Carl Trueman hosts this nice, short, interview:

Catching up on all of the Anglican news I missed being out of the country these past two weeks led me to this quote by Bishop Michael Nazir Ali regarding the failure of the Anglican Communion Covenant to pass in the Church of England:

“I am disappointed that the Anglican Communion Covenant, even in its watered down version,has failed to gain the support of the Church of England. This now means that the Jerusalem Statement (2008) is now ‘The only game in town.’” (Anglican Mainstream)

Personally, I am quite pleased that the Covenant has failed.  I hope, now, that it fails globally.  Why?  Because as +Nazir Ali notes, the Covenant is a weak, watered down, document – a minimalist and sad attempt to find some common framework to preserve a crumbling Communion.  Global rejection of the Covenant may just open the door for the robust and clear Jerusalem Statement (2008) to take center stage as the doctrinal/confessional center of Anglicanism.  Secondly, failure of the liberal western Anglican leadership (specifically, the Archbishop of Canterbury who bet the farm on the Covenant’s passage) signaled by the rejection of the Covenant may allow for the emergence of GAFCON/FCA as the organizational center of Anglicanism.

The following extract, The Jerusalem Declaration, is from the larger document, The Jerusalem Statement:

The Jerusalem Declaration

In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.

    1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.

    2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

    3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

    4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

    5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

    6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

    7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

    8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

    9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.

    10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.

    11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

    12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

    13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

    14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

One of the first people I ran into this afternoon at Anglican 1000 was Matt Kennedy (from Stand Firm in Faith).  He’s here live-blogging.

This morning he wrote this fantastic article on the gathering we are here for.  Here’s a snip:

So why are we here and what is Anglican1000?

Three years ago Archbishop Duncan called North American Anglicans to plant 1000 new churches in 5 years. The first Anglican1000 Summit was designed to support and equip leaders to meet this call.

Back then, many people, myself included, were dubious.

How could a new church-body boasting less than 700 congregations, many of which were beaten, bloodied, and depleted after long, painful and often losing legal struggles with the Episcopal Church, possibly hope to more than double itself in less than half a decade?

The congregation I lead, Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York, newly departed from The Episcopal Church, had only five months earlier lost our church building and the rectory (home to me, my wife, Anne, and then four children) in a lawsuit filed by our former diocese. My people were reeling. Anne and I were heartbroken and embittered. We were fighting for survival. Planting a new church was something far beyond the realm of what we considered possible.

Good Shepherd’s story was far from unique. Anglicans across the country had lost buildings, left homes, suffered church splits, and lost leaders. It was dark.

Three years later, things feel a lot different. David Roseberry, rector of Christ Church Plano, writes: “Inside the Anglican 1000 office, we can barely keep up. Churches are being planted, congregations are launching satellite works, seminaries are retooling their curriculum, students are being trained, and the Gospel is going forward church by church, life by life, heart by heart.”

The Anglican1000 website provides tangible evidence of this forward movement with story after story from the field of new congregations and new networks emerging across the continent.

I don’t know the numbers—I’m not sure if anyone does—so I can’t say how many new congregations have been planted in the last three years nor how many are in the works now (that’s a number I hope to be able to report at some point) but, what three years ago seemed an overambitious, improbable, even absurd goal, appears now to be within reach . . . .

 Read the rest.

Ran across this article to which I replied, AMEN!  It has cross application to both child-rearing as well as to parish life and leadership:

A while back, I had a student with a serious attitude problem. Let’s call her “Sue.” On the first day of an art course in which I first encountered Sue, my antennae shot up. At the end of my opening presentation, when I asked for questions, Sue responded by launching a missile. Due to her internship obligations, she would be late for several classes. I reiterated my policy on lateness (it’s strict) and suggested it might be best for her to drop my course. To this Sue responded that she needed to take my course to graduate (translation: “Your course is the course that suits my schedule”).

See how it turned out.

A very interesting account of a conversation between Steve Jobs and President Obama in which Jobs tells Obama that manufacturing jobs are not returning and why this must be so.

Here’s a clip:

A really nice article by Rick Reilly:

A man is more than his failings.

