Archbishop-designate Sarah: let's pray for her!

I am very pleased that the Church of England, with the assistance of five voting Communion members, including the Reverend Isaac Beach of our church, has come to a decision, agreed to by the British PM and the King himself, that the Right Reverend Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

The role is important in the C of E itself and [in my view, argued elsewhere on this blog] for the Anglican Communion also. At this time, Bishop Sarah is well-positioned to be the (dare I say, "our"?) new archiepiscopal leader: a leader in the secular world, former Chief Nurse of the UK, prior to ordination, then Bishop of London, these past seven years - a complex and challenging role in a major world city. 

Challenges facing the C of E have been fairly well canvassed in media articles and even on this blog - declining numbers and influence, divisions over sexuality and over missional strategy ("Save the Parish" v new initiatives in church planting etc), hurt and pain over sexual and spiritual abuse and experiences of survivors that the institutional response of the CofE has been far from adequate - I write such things not in judgement/evaluation but in reflection of what any reader of secular and ecclesiastical media in recent years would have been reading. Initial responses to Bishop Sarah's appointment are, thankfully, mostly positive, about her ability to contribute good, and kind leadership into this complex set of challenges.

Of course, there are other responses to Bishop Sarah's appointment, so that from the wider Communion, sadly, even tragically, the GAFCON and related responses are of the "this hastens the end of things" type. All very predictable. You can read the good, bad and ugly responses via links Thinking Anglicans, as always, helpfully supplies, here.

One not so predictable is that of Ian Paul at Psephizo. Potentially he could have marked her harder. He finds a lot of good in her appointment. His post is also useful for the citations he makes within it - helping readers to get a fuller sense of response to +Sarah's appointment. (Of course I don't care for what he has to say about our church in the course of his reflections (and I don't see that whatever state our church may or may not be in has anything to do with the presence of our church in the discernment and voting process - the five Communion members were chosen according to a Communion determination of how it would be best represented!).)

On a personal note, I met +Sarah at the Lambeth Conference 2022 and had a lovely conversation with her. And also with Eamonn her husband. They are are very straightforward couple to engage with and it would be lovely to think they might visit our blessed isle one day ... perhaps to re-open a cathedral????

It is absolutely worth noting that it is a good, right and proper thing that we have our first female Archbishop of Canterbury in prospect. Some comments here and there (by which, of course, I include Facebook) are derogatory about having a woman in such a role. End of the church. I am leaving the church. Etc. But, here's the thing: God loves all humanity, male and female. God in Christ died for all humanity, male and female. God through the Spirit gifts all humanity, female and male, with the gifts and the vocations the church needs to do God's work. It is a strange view of God that if the church decides to choose a leader from 100% of its membership rather than 50% of its membership that God is going to have a sulk about it. Neither should we!

So, what can we do to support Bishop Sarah in the next months, while she remains Bishop of London, but, no doubt, has many Cantabrian thoughts to think, and so will be in transition, and as she and others prepare for her official start in late January 2026 and formal, ceremonial beginning in March 2026?

Let us pray for her. We can all do that.

Postscript: whereas some Catholic/Anglo-Catholic comments I have seen either bewail +Sarah's appointment, or offer the most guarded and hesitant of responses, from the Roman Catholic church leadership itself comes this lovely and warm support, by Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, who writes to +Sarah:

"Having learned of your nomination… I write to congratulate you on your appointment and to express the good wishes of the Catholic Church to you as you prepare to undertake this important service in your Church. I pray that the Lord will bless you with the gifts you need for the very demanding ministry to which you have now been called, equipping you to be an instrument of communion and unity for the faithful among whom you will serve,"

In my experience of Catholic-Anglican relationships, this kind of response is genuine, and betokens good relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as set in motion in the 1960s, continuing. 

A simple recipe to improve much of current Christianity (!?)

I assume that most if not all readers here love the Bible for its capacity to have a verse or part of a verse jump up and hit us between the eyes, often from the most familiar of passages, and provoke an instant reactive thought, "Wow, I never saw that before ... thank you, Lord."

