Diocese of Virginia Sues Individual Parish Members

One of the odious tactics in some of the lawsuits by the Episcopal Church against leaving orthodox parishes is that of suing individual parish members. The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is doing just that.

One day the Episcopal "Church" will meet God’s justice.

UPDATE: Here's the Anglican District of Virginia's response.


Hat tip to Stand Firm.

Oliver Cromwell, A History of Britain and the Re-admission of Jews

I’ve been watching A History of Britain by Simon Schama. An intelligent 12-year-old friend recommended it to me, and I’ve found it very helpful in getting a grasp on the big picture of British history. I’ve also found it fairly balanced, not shying away from both the bright spots and dark sides of Britain’s past. I’ve haven’t noticed much axe-grinding either.

A commendable example of this balance is Schama’s treatment of Oliver Cromwell. He does not in any way excuse and downplay Cromwell’s excesses (And, yes, “excesses” is putting it very mildly.)

Yet, he portrays Cromwell sympathetically, as one who took power reluctantly in large part and sought to serve God, not himself.

And, sitting in a prominent synagogue, he notes that Cromwell re-admitted Jews to England and gave them freedom of worship, both firsts since their expulsion in 1290. It’s touching when he concludes, “It’s Oliver Cromwell we have to thank for opening a new chapter of Anglo-Jewish history – my history.”

It’s hard to find balanced treatments of Oliver Cromwell. In my Bible Church background, I heard nothing but positive words about him -- he’s a hero. In my new Anglican background, he’s a villain.

But until now, I had not heard of his re-admitting Jews and giving freedom to them. For all his faults and serious wrongs, he surely deserves credit for that.

More can be found here.

Mmmm, Latin!

You Latin lovers, today is your blessed day. The Pope has released to 30 bishops the long anticipated motu proprio liberalizing (in the good sense of the word, of course) use of the Tridentine Mass.

The motu proprio will be published on July 7th . . . and appears to already be leaked.

Clarity from Rwanda

The Rwandan House of Bishops issued a remarkable communiqué about Lambeth this week. It is so clear and straightforward, it’s almost un-Anglican.

Along with an earlier statement from the Church of Nigeria, it shows that ++Rowan’s ill-advised decision to invite all the Episcopal Church’s bishops to Lambeth save one while not inviting many orthodox Anglican bishops will have dire consequences for the Anglican Communion (unless he drastically changes the invitation list, which I don’t expect).

Rwanda takes a hard line on its AMiA bishops not being invited:

The manner in which the invitations to the bishops of Rwanda were issued is divisive as some of our bishops were not invited. The bishops that provide oversight to the Anglican Mission (AMiA) are not "Anglican Mission bishops," but rather bishops of the Province of Rwanda given the responsibility to lead Rwanda’s missionary outreach to North America. We are a united body and will not participate in a conference which would divide our number.

This is similar to the Primate of Nigeria’s statement that “The withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops, will be viewed as withholding of invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.”

The Rwandan bishops then take the Archbishop of Canterbury to task in language I can’t recall coming from any province’s official statement before.

The leadership of Canterbury has ignored and constantly taken lightly the resolutions from the primates’ meetings and the statement in the "Road to Lambeth" document prepared for, and accepted by, CAPA which agreed that the crisis of faith in the Anglican Communion needed to be resolved before Lambeth 2008.

And Rwanda is right. ++Rowan at least came close to sabotaging the Panel of Reference even though a Primates Meeting declared it “a matter of urgency.” He pushed a report whitewashing TEC’s defiance of Windsor/Dromantine on the last Primates Meeting. Now he has invited TEC’s bishops in spite of their escalated defiance of the Primates.

Rwanda then says something even I’ve been hesitant to say.

From his actions and decision to invite TEC, a province which is violating holy orders, biblical teaching and the tradition of the church, and his decision not to invite the bishops of AMiA and CANA, the Archbishop of Canterbury has shown that he has now taken sides.

That’s a bold conclusion. And I would not have said that only a few months ago. But in light of how ++Rowan has conducted himself, it now seems to me wishful thinking to conclude anything else. Yes, if ++Rowan had his way, he’d keep everybody on board. But keeping the heretics and apostates on board certainly now seems more important to him than keeping the orthodox. Rwanda is probably right.

