A South Florida Anglican thinks

Fast day...

2007-02-01T00:23:00.000-05:00

I had an interesting day today…it was a “normal” fast day for me, except that it was not normal at all…nothing really earth-shattering but still very interesting and reminded me that it’s all about the grace of God.

I hadn’t eaten dinner last night, just had a sandwich instead…not sure why, I usually make sure to have dinner the night before my fast.

I had my usual cup of coffee for breakfast on the way to work…nothing unusual there.

About a few hours before lunchtime, persons around me started snacking; later on, they started ordering lunch. Is it me, or do they do this everyday? I am sure they do but not on this level – someone was actually walking around taking orders.

Psychosomatic or real, I began to feel uncomfortably hungry. I really needed our Lord’s grace if I was going to be faithful to this fast!

The food is here and it smelled really good…think jerk chicken, et al. I had to get away, I thought, so I took a 30-min lunch break. I went to sit in my car to get away, regroup my thoughts, and recoup my strength which was flagging.

So here I go, “thank God I am away from that food, now I can have some quiet time”.

I am convinced that our Lord has a sense of humor…

I decided to continue reading a book I had started, and kept in the car. It’s called “Facing East - A Pilgrim’s Journey into the Mysteries of Orthodoxy” by Frederica Mathewes-Green, a former Episcopalian who, along with her husband, an Episcopal priest, converted to the Orthodox faith.

In the mini-chapter entitled “Beef Stew on Friday”, I came upon these words, quoted from a hymn:

In vain do you rejoice in not eating, O soul!
For you abstain from food,
But from passions you are not purified.
If you persevere in sin, you will perform a useless fast.

Those words drew me up sharp and really got my focus.

My fast is not a test of physical endurance, but a type, a pattern, for spiritual discipline. It is a practice for fasting from sinful passions...to cease doing my work and start doing His.

Bishop Reid (Diocese of Jamaica) speaks about Truro, etc.

2006-12-20T20:44:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it is better to say NOTHING than to say SOMETHING unwise.

That is what came to my mind when I read the Jamaica Observer report of the statement by the Anglican Bishop of Jamaica, Bishop Alfred Reid – a man I know personally and have a lot of respect for.

The first question that came to my mind was “why would it be necessary to say “the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands wishes to state that it is not a party to…”? Why would the Diocese of Jamaica be a party to the action of two churches in Virginia? There is no companion Diocese relationship, nor is there an overwhelming presence of Jamaicans involved. This must be pure hyperbole.

The real ‘kicker’ though, is the statement saying the Diocese of Jamaica does not support the action taken by these two churches and then goes on to excoriate Archbishop Akinola for “seeking to create schism”. With all respect, this is probably the most outrageous statement I have ever heard Bishop Reid make.

I ‘don’t recall whether he made a same or similar statement when the AMiA was formed under the authority of the Archbishops of South East Asia and Rwanda.

Bishop Reid says “Archbishop Akinola knows full well that the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Communion has been at pains to seek to deal in a holistic and timely manner with the issues raised ever since Robinson's ordination."

Bishop Reid “knows full well” (or certainly ought to know) that the real issue is not homosexual behavior – the issue is the authority of Scripture. It can be debated whether homosexuality is condemned in Scripture (I happen to think it is) but the issue is the opponents of this kind of behavior are not just opposed to it per se, but also because their reading of Scripture (not to mention the reading of the vast majority of the church for 2,000 years) makes it sin.

Bishop Reid “knows full well” that the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Communion has been at pains to…” to keep the ‘conversation’ going. That is what Anglicans do; it is a purple-colored talkshop. The only problem with that is ‘while the grass is growing, the horse is starving’.

Bishop Reid also “knows full well” that there is no middle ground. He has already stated, “the Church in the Province of the West Indies took a clear position…that homosexual behavior is contrary to Scripture and therefore is inappropriate as a lifestyle to those who aspire to leadership in the Church." What would Bishop Reid’s response be if he were caught in the situation that the orthodox find themselves in?

I commend Bishop Reid for reiterating the Jamaican Church’s position on the homosexuality issue but to accuse Archbishop Akinola of “seeking to create a schism” is ridiculous.

The fact is, by the church’s historical standards, the Episcopal Church of the U.S. (now TEC) is apostate, or at best, schismatic. Would Bishop Reid disagree? How can it be schismatic to leave a schismatic group and seek to align with the existing 2,000-year-old church teaching? In Anglican ecclesiology, a church needs a bishop – is Bishop Reid willing to have these churches leave Anglicanism? Has Bishop Reid thought through the impact of one of TEC’s orthodox bishops taking these congregations under their care?

