Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Anglican Warfare

In both the US and Canada, Anglicans determined to remain true to the historic Christian faith are coming under attack by their national Churches, and in most un-Christian ways. Here is the latest vindictive action from Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal church in the US.
What did she do? She inhibited 80-year old retired Bishop of Quincy Edward H. MacBurney. She did so after being told that his son was on his deathbed, and despite pleas that she forestall any such action until the crisis in the bishop's family had resolved. And her response? A mere two days before Bishop MacBurney's son died, she deliberately proceeded with her cruel and callous and truly unnecessary act. Today, while undoubtedly still experiencing grief that no parent should ever have to endure, Bishop MacBurney was informed of the inhibition.

Read it here and check the comments as well, some of which try disingenuously to defend the bishop's actions.

Here in Canada we have parishes being dragged into civil courts and surreptitious lock changing on church doors. I needn't expand too much here. Much more information can be found on some of my links below.

But this "scorched earth" policy on behalf of the National churches belies their true hearts, in spite of all their talk of inclusiveness, tolerance and compassion.

Take Care


Canon Tallis said...

Since the unorthodox bishops so much enjoy changing the locks on those buildings bought and paid for as well as used for worship by the orthodox, I am beginning to believe that they should suffer a return in kind. In my native Oklahoma the way in which objectionable people were removed was to visit their houses, soak them in kerosene and set them afire. Those who attempted to leave the houses were shot. I know this thanks to Oklahoma history classes in the seventh and eighth grades taught, of course, by a native American.

I cannot quite recommend going that far but it would seem to me entirely fair to visit said bishops and their toadies and inject in their locks such substances as would cause them to no longer function. Houses, automobiles, offices - the list is almost endless and would make for very frustrating days for those who were the "victims" of these rear guard actions. At the very least it would keep them busy doing something other than annoying the orthodox Christians in their midst.

It won't happen, of course, for the very same reason that the law abiding so frequently obey the laws which disarm them (but not real criminals who don't obey laws anyway) and make them the ready victims of the first deranged killer who wants to killer a number of people before taking his own life or committing suicide by cop. Real Christians don't or won't do these things. At least not yet! But those whose Christianity was always a pretense, a means to power and a way to offend and brutalize others have no reason as the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada and the CEO of the Episcopal Church in the United States have so repeatedly and creatively shown. They can recite the historic creeds in Church but they have given all full reason to know that they do not and have not believed them. But a real bishops as well as a real Christian must do so. And this was recognized by the ancient General Councils as much as they recognized that bishops should not cross diocesean boundries where the bishop was orthodox and Christian. But real Christians will remember that it is St Athanasius who is the calendar but who of us knows the names of the Arian bishops in whose dioceses he functioned to provide relief for Catholic Christians?

Anonymous said...

A reminder of the initial Niagara decision

RE: Synod of the Diocese of Niagara et al. v. Ron Bales et al.

BEFORE: J.A. Ramsay J.

[10] As a rule, where a church organization is formed for the purpose of promoting certain defined doctrines of religion, the church property which it acquires is impressed with a trust to carry out that purpose, and a majority cannot divert the property to inconsistent uses against the protest of a minority however small: see e.g. Anderson v. Gislason (1920), 53 DLR 491 (Man. CA). The defendants have a serious argument that the plaintiffs and the Anglican Church of Canada are diverting the property from the purposes of Anglicanism. It appears from the material filed by the defendants, including an affidavit from the renowned Anglican theologian J.I. Packer, that a substantial majority of the world-wide Anglican communion, including the province of the Southern Cone, is in agreement with the defendants on the relevant questions of doctrine.

Recognizing Anglicanism as an issue is significant and it may force the ACoC to justify its theology in court. Who do they have to debate Dr Packer?

John K said...

Canon tallisI think most of the faithful parishes, bishops and priests most severely targeted by the national churches would be the first to recall Jesus' words,
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." and, "...pray for those who persecute you."

Judgement will come, justice will be done. Your mention of Athanasius was apt. He, (with God) stood alone against the world and its powers for the faith once delivered to the saints. Powers and empires have disappeared; heresies have come and gone; the faith still stands.