Good stuff to read (or watch/listen) here and here on +Justin Welby to be ++Justin Welby, Rockstar and Leader of Canterbury - ++Rowan has been the Rockstar and Theologian of Canterbury. I suggest what ++Justin will bring to the role is "leadership."
I am excited about this appointment. It demonstrates wisdom on the part of the CNC as well as a determination to find the right person for the role, no matter what their perceived episcopal experience is or isn't. It happens, as a matter of my own personal biography, that I once met Justin while he was an ordinand at Cranmer Hall. Even then it was clear that Justin was 'bishop material'.
I want to be realistic about this appointment and not invest unreasonable hopes and expectations on +Justin, especially not in relation to the Anglican Communion.
AND courtesy of a commenter here, thank you, this is worth a look.
28 comments:
He may not have much episcopal experience, but he has more parish experience than the last four ABCs combined. I find that very refreshing!
I'm surprised at you excitement for this guy, given that one of his first pledges is to find a way to ignore Biblical teaching on marriage.
Not impressed, and I expect little from his tenure.
A shame.
On a positive note the future of the Church will not be formed by politically correct "leaders" and their war against the Word of God, it will be formed by the thousands of solid, Biblically obedient local evangelical churches that are getting on with the real mission of God in the power of the Spirit.
On that note I am looking forward with excitement to being at St Christophers for the next two years.
My next comment will be from Christchurch!
It must be the year of the 'dark horse' episcopal candidate named Justin!
Here are 10 'lesser known' things about him, courtesy of the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20251972
Tim: Nice observation!
Shawn: Welcome (back) to Christchurch!
Re being excited by +Justin: I would prefer someone starting from his starting point engaging with challenging questions than someone starting from (say) a liberal catholic or post-Christian or similar point.
"He may not have much episcopal experience, but he has more parish experience than the last four ABCs combined."
Not so. Carey was a vicar for seven years in Durham. Runcie and Coggin had 'parish experience' as well. Don't know if he's much of a 'deep thinker'. Williams is - and completely failed to communicate to the British public. One of the reasons he was such a bad choice for such a public role.
Durham's finances are in a terrible state, and were not helped by the perpetual absences of Tom Wright jetting around the world to give lectures. Maybe Welby will actualy do the job of Archbishop of Canterbury, instead of farming it off to surrogates, as Williams did, so he could concentrate on his books and lectures. Welby surely knows the aging and broke C of E is going off a cliff; can he turn it around in time?
"Re being excited by +Justin: I would prefer someone starting from his starting point engaging with challenging questions than someone starting from (say) a liberal catholic or post-Christian or similar point." - Dr. Peter Carrell
Well, Peter, there's no accounting for taste (about your preference for an Evangelical over a 'liberal catholic', that is - and, after all, you have met the guy! That must mean something!! Incidentally, I am pleased with +Justin's election. He gave a good speech to the TEC House of Bishops recently.
I'm afraid Shawn is going to be even further disappointed when he hears that one of David Virtue's friends, journalist Sarah Hey, has listed +Justin as a Left-wing "Bank-Basher'. Ms Hey seems to be out of step with the majority of Americans who have just re-elected a similar person, Barak Obama, to be their President. God works in a mysterious way God's wonders to perform. Indeed. Deo Gratias!
Coggan had three years in a London parish, then went into theological college teaching.
Runcie had two years before going back into academia.
Carey's curacy and his vicar-age at St. Nick's Durham add up to about ten years.
Williams was ordained in academia, later did a two year curacy, but never was a vicar (neither were Coggan and Runcie).
That's seventeen total.
Welby was ordained in 1992 and has been a parish priest ever since until he became bishop of Durham in 2011. That's nineteen years.
Honest, I did the math before I made the statement!
Gosh, Shawn, and I thought yuou were going to criticise him for his years in the business world ignoring the biblical teaching on usury!
"I'm surprised at you(r) excitement for this guy, given that one of his first pledges is to find a way to ignore Biblical teaching on marriage."
- Shawn -
Wrong again, Shawn! Bishop Justin has already said that he abides by the decision of the Church of England to oppose the legalisation of same-sex Marriage. He does, however, affirm the integrity of Same-Sex Civil Partnerships - which is something different.
Please check your facts before damning a future Evangelical Leader in your Church community.
Having been privileged to administer Holy Communion beside Archbishop Rowan last Sunday, I could not help but discern his pastoral care to the young, and his ability to preach a good sermon - without notes - and that's what I believe we will have with the new Archbishop. +Justin is a 'Baptised in the Holy spirit' Christian (of ALPHA provenance; a Reconciler with Coventry Cathedral's Team of Reconciliation - this is a pretty good commendation for an ABC, who seeks Unity - not schism.
