English Reformations

For some months, I’ve been educating myself about Anglicanism. In so doing, I’ve discovered the hard way that Anglican histories are sometimes not the most readable or well written books around. English Reformations is a happy exception to that.

That it’s written by Christopher Haigh, a self-described “kind of Anglican agnostic,� yet was recommended and given to me by a very orthodox professor (Thank you, good doctor!) illustrates its broad appeal among Anglicans. And as this amateur student of history and of historiography read, it soon became clear the book is exceedingly well researched. And the research is very well presented in a lucent and approachable manner. I even devoured the bibliography!

Haigh pointedly chose to use the plural “reformations� in the book’s title. For, as he documents well, the direction of the Church of England went back and forth even under Henry VIII and all the more so under Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth. There was indeed more than one reformation in the Church of England. In reading, I could sense the awkwardness (to say the least) of Britons in every walk of life being caught in the middle of the struggle between Catholics and Protestants. One on the “right� side could all too easily be on the wrong side in a matter of weeks even. And to raise the stakes (Pun intended.), the struggle was often as much political as religious, a frequent theme of Haigh’s.

I can’t emphasize enough how well written English Reformations is. Haigh never writes down to his audience nor waters down his presentation. At the same time, the book is really a fun read. Even details, such as his frequent citing of church warden records, are set forth in a manner that is actually entertaining, often with delightfully dry humor.

If you want to get beyond the basics of the tumult of 16th century Church of England without your patience being tried by dusty and turgid writing, I highly recommend English Reformations.

The battle over Kerry’s military record

I wish I would have posted it at the time, so I would look all the more prophetic now. But when I watched the last night of the Democrat convention, the main purpose of which was to portray John Kerry as a military war hero “reporting for duty,� I thought, “Wow, this is a gamble!� For I knew that Kerry’s record both in the military and as an anti-war activist was hotly disputed behind the scenes.

Well, now we’ll see how that gamble works out. For the dispute has finally gotten too big for the news media to ignore. I freely concede this could play out in Kerry’s favor. There are plenty who would dismiss the attack on Kerry’s truthfulness as dirty campaigning. I do think the attacks are justified and fair game in light of Kerry wrapping himself in his supposed war hero status and in light of, well, the facts. But people aren’t flocking to ask me. And I only have one vote and don’t have a T.V. camera pointed at me most of the time.

Anyway, a number of blogs are following this matter closely. Go over to titusonenine for some salient links to both sides of the battle.

I do have to add one more thing. Move-on, Michael Moore, George Soros and a multitude of other assorted lefties have been vilifying Bush for months, with some even calling him “Bushitler.� So take any indignation from them over the questioning of Kerry’s honesty and record with a boulder of salt.

Ep******l

In Fr. Montgomery’s letter posted Friday, he mentioned that even the name Ep******l had become a burden to his parish. He wrote (And I apologize for actually spelling out the name in his quote.):

On a local level the name “Episcopal� has become an embarrassment and a point of disgusted comment from outsiders. Though our signs include the word “Episcopal,� this designation has been quietly dropped in conversation.

I’ve noticed he’s not alone with this awkwardness with the name. And some parishes have changed their signs. An orthodox *CUSA parish that I sometimes attend replaced its street direction sign with a nice new one that designates itself as a “parish church.� I think the old sign was one of those ubiquitous “The Ep******l Church welcomes you� signs. Similarly, the church name on the front of its bulletin is now, in full, “The Parish Church of St. David of Wales.� And I’ve read of other orthodox churches taking the name out of their name.

That doesn’t speak well of the Ep******l Church that its name has become a byword to be danced around. I feel it necessary to do some explaining myself when I tell people I’m interested in joining a Reformed Ep******l church. I tell them its not that Ep******l Church.

It’s getting to the point where I think the R*C ought to change its name. I mean . . . Reformed Ep******l – does that designate a church or a 12 step program?

A rector’s plea to the Lambeth Commission

I bring your attention to an excellent and moving submission to the Lambeth Commission by Rev. Ian Montgomery, the Rector of St. Thomas Church in Menasha, Wisconsin.

I encourage you to read it for yourselves. I will say this submission is interesting for a number of reasons. Note the cross currents Fr. Montgomery’s parish is experiencing with people leaving and coming and preparing to leave over Episcopal revisionism. It’s a microcosm of much of the ECUSA.

This submission is right on target, particularly in two areas. First, Fr. Montgomery has all the talk of “reconciliation� and “dialogue� nailed:

Why not reconciliation?

For the last twenty years in which I have been involved in dialog on either a local or national level there has been one goal. That goal has been the conversion from a biblical, orthodox and traditional view into a more liberal and revisionist one. Coupled with this we have seen increasingly intolerant and totalitarian rule by bishops who bring all their canonical authority to intimidate and force out clergy and congregations whose only “sin� is to conform to the doctrine and teachings of Scripture and the Anglican Communion at large. Dialog effectively ended on November 2, 2003.

To put it another way, so-called “dialogue� has been merely a tactic the liberals use in consolidating control of the Episcopal church (and other mainline denominations for that matter). That a number of bishops are indeed driving out orthodox clergy without a word of protest from Mr. Dialogue And Reconcilation himself, Presiding Bishop Griswold, speaks volumes about what a sham “dialogue� is in the ECUSA.

Finally, Fr. Montgomery sets forth eloquently what the Lambeth Commission must do – discipline the ECUSA and provide a place for orthodox North American Anglicans out from under the liberals. For . . .