Again, this is a remarkable statement to be coming from an Anglican province.

You know where this statement is heading:

Therefore, in view of the above, in good conscience, the bishops of the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda have resolved not to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008 unless the previously stipulated requirement of repentance on the part of the TEC and other like-minded Provinces is met, and invitations are extended to our entire House of Bishops.

-------

Now, I’ve gone back and forth in my mind on whether the best course for the orthodox Global South and allies is (1.) not go to Lambeth in light of ++Rowan’s invitations or (2.) go to Lambeth, pull off a coup, take Lambeth out of ++Rowan’s control and expel the Episcopal Church.

I think 2. might be worth a try but there is a big problem with that. ++Rowan and company can chose to downplay or even ignore Lambeth if the Global South is successful in taking it over. After all, large portions of the communion, especially the two North American provinces, have ignored Lambeth ’98.

And ++Rowan all but ignored Windsor and the Primates in issuing his invitations for Lambeth ’08. And the Episcopal Church is notorious for crying “Polity!” or ignoring polity depending on what suits their aims.

That’s a big problem with Anglican polity. Provinces and even the Archbishop of Canterbury can, in practice, pick and choose what parts of polity to abide by or ignore without consequences. Or at least it seems that way.

It honestly makes me wonder if the Anglican Communion is worth fighting for anymore. And, as one who once hoped to be in the Anglican Communion, I say that with great sadness.

I do hope with many that this is not drawn out any longer. If the Anglican Communion is to be a viable orthodox church, then expel the Episcopal Church, and let’s get on with it. If there is going to be a split, then let’s get on with that and build a new orthodox Anglican body.

Either way, I, like the bishops of Rwanda, have had it with an Archbishop of Canterbury who strings along the orthodox and appears, however obscurely, to have no intention of effectively dealing with apostasy.

Pontifications Closes

This is very sad news. Al Kimel’s thoughtful blog will be missed by a great many.

Three History Books Reviewed

Today, I review three books on my pre-Oxford reading list. Two of them are a disappointment. One turned out even better than expected.

The two disappointments are The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe and of The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. I was expecting these to be excellent. After all they came recommended and are put out by Oxford University Press.

But I had trouble keeping track of the threads and the plots as I read in both books. Eventually, I figured out the fault is not all mine. Both books are poorly organized. I felt like I was trying to decipher an overly complicated but sloppily written soap opera upon watching it for the first time.

In addition, the History of Britain engages in blatant axe-grinding. I’m still shaking my head over it calling Edward VI “the boy bigot.” That opened my eyes to axe-grinding elsewhere in the book. That added a lack of credibility to its lack of organization. So I have left off reading that one.

Conversely, I’m about to finish R. W. Southern’s Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. I will have then gladly read it cover to cover. Don’t let the title (or Southern’s reputation for excellent scholarship for that matter) scare you. It’s a paperback of just over 350 pages, is easy to read, and is very well organized.

Southern makes it easy to follow the big trends of the western medieval church. At the same time, he makes excellent selections of anecdotes and details of history to illustrate his points.

Often, those details are downright entertaining. For example, Southern quotes a letter from Pope Innocent IV in 1244 to illustrate that the Franciscans had a reputation for *ahem* aggressive recruitment methods:

. . . the schoolmaster’s servants had been bribed to dope his drink. Whereupon certain friars induced him to join their Order by pronouncing (he was incapable of further speech) the simple word “Yes” . . . They were about to tonsure him when he came to his senses, seized the scissors, and chased his attackers from the house. . . .

I can’t praise Southern’s book enough. If only all scholarly works were so well written, well organized and, yes, enjoyable even.

I will certainly take this book, thoroughly marked up, with me to Oxford. But I don’t think the Oxford Illustrated Histories will be making the trip.

Children and Communion

Should young baptized but unconfirmed children be admitted to the Lord’s table?

An interesting discussion on this question can be found here.

Yes, I’m one of those throwing in my two cents worth. My experience of young children being admitted at my parish has nudged me firmly into the “Yes” side.