I learned a lot about Paterno when I wrote a story about him in 1986 for Sports Illustrated. I’ve learned a lot about him since. He was a humble, funny and giving man who was unlike any other coach I ever met in college football. He rolled up his pants to save on dry cleaning bills. He lived in the same simple ranch house for the last 45 years. Same glasses, same wife, same job, for most of his adult life.

He was a man who had two national championships, five undefeated seasons, and yet for years he drove a white Ford Tempo. In 46 years as a head coach, he never had a single major NCAA violation.

Read the rest.

I’m a Belichick fan.

I became aware of him when he was the DC for the Giants.  I was thrilled when he became the HC of the Browns.  And, while that chapter of his life ended badly (for the Browns, anyway), I was impressed by his approach to the game and to leadership culture he created.

A few years ago, I had my staff read David Halberstam’s (one of my all-time favorite authors) excellent book, The Education of a Coach.  Some thought it an odd choice – especially those fans of other teams.  However, I have a value for cross-discipline learning and Halberstam explored the nuances of both the game and the man. Halberstam wrote, “I’ve been fascinated by Bill Belichick for more than twenty years, going back to the time when he was a young coach in his early thirties working with the linebackers on the Giants. . . There was, I thought, a certain signature to a Belichick game and I was fascinated by that, and by the fact that he seemed so uncoachlike, or perhaps the prototype for a very different kind of modern coach in what is an increasingly complicated game.”

In my mind, Halberstam’s words echoed the need for a radically different approach to “church” in an increasingly complicated and rapidly changing world.

Yesterday, the Post & Courier ran an article by Jim Litke wondering if Belichick is the game’s last real anarchist.  It “refreshed” my leadership browser.  Like him or not, the man is brilliant.  For me, he remains a model (not THE model, but a model) of leadership and innovation.  Also, his ability to create a “discipling” culture is impressive.  As Halberstam notes above there is “a certain signature to a Belichick game.”

I wonder what your “signature” is?

Here’s a clip from Litke’s article:

There’s something about Bill Belichick that rubs people the wrong way.

Not Patriots fans, of course, nor most of the guys who play for him. That’s because he’s taken their teams to four Super Bowls, won three, and has them back in the AFC title game this Sunday for the sixth time in his 11 seasons. It’s how he does it that riles most everyone else.

Read the rest.

I’m over in Atlanta for a Board meeting of the AAC.  I’d heard about the release of this communiqué this afternoon and just had a chance to read it on Stand Firm’s website.

The folks over at Stand Firm note: “A source close to the negotiations who wished to remain anonymous said, ‘This statement appears to contradict statements by the AMiA bishops about what happened in Nairobi. The Nairobi statement seems to be saying that the AMiA bishops agreed to all of Rwanda’s requests; the AMiA says something very different.’”

Here’s the text from Nairobi:

COMMUNIQUE FROM ARCHBISHOP ELIUD REGARDING THE JANUARY 4TH RECONCILIATION MEETING BETWEEN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF RWANDA AND AMiA

On Wednesday January 4th, 2012 a reconciliation meeting was in Nairobi, Kenya, held between the leaders of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda [PEAR] at the invitation of the Most Rev’d Dr. Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya [ACK] and Chairman of the Primates Council of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans [GAFCON/FCA}

Present were the Most Rev'd Dr. Elîud Wabukala (ACK), the Most Rev'd Onesphore Rwage (PEAR), the Rt. Rev'd Lauren Mbanda (PEAR), Rt. Rev'd Chuck Murphy (AMiA) and the Rt. Rev'd John Miller (AMiA). Also present were the Most Rev'd Ikechi Nwosu (Church of Nigeria), the Rt. Rev'd Ioseph Kanuku (ACK), the Rt. Rev'd Timothy Ranji (ACK), the Rt. Kalu (ACK) and the Rt. Rev'd Dr. Gideon Githiga (ACK).

The Chairman made it clear that while there had been a painful and very public breakdown in the relationship between the leadership of the Anglican Mission in America and the Anglican Church of Rwanda he was confident that by God's grace reconciliation could be achieved and harmony restored. He invited both sides to present their concerns openly and urged all present to listen prayerfully.

Bishop Chuck Murphy began by expressing his profound regret for the broken relationship and stressed his commitment to lead AMiA as a single-minded mission agency. He was deeply distressed by the public accusations made against him but remains determined to fulfill the mandate that had been given to him and Bishop John Rodgers when they were consecrated in Singapore in January 2000, by Archbishops Kolini and Tay.