Additionally, it would be interesting to hear his comments on TEC’s new Presiding Bishop. His “commissary” for Southeastern US seems to think she is an exemplary leader – he has the following quotation on his church signpost: “Women are Leaders, Like Bishop Schori”.
Really?

A leader

2006-11-24T14:23:00.000-05:00

Just went out for a spin in my neighborhood and almost ran into a lightpost. Here’s why:

And they really believe it!

“Ye see the distress that (they) are in” (Neh 2:17a KJV)

And this from a (supposedly) orthodox Caribbean priest who voted against the Gene Robinson consecration! This priest is also one of the Bishop of Jamaica’s “Commissaries”.

Does he really understand this lady's theology? Maybe Bishop Reid (Jamaica) or Archbishop Gomez might want to have a little chat with him.

Not sure if I would be happy if my wife was a leader “like Bishop(?) Schori”. Incidentally, that’s the church she (my wife) used to attend before I met her. She actually left the Episcopal Church and I brought her back. Thank God we left and are safely ensconced in the AMiA.

2006-11-23T14:48:00.000-05:00

Whom do we say that we, the (Anglican) children of God, are?

Anglican Identities

If we are truly not just a Christian sect but rather a part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” there must be something that distinguishes us.

There seems to be a trend in “United States Christianity”, where wittingly or unwittingly we think/assume/behave-as-if Christianity started with us and our ‘forebears’ and we should all express our Christianity similarly and to get rid of that horrible “d-word” – denomination.

We are fast losing our ‘Anglican identities’, those things which distinguish us from others. These things are not necessarily BETTER things, just DIFFERENT things – based on our understanding of God we express ourselves in a particular way.

We need to teach again the catechism and the 39 Articles of Religion. We have been entrusted with a KERNEL that we must GUARD and PASS ALONG to the next generation – an Anglican-flavored KERNEL. This kernel is obviously not at odds with the KERYGMA, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but is a particular expression of it which affirms what He did for us and our way of expressing the new life we have in Him.

We must not make the mistake of Mrs. Jefferts Schori, who implies that Anglicans are more educated and thus only use their share of the earth resources.

All through the book of the Acts of the Apostles there were “Christian Identities”:

Worshipping on the 1st day (8th day) of the week instead of the 7th day, the Sabbath.
Celebration the Last Supper – Eucharist
Declaring that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore God.
Evangelization – the Great Commission

These things were distinctly Christian, although the members were originally Jewish.

If we are truly a part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” we need to bear in mind that Christianity didn’t start in 1776 or thereabouts. We are Christians first, Americans second and we have an eternal and worldwide perspective. We are a part of a “continuum”, begun at Pentecost and continuing until our Lord returns. We are a link in that chain. We are not playing a game of “Chinese telephone” but must faithfully transmit the message, the KERYGMA to the next generation – that is our charge before God.

Our Lord in His mercy, allows us to transmit that message despite our imperfections and variations and confusions, so long as the essential message, the Apostles Doctrine, gets through – Jhn 14:6

So we choose the Anglican way of expressing Jesus. Well let us express Him in the Anglican way – the grass is always greener on the other side and we might well end up there, but while we are Anglicans let us express Jesus the Anglican way.

By the ‘Anglican way’ I don’t mean high church/low church. We can agree to disagree on that. – as a ‘high church’ person I am ‘partial’ to “smell and bells” but my home church is low church. I don’t tolerate it; I embrace it, even while still longing for an expression of Christ that appeals to my senses more. (Not more to my senses, but to my senses more)

This is not about ‘standard deviations from the mean’. Our Lord, the Mean of means, comes as Spirit to help us on our journey to the Mean, which is Himself.

This is about preaching what we believe.

We believe in the catholic church – because we believe that in death life is changed, not ended and when our mortal body lies in death, there is a place prepared for us. So we believe in the “church triumphant” – those saints who are gone before us, and the “church militant”, those of us who remain. We are all alive in Christ Jesus who, as the “firstfruit”, was resurrected as we shall be also (1 Cor 15:20, 1 Jhn 3:2).

So we recognize, respect and remember the ‘saints’ of the church, especially those who expressed Jesus as we do, people like Augustine, 1st Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, Cranmer. There are people like John of Damascus, Clement of Alexander, Ambrose, Nicholas of Myra (Santa Claus?), all with feast days during this 1st week of December.

