"Continuing Anglican" Churches - We would argue the most consistently traditional or "classical" Anglican churches.

Continuing Anglican Miscellany

"Anglican Realignment" Churches (ACNA, AMiA, and others) - Conservative but markedly less traditional than the Continuing Anglican Churches.

Reformed Episcopal Church - Currently part of the Anglican Realignment but these days much more like the traditional Continuing Anglican bodies.


1662 Book of Common Prayer Online

1928 Book of Common Prayer Online

A Living Text

Alastair's Adversaria

Akenside Press

American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council Videos on the 39 Articles


Anglican Audio

Anglican Bible and Book Society

An Anglican Bookshelf (List of recommended Anglican books)

Anglican Catholic Church

Anglican Catholic Liturgy and Theology

Anglican Church in North America

Anglican Church Planting

Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Anglican Expositor

Anglican Internet Church

Anglican Mainstream

Anglican Mission in the Americas

Anglican Mom

An Anglican Priest

Anglican Radio

Anglican Rose

Anglican Way Magazine

Anglicanly Speaking

The Anglophilic Anglican

A BCP Anglican

The Book of Common Prayer (Blog of Photos)

The Book of Common Prayer (Online Texts)

The Cathedral Close

The Catholic Anglican

Chinese Orthodoxy

The Church Calendar

Church Society

Classical Anglicanism:  Essays by Fr. Robert Hart

Cogito, Credo, Petam

Colorado Anglican Society

(The Old) Continuing Anglican Churchman

(The New) Continuing Anglican Churchman

The Continuum

The Curate's Corner

The Cure of Souls

Drew's Views

Earth and Altar: Catholic Ressourecment for Anglicans

The Evangelical Ascetic

Faith and Gender: Five Aspects of Man

Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen

Forward in Christ Magazine

Forward in Faith North America

Francis J. Hall's Theological Outlines

Free Range Anglican

Full Homely Divinity

Gavin Ashenden

The Hackney Hub

The Homely Hours

International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

Jesse Nigro's Thoughts

The Latimer Trust

Laudable Practice

Martin Thornton

Meditating on "Irvana"

New Goliards

New Scriptorium (Anglican Articles and Books Online)

The North American Anglican

O cuniculi! Ubi lexicon Latinum posui?

The Ohio Anglican Blog

The Old High Churchman


Prayer Book Anglican

The Prayer Book Society, USA

Project Canterbury

Ritual Notes

Pusey House


Rebel Priest (Jules Gomes)

Reformed Catholicism

Reformed Episcopal Church

The Ridley Institute

Ritual Notes

River Thames Beach Party

The Secker Society

Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

The Southern High Churchman

Stand Firm


The Theologian

The World's Ruined


To All The World

Trinity House Blog

United Episcopal Church of North America

Virtue Online

We See Through A Mirror Darkly

When I Consider How My Light is Spent: The Crier in the Digital Wilderness Calls for a Second Catholic Revival



The Babylon Bee

Bad Vestments

The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass

Lutheran Satire


Ponder Anew: Discussions about Worship for Thinking People


Black-Robed Regiment

Cardinal Charles Chaput Reviews "For Greater Glory" (Cristero War)

Cristero War

Benedict Option

Jim Kalb: How Bad Will Things Get?

The Once and Future Christendom



Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

Bernard of Clairvaux and the Knights Templar

Gates of Nineveh

Gates of Vienna

Islamophobes (We're in good company)

Jihad Watch

Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Restore Nineveh Now - Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Sons of Liberty International (SOLI)

The Muslim Issue

The Once and Future Christendom



Abbeville Institute Blog

Art of the Rifle

The Art of Manliness

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Church For Men

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, (Leon Podles' online book)

The Counter-Revolution

Craft Beer

Eclectic Orthodoxy

First Things

The Imaginative Conservative

Joffre the Giant: Excursions in Christian Virility


Men of the West

Mercurius Pragmaticus Redivivus

Mere Comments

Mitre and Crown

Monomakhos (Eastern Orthodox; Paleocon)

The Once and Future Christendom

The Orthosphere

Paterfamilias Daily

Tales of Chivalry

The Midland Agrarian

Those Catholic Men

Tim Holcombe: Anti-State; Pro-Kingdom

Midwest Conservative Journal

Pint, Pipe and Cross Club

The Pipe Smoker

Red River Orthodox

The Salisbury Review

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Throne and Altar

Project Appleseed (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)


What's Wrong With The World: Dispatches From The 10th Crusade


Numavox Records (Music of Kerry Livgen & Co.)




