rud. 17.28:

Now, on the subject of this rest Scripture is significant, and refrains not to speak, when it tells us how at the beginning of the world, and at the time when God made heaven and earth and all things which are in them, He worked during six days, and rested on the seventh day. For it was in the power of the Almighty to make all things even in one moment of time. For He had not labored in the view that He might enjoy (a needful) rest, since indeed “He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created;” but that He might signify how, after six ages of this world, in a seventh age, as on the seventh day, He will rest in His saints; inasmuch as these same saints shall rest also in Him after all the good works in which they have served Him,–which He Himself, indeed, works in them, who calls them, and instructs them, and puts away the offenses that are past, and justifies the man who previously was ungodly.

(Rather different from De Cat. Rud. 22.39 where he talks about the six ages…)

So, barring some source I don’t know about (which is possible) Æ seems to be expanding on Bede’s take on Augustine for this particular periodization of history. And I wouldn’t have come across this without reading.

In other news concerning Sigeweard—a section from Jerome’s Chronicon beginning Audi fabulam non fabulam is appointed as a reading in the original form of Paul the Deacon—not as printed in PL, though—incorrectly attributed to John Chrysostom. (I don’t have the occasion handy—I left my PDA at home by accident.)

Updated: Ok, Anastasia, I put the link up.

• For those with an interest in Catholic liturgy, check out the Royal Proclamation on the new English liturgy by poet/musician/translator/traditional Catholic King Alfred.
• More unconfirmed–but publically printed–rumors suggest that ++York indicated satisfaction with B033 but a conservative bishop told him to stow it… (see the fourth paragraph)
• ++Akinola has indeed posted a response to GC06. I find interesting this portion: “We have observed the commitment shown by your church to the full participation of people in same gender sexual relationships in civic life, church life and leadership. We have noted the many affirmations of this throughout the Convention. As you know, our Churches cannot reconcile this with the teaching on marriage set out in the Holy Scriptures and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Anglican Communion.” Is the reference to civil matters solely directed towards us?–or to England as well?
• I’ve posted my carnival text. If for whatever reason you’d like to play but would prefer not to post your text on your blog, send it to me and I’ll be happy to post it here for you.
• As an add-on to a thought expressed in bls’s exposition on tone 2 and sad occasions, check out the chart about halfway down the page here where it lists Guido of Arezzo and Adam of Fulda’s explanations of the emotion of each of the modes.
• Oh yeah–I forgot to point to Texanglican’s helpful clarification of Bishop Iker’s statement. Happily, this is not rumor and comes from the bishop himself.

Here’s my contribution to the carnival…

I. The Scriptures

Blessed Lord who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them; that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen. (Proper 28, BCP)

The canonical Scriptures of the Church–Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament–contain all things necessary for salvation because they point to the identity, teachings, and saving acts of Jesus Christ. They are the authorized record of God’s dealings with his people, written by limited and sinful humans yet in a real but mysterious way God’s own Word. Its comprehensive teachings were best summarized by Jesus himself: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and the greatest commandment. The second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt 22:37-39).

In this statement and by his actions in the gospels, however, Jesus overturned or dramatically reinterpreted some parts of the Scriptures. Furthermore, the Apostles and St Paul acting in the Spirit with the mind of Christ did the same. Thus Scripture itself reveals that it must be interpreted by the Church in accord with the mind of Christ (found foremost in his call to love; viz. Augustine). Furthermore, this interpretive process cannot help but be influenced by the community’s human reason, experience, cultural location and philosophical understandings.

II. The Creed

Almighty God, who hast revealed to thy Chuch thine eternal Being of glorious majesty and perfect love as one God in Trinity of Persons: Give us grace to continue steadfast in the confession of this faith, and constant in our worship of thee, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; who livest and reignest, one God, now and forever. Amen (Of the Holy Trinity, BCP)

The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are not summaries of the faith but outlines of the faith; they sketch the boundaries of what Christians must believe about the Scriptures to be considered Christians. That is, they clarify potentially contestable points in the Scriptural record particularly concerning the nature of the Godhead. They declare what problematic portions of the Scriptures are to be understood literally especially in light of the reading practices of Late Antiquity.

The Athanasian Creed (possibly written by St Vincent of Lerins) contains noble and, as far as we can know, correct statements about the inter-relations of the Godhead. However, it has never held the place of the others, probably because it arrogates to itself judgments and determinations that belong to God alone.

III. Apostolic Succession

O God, who didst lead thy holy apostles to ordain ministers in every place: grant that thy Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, may choose suitable persons for the ministry of Word and Sacrament, and may uphold them in their work for the extension of thy kingdom; through him who is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (For the Ministry II, BCP)

Apostolic sucession was especially important in the early days of the church when wandering preachers and holy men were the norm. It established continuity of doctrine and the clear handing on of sacramental efficacy. The Christian Church is neither a text nor a set of beliefs; it is a community sacramentally joined the Christ himself continually striving through to incarnate Christ to the world through word and deed. The sacraments and teachings entrusted to bishops and their representatives–priests and deacons–make this possible.

Bishops and their ministries of teaching and the laying on of hands are for the sake of order in the Church, and for the orderly spread of God’s kingdom. We must remember, however, that sacraments do not work because bishops perform them according to the rules of the Church. Instead these means of grace are effected by God’s grace and at God’s good pleasure. Hence, apostolic sucession gives clarity concerning how Jesus’ gift of the Spirit has been handed on through the ages. While God is pleased to use these channels, to suggest that he may not work outside them is institutional arrogance.

