The Practical Parson

 With the recent election of a Woman to sit in the seat of St. Augustine at Canterbury; the Anglican world is yet again aflame with the half-a-century old debate on women's ordination.  Having written extensively in previous posts on the matter from a theological and philosophical perspective, which are still unconvincing to those most ardent supporters of women's ordination; it would seem a point of futility to argue the point any further.  However a cleric that I have known made the statement recently, that the ordination of men only, was only a "tradition" of the church; and argued that such could be changed by the church.  Unfortunately, this is not only untrue, but it degrades the very heart and essence of the priestly ministry to a position of non-consequence.  If such a thing were indeed true that the church alone created and could change the dignity and nature of the priesthood by popular acclaim, then the promised salvation and ever-abiding presence tha...

 As an Anglican, it is incumbent upon me to hold to the tradition of the 39 articles of religion.  However one may hold to a tradition, while accepting that this text, which inspired may be; is not beyond reproach nor infallible or inerrant, since only the written Word of God holds that distinction.  As such, it is entirely possible to disagree with and oppose certain aspects of the articles, when they touch upon matters that the articles describe as repugnant to Scripture; which are in fact scripturally evident and proven matters.  Case in point:  Article 22 describes the veneration of relics (in a list of other items) as being "vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."   A rather serious indictment, were it only true.  I would submit, for your consideration; that the preservation and veneration of relics is actually not only scriptural, but that scripture itself contains evidences that...

 Recently, I was watching a group interview with members of GAFCON and ACNA speaking about the creation of a new, Independent Anglican Diocese info Australia (Diocese of the Southern Cross).  A theme which kept recurring in the discussion they engaged in was the term and references to "Revisionists" and "revisionism".  At face value, to anyone who holds Sacred scripture as the groundwork of our faith, that sounds like a terrifying concept- who would dare try to revise holy writ?  And I think that, that is to an extent what the bishops of GAFCON and ACNA were going for- the shock factor of others attempting to revise what the scriptures teach.  However, as Anglicans, it is an intriguingly odd notion to accuse anyone else of attempting to revise teachings; when the revision of teaching itself is the cause for the Anglican Communion's very existence.  Had it not been for Henry VIII and Cranmer changing the foundational teaching of the church's independence and...