A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son  (Yes, this is about women's ordination.)

An (Extended) Short History of the Diaconate

"Buckle Your Seabelts": Can a Woman Celebrate Holy Communion as a Priest? (Video), Fr. William Mouser

Essays on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood from the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth

Faith and Gender: Five Aspects of Man, Fr. William Mouser

Father is Head at the Table: Male Eucharistic Headship and Primary Spiritual Leadership, Ray Sutton

FIFNA Bishops Stand Firm Against Ordination of Women

God, Gender and the Pastoral Office, S.M. Hutchens

God, Sex and Gender, Gavin Ashenden

Homo Hierarchicus and Ecclesial Order, Brian Horne

How Ordaining Women Harms Ministry to Men, C.R. Wiley

Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters, J.I. Packer

Liturgy and Interchangeable Sexes, Peter J. Leithart

Male-Only Ordination is Natural: Why the Church is a Model of Reality, Steven Wedgeworth

Ordaining Women as Deacons: A Reappraisal of the Anglican Mission in America's Policy, John Rodgers

Priestesses in Plano, Robert Hart

Priestesses in the Church?, C.S. Lewis

Priesthood and Masculinity, Stephen DeYoung

Reasons for Questioning Women’s Ordination in the Light of Scripture, Rodney Whitacre

Streams of the River: Articles Outlining the Arguments Against the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood ,

Traditional Anglican Resources

William Witt's Articles on Women's Ordination (Old Jamestown Church archive)

Women Priests?, Eric Mascall

Women and the Priesthood, Catholic Answers

Women Priests: History & Theology, Patrick Reardon

Powered by Squarespace
Categories and Monthly Archives
This area does not yet contain any content.







                  Theme Music:  Healey Willan - Missa brevis No. 2 in F Minor


Taverner: Westron Wind


Tallis: Spem In Alium


"Orthodox Christianity for Anglicans"

An update on this.

I decided to do a bit of Googling tonight to see if there was anything else online regarding this event, which was held tonight at Holy Ascension Orthodox Church (OCA) in Charleston, SC.   What I found was this editorial, a pitch to conservative Anglicans from Holy Ascension's priest Fr. John Parker.  Please take a few minutes to read the editorial before you read the rest of this entry.

As you can see, Fr. Parker is a convert to Orthodoxy from Episcopalianism, and like so many converts to Orthodoxy, he is full of zeal for his newfound faith.  I have written at some length about such zeal in my posts here about Orthodoxy and converts thereto.  I myself was once a zealous convert to Orthodox Christianity.  (Said conversion didn't "take", for reasons I have set forth in a number of blog entries.)

There is nothing wrong with zeal, per se, unless it gets in the way of critical thought.  It did in my case, and I would say it has in Fr. Parker's case as well.  In fact, this loss of criticality seems to plague converts to Orthodoxy generally speaking.  Much has been written about it, even by Orthodox authorities.  So, let's have a look about how it comes to bear in Fr. Parker's editorial.

He begins with a narrative about the disintegration of TEC, beginning the narrative and punctuating several cases in point with the saying of Christ, "A house divided against itself cannot stand", the point being that not only TEC but Anglicanism in general is just such a house:

The trouble is, these divisions are only outward signs of an inward, untenable view that Christians are held together by a (redefinable) minimum standard. So, Anglicanism has been disintegrating - visibly or invisibly - for nearly 500 years because 'a house divided against itself cannot stand.' As a result, every effort mentioned above, however faithfully intended and executed, will not resolve; rather it is simply the setting back of an Anglican clock, destined to repeat itself in time.