Also people like Athnansius (who was one of the fathers who helped articulate the idea of the Trinity and wrote a creed we recite sometimes). There are also later people like Aquinas and Luther and Calvin and Tikhon and Vladimir.

We believe that God, the creator of all things seen and unseen (Nicene Creed) created time. So we say “all time belongs to Him” at the Easter Vigil (BCP CPWI 254). The ‘secular’ calendar begins with January 1, the Christian calendar begins the 1st Sunday of Advent (in 2006 it is Dec 3) – we are counter-culture and we need to know that and not be ashamed of it. Our lives are in God and revolve around the things of God so our time-perspective emanates from God. This fact should color everything we do and we need to celebrate that.

Let us not be fish nor fowl.

Be honest Guys

2006-08-30T13:04:00.000-05:00

American Anglicanism is fast becoming a religion of hate, at least, in some spheres.

Seriously, do we really think liberals (so-called) can share space with conservatives (so-called)? There just seems to be so many intractable positions – the fact is, there is no Diverse Center in anything, anywhere. That is just theosophical gobbledygook dreamed up by someone who is trying to appear to be a deep thinker (mystic?) or is trying to ‘have his cake and eat it too’.

By definition, a center cannot be diverse. That which is diverse is NOT a center. There can be diverse opinions about a center, but the center itself cannot be diverse – the ‘philoso-speak’ is just sickening. So is the intellectual dishonesty.

The Council of Nicaea was called in 325 because there were diverse opinions about the Center. They came up with a statement affirming the Center and anathematizing opinions contrary to this statement. Christianity – East and West; Orthodox, Roman and Post-Reformation – all affirm the Nicene Creed. Granted, it took two or three generations to solidify the creed as a Christological ‘no-brainer’, but it was still the gold standard. In modern Christianity, to think otherwise would be considered heresy – that Center held and the gates of Hell cannot stand against it.

It is simply a truism that when ‘things fall apart’, it is because the ‘center (did) not hold’. The center, by definition, is that which holds all things together. Christianity’s center is Jesus Christ. The Nicene Creed settled the question of who He is.

Everything else is subsidiary. If we cannot agree to disagree with each other in the American Anglican Scenario, because we think the other groups’ positions are perilous/heresy/error etc., then perhaps the time has come to separate – it is only a fool who thinks that unity is more important than heresy or schism because heresy and/or schism defeats unity every time – that’s another no-brainer!

If not then:
· What of discipline?
· What of the “anathemas” coming out of the Nicene Creed? Or did we forget them?
· What does a Bishop’s ordination vow to “…guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (pg 518, BCP ) mean? Does that mean he should forgo “guarding the faith” because of unity? Clearly that is absurd.

In the American Anglican Scenario, the only unity that liberals and conservatives can ever have is in trusting, in faith, that Jesus will make all things right in His time. Using that as a basis, the most we can do is to be gracious to each other.

If it means recognizing, or not recognizing someone’s ministry as legitimate, then so be it. This of course does not mean that ‘discussions’ and ‘conversations’ (whatever that means) should cease. Nor does it mean that theological debates should cease.

If we are being honest, though, we have to admit that the ordination of women, and persons with same-sex attractions have done the proverbial ‘end-run’ around these issues as now they are really moot unless the proponents are willing to draw back from the edge, so to speak, and defrock those who ordained persons. I’m not saying they should defrock them, but they must be willing to do so. There has been not even a hint of a hint of a suggestion that they would be willing to do that; in fact, many proponents see this as a ‘civil rights’ issue!

Consider this hypothetical example:

My wife and I have a disagreement over whether our daughter should pierce her navel. She says no, I say yes. If our daughter goes ahead, with my blessing, and does the piercing, what’s the point of further discussion on that issue?

The deed is done! The consequences, however, will most certainly include ‘tension’ (euphemism) between my wife and I. Was my giving our daughter permission (In spite of my wife’s opposition to it) really worth it.

If I consider it a ‘civil rights’ issue, it was. If I consider it a ‘family issue’ it most certainly wasn’t.

The act cannot be undone. My wife just has to “lump it”, but don’t I also, and our daughter, and the other members of the family, also have to live with the consequences of my decision? What message does it send to everybody else?

What about the spirit of:
· “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall” (Rom 14:21 KJV) or
· “9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (! Cor 8:9-13 KJV).

Is that really sacrificial living?

I’m not here deliberately targeting the proponents, who will no doubt give a litany of injustices initiated, or supported, or ignored by the church. The fact is, they are the doers of the deeds which can’t be undone. The conservatives have their own issues but that is not the issue here.

