I hesitate to comment on recent events in the Anglican world, but things seem to have heated up since General Convention. If you want to keep abreast of developments, check out the blogs I’ve listed. They aren’t particularly representative of the complete spectrum of positions, but their authors are thoughtful, and the comments often insightful.

Soon after General Convention, the Archbishop of Canterbury, musing on the passed resolutions and their implications for the Anglican Communion, posited the development of a “two-track” approach in which the Episcopal Church might be left out in the cold if it refused to sign on to a covenant, while individual dioceses could sign on. In August, the ABC met with seven “communion partner” bishops, who apparently stressed their commitment to Covenant and Communion.

After the ABC’s pronouncement, rumblings from the Church of England were heard, as the liberal wing of that Church began to voice its support for the Episcopal Church and began seeking ways of strengthening ties with it.

Most recently, the Diocese of South Carolina has issued statements about its future in the Episcopal Church. It seems headed for everything but outright separation. It also seems to want to emerge as yet another umbrella organization.

In other words, plus ca change…

I have stated in the past, and I continue to think that the notion of a covenant is a non-starter, for all sorts of reasons. The genius of Anglicanism, and its appeal, has traditionally been its messiness–or to use another word–its ambiguity. I have never accepted the theological, historical, or ecclesiological arguments for papal supremacy and I am not about to accept an Anglophone version of it.

The problem with the Anglican Communion for me is not the idea of it. Rather, what I question is the way it is made concrete. Of the “Instruments of Communion” only one, the Anglican Consultative Council, draws its members from outside the Episcopacy. That’s dangerous and anti-democratic and hardly consistent with the vision of the Church presented in the New Testament.

read the article here.

One of the wonderful things about teaching college was the opportunity (necessity) it afforded to re-read great works of literature, philosophy, and religion. Last Fall, I taught the first half of the History of Christianity survey, and assigned a number of works I hadn’t read in over ten years (The Rule of St. Benedict, for example). Among that group was Anselm’s Proslogion. In fact, I probably hadn’t read it in closer to twenty years.

It is a marvel, not primarily for the ontological argument, which leaves me unsatisfied. Rather, what I find most interesting is the style of writing: rigorous logic interspersed with effusive prayer. Anselm brought together reason and religious life in a way that is almost incomprehensible in the twenty-first century.

The Mainstream Media (MSM) headlines screamed this morning: “The Episcopal Church ends ban on gay bishops.” The headline, and the articles were sensationalistic, but misleading. Resolution D025, which passed the House of Deputies and amended, passed the House of Bishops yesterday, did no such thing. In fact, there was no ban or “moratorium” on the consecration of gay bishops, something even the Archbishop of Canterbury seems not to have understood. What the media, and the Archbishop were referring to was resolution B033 from 2006, which “urged restraint” on bishops and standing committees in their consents to the elections of gay or lesbian bishops.

Resolution D025 changes nothing. It simply states where the Episcopal Church is and what the canonical requirements for ordination are. The canons (the rules or laws) that govern the church say nothing about sexuality or gender when listing qualifications for ordination. Quite the contrary, the canons are explicitly non-discriminatory.

Resolution D025 points that out. It also acknowledges the deep divisions in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion over matters of sexuality.

For more on this, the Episcopal Cafe has been following the debates. In addition, there is a fine essay on the Anglican Centrist. But I encourage you especially to read Bishop Henderson’s letter on the meaning of the resolution. I should note that he offered an important amendment to the resolution in the House of Bishops, which they passed.

Was it just coincidence that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church began on July 9, the 500th anniversary of the birth of Jean Calvin? Calvinism has been important in the history of the development of Anglicanism, even if most of us like to downplay its role in contemporary Anglicanism. In fact, the English Reformation got its start before Calvin arrived on the scene and there was never a single voice of Reformed Protestantism influencing early English Protestant theology. Martin Bucer, the Reformer of Strasbourg, spent some time in England, and Heinrich Bullinger, the Zurich reformer was enormously influential as well.

Calvinism became significant only relatively late, in the Elizabethan period, and from the start, there was significant “push-back” from the crown and from other important players. The reason for Calvinism’s unpopularity among the political and religious powers was his vision of the church, and especially the critique of bishops. That meant that much of the rest of his theology eventually was rejected as well. Still, there was significant Calvinist (and Reformed) influence on the Elizabethan Settlement.

I’ve never found Calvin particularly appealing, and it is not just his understanding of human sinfulness. Rather, I think my aversion has to do with style or approach. The Institutes are a marvelous system of theology, carefully argued, well-organized, even elegant. I like my theology a little messier, reflective of the conflicts and emotions that drive theological thinking and innovation. That being said, Calvin continues to influence contemporary theology, as he has done for 450 years.