If the AoC designate starts 're-evaluating' his position on homosexuality and otherwise shows himself to have grown into a fashionable post-modernism, then his tenure is already DOA. GAFCON has a meeting coming up. We shall see if it chooses to seize the initiative away from the bureaucratic inertia of the discredited Instruments of Communion. Bishop Welby won't be able to restore Canterbury's centrality by making noises of unrepentant reconciliation between the Liberal North and the Conservative South. He has to offend modern sensibilities by proclaiming a decidedly pre-modern understanding of Truth. Otherwise, he might as well call up 815 right now and ask "So what do I have to do for the cheque?"
carl
My own opinion of Justin++ is 'wait and see'. In the meantime, this prayer from the BCP I think is most apt!
ALMIGHTY God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church; Mercifully behold this thy servant, now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop; and so replenish him with the truth of thy Doctrine, and adorn him with innocency of life, that, both by word and deed, he may faithfully serve thee in this Office, to the glory of thy Name, and the edifying and well-governing of thy Church; through the merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.
You're right, Carl. Whether Welby was signaling in his opening words that he is tilting in the same way as James Jones (elected bishop as an evangelical, "evolves" into a pro-gay post-modern) remains to be seen, but the point is that world Anglicanism is now very different from 2002, when Williams was appointed, with the decade of drift and deceit. The majority of African Anglicans don't feel a sense of colonial obligation to Canterbury. Gafcon has laid the structure for a new world communion.
" GAFCON has a meeting coming up. We shall see if it chooses to seize the initiative away from the bureaucratic inertia of the discredited Instruments of Communion" - Carl -
Of GAFCON insists on going its own way - the rest of us will still continue to be the original Anglican Communion, whose motto is 'Unity in Diversity' - Christ's gift to the Church that follows the unique liberality of the Gospel.
Intentional schism does not bestow the right to retain the Trade-amrk1
JOsh Bovis, a very appropriate prayer from the BCP!
There is no trademark in the term "Anglican Communion". The reality is what it is. At present, most of "the Communion" is out of communion with the Episcopal Church of the United States, for example, so any use of the term "Anglican Communion" that includes TEC is indeed possible, but highly arguable.
Perhaps what we should all be doing is fostering real communion between all Anglican churches, which includes accepting the reality of our differences and seeking ways to overcome those differences.
Unfortunately the recent meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-15) were a textbook illustration of how not to do this - the real issues in the Communion were not discussed at all. No wonder the original Anglican Communion is slowly dying for lack of relevance!
".. most of "the Communion" is out of communion with the Episcopal Church of the United States, for example, so any use of the term "Anglican Communion" that includes TEC is indeed possible, but highly arguable." - Michael A -
This simply is not true!
The ACC15 Meeting, which contained all the WILLING partners of the Archbishop of Canterbury, including TEC. Only Nigeria and Kenya (GAFCON separatists) with-held themselves from the lord's Table at the meetings. does that sound like 'intentional Anglicanism' to you?
Uganda (another gafcon member) didn't even show up to the meetings. What does that say about it's intentions towards Anglican solidarity?
You can continue to believe what you want about the realities, but if people want to deliberately separate out from the Communion Family (represented at ACC15) - they cannot claim its integrity for themselves! Schism does not reward its intentional advocates with the Family Name.
I have no idea what "intentional Anglicanism" means. The opposite to "accidental Anglicanism" perhaps?
A majority of the provinces in the Communion are in a state of impaired communion with TEC, and that includes the most populous provinces i.e. the vast majority of Anglicans. They will certainly have communion with some bishops in TEC, those that are faithful to the faith once delivered. Thus for example +Lawrence of South Carolina, +Martins of Springfield and +Howe ex-Florida have all been invited to communion by the orthodox Primates. Ms K J Schori of TEC however has not been so invited, and will not be until she repents.
"Uganda (another gafcon member) didn't even show up to the meetings. What does that say about it's intentions towards Anglican solidarity?"
Not only a member of Gafcon but also containing between one quarter and one third of the world's Anglicans. At a guess, I would say it means that Uganda means to have solidarity with those who are faithful to Anglican doctrine, not just with those who bear the label "Anglican" but may not truly follow it.
"You can continue to believe what you want about the realities, but if people want to deliberately separate out from the Communion Family (represented at ACC15) - they cannot claim its integrity for themselves!"
And you can continue to believe that little fantasy if you like. Very few Anglicans will agree with you.
"Schism does not reward its intentional advocates with the Family Name."
Exactly, hence why most of the world's Anglicans do not recognise TEC as a legitimate bearer of the Family Name, until it repents from its sin.
"Of GAFCON insists on going its own way - the rest of us will still continue to be the original Anglican Communion, whose motto is 'Unity in Diversity' -"
GAFCON IS the original Anglican Communion, in terms of teaching. It is Liberal churches like TEC that have gone their own way, indulged in sectarian arrogancer, and left not only Anglicanism, but Christianity itself, in favour of the fashionable idols of liberal modernism.