The question is “why couldn’t you wait?” If you reply “how long should we wait”, I would respectfully say that, that is really immaterial, unless you consider your position to be the ‘master key’ in God’s plan. Read the Old Testament – how long did they wait for Messiah (some still waiting)?

What really is the purpose of ‘conversation’ now? If you were on the other side of the issue, would you not question the sincerity of those who acted, then wanted to talk about it?

Be honest, please.

As American as...well...as apple pie!

2006-06-23T00:04:00.000-05:00

I don't want to sound glib…but I have to say…the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA), now called simply “The Episcopal Church” (TEC) is a train wreck.

You don’t have to be a genius, or a scholar, or a leader or a clergyperson to see that. A cursory look at the goings-on at the recent General Convention in Ohio says it all. I don’t want to go into all the details but think of it:

Your Anglican Family, whom you say you want to be with, says you must apologize for something you did, as a precursor for “congenial family relations" and you just can't bring yourself to - one group refuses outright and the other brings pressure to bear to get the first group to be a hypocrite like they are.
The vote on Wednesday for B033 reversed the choice of the House of Deputies on Tuesday to reject the Windsor report. Bishop Jack Iker - "I think that the House of Deputies is schizophrenic. I'm not sure how you can be of two different minds on two different days."
Your family has problems with a controversial action you did. You go ahead and do another - A female Presiding Bishop is a “nice to have” not a “must have”. Where is the sacrificial living (if meat offends my brother, etc.). The issue of right or wrong hasn’t even been considered yet.
The new PB (PB-elect) goes off and starts talking about "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children." Again, let’s get stupidly crazy and suppose she is correct and the Anglican Family is just dim-witted to not realize that fact. Is that the way to begin one’s ministry?...by adding fuel to fire?
The GC supports a woman’s right to choose and refuses to break ties with the group “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.”. Again, let’s be stupid and say they are right. Why would you frame your response as: "First they came for the homosexuals, and then they came to erode the rights of women." - The Rev. Canon Elizabeth Keaton of the Diocese of Newark.
GC considered but couldn’t bring themselves to pass a resolution affirming that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Then listen to this reasoning by . The Rev. Canon Eugene McDowell of the Diocese of North Carolina, Canon Theologian for the Diocese of North Carolina – “ ‘This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed,’ he was quoted as saying. ‘It was called the Holocaust.’”

The final tally on the electronic vote was 70.5 percent for discharge (675 votes) and just 29.5 (242 votes) to consider the resolution affirming Jesus Christ as Lord.

These are only a few issues.

I think Bishop Robert Duncan, speaking specifically about the election of the new PB, said it correctly: “the American Church...(is) saying we can do what we believe we ought to do, no matter the consequences."

IT’S THE AMERICAN WAY.

I just don’t get this “American Way”.

W.W.J.D..?

...Or is that now too old school...too passé?

Canon Ernle Gordon

2006-05-21T21:49:00.000-05:00

Saw this interesting article dated October 2003 in the Anglican Journal, a publication of the Anglican Church in Canada. Canon Ernle Gordon, who in the 1970's used to be called the "red priest", speaks about violence and the church in Jamaica.

The Diocese of Jamaica still has to deal with the tension of "a church which is a potted plant implanted in Jamaica from a foreign soil" on the one hand, and its more indigenous pull, especially that generated by the fundamental socio-political changes in the late 60's/70's, on the other hand.

This cultural change, apparent during the 70's when the theme from the political/financial fallout (PNP Socialism/IMF-no way) was "self-reliance" made it "OK to be black" with variations in music, poetry etc around the "Back to Africa" theme.

Canon Ernle, perhaps ahead of his time, was thought to be associated with the socialist theme of the government by some people, thus the nickname "red priest".

Canon Gordon says "we have to rewrite the liturgy, use old words to new beats. We have to use a liturgy the people understand.Â

Will the Liturgists please stand!

Haitian bishop to be guest of Jamaican Diocese

2006-04-14T22:36:00.000-05:00

Here is some news from the Diocese of Jamaica from the Jamaica Gleaner.

The Haitian bishop, Rt. Rev. Jean Zache Duracin will be guest preacher at the Jamaica church's Synod April 18 - 21, 2006. The Synod will commence with the Opening Service on the evening of Tuesday,April 18, 2006 (Tuesday in Easter Week) in the St James Parish Church, Montego Bay, at 4.30pm and will continue until the conclusion of Business on Friday, April 21, 2006.