The other day, happening upon Hebrews 12, I read verse 14 (a la the sentence above):

Pursue peace with everyone and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Now, admittedly, my reading of this verse on this day may be slightly peculiar (but it is how the verse struck me). I read it in this way;

When we are divided as Christians, and when our lives fall short of what people expect we will live like as Christians, then non-Christians will not find their way to encounter Jesus.

In our day, when (to cite but a few examples), we have very public division among Christians (e.g. over Trump, over Israel/Gaza/West Bank, over Ukraine/Russia, to say nothing of divisions over sexuality, women in leadership, and more generally, our denominational differences) and we have very public examples of unholy behaviour (most notably, sexual abuse by church leaders), we also have some - despite, wonderfully, signs of church growth in the West - clear determinations by people (e.g. among our friends, workmates, extended family) to avoid church like the plague.

I acknowledge that, on further reflection on Hebrews 12:14, that my "reading" on that day is not how the writer to the Hebrews intended his or her sentence to be read. In the context of the verses preceding and succeeding 12:14, the writer is saying this:

(As you follow Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith, of your discipleship), pursue peace (rather than division) in your relationships with people, especially with your brothers and sisters in Christ, and live holy lives (as you are called to do by God's prophet's and apostles, and by Jesus himself), because only holy people can "see the Lord", that is, be in eternal fellowship with the Lord. [Verses 15 and 16 spell out to specific aspects of living holy lives, as does the whole of chapter 13.]

More simply, my "peculiar" reading a few days ago was an evangelistic reading of the verse; closer to the intention of the writer is, in fact, a discipleship reading of the verse.

Nevertheless, it is, is it not, a salutary reflection - whatever the "correct" reading of the verse is - that we acknowledge barriers to people coming to Jesus Christ such as Christian division; Christian bad behaviour?

The two greatest developments in Christian thought?

One of my favourite gospel stories is told in Mark 2:1-12 and parallels, the healing of the paralyzed man which is simultaneously the releasing of the man paralyzed by sin through Jesus's word of forgiveness. But this word is given by Jesus who identifies himself as the Son of Man, a quite specific Jewish term for the long awaited Messiah sent by Israel's God (see, e.g., Daniel 7:9-13; Isaiah 42; Isaiah 61). At this point in time, we have Good News for Israel.

The first of the two greatest developments in Christian thought is initiated through the Apostle Paul - Saul the persecutor of Christians who is dramatically converted and understands in a (fairly literal) flash that everything he is opposed to is in fact true, that Christ was crucified for the salvation of all humanity, non-Jew and Jew. That the fledgling movement of followers of Jesus within the Judaism(s) of his day, in the territory of Israel and beyond, became a universal faith, open to all humanity, flows from the revelation God gave to Paul. Christianity is a universal faith and not "another" Jewish movement because of Paul. The forgiveness of sins is universal, not national.

What is the second greatest development? Again, if we take Mark 2:1-12 as a starting point, we see in this story that Jesus makes a startling claim, to be able to forgive sins, as though he himself were God. That this was a startling claim is noted in the story itself which reports,

Some teachers of the Law who were stitting there thought to themselves, "How does he dare talk like this? This is blasphemy! God is the only one who can forgive sins!" (2:6-7 GNB).

In various ways, across texts in the gospels and the epistles, this kind of expression is made - the kind which tentatively raises the question of Jesus' relationship with and status before God, without quite making explicit anything which looks like the later Nicene confession of the church, that Jesus Christ is very God.

The second greatest development in Christian thought takes place through the writing of John the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel bearing his name. All the talk elsewhere in the New Testament - - such as in Mark 2:1-12 - about Jesus being - in some way or another, to some degree or another - divine, and rightly being deemed "the Son of God", does not cross the line, over which Jesus is not merely divine, but a participant in deity, not only named "the Son of God" (so, also, could be: Israel, high angels, and you and me, the children of God) but the Son who is in eternal union with the Father. John takes us across that line.

In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son ... No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:1; 14; 18).