Fr. Parker devotes special attention in the editorial to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and its traditionalist bishop, Mark Lawrence, in a seeming attempt to draw that conservative diocese's attention to what he believes is the only real cure for the Anglican disease:  Eastern Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, traditions (sic) the faith once for all delivered to the saints. In the early centuries of Christianity, Orthodox Christians canonized the Bible. Defined the Trinity. Propounded the Nicene Creed. Fought heresy. Dogmatized personhood. As a result, there is no debate about Salvation, the Cross, the Resurrection. For 20 centuries, the Orthodox Church has been dispensing divinely-issued spiritual medicine to heal every human soul. 

Orthodox Christianity maintains the firm teachings of Jesus Christ, dealing pastorally with us whose former ways were/are killing ourselves emotionally, spiritually, physically. Orthodoxy is a dogmatically, doctrinally, theologically and spiritually united house.

Let us examine - critically - the assertions made in the above two paragraphs.

Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, traditions (sic) the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  A claim made not only by the Orthodox, but by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and any number of Protestant free churches, not to mention the Monophysite and Nestorian churches.  Who's right?  The Orthodox?  Simply because they say so?  In support, seemingly, of this question-begging assertion, Fr. Parker sets forth the following:

In the early centuries of Christianity, Orthodox Christians canonized the Bible. Defined the Trinity. Propounded the Nicene Creed. Fought heresy. Dogmatized personhood.

I'm always amused by this bit of historical and semantic legerdemain whenever it is employed (which is quite often in my experience).  Orthodox apologists who employ it insinuate that the "Orthodox Church" as such existed in the centuries when the great triadological and christological heresies were debated and defeated, eventuating in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the definition of Chalcedon, and the later ecumenical definitions that built on Chalcedon's christology.   But there were no "Orthodox Christians" of the variety represented by the modern church of which Parker is a member and priest.  There was simply the "Catholic" church, which had both Latin and Greek wings.  The "Orthodox Church" to which Parker belongs came into being much later, as the two wings grew alienated from one another and ultimately separated after a series of events that began in 1054 with the so-called "Great Schism".   The Greek or Eastern wing, over time, underwent further theological development as it came under the spell of certain mystical theologians such as Gregory Palamas, Symeon the "New Theologian", and various and sundry Russian "sophiologists."   And all of that mysticism, I would argue, bears little resemblance to the "faith once delivered to the saints" spoken of in the New Testament.

Also not for Fr. Parker, apparently, is the fact that a number of "Orthodox" churches nowadays styled "Oriental" were, at the time, on board with the Catholic church dogmatically throughout the Arian controversy.  Known also as the Monophysites, they later broke with the Catholic church over the christology affirmed at Chalcedon.   Originally adjudged heretics, these Christians -- Coptic; Ethiopian; Armenian -- are increasingly looked upon by modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians as unfortunate victims of theological misunderstanding and Byzantine politics.  It is widely thought that the Oriental Orthodox might one day soon be brought into either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox fold -- or both, whenever the "Great Schism" is healed.   But my point here is, once again, that there was no "Orthodox Church" as such in the early centuries of the church.  There are now, in the broader "Catholic" (i.e., non-Protestant) world, three schisms: Roman, Orthodox, and Monophysite.  Can such a divided house stand?  Well, it seems it has, in its own fractious sort of way.  So how, pray tell, can Fr. Parker be so assured about Anglicanism's future?

Parker continues, based on his historical and semantic slight-of-hand:

As a result, there is no debate about Salvation, the Cross, the Resurrection. For 20 centuries, the Orthodox Church has been dispensing divinely-issued spiritual medicine to heal every human soul.