Not to both discipline ECUSA . . . and to give our people a choice as to where to go will be to abandon us.

I would go further and say the Anglican Communion doesn’t deserve to stay together and will probably never receive my allegiance if it doesn’t provide a place for those faithful to traditional orthodox Anglicanism in North America.

Fr. Montgomery, my prayers are with you and with your kind. God bless you.

Missouri Marriage Amendment passes . . . BIG

Last week, I pointed out that the Episcopal Bishop of Missouri opposed the referendum there to amend the state constitution accordingly: "to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Well, this week the amendment passed with over 70% of the vote. So if the bishop is right, then over 70% of the Missouri electorate are haters.

But the reason I bring this election up is not to gloat at the bishop having egg on his mitre, but because the result could have implications far beyond Missouri.

First, some relevant facts. Missouri is not a reliably conservative state by any means. It is a swing state. Further, in this election, there was a high Democrat turnout due to a hotly contested primary for governor. Then there is the money spent. The pro-gay marriage side spent almost $400,000 to defeat this amendment. The pro-amendment side by some estimates spent only about $10,000, relying mainly on a word-of-mouth campaign. You read that right – the pro-amendment forces were outspent by up to 40 to 1.

Yet the amendment passed by well over 2 to 1.

This margin has implications far beyond Missouri, I think. It is likely the U. S. Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage in the next year or two. Now it’s long been said by wags that the Supreme Court watches the election returns. There is a reason for that. Supreme Courts know that that their authority would be weakened if their decisions provoke enough opposition. It’s not that they care about democracy so much. (At times, a majority has shown just the opposite.) It’s that they don’t control the means of enforcement. Elected officials do. The Supreme Court is only as powerful as the willingness of elected officials to enforce their decisions. Public tolerance of their rulings is therefore also an important component of their power.

(Now that willingness and that tolerance and the Court’s will to test it has gone far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. But that’s a whole ‘nother piece.)

So the Court would prefer not to go beyond that willingness and tolerance. One wonders if the result of Roe v. Wade would be different if the Court would have envisioned that ruling still being widely vilified and abortion still very much a contested question over 30 years later.

My point is that the Missouri results indicate that a Supreme Court ruling mandating gay marriage could provoke wide and strong opposition. Now it may be faint hope and I’m not an optimist on this. But crucial Court Justices might think twice before so risking their authority at the altar of gay marriage.

The other possible implication I would like to point out is perhaps even a longer shot, but still . . . . If any governor or president is of a mind to defy a Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide, results such as Missouri’s will strengthen their hand. Given strong popular opposition to gay marriage, a Supreme Court could have difficulty having their ruling enforced in every state, particularly if a President is unwilling to send in the National Guard or use the lever of federal funds against a defiant state. (Marriage is a matter generally handled by the states.) And popular outrage against a ruling could make a governor or even a president more willing to defy that ruling.

Don’t laugh at me too hard. Supreme Court rulings have been defied before. And the arrogance of a majority of the present court may provoke defiance sooner than you think.

Again, these possible scenarios are still unlikely. I still expect the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage and for weak-minded citizens and their cowardly elected officials to fuss a little, but still go along, just like they did with Roe v Wade and other judicial outrages since 1962. Like I said, I’m not an optimist on this.

But the surprising margin of the Missouri results shows that the gay marriage battle might not be as much of a foregone conclusion as some think and as I recently thought. I wouldn’t be shocked if they give even this Supreme Court pause.

relationships

As you can tell from my Monday post, it’s a high priority for me to have healthy and supportive relationships in my next church. I realize more now than in the past that I need closeness and the support of others as I seek to follow God in my life.

In a way, this is my highest priority in seeking a new church. Yes, a new church must be orthodox, but that’s a given. That’s kinda like saying my food must not be poison. Your response might be, “Well, that’s nice. But do you want to eat Mexican or Italian or Seafood tonight?�

And, yes, you can probably tell that good worship is a priority, a much greater priority than in the past. But I’d still say good relationships are still my highest priority.

To review a bit, this priority has changed. Remember that when I was seeking a church back in 1988, it was a very high priority that it had a good singles group, because finding a Christian wife was a very high priority for me. When I sought a church in 1994, I figured I could always go to different singles groups (And I already was at the time.). And I was more of a loner than I am now. So the area of relationships wasn’t much of a priority in picking a church.

Today, it’s front and center. Maybe as I get older I better realize I need others. Heck, I want others in my life more.

Yesterday afternoon, I asked the rector of Small Continuing Anglican Church tough questions about his attitude toward singles. And he answered well and without hesitation. If there is some reason I shouldn’t join SCAG, I sure don’t see it now.

We talked about other weighty matters, both personal and theological. Then, when I thought he probably had enough of me, he challenged me to a chess game, making it clear he would be disappointed if I declined. It was a long complicated game that we called a draw because coming to a clear conclusion would have taken even much longer. We’re now 1-1-1 in our games.

It amazes me that he enjoys spending so much time with one of the congregation on a Sunday afternoon. I would have wanted to crash!

Earlier, communion at the church really moved me. I felt so united with the others. As I watched the others take communion after I did, I felt like I really loved them in a way I hadn’t felt at any church service anywhere before that I can remember.

I guess it’s easier to be that way at a small church.

I’m really glad that it looks like I’m going to join this one.