There is, post John's Gospel, still work for the church to do. To settle the place  Holy Spirit in the Godhead. To work on the nature/s of Jesus Christ as human and divine. Hence the theological battles of the first centuries towards the creeds of the church being agreed to. But the cut through, the map of the path to those creeds, is opened up and sketched out by the Fourth Gospel. 

The two greatest theologians of the Christian movement are Paul and John - or John and Paul, I am not giving any order to their respective importance.

Of course, what this means for the Christian movement today is worth thinking about:

1. Any narrowing of the vision of God for the salvation of humanity, that it is the whole of humanity in God's sight, and not a select few, is contrary to the revelation God has given us through Paul.

2. Any diminution of understanding that God is Trinity; that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human, is a profound misunderstanding of God's revelation in and through Jesus Christ and his apostles.

Gaza action in NZ by NZ clergy

This week clergy (Anglican, Catholic, Baptist) have made headlines through two actions (Auckland and Wellington) seeking to press the NZ Government to extend sanctions [there are a few already against a few Israeli leaders] to press Israel to cease their war/genocide against Palestinians in Gaza (and the West Bank). Articles here, here and here.

There is a strong sense among many Christians in NZ that "enough is enough". Israel needs calling out on what it is doing, more than that, it needs pressuring against what it is doing. Hence these actions, hence our own recent diocesan synod calling for a letter to the PM and Cabinet endorsing a couple of recent statements including one which calls on sanctions: see here and here.

I am aware, of course, that such a sense of enough is enough, this must stop, is not shared by all Christians in NZ. Hamas could, for instance, surrender now - better, some months ago - in order to spare the Palestinians it professes to serve the agony, death, grief and destruction they are experiencing as Israel fulfils its intent to destroy Hamas.

Nevertheless, there is a question about what an aggressor - as Israel is in this situation - should do - ehtically - in order to pursue a particular policy goal. Are the cruel, genocidal, warring actions of the IDF the only way to destroy Hamas? That is not at all clear. Is what Israel doing, even if they do destroy Hamas, creating an environment in which present and future generations of Palestinians (to say nothing of Arab allies) will have no bitterness about their suffering, no grounds to spur future creations of new terror groups? A definite NO. Israel is sowing something which will reap future deathly consequences.

Sanctioning Israel into ending its annihiliation of Hamas, of Gaza and, in time, Palestinian life on the West Bank, could actually do Israel a favour!

Where to from here?

It will be interesting to see if the NZ Government does take some kind of new and even bold step in its response to the suffering. There are hints that a big announcement is coming when Winston Peters, our Foreign Minister, addresses the UN later this month. It may take future historians to determine whether church statements and protests have influenced the direction of our Government if there is change - other forces are at work on our Government, including other parties in our parliament, regular and sometimes massive protests on our streets, and - I suggest - a moral conscience for a Government that includes Christians.

Let's see what might happen in the next two weeks.

Living through history

Last week I mentioned that my Dad had died. Yesterday his funeral was held in the Transitional Cathedral here in Christchurch. All was lovely and wonderful about that and for that we his family are very appreciative of the many people who made it all possible - thank you!

Of course we had a hand in a number of things ourselves, including four tributes by one of his two surviving brothers, myself, a grandson and one of my brothers. Me focusing on Dad's contribution to church life and my brother focusing on what it meant to be a child of our father.

I thought I would share a few thoughts about Dad and his life, not all of them covered by those tributes.

Dad [Brian Carrell] was born in 1933 in Lincoln Road, Christchurch. The same year, incidentally, that the Carmelite nunnery was built further down Lincoln Road (you can see "1933" on its fence!)

In his household, along with his parents, were his widowed grandfather (who owned the house) and his great grandfather - William Rowe. William was born in 1839 (England) and died in 1936. He was a soldier in the Crimean War. He would have held Dad on his knee, and in the past couple of years Dad has held three of his great grandchildren on his knee ... the years back to 1840 (a significant date in NZ history) do not seem so far back when you put it like that in terms of generational cross over!