Well, there's no debate over these things now in the Orthodox Church, a millennium after the "Great Schism."  But there certainly was a debate over salvation and the cross in the first millennium, when the church was one but existing in Latin and Greek wings, and we might also say, "phronemas."  Modern Orthodox apologetes go on at length these days about the stark theological differences between the Greek East and the Latin West, and how those differences came to bear on the respective views of salvation and the cross.  So who was right about those debates?  The modern Eastern Orthodox?  Again, simply because they say so?  *I* say the Orthodox Church has gotten it largely wrong on salvation and the cross, and that classical Anglicanism has gotten it right.  And I'd be game to debate that issue with Fr. Parker if he is.

Fr. Parker tries to drive home this question-begging, self-serving argument with an even more question-begging and self-serving assertion:

Orthodox Christianity maintains the firm teachings of Jesus Christ, dealing pastorally with us whose former ways were/are killing ourselves emotionally, spiritually, physically. Orthodoxy is a dogmatically, doctrinally, theologically and spiritually united house.

Really?  Well, we trad Anglicans wouldn't say so.  I have argued in this blog that the Orthodox Church has strayed from biblical Christianity in several significant ways.  So who's right?  And as for this vaunted "spiritual unity" Fr. Parker speaks of, what shall we say of the perennial tendencies toward the "heresy" of phyletism in canonical Orthodoxy, or of the "Orthodox Miscellany" composed of several schismatic (but certainly apostolic) Orthodox bodies that have separated from "canonical" Orthodoxy over the calendar, "modernism", ecumenism, etc?  A house divided against itself cannot stand, Fr. John.

It's all just so much typical Orthodox triumphalism.  And uncritical triumphalism at that.  Conservative Anglicans should realize this, and not be tempted by Eastern Orthodoxy's triumphalistic siren song.  The grass is not greener over there, for reasons set forth in this blog entry and others I've set forth in previous entries.   I know.   I was there.  Continuing on:

'What do you fight about?' I once asked my Episcopal-priest-from-my-childhood-church-turned-Orthodox-priest. 'Money, whether priests should have beards and wear their cassocks (long robes) in public.' After a decade in the Orthodox Church, I certify his observation.

Indeed.  The Orthodox do fight each other over such frivolities, but at least it's a family feud.  No, the Orthodox spend their time fighting the real fight with "the West", with the entire non-Orthodox world. In fact, they fight "the West" with such (triumphalistic) fervor, that one fair-minded Orthodox theologian, having a gut full of it, complained:

Outside of Orthodoxy, have you noticed how the healthiest Christian communities around today are the ones who preach Christ, not their own denomination? They speak of Jesus, not their "Baptist," "Methodist" or "Pentecostal" identities. Yet, all we seem to hear from our pulpits is "Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy!" We are obsessed with self-definition through negation. It is a sick religious addiction. We often shore up our identity as Orthodox by constantly contrasting ourselves with Evangelicals or Catholics. I wish we would talk more about Christian faith, and less about "Orthodoxy."

But then Fr. Parker gets to perhaps the central issue:

To that, I would add one: how to deal with sinners. Note: not 'what is sin,' but rather, the pastoral ways of dealing with the reality - we are all sinners.

Of course, we Anglicans and the rest of the benighted folk over here in "the West" would know nothing about the "pastoral ways of dealing with sin."  ;>)

And finally:

I grew up in the house divided against itself. I have found the united house. I'd like to share the story with you, and bring healing to the home. . . .  I welcome every Anglican and Episcopalian who reads this (friends too) to come hear the history and, as Paul Harvey always said, 'the rest of the story'.

But what will Fr. Parker do with the increasing number of us who have sought refuge in that "united house", only to find that it did not provide for us the "healing" that Fr. Parker has found, and have accordingly reverted to the Evangelical or Roman Catholic communions of our youths, or in many cases, to the communions of Continuing Anglicanism?   Will Fr. Parker agree with St. Theophan the Recluse, who said, "I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."?  Or will he simply say that we're sadly in error?  Well, if so, he'll need to do better than the threadworn "come and see" argument.  I came to Anglicanism in large part because I "came and saw" Orthodox Christianity, and did not like what I saw.