The Diocese of Haiti is a part of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) however at ECUSA's General Convention 2003 Bp. Duracin voted YES to uphold the "Historic Anglican Doctrines and Policies" and voted AGAINST the confirmation of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

In 2000, he voted AGAINST "Recognising and affirming fidelity" in relationships outside of marriage AS WELL AS adding the "Blessing of Same-Gender Unions" to the Book of Occasional Services.

It would be interesting to hear his take on the current goings on in the Anglican Communion. On the one hand he is a part of ECUSA and on the other he is (according to his voting record) conservative.

I wonder how much dialogue he has with the other ECUSA bishops (and which ones). Of course he has his hands full with the happennings in his own country and that might be a good way to ignore the elephant in the room.

Diocese of Jamaica gets first female (Rural) Dean

2006-04-14T21:12:00.000-05:00

Just saw this story in the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper about Dr. Sutton, a priest in the Diocese of Jamaica. I still know (even by name) many of the clergy in Jamaica, but I had never heard of her. Turns out she was actually a Jamaican-Canadian who returned home to serve the church.

Obviously nothing wrong with that. Her statement on women in the church, though, sent up a yellow flag, here's a quote from that same article:

"However, the constitution of the Anglican Church in the province of the West Indies forbids all females, including Dr. Sutton, from ascending higher than the post of Archdeacon. A theological stance Dr. Sutton, 55, thinks is skewed. "Theologically, no. I don't see it." She explained: "They say theologically that none of the disciples were female. That is some argument that is put out, overlooking the fact that Mary was the person who was given the charge to take the message that Jesus was resurrected from the dead."

Couldn't understand how a PhD could make a thin statement like that then I noticed her doctorate was in Education. She has a master's degree in Divinity from Newman Theological College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Canada and was ordained in the Canadian Anglucan Church in 2002.

Interesting...a graduate from a RC seminary who thinks the "theological stance" of not allowing women to be bishops is "skewed".

I am happy that Dr. Sutton, with her background in education, will no doubt add to the rich tradition of educators in the diocese and she can help to give direction to the Diocese of Jamaica's Anglican Teacher Education Fund and the thrust to "...enable (them) in (their) quest to be a part of the solution in re-establishing the right values,morals and attitudes in schools..." and I am sure her efforts to re-vitalize her Deanery will be successful.

Most of all, I am happy that the constitutions of the CPWI (Church in the Province of the West Indies) does not allow her to be a bishop.

We moved to Africa - Spiritually

2006-02-18T13:53:00.000-05:00

Abp. Kolini flanked by John (Snr. Warden) on the left and I on the right

A lot has happened since I was here last…

I left the Episcopal Church...or rather they left me. Our Lord has been merciful to me and by a confluence of events I had to leave. The physical ‘me’ was already gone but now all of me has left.

Here's how that happened...

My former local church had their Annual Meeting on January 22, 2006. I had harbored a desire to go there and get elected to the vestry (which would not be difficult for me) to continue to add my little bit to the pot, so to speak – the priest-in-charge had forbidden visitors (meaning me) to speak at vestry meetings, not even to ask a question, literally! (footnote – I had never been hostile to the priest, on the contrary I was previously a supporter. We had a different perspective on the way to grow the church. I am people-based, he, program-based but he was still my spiritual father).

Anyway, God had other plans for me

About summer-fall 2005 I finally found the “African-church” I had been looking for – entirely by accident (that’s how I found my previous local church). That church was The Anglican Church of the Word, (an Anglican church with the word WORD in its name – WOW!) They, (I am now proud to say We) are a part of the A.M.I.A. and are members of the Province of Rwanda under Abp Kolini.

Like Joshua I spied out the land and then told my wife and family – we are moving our spiritual house to Africa. We are Jamaican (black) so this has a special significance to me…more on this some other time.

ACOW, as we affectionately call The Anglican Church of the Word has about 140 or so members – yes I am a minority, so what!

As if finding a new local church wasn’t enough, I was elected to Vestry2006. As if that wasn’t enough, I was elected Junior Warden. Who says GOD doesn’t have a sense of humor. That was the nail in the coffin – let the dead bury the dead. I still have friends at my former church whom I love very much and worry about their welfare but they know what the deal is (I am very transparent) - I had to let go and GO.

There is a “me-shaped vacuum” at ACOW which I have to be faithful to. It’s that simple.

more on Biblical Interpretation

2005-09-20T12:16:00.000-05:00

Been away for a spell, forgive me.....

