The underground is abuzz in Anglican blogland. No details are available as yet for publication, only the general report that a major development will be ripe for announcement starting next Monday, March 19. Some of your most trusted (or alternatively, depending on your philosophy, most despised) commentators are rumored to be involved. The technical details, with the support of none but the very best in the business, are apparently awesome. But mum's the word for now, so as not to steal anyone's thunder.
So watch for what happens starting March 19 -- you heard it here first. Being Anglican is about to take on a whole new dimension, and the Anglican domain will never again be the same!
(H/T for the image: Sancte pater)
[UPDATE 03/14/2012: The cat is now out of the bag.]
[UPDATE 2 - 03/16/2012: The second cat is now out of the bag (not that any credit is due here).]
[UPDATE 3 - 03/16/2012: What can I say about my prescience? The third cat is now out of the bag.
Heh.]
At this rate I will soon have to cease to refer to the incumbent Cantuar+ as "the Old Ditherer," not to mention renouncing my past suggestions that a logical choice of actors to portray him in any biopics might well be the other prominent Brit whose given name is also Rowan.
ReplyDeleteThe foregoing is, of course, wholly dependent upon his following through on the actions suggested by his ¶5 of the linked Pentecost letter.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
I wish you had placed a warning above that photo - I nearly dropped *my* cup of tea!
ReplyDeleteCurmudgeon,
ReplyDeleteI heard the very same scuttlebutt, and I, for one, am confident that you will lead responsibly as the new PB. Congratulations.
LOL, Fradgan -- you made my day! Thanks for the send-up.
ReplyDeleteI would hope the announcement would be the Queen saying that you're going to be the next ABC! We need the Anglican Curmudgeon to take over Lambeth :)
ReplyDeleteIt's April Fools' Day already?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've just returned from Stand Firm. They have strengthened the SF team with the addition of a seasoned clean-up slugger.
ReplyDeleteThis is wonderful news.
This site will continue as before, Milton Finch -- not to worry.
ReplyDeleteRobin Jordan, we naturally have greater aspirations than you might be willing to grant us. But for too long now, the infighting among all the people ECUSA has left in its wake has been hindering the Church's ability to carry out Christ's Great Commission to his followers. What is needed is a new generosity of spirit, such as that expressed 125 years ago by the House of Bishops in 1886, as discussed in this previous post. You might take a look at what they wrote -- it could stand being revived.
Josh H., thank you, but that's not in my cards. I will remain Anglican, and remain a curmudgeon who critiques what the ABC does and does not do. Who knows? Maybe the next one will get something right -- as long as they don't mislead the Queen on whom she is being asked to appoint.
Well, with the image posted, I thought perhaps that Shori person was going to trade jobs with the expert on Christian decorations; but, I'm glad to see Stand Firm is going to continue and will be in good hands.
ReplyDeleteDavid
Allen,
ReplyDeleteYou have lost me completely!
A historical note: The Chicago Quadrilateral, adopted by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops in 1886, takes the position that bishops are of the essence of the Church, a position over which Anglicans have been historically divided, and which is not shared by the English Reformers or conservative evangelicals. The refusal of the Episcopal Church to recognize as a part of Christ's Church any ecclesial body that did not have bishops and its persecution of conservative evangelicals who fraternized with the ministers of evangelical churches that had no bishops was one of the reasons Bishop George David Cummins and conservative evangelicals like him left the Episcopal Church and formed the Reformed Episcopal Church. This historical note may be irrelevant to this comment thread but I thought that I would draw attention to it.
Robin Jordan, my point in directing you to the Chicago statement of 1886 was not to emphasize the Quadrilateral part of it, but the preamble to that statement, which was not adopted at Lambeth in 1888, and so is technically not part of the Quadrilateral.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the words, it says nothing about the historic episcopate or the traditional orders of the church -- instead, it is all about the desire to fulfill the Savior's wish "that we all may be one." And to that end, it makes the most remarkable statement of all -- one that the Church's current House of Bishops now has forgotten and abandoned: "this Church is ready in the spirit of love and humility to forego all preferences of her own."
That was the only point I was trying to make.
Allan,
ReplyDeleteAs a student of history my focus tends not to be on statements that bishops make but the context in which they make statements, the circumstances surrounding the statements, the events leading up to the statments, and so on.
At the time the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops adopted the Chicago Quadrilateral, it was also enforcing a policy of exclusionism against denominations that did not have bishops. Consequently it is difficult for me to view the Preface as anything more than pious postering.
Our Lord in his High Priestly Prayer prayed that all who believed in him through the apostles' words would be one. He did not mention any other grounds.
I will be following Stand Firm's reinvention of itself with interest. It is a development that caught me napping--actually wading through the morass of the ACNA constitution and canons. Will you be providing political commentary on the new website?
Mr. Haley,
ReplyDeleteCongrats on joining the writing staff at Stand Firm. I won't be following you there, though. Matt and Sarah are so incredibly rude to anyone who dares to disagree with them - they remind me of junior high "popular clique" bullies. I just can't abide it. And I can't help defend their victims due to being banned for complaining about this very thing years ago. So, it's too frustrating for me.
You may keep following me here, Carolyn, and adding your comments, which I always value. (And you may continue to correct me whenever I slip and say "reign" for "rein". ;>)
ReplyDeleteRobin, thank you for explaining your viewpoint as an historian. As an attorney specializing in church law, I, too, am interested in its history, but more frequently as a means of understanding better and illuminating the questions of the present. Thus how the Bishops of 1886 may have thought and acted is (for my purposes, and not anyone else's) far less significant than what I can learn and teach today from their words -- so long as they have some relevance. And these words (that I quoted above) in particular seem to me indeed to have relevance, because they point up how far ECUSA today is from following or acting on them, let alone from conceiving them as a statement of position.
At any rate, grace and peace to you, and I hope you continue to come here often.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI've enjoyed reading your articles and will continue to do so on Anglican Curmudgeon, perhaps you can bring some intelligence and Christian charity to the otherwise cacophonous ruckus in the playground.