(The "Eastern Orthodoxy" archive at The Old Jamestown Church)


A Reader Sends This


This Is The Stuff, Right Here

Renewing the Anglican Tradition from St. Matthew's Church on Vimeo.

In a comment below, ABH writes:

For what it's worth, I have been attending St. Matthew's in Newport Beach (a flagship parish of the ACC) for a few months now, and it doesn't particularly strike me as Anglo-Catholic. There are some liturgical choices made which I suppose are Anglo-Catholic (e.g. the placement of the Gloria), and the Eucharistic real presence plays a central role in the congregation's piety, but the whole tenor of the parish doesn't *feel* Anglo-Catholic. Not that I am an authority on such matters, but I thought I'd throw it out there. And both Calvin and Luther are sold in the bookstore. That says something, I suppose.

By the way, it is a REMARKABLE parish. I hesitate to use the word "anointed," because it's loaded, but seriously, the Holy Ghost's presence is (almost?) palpable. There is a weightiness about the worship — a weightiness that goes beyond the "well, liturgical worship is by nature weighty." The congregation prays with earnest intensity.

The Lord has blessed St. Matthew's. I'm not sure what it is — I've been trying to figure that out. But the Lord's hand is upon it. I hope and pray that St. Matthew's can be a model to the rest of the ACC, and to the rest of Continuing Anglicanism.

THIS is what "reformed Catholicism" really is.  What St. Matt's seeks to renew is **classical** Anglicanism, which is an Anglicanism that knows there was a Reformation, and embraces it.  


Worshipping God


More on the ACC's New Website

In a comment to the entry below, Rev. du Barry notes, "The ACC website refuses the name of Protestant."  It might seem so.  But I noted in that entry that I very well could be missing something.   I canvassed three well-known non-Anglo-Catholic bloggers yesterday about their thoughts on the new web site, and two of them noted that the statement there on the Elizabethan Settlement pleased them immensely.  I had indeed missed that, so I think it's important that I note it.  The article on the Elizabethan Settlement and other articles relating to the English Reformation can be read here.

One of the aforementioned two bloggers was happy to see what he thinks might be a willingness on the part of the ACC to distance itself from the Athens Statement and possibly to repudiate Canon 2.1 of the ACC's Constitution and Canons, which is capable of a construction that says developments in the English Reformation after 1543 are not be to recognized.

The jury is still out on all this, however.  The actual direction a church takes is determined by what its bishops decide, not necessarily what its official website says.  And, as the third blogger reported, the direction represented in the new site's articles was still "too Anglo-Catholic" for him, though he added that he intends to re-read the site's articles carefully and keep abreast of any additions, as it appears to be a work in progress. 

Whatever the case, the statements at  the new web site are certainly more nuanced than were the ones on the old website a few years ago, which contained a statement on the "About Us" page that read as follows:


The Church of England arose as a separate catholic body out of the English version of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, but never intended the type of dramatic separation advocated by Protestants on the Continent. It took great care to preserve the Apostolic Succession, and with it the sacramental life of the Church, but at the same time participated fully in the rediscovery of Holy Scripture and the ministry of the Word so dear to Protestants. Are we catholic or protestant? In truth, the answer has to be "both"! 

Stay tuned for further developments . . . .


The Feminisation of the Church of England Rolls On Apace

From Virtue Online, on how liberals have turned the CofE into a Womanchurch.  A note to Anglican Ritualists, however:  clergy and acolytes in lace aren't likely to draw the men back.  Beware too of prissy Anglo-Catholic aestheticism:

By Roland W. Morant
Special to Virtueonline
October 8, 2012

In the current drawn out discussion on women priests and women bishops, one issue that has been largely overlooked has been the effect on men. If this issue is approached from a strict politically correct perspective, it can be argued that as the roles of leadership in churches pass from men to women, because such roles are accepted as equal and identical there ought to be no difference in the effect on men in the pews. But if in practice as others maintain, the engendered roles of leadership do not conform to a common outcome pattern, differences may well emerge in the way men respond to women exercising ordained leadership.