I'm still on the theme of ‘what does the Bible mean?’ and I have been doing a survey of early Christianity – Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

Here is my model for inquiry:

Christianity has a single source – Jesus Christ

The Gospel or ‘kerygma’ was formally entrusted to twelve men – The Great Commission – who were ordered to wait for the Holy Spirit because they “would receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on (them), and then (they) will be (Jesus’) witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and Samaria, and indeed to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:8 Jerusalem Bible (JB).

This was the same Holy Spirit who would “…show the world how wrong it was about sin and about who was in the right and about judgment…” John 16:8 JB. Also He would “…lead (them) to the complete truth, since He will not be speaking as from Himself but will say only what He has learned…He will glorify (Jesus), since all He tells (them) will be taken from what is (Jesus’).” John 16:13-14 JB.

The Holy Spirit is the transmitter and verifier of this Gospel but not only the Gospel but the ‘complete truth’.

In summary – Jesus is The Truth. This truth is transmitted to the twelve by the Holy Spirit who not only transmits, but becomes the ‘canon’ for truth.

Jesus on the last day of the Great Feast (Tabernacle) said “If any man is thirsty, let Him come to me! Let the man come and drink…As the scripture says: From his breast shall flow fountains of living water.” John 6:37b-8. An inspired John, editorializing, explains that “He (Jesus) was speaking of the Spirit which those who believed in Him were to receive…John 6:39a JB.

The Holy Spirit is that fountain which becomes a river, the “eternal continuum” in which the whole church swims – Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox. The Holy Spirit becomes all-permeating, in the true sense of the word…like the oxygen the body breathes in, which dissolves in the blood and is carried in the bloodstream to the organs to give the energy that maintains life.

Different parts of the body have different perspectives on the whole and indeed, on life. The test of the church then, becomes how to deal with these different perspectives while continuing to be one body. Recall Jesus’ words in John 17:21a JB ”…May they all be one…” JB. Jesus prefaces this with “…I passed Your word on to them…” v 14a and “…Consecrate them in the truth; your word is truth. v17 JB.

This is where it becomes murky…How do we find out God’s word?

more anon….

A bit more about me

2005-07-23T18:35:00.000-05:00

I was actually baptised in the RC Church then left church althogether. Later (in high school) I made a committment to Jesus and was a part of the charismatic movement in Jamaica. Got turned off by some of the 'excesses' and lack of real 'substance' (read 'intellectual discussion').

Later I joined an Anglican Church, a 'high-church' with its 'bells & smells'. My rector did post-grad work at Notre Dame and instilled in me a love/appreciation of liturgy. He then went off to become Anglican Dean/Lecturer in Liturgics at the Seminary.

My new rector, a former member of my congregation also went to Notre Dame and studied Liturgics.

We were close and he encouraged my appreciation for Liturgics. He would always loan me his copies of Modern Liturgy (now Ministry & Liturgy). Later on he left Jamaica and became a Franciscan Monk, based in New York/Long Island. He later on "had enough" (my words) of the 'situation' at the friary and went to Jamaica to run the Retreat Center. When the Jamaican Synod of the CPWI (Church in the Province of the West Indies) agreed to admit women into the priesthood he became a Roman Catholic.

My mom (whom I adore) is a fervent Roman Catholic (even went to Trinidad, I think it was, to see PJP 2 when he visited there).

Much as I try to ignore it, I sometimes feel like there is an elephant in my room - the Roman Catholic Church.

Are Anglicans The Church

2005-07-15T16:10:00.000-05:00

All this furor in the Anglican Communion has me thinking.

What furor you say...Where have you been? Living in a cave somewhere...not such a bad idea if they were the catacombs...

Anyway, the "Anglo-" part of the Anglican communion, led by the Anglican churchs in the USA (ECUSA) and Canada have been pushing a liberal theology that, to use a euphemism, challanges the traditional interpretation and practice of the church worldwide (Christianity). The current 'tip of the sword' is the acceptance of same-sex practice.

The Third-World Anglicans are livid - this includes the Anglican churches in places like the continent of Africa, The West indies, South East Asia, South America, India and Pakistan. In the main, these places hold to the traditional orthodox understanding of Scripture and Christianity (like the roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Evangelical churches).

The irony is that church growth in the places where this liberal view is espoused is low or non-existent while significant growth is being experienced in some places where the traditional understandings of the church are upheld.

The issue at the fundamental level in this controversy is the interpretation of scripture.