Archbishop Onesphore Rwage also acknowledged his deep distress at the broken relationships since he counted Bishop Murphy to be a friend of many years. He also expressed his appreciation for the amazing work that has been accomplished by the AMiA. His concerns were focused on the confusion brought about by the continuing role of the former Archbishop, the lack of financial transparency and the recently announced plans to separate from the Church of Rwanda and function independently without adequate prayer or consultation.

After a lengthy discussion between all parties, including those present as observers, the following points were agreed to:

1. They were all resolved that forgiveness should come from both sides of the divide.

2. The founding Fathers {Archbishops Kolini, Young and Tay) should work together with the incumbent Archbishop of Rwanda with the former acknowledging the ecclesiastical authority ofthe latter.

3. The Church of Rwanda agreed to stop looking at AMiA's mistakes and look forward and walk together for the sake of the Gospel.

4. AMiA agreed that they remain canonically under the Church of Rwanda and accept the doctrine of forgiveness.

5. The Archbishop of Rwanda and Bishop Murphy agreed to start the process of forgiveness with both acknowledging that things went wrong between them. They both agreed that when they start talking together the misunderstandings will be clarified and corrected.

6. AMiA agreed to continue to work with the Church of Rwanda and that other plans for restructuring will be put on hold for six [6] months to allow time for healing and for other fruitful discussions.

7. The next steps for the two leaders would be for the Archbishop of Rwanda to talk with his House of Bishops and for Bishop Chuck Murphy to meet with his Council of Bishops to begin the work of reconciliation between both groups.

Archbishop Eliud commended those gathered for their hard work and determination to allow the Holy Spirit to break down barriers of misunderstanding and begin the process of healing and restoration. He assured them of his prayers as they move forward together Walking in the light of God’s amazing grace.

On behalf of all those who gathered

The Most Rev’d Eliud Wabukala January 17, 2012

Stand Firm has posted a pdf of the document here.

Again, on the cultural phenomenon of Tim Tebow from Patton Dodd:

In communities across America, whether religious or secular, fields of play are often seen as workshops of character. Parents and coaches get kids involved with sports because they care about encouraging them to be better people.

At the national level, however, big-time sports is big business, with billions of dollars at stake, and Americans tend to be cynical about the whole show. In this world, Mr. Tebow’s frequent professions of faith can come across as a discordant note, equal parts over-earnestness and naïveté. It’s hard to resist the thought that, eventually, a darker reality will show through.

Mr. Tebow may indeed turn out to be a hypocrite, like other high-profile Christians in recent memory. Some of us might even want that to happen, because moral failure is something we understand. We know how to deal with disappointed expectations, to turn our songs of praise into condemnation.

What we are far less sure how to do is to take seriously a public figure’s seemingly admirable character and professions of higher purpose. We don’t know how to trust goodness.

Read the rest.

An excellent article from Elizabeth Scalia:

It says a great deal about the depths to which America’s values have fallen that Tim Tebow–who, once upon a time, would have been the wholesome, women-and-mom-respecting, clean-playing, fresh-faced and faithful Hollywood ideal of a football hero—is the target of such deep derision from so many sources, and in an era of such vaunted “tolerance.”

Although it may seem too easy to some, I blame the baby-boomers—a generation so in love with deconstructing old standards (and so completely neurotic about being perceived as anti-establishment, smart, and most of all, cool) that it only can express full-on admiration for the anti-heroes. Were Tim Tebow using his on-camera time to swagger and preen and lecture the nation on green energy, greedy millionaires, and gun control, his Christ-fixation would not only be permitted, it would be held up as a gaudy rebuke to uncool Christians everywhere, and his pronouncements—as long as he kept his mouth shut on abortion and gay marriage—would never be challenged.

Just as green-grabbing, millionaire musicians are never asked why the masses should give up their meager comforts to save the planet, while they themselves are permitted to grow ever-richer from their energy-hogging concert tours, Tebow could play a brightly-lighted night game every week and take a knee five times a yard to nothing but cheers, if only he embraced this year’s anti-establishment, smart, and cool narrative.

Read the rest.