Before we can address this problem directly, it behoves us to remember some well established facts. These are facts which, it must be admitted, apply to nearly all the mainline churches of the West (taken here as Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed etc., but not Orthodox).

Men and women worshippers: In mainline churches the numbers of worshippers of both genders have been steadily falling, with some of the greatest falls occurring in recent years. In whatever way the figures are interpreted, almost all the churches have experienced similar falls. If we take figures from the Church of England's own statistical department, we find that during the last eleven years from 2000 there has been a steady drop in average attendance on Sundays from 1,058,000 to 924,000. Thus in this period 134,000 adults, young people and children ceased to attend church, i.e. a fall of 12.7% or, very roughly, 1% per year.

Is it possible to break down the above figures by gender? Not it seems by the C. of E statisticians. Nevertheless several pieces of research have been done in Great Britain, the U.S.A. and continental Europe, all of which confirm a general finding which is that year by year the loss of men from churches of every mainline denomination is not only greater than that of women, but that this loss is getting worse year after year.

To illustrate this, Peter Brierley found that attendance at church in 1980 was 57% for women and 43% for men. In the year 2000 the figures were 60% or women and 40% for men; while in 2010 attendance for women was 63% and 37% for men. Thus although there was a net loss of men and women from churches in the ten year period 2000 to 2010, the proportion of women still attending (albeit in an overall shrinking group) appeared to be steadily rising. This must have been because men were leaving churches at a much faster rate than the women.

The proportion of men worshippers relative to women worshippers has been in decline for a very long time, almost certainly from before the end of the medieval period. The Reformation, a male instigated and led activity, may have slowed down or even reversed temporarily in some of the new national churches a decline in men's attendance. Other factors since then which may have boosted men's presence at acts of worship were the Methodist revival in the eighteenth century, and several other revivals ( Tractarian, Evangelical) in the Nineteenth Century.

But when we come to recent times, i.e. the Twentieth Century and the present one, we can see quite clearly that the falling away of attendance at church, especially by men has become more pronounced and very visible, and deservedly should be called a haemorrhage of the lifeblood of the Church. That nearly all mainstream churches for a long time - and increasingly so in recent times - steadily and spectacularly have lost their men folk, ipso facto is turning Christianity into a female religion. And that is about as serious a criticism as can be made about the Christian religion today.

What effect has the ordination of women in the C. of E. (and soon to be, the consecration of women as bishops) had - or may have in the future - on this tendency? Obviously, as this general trend towards feminisation within churches has been going on for a long period, the recent advent and practice of ordained women's ministry cannot be held responsible for what has been happening in the more distant past.

In the C. of E. the first women were ordained as deacons in 1987 and the first women deacons as priests in 1994. Since then women have made rapid strides in entering the ministry. In 1994, 106 women and 273 were ordained. Sixteen years later (2010), more women (290) than men (273) were ordained. So the scales over this period have gradually but incessantly tipped towards the women.

To bring us up to date, in the latest figures which are available (compiled from official figures), in 2011 there were 1,763 full time women priests working in C. of E. parishes, a 50% increase from the year 2000. Approximately one in five paid priests (for such are all these full time women priests) now work in the Church.

It has therefore been argued that if this trend continues, it is inevitable that "women would comprise the majority of spiritual leaders in England". Moreover, David Martin, former Professor of Sociology, is on record as having said recently, "It's obvious that over time the priesthood will become increasingly a female profession. As far as the church has a future, it will include a predominant ministry of women and they will get to the top".

However, a degree of caution is needed before we can say without equivocation that the input of women priests into parish churches has led directly to many men abandoning going to church. What we can say is this: From before 1994 (halfway through the Decade of Evangelism in England) there has been a haemorrhage of people from attending church on Sundays, increasingly these being men. And since 1994 there has been a steady influx of ordained women into the churches, with no noticeable slowing down of the exit of men from the pews.