GAFCON is the future of a healthy Anglicanism. TEC is the death of a failed and unBiblical ideology.
Tim,
The Bible only condemns usury on charitable loans, not business loans. Also it makes a clear distinction between the household of faith, and those who are outside it. Usury on loans to those outside the faith is permitted by Scripture.
"Only Nigeria and Kenya (GAFCON separatists) with-held themselves from the lord's Table at the meetings. does that sound like 'intentional Anglicanism' to you?"
Yes.
"Uganda (another gafcon member) didn't even show up to the meetings. What does that say about it's intentions towards Anglican solidarity?"
Solidarity only applies to FAITHFUL Anglicans. Heretics, pro-homosexual apologists, ans the leadership of TEC, have seperated themselves from the Communion by refusing to abide by the moratorium they agreed to.
TEC signed that moratorium, then went ahead and ripped it up at the first opportunity. In short, they LIED. Is lying and going back on your word showing solidarity? No.
TEC lied, decieved, and seperated from the Communion the moment they ordained GR.
TEC are the only schismatics in this.
Shawn makes an important point - the unacknowledged sub-text of Father Ron's posts is that formal membership of an institution (in this case the Anglican Communion, but it could as easily be a chess club) is all that matters, and that what a particular church actually believes and teaches is irrelevant.
But when it comes to churches, that is not so. Our Lord instituted the church to believe and to teach, and the content of that belief and teaching is not irrelevant - on the contrary, it is the entire raison d'etre of the church.
On the money Michael A! We are in effect repeating that hoary debate re “apostolic succession” (with a few nice Anglican twists of our own).
Where does authentic succession lie: (1) with those ‘properly ordained’? Or (2) with those who adhere to and teach the ‘real thing’? And then of course, RCC claims that part of the true faith/real thing includes the Petrine dynamic and so institutional fellowship with him. The Anglican parallel would appear to be ‘in communion with Canterbury’. Only the future will reveal to what extent any reformatted AC will have this last feature necessarily. [This last picks up on Peter C’s latest comment re “What we may not be grasping”]
Trad Anglo-Catholics tend to accentuate answer 1, while the more Evangelical #2. Which makes we wonder where Lib Catholics have their centre of gravity?!
"Which makes we wonder where Lib Catholics have their centre of gravity?!"
More a centre of levity than gravity; think (with apologies to lib cath ontological guru John Macquarrie): 'the unbearable lightness of 'Being'". Liberal Catholicism is only an etiolated version of catholicism, a religious version of psychology in fact, but its proponents are too ignorant of historical and dogmatic theology to recognise this.
James H.
"But when it comes to churches, that is not so. Our Lord instituted the church to believe and to teach, and the content of that belief and teaching is not irrelevant - on the contrary, it is the entire raison d'etre of the church." Michael A -
Which particular 'Church' are you talking about? If you want to talk about the original magisterial Church that claims inerrancy, then you must be talking about, and possibly belong to the R.C. Church. I am not a member of that Church, nor do I (and nor does TEC) belong to that Church. So what exactly are you talking about, here?
As for James H. He actually does sound like a Roman Catholic. They are welcome to his theories about the exclusive rights to 'orthodox 'catholicity' Ahem!
"Which particular 'Church' are you talking about?"
Christ's.
"If you want to talk about the original magisterial Church that claims inerrancy"
He is talking about the authority of God's Word in Scripture.
" I am not a member of that Church, nor do I (and nor does TEC) belong to that Church. So what exactly are you talking about, here?"
Faithfulness to Scripture. And MichaelA is correct. When any "church" invents an entirely new rteligion, as TEC has done, and one that seriously and clearly contradicts Scripture, they have ceased to have any legitimacy.
Local churches or national bodies simply do not have the right to teach anything they want. That is not, and never has been, Anglican.
It is merely Liberal anarchy used to justify heresy and moralk perversion.
Father Ron,
I am at a complete loss as to why you would think that I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I didn't even hint at it.
Perhaps you need to re-examine your own pre-suppositions and see whether they have become more of a hindrance than a help to you?
From Fr Ron Smith, lightly moderated:
"Shaun, I, and I think a few others in Christchurch, are getting just a wee bit tired of your same-old, same-old, assertions here. ...
As for MichaelA, I'm fast tuning out!
"
"Shaun, I, and I think a few others in Christchurch, are getting just a wee bit tired of your same-old, same-old, assertions here."
So? A few liberals don't like what I say? Wow. I'm really worried about that.
My "assertions" are simply true. They are orthodox. They are consistent with the Protestant Faith. They are Anglican.
If a few people who are following false idols are upset about that...GOOD.
I for one am tired of liberals re-inventing the Anglican Church to suit their fashionable modern idols and liberal-left political correctness, and then claiming they are still Anglican.
Moral and theological anarchy are NOT Christian and NOT Anglican.
Post a Comment