At the present time in NZ we bewail aspects of a changing society, and this includes loss of a sense of community, and anger at lack of access to decent housing. Some laments about this state of affairs include nostalgia for a past in NZ when things were better.

But were they?

I recall Dad telling me about two pastoral experiences when he was Vicar of St. Matthew's, Dunedin (1965-71).

One was the saddest funeral he ever took: the deceased, the undertaker, and himself. The deceased had been a "patient" of Cherry Farm (a psychiatric hospital near Dunedin), who had experienced some kind of (in the language of former times) nervous breakdown and his family had had him committed to hospital. He never left and, clearly, the family had not kept in touch. Not quite community values (or family values) to be nostalgic for! 

And, treatment of mentally ill people back in the days when he would have gone to hospital (1920s/30s), involved hospitalization as first resort rather than last, as it is these days. Perhaps these days are better than the "old days."

Another story was visiting someone in a house which was part of a very poor area in Dunedin, not far from where we lived (in the vicarage amidst middle class splendour). Recall that Dunedin is a city resplendent with wonderful, solid, prestigious buildings and splendid brick and mortar houses, due to the glory days of the gold rushes in central Otago. Not all shared in the wealth which gold generated!

On this visit, Dad went through the front door and his foot broke through the rotten floorboards of the hallway. Thankfully, in my recollection, later, this set of derelict houses was demolished and new and better housing built. But, as we (rightly) wish for better access to quality housing in NZ today, let's work on what we can do now and not waste time on nostalgia for what may never have been the case, that once upon a time, everyone had a chance to live in a decent house.

Final memory, also of Dunedin days. I mentioned in my tribute that Dad was chair of the organising committee for the 1969 Billy Graham Crusade, held at Carisbrook, Dunedin. What I didn't mention is that I can recall every word that Billy Graham spoke to me and my brothers when Dad introduced us to him.

"God bless you."

There you have it - this week's post!

A death

 Yesterday (Monday) the DEL epistle reading was this:

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. 

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words. 

This is the word of the Lord. 

1 Thessalonians 4.13–end

The previous night, Sunday evening, my Dad died - peacefully and with his family around him. How wonderful to have this reading the next morning!

Dad was a clergyman, being ordained at the youngest possible age, 23, and living until he was 92. His funeral will be on Monday 8 September 2025 at 10.30 am in the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch.

Evil in the World Today

I have been following the situations in Gaza (and the West Bank) and in Ukraine pretty closely, and have tried to keep awareness of the much less reported perturbations in Sudan. There is much commentary on the two wars at the forefront of Western media headlines and I acknowledge that one more comment (or set of comments) here won't make any difference to the appalling situations fellow human beings face hour by hour and day by day, not knowing whether they will be alive or dead at the end of any given day.

My reflections in recent weeks have been focused on the power of evil in these situations. For instance, there is the evil of deceit in respect of claims that "this territory is ours because of ...[history]", the deceit not only being that such claims involves controversion of historical facts, but also that such a claim entails justification for war, for killing people, for maiming people, for displacing people, for destroying homes, for taking away livelihoods, for starving people ... there is a long list of the evil of deceit justifying the evil of destruction. Evil multiplies evil.

There is also the evil of leadership viewing human life as expendable. Hamas could surrender, its leadership safe in safe havens outside of Gaza could stop using this war to gain some kind of moral and public relations advantage over Israel. Israel could have a different approach to democracy which would give extreme parties less leverage in government, a leverage which views human life in Gaza and the West Bank as expendable. Russia seems intentionally careless with the lives of its soldiers - each of whom is a human being, not an expendable unit of military prowess - in favour of what, by any count of Russia's great land mass, is a tiny gain to national esteem as a great nation. One could go on.

A further evil of deceit emerges with each attempt at either a ceasefire or an actual peace between foes. No side seems serious about ending the evil multiplying evil. Meetings are held, things are said, proposals are proposed. Shooting and bombing continues.

For Christians, tempted to despair, this is a call to prayer ... Your kingdom come ... Deliver us from evil ... For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against, rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.