A cardinal rule in statistical analysis is not to base predictions on a single item of data. The following personal experience therefore should not be understood to infer what will happen in many churches through the placement of women into leadership roles in many churches. Some months ago I visited a church for a quite separate reason and purchased its parish magazine. It listed its incumbent, paid curate and non-stipendiary priest as women. Its two church wardens were women. In the list of services for the coming month giving details of lay people due to read portions of the scriptures and to lead the prayers, all but one person was a woman. It may well be an unpopular thing to say, but what religious incentive is there for any man to attend that church?

A lot of literature has been written and a substantial amount of research done on why men generally cease to attend church, a phenomenon not matched in the other great religions. One of the main reasons is that the type of religion presented via worship in church where women are normally in the great majority, is expressed in female-friendly terms (e.g. Jesus being often symbolised as the Lamb of God rather than as Lion of Judah).

The leadership of the Church of England has, quite clearly, in recent years encouraged women to explore and find their vocations as priests, and soon as bishops. Such encouragement may be well and good, and conform to the prevalent secular standards of equality. Yet from another standpoint it might invoke a law of unintended consequences in which the C. of E. fills its dioceses and parishes with women in leadership roles, but finds too late that it has no men in the pews (except a few feminised men). As David Murrow persuasively writes in his book, "Why Men Hate Going to Church", the "Church of England is quickly becoming a church of women, by women and for women".

Roland W. Morant is a cradle Anglican who has spent his professional life as a teacher, and latterly as a principal lecturer in education in a college of higher education, training students as teachers and running in-service degree courses


Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence - Bairstow 


Why There's An Anglican Continuum and Realignment


Experiencing Christ through the Life of Prayer in Community 

 A video from St. Matthew's Church (ACC) in Newport Beach, CA:


What Is The Gospel?

The following is a statement from GAFCON.

What is the gospel?

A paper from members of the FCA Leaders’ Conference, London, April 2012
Seminar led by Drs Ngozi Okeke & Mark Thompson

(PDF version here)

The gospel is the life-­‐transforming message of salvation from sin and all its consequences through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is both a declaration and a summons: announcing what has been done for us in Christ and calling us to repentance, faith and submission to his lordship. ‘Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried and was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’.1

Jesus himself proclaimed ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel’.2 This gospel finds its ultimate ground in the character of the triune God, his perfect love and holiness. God will not ignore human sin. Sin leads to God’s just and holy wrath and the awful reality of hell. The grave consequences of sin — guilt before God and the judgment to come, enslavement to sin and Satan, corruption and death — all must be dealt with. We cannot deal with those consequences ourselves, in part or in whole. In this light, God’s determined love expressed itself most clearly when the Father sent his Son in the power of the Spirit to be the Savior of the world.3 ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life’.4 ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’.5

The gospel announces the work of the triune God. The Son came to do the Father’s will in the power of the Spirit. By the Spirit he was incarnate in Mary’s womb in fulfillment of the OT Scriptures, becoming genuinely one of us while remaining truly God.6 He was made like us in every way, sin excepted.7 At the same time he is the unique Son of God, the only savior of the world. He lived the perfect life that none of us can live, always doing the will of the Father who sent him.8 He died for our sins and was raised for our justification, always in perfect unity with the Father and the Spirit. ‘For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit ...’9

The gospel, the proclamation of what God has done in Christ, is the powerful means by which God saves men and women today.10 As the gospel is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit enables us to trust in God’s promise of forgiveness and eternal life. Faith, genuine repentance and a transformed life are evidence that the gospel has been at work. Because Christ has died and been raised from the grave we cannot continue as before. In response to God’s mercy in saving us, we are called to be obedient, to stand as Christ’s faithful people in the world. We recognize that we now belong to the one who sanctified his people through his own blood.11 Having died to sin in Christ we cannot continue to live in it.12 As those rescued by Christ, our thinking and our behavior must be determined by his will expressed in his authoritative written word. Yet this new life of faith and obedience is never a human achievement. We are saved only through faith in Christ alone and even our faith is a gift of God.13 We have been brought from death to life by Jesus and the life he gives us is life as it was meant to be, life to the full.14 It is a life characterized by trust in God’s goodness, love of God and of our neighbor, and hope in the midst of suffering, looking forward to that day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.15 On that day, God’s redeemed people will enjoy his presence in a new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells.16 In the meantime, his service is perfect freedom.