Liberal Bishops like Charles Bennison in Philadelphia, according to reports, say "the church wrote the Bible and so the can re-write it" and this seems like precisely what the liberal churches are doing. I am not sure its a case of Malfesance but rather Misfesance as these persons seem, at least initially, well-intentioned.

Of cource the way to hell is paved with good intentions as my mother used to tell me, though in another context.

I have been reading blogs like Pontifications by the (former Episcopalian priest now turned Roman Catholic) Fr. Al Kimmel and a couple of things become interesting, even to my theologically-untrained mind:

Kimmel et al brings up some interesting ideas:

The Bible cannot be self-validating. This appears to fly in the face of the reformation cry of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone).
If not Sola Scripture then what? It is the Church who validated the Scriptures - for example the compilation of the canon of Scripture (choosing the books of the Bible).
It is the church who interprets scripture. WOW, this is a biggie and begs the question "WHO IS THE CHURCH"?
What authority does the Episcopal Church (ECUSA), which is a small part of the Anglican Church, which in turn is a small part of the church worldwide (did somebody say "catholic") have in "re-writing" (re-interpreting) Scripture to say that same-sex relations are OK?
Could the Reformation have been an error?
Who/Where is "The Church" which has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Interesting...and deep stuff.

Vestry Meeting

2005-07-15T15:16:00.000-05:00

Visited the vestry meeting yesterday ("visited" cuz I am not a vestry member). Fr. Ricot is on one-month's leave this month so he was not there, the meeting chaired was by the Senior Warden.

It became clearer to me that the real problem of leadership (or lack of it) is a fundamental difference in understanding what leadership is. I have always noted that when I started criticizing the 'leadership' I got fairly violent objections from Fr. Ricot and Gerri ( the Snr. Warden) and measured objections from Euci (Jnr. Warden).

Leadership for them, or so it seems, judging from their objections, is centered around the setting of objectives/visions (it is debatable that this has even been done) and expecting persons to jump and be a part of it - a sort of "build it and they will come" mentality. In my previous post I called this "program-centered" leadership.

For me, leadership always starts with persons. If you articulate the vision and get the troops revved up there is no stopping you. I believe that what we at the COR has to offer, generally speaking, is no different than what other churches have to offer - we are all the 'body of Christ'. Why then should loyalty be to us and not to some other part of the body.

I go even further!

We are but one voice among many trying to get persons' attention. We are an "Idea" in the marketplace of ideas. On the the face of it nothing sets us apart and that is why we have to be active/aggressive not passive/docile. We think that Jesus Christ is the Way so we have to actively "sell" our product, to use the marketplace terminology. Our product is Life, Abundant Life...not just abundant interms of length but also in terms of depth and breadth howsoever understood!

This kind of leadership is hardwork so most would rather not contend with it...but that is the work of GOD. Programs fail for lack of personnel. Church coffers are empty because there is no growth in members. There is no grwoth in members because there is no rallying cry. There is no rallying cry because there is no...vision (or it is hidden).

Our leadership thinks it is enough to call persons to book about their committment to church and its activities. In a very real sense, my involvement is my business (leave me to God). Leadership's business is encouraging me to be involved, not telling me that I am not involved..I know that already! Their 'obligation' is not discharged because I won't live up to my obligation.

The prophet Ezekiel (chap 33) reminds us that if the watchman sees the enemy coming and does not blow the horn the people's blood is on his shoulders but if he does and the people will not hear, their blood is on their own shoulders.

A defense for not blowing the trumpet cannot be the subsequent non-action by the people.

And now.....

2005-07-12T17:20:00.000-05:00

I have been very upset by a couple of things:

The direction that my local church (Church of the Resurrection) is going in, in terms of church management/leadership etc.
Direction that the Episcopal Church is going, as formalised at General Convention 2003.

The recent history of the Church of the Resurrection (COR) can only be described as dsyfunctional.

The church was started in the late 1940's and was a growing church. Members of the church even had a hand in starting and fostering new congregations. Sometime about 10 years ago there was a split. The then Rector (with 'charismatic' leanings) left, protesting the liberal drift (including homosexual acceptance) of the national church. The majority of the church also left with him and together they formed another church (of the same name) which joined The International Communion of The Charismatic Episcopalian Church. Their rector is now a canon in that communion which is not in communion with the Archbishop of Canturbury.

After the split, the then Diocesan, Bishop Scholefield, sent another priest to "pick up the pieces". That priest was a strong leader who had been a senior priest in the diocese for sometime. He managed to halt the slide, so to speak, in terms of members and mission and actually experienced some amount of growth.

When he left, persons who had hitherto been in 'submission' began to 'exert' themselves and the six-month vacuum presented them with great opportunity to lead where they wanted.

With the coming of a new priest ( in fact a freshly-minted Deacon), some persons were not prepared to submit to a new "wet-behind-the-ears" pastor, especially a haitian one!

It was not "open warfare' by any means but close to that!

Here was an inexperienced not-yet-a-priest, well-meaning pastor trying to keep strong personalities (some of whom 'felt-their-oats') in check and working together. Despite conflict resolution, the inevitable fallout, in terms of membership and money occurred

The church now has what can only be called a "shoe string" budget with the leadership scrambling to shore up the coffers to pay current expenses.

And that is where the real rub is!

Some persons, like myself, see that as the fundamantal problem. The whole raison 'etre,
the mission of the church, articulated in the mission statement, has become irrelevant as everybody is watching the checkbook.

I feel the COR no longer exists to actively participate in the community to demonstrate Christ's concern, committment and love. Of course I realise that in order to participate in the community we have to be around, to exist, but the church belongs to Christ and we have to first and foremost serve Him.

The leadership's response is to rent space to other religious groups.

Its seems that the leadership team has gone away from member-centered nurturing to program-centered growth. The problem with that is the 80/20 rule (20% of the people do 80% of the work). In our case 20% of 75 is only about 14 persons who are already weary from carrying the brunt of implementing new programs that they mightn't even be interested in because nobody sought to "sell it" to them.

The Leadership seems to believe their job is to make plans and the members' job is to 'beat down the door' to volunteer to implement these plans.

Absent is the rallying cry of the Gospel
Absent is the articulation of the vision

Truly, without a vision the people perish!

It is hard to turn around a supertanker...more anon

That's some of the beef with the local church (COR). Haven't even begun to talk about the diocese and the National Church.

Historical "catchup"

2005-07-02T12:53:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my blog...

I will present a historical background so readers will at least have an idea of 'where I am coming from'. The following post is at least three (3) years old and I will use it as an initial starting point. Please note this is historical and was written in the present tense. Some of the facts have changed so I will be updating as I go along.

Maybe later I will go back even further and tell you about my life in Jamaica (yes I am a transplanted Jamaican), see my profile.

I am a member of the Church of the Resurrection, Biscayne Park, Florida. Biscayne Park is less than 10 minutes north of the city of Miami's north eastern boundary, (so I am in Southeastern Florida).We are a fairly small church with a big history. We were founded in the late 1940's and had a strong witness in the community. In the late 1990's there was a split in the congregation as the then rector and a majority of the members left to form a "charismatic" church. Our present rector was not "called" by the congregation but was "sent" by the Bishop to, as it were, pick up the pieces.Since that time we have been making progress and new members have been added (that includes me - I got lost on my way to K-mart and found the church about 18 months ago!)We are truly a multi-ethnic church community with a large contingent of West Indians - Bahamians, Guyanese, Jamaicans, Trinidadians etc - Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Caucasians of all flavors (including an Englishman and an Australian!) and Central Americans - Belizeans, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans. Interestingly, we have no Cubans (yet).We are all responding to our Bishop's charge to be missionaries in our community. To that end we are in the process of concretizing our VISION of ourselves with a view to ascertaining our specific MISSION and EXECUTING same. All of this in the context of our LORD's command to "...GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES..." (Matt 28:19)

Since the above was written we have:

Changed priests: Fr. Michael Gray left to be rector of a church in Culpepper, Virginia and Fr. Jean Ricot Gay, a tri-lingual Haitian has become our Priest-in-Charge. He came to us after a truncated search process - begun by our then Suffragan Bishop said and 'aborted' by our Diocesan Bishop Leo Frade. This 'aborted' process and the fact that Fr. Ricot (as he prefers to be called) is Haitian caused some wrinkles and departures - more anon.
Membership has fallen as the 'leavers' were not off-set by 'new-comers'.
Another reason for the reduced membership is the position of the national church (and Diocesan Church) on the current sexuality debate and decisions taken at general Convention 2003. Our Diocesan Bishop was one of the majority of bishops who voted to confirm a practising homosexual priest as a bishop.
Yet a third reason for the decline in membership is death, among them was our beloved Austrailian member.
We have no English - left with his family after a disagreement. He lives next door and has no problem using his blower (he does landscapes) on a sunday morning when we have Eucharist.
We lost a Bahamian to death, another really greatly loved lady
We have no Puerto Ricans - they left with the former priest