IV. catholicity

O God who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen. (All Saints’ Day, BCP)

In the Creed’s explication of the Spirit is a reference to “the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” After the close of the events recorded in Scripture in the Spirit did not desert the Church but continued in its midst instructing it in the mind of Christ. The holy catholic and apostolic church is not an institution but is gathering of the true members of the Body of Christ, the Church Militant, Expectant, and Triumphant. Though not constrained within a single institution, it has manifested itself through institutions during its history, most notably in the Orthodox Church in the East and the Roman Catholic Church in the West.

Through the ages the community of the saints has explicated and clarified the Christian faith beyond what Scripture and the primitive apostolic teaching reveal. Where these explications and clarifications lead the community into the mind of Christ and holiness of life they are to be embraced and encouraged. Anglicans are inheritors of the Western spiritual traditions embodied in the historic life of the Roman Catholic Church; thus those teachings and practices of the Roman Church that advance the Gospel and the mind of Christ are commend for our practice.

V. reformation

Almighty and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope, and charity; and that we may obtain that which thou dost promise, make us to love that which thou dost command; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Proper 25, BCP)

While the Spirit is active and at work in the Church, the Church is also an institution comprised of humans and as such is liable to the two human sources of error, limitation and sin. Because of these, the Church collectively and its individual members constantly fall short of who and what God created it to be. Through the movement of the Spirit and human effort it must be continually redirected to the source of its life and power, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Throughout the Scriptures the twin goals of holiness and love are constantly held up before the people of God. In the complicated and sometimes contradictory demands of both we often err too far in one direction or the other, falling into a rule-based casuistry or a overly-permissive libertinism. We are constantly called back to obedience. As we struggle to discern our way in a world and culture that is constantly presenting new challenges to faithful living, it is good to seek the wisdom already contained within our historic tradition. While many reform movements have made an idol of apostolic primitivism, the full history of Christian experience should be careful examined for those things that aid us in our proclamation and embodying of Christ here and now.

(…and it slides in at 1,298 words!)

In thinking about the various Anglo-Catholic tribes, one way to order them is to consider how they define Catholicism and particularly what set of documents, texts and liturgies they appeal to as final authorities. Is it Whole-Church-ness and thus an infusion of Orthodoxy? Or is it Roman-ness and if so, what council or councils are the best arbiter of this? So–you’ve got the Tridentine Anglo-Catholics who adhere to Trent and Counter-Reforation practice on one hand then the so-call Papalist Ango-Catholics who are willing to go along with Vatican II and current Roman use. M and I were having a discussion about this the other day. What we came down to is this: The Anglican heritage encompasses neither Trent nor Vatican II. In fact, being Anglican is pretty much a repudiation of Trent. That is, the sole decent argument for a Church of England apart from Rome that didn’t bring it all down to divorce is that the English use was different from the Roman use. Trent did introduce a novelty in trying to papally enforce one standardized liturgy.

If this is so, then why do we not look more to the uses of Sarum, Hereford, and York than to Trent? The obvious issue is continuous practice; these uses stopped being part of the lived liturgy of the people and now remain only as books. That’s fine for texts, but ceremonial is not captured as well even by descriptions. *Sigh* What’s a High Anglican to do…?

I’m announcing a blog carnival. Those who don’t know/aren’t sure what that is, it’s simply a collection of links to writings on a unified topic. And you have to eat cotton candy while you read them. This means anyone reading this may participate. If you choose to do so, just leave a comment to that effect here or email me at haligweorc hotmail with all appropriate punctuation.

Here’s the rationale…
In the build-up to General Convention, a view has been widely circulated beginning, I believe, with internet rhetoric and things like Kendall Harmon’s “Choose this day” video that there are really two religions in the Episcopal Church: one orthodox Christianity, the other anything goes Unitarian-Paganism that likes to take over Episcopal buildings. I’m always suspicious of simple dichotomies and this one is no exception. Now I see myself as being middle-of-the-road and my readership is fairly broad theologically-speaking. Some readers are more conservative, some more liberal, and others vary in ways that the conservative/liberal dichotomy doesn’t capture. My goal is to get a sense of where we are as individuals who take our faith seriously. What comes out in the end? Two religions or something else?

Here’s the topic…
The Carnival topic is Christian Identity. I’m inviting posts that wrestle with five topics–you can address anywhere from all to only one. My preference, of course, is to see you engage all five to get a holistic sense of how you construct Christian identity. Here are the five:

• Canon
• Creed
• Apostolic Succession
• catholicity
• reformation

And yes, the last two are intentionally lower-case. Great tomes can and have been written on each of these topics; that’s not what we’re after. Indeed, I think that clarity can come with brevity–so I’m asking that you hold your response to around 1500 words (approximately 3 single spaced pages) allotting therefore about 300 words per topic if you’re going for even distribution. Entries can be reflective, occasional, systematic, apologetic, polemical, whatever–even a catena of quotes from revered authorities past or present (properly notated, of course). Anyone is welcome to play along. The Carnival itself will occur on (I’m being arbitary here…) June 28th. So, if you’re interested in participating, write something up according to these guidelines, post it on your blog, and let me know about it any time before then.