The gospel announces God’s great victory and the fulfillment of his ancient promises in Christ.17 Sin and the powers that stand behind it are defeated.18 Judgment is exhausted so that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.19 Death has been overturned by the one who is the resurrection and the life.20 Exalted to the right hand of the Father, he pours out his Spirit on the church, equipping it powerfully to worship, to witness by word and deed to the gospel of God, which always remains the gospel concerning his Son.21 This same gospel, proclaimed by Jesus and his apostles, is our message in every age to a broken world of lost men and women who can be rescued only by Jesus, the crucified but risen Saviour and Lord of all. It is in the faithful proclamation of the gospel, and in the living of lives that have been transformed by it, that we give God the glory that is his due.


1 1 Corinthians 15:3–4
2 Mark 1:14
3 1 John 4:14
4 John 3:16
5 Romans 5:8
6 Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:35
7 Hebrews 4:15
8 John 6:38; 8:28–29
9 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21
10 Romans 1:16–17
11 Hebrews 13:12
12 Romans 6:2
13 Ephesians 2:8–9
14 John 10:10
15 Philippians 2:9–10
16 2 Peter 3:13
17 Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 53:5–6
18 Colossians 2:13–15
19 Romans 8:1
20 John 11:25
20 Acts 2:33; Romans 1:1–3


Article on Freewill and Justification from The Anglican Rose

An excellent and illuminating article from Charles Bartlett, whose work is becoming increasingly important to me in my own formation as an Anglican. Be sure to read the ensuing discussion.


Goodenough: Psalm 150 (King's College Choir)


Byrd: Ave Verum Corpus


Good Queen Bess

Unlike John Knox, I'm not necessarily against The Monstrous Regiment of Women, especially if the regent can be as Man-glican as was our Good Queen Bess.  In her honor and the honor of that part of the English Reformation over which she presided:


This Just In From From An Acquaintance. . .

who was a subdeacon in the Orthodox Western Rite, and who had at least a bit of influence in the Western Rite here in the states.   He has gone back to the Roman Catholic Church of his youth, and is a novice at a Benedictine monastery overseas.  I had asked him:

Do you think the Western Rite has a secured place in the Orthodox Church, or do you foresee eventual assimilation into the Eastern Rite?

His answer came tonight:

Frankly, I don't believe that WRO has much of a future at all. There is simply no common vision. I do foresee eventual ER assimilation, or mass defections to Rome or traditional Anglicanism (the latter, admittedly, has the advantage of a non-exceptional married clergy).

My feeling is that Orthodox ought to be Byzantine, Romans ought to be Roman, Anglicans ought to be Anglican. Uniate projects (and yes, I include here Greek Catholicism and Anglican Use Roman Catholicism) never seem to work out; they always produce a sort of bastardized "tertium quid".

There are no data on the future, of course, but I happen to share his opinon.  We may be wrong, but if I had to lay money on the prediction, I'd bet the days of the Western Rite are numbered.  As I've argued, potential converts to Orthodoxy hoping to remain "Western" will very likely be frustrated in that goal if they go WR. 


Chant of the Templars - Salve Regina; Byzantine Chant, Anglican Churches and English Castles


Submit Yourselves One to Another (John Sheppard - c1515-1558)

The English Tudor era composer John Sheppard's setting of lines from Ephesians 5 (21, 19--20) is very typical of early Anglican anthems for lower voices in its use of the ABB pattern.


Not Anglican, But Beautiful

Eric Whitacre's Alleluia.  My brother is slipping away tonight and will soon be with God, leaving me as the last surviving member of our nuclear family.  I expect he'll hear sounds much like this when he gets there: