Whither the Anglican Communion? Revised new proposals ... and Gafcon's last minute revision ...

Last year the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals were published for a new way of being the Anglican Communion. 

On the one hand, these proposals tried hard to reflect the reality of impaired communion in the Anglican Communion. 

On the other hand, these proposals were not warmly received to universal acclaim. Fortunately some have listened and now a "supplement" to the proposals has been issued, copy-and-pasted [far] below. 

Head here for a summary of the situation, and from that page you can download the original proposals and the supplement. Head to this Thinking Anglicans' post re various links ...

My own sense of these proposals is that they may be:

1. over anxious about various provinces' views on the Communion's future, noting Gavin Drake's major point, see below, that despite rhetoric, no province has actually left the Communion yet.

2. correct that the ABC's job, as Primate of All England and "primus inter pares" for the whole Communion is unsustainable.

3. incorrect that a "job sharing" approach with regional primates is the best possible response to 2 above. There could, alternatively, be a strong role for the General-Secretary of the Communion ...

Always good, however, to know that people listen to one another.

Speaking of which, the recent Gafcon plenary in Nigeria seemed to be headed towards a major announcement of Gafcon becoming "the" Global Anglican Communion and an announcement of a (not their term) "Anti-Archbishop of Canterbury". Not so! At all but the last minute, the key leaders at the conference announced that listening to the Holy Spirit sent them in a different direction, so that the announcement was:

"As we develop new structures for the Global Anglican Communion, the Gafcon Primates have dissolved the Gafcon Primates Council, which has faithfully led and served the Gafcon movement since 2008.

In a world where most organizations and individuals are concerned about keeping power and authority, the Gafcon Primates Council has made an unprecedented decision to share its stewardship of the Global Anglican Communion by creating the Global Anglican Council which includes primates, advisors, and guarantors, which will include bishops, clergy, and lay members each with full voting privileges."

More an Alternative ACC than an Alternative Archbishop of Canterbury!

Incidentally, for a tenor of the kind of advice in the air in the Nigeria event, read this about ++Davies talk. In my best understanding of what the Gafcon announcement means, that talk has been disregarded. Which I am glad about because being Anglican is not "all about" doctrine, it is also about history and relationship, with the ABC central to both aspects. If Anglicanism is all about doctrine then we are merely an accident of the history of Christian thought, in which some erudition in the context of turmoil in the 16th century sets the course for all future "authentic" Anglicanism, without recourse to any developments since then, in life, in understanding of the meaning of the Bible, etc, etc.

Whither then the Communion in relation to Gafcon, and vice versa? Gavin Drake has a fascinating take on what is what and what, despite protestations otherwise, is not what - threats have not been realised!

The bit that is missing from Drake's piece is consideration of the role of Global South in the life of the Communion (a consideration in my view which is driving forward the Nairobi-Cairo proposals and now their proposed revision).

So, back to those proposals ...

Lent 2026

Supplement to The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (Rome, 2025) by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order 

Executive summary 

IASCUFO’s Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (NCPs), published in Advent 2024, envision the Church afresh as truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic so that Anglicans may carry the hope of a new creation into the world. The Anglican Communion long ago committed itself to answering God’s call to unity and to finding our place in the Body of Christ. What happens between us as we acknowledge our interdependence matters for our integrity and effectiveness locally, regionally, and globally. The following supplement to the NCPs, developed at a meeting in Rome in December 2025, summarises IASCUFO’s learning as we have listened to responses to our paper and suggests several revisions for the consideration of ACC-19, meeting in June/July 2026. 

The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals boil down to three urgent calls for our common life: 

• Acknowledge developments in the structures of the Communion since 1930. When the Lambeth Conference of 1930 offered its description of the Anglican Communion, it presumed an understanding of all Anglican churches as gathered round the Church of England as mother. This has not been the case since at least 1968. All Anglican churches, including the Church of England, are now sisters. The Constitution of the ACC governs the Communion’s membership. In view of these facts, an updated description of the Communion will enable all Anglicans to speak truly and honestly about the faith, ministry, and mission that we share. 

• Acknowledge that communion has been damaged between some churches, but that real communion remains, both as God’s gift and as something Christ calls us to intensify. All the churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together, despite our differences, in living relationships with one another, aided by the Instruments of Communion. We are not defined by the decisions of any single member church. This fact enables us to articulate our communion in various ways, and to walk together to the highest degree possible. It encourages us to be honest about our divisions and make room for one another in love.  

• Ensure the Communion’s leadership looks like the Communion. This means recognising the fact that the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ Meeting, as well as the Lambeth Conference, complement and complete the unique ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Communion. The ACC incorporates lay voices and leadership: we propose that these contributions be enhanced. The regional primates already assist the Archbishop of Canterbury in his or her ministry in the Communion: we propose that the collegial character of this shared ministry be developed.  

To acknowledge the need for change and act accordingly will enhance the integrity of our witness, promote collegiality between our leaders, and amplify Anglican voices in both ecumenical and secular settings. It will enable us to shed some of the baggage of colonialism while celebrating a shared theological and sacramental inheritance, to which the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury bears witness. And it will encourage all Anglican churches, even amid serious disagreements, to speak and embody a word of hope and healing in a world riven by violence and despair.  

Introduction 

1. Since the publication of The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (NCPs) in Advent 2024, the membership of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has carefully considered the formal responses we have received. IASCUFO has continued to consult regularly with the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council, which includes the Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting, also referred to as the “regional primates.” We have also spoken several times with the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, as well as with ecumenical partners.  

2. At our meeting in Rome in December 2025 we reflected on these conversations alongside consideration of a recently published paper by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, entitled The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues (2024). We saw that the Catholic Church is re-casting its theology of the papacy, including the claims of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), in the light of changing circumstances and new discernments, not least with other Christians and churches.  

3. The Anglican Communion similarly is engaged in a reconsideration and re-casting of its history and its claims in order faithfully to respond to the Spirit’s call to unity. The Anglican Communion has changed enormously in the last 100 years, especially through its emerging understanding of the equality of all member churches. No member is more “indispensable” than others (1 Cor. 12:22), though old colonial habits are hard to break on all sides. All are sisters, and all are encouraged to invest in their communion, one with another. 

4. The NCPs recount the history and theology of these developments in the Anglican Communion by mapping them onto an understanding of the Church as persistently one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (see NCP, §§24-71). Founded in this faith and order, the NCPs seek to offer a fruitful framework and provisional direction of travel for the next season of Anglican life together, without pretending to solve every problem or anticipate future questions. A gift of Anglicanism remains our principled “variability” (see NCP, §60ff.), as an offering of hope in the Gospel that we, with all Christians, would urgently share with the world. 

• There is only one body of Christ, the unity of which is, at once, a gift of the Holy Spirit and a call that must be answered by each generation. Anglicans (and other Christians) are simultaneously made one in Christ by baptism and faith and called to a yet more complete, full, and visible communion (see NCP, §§25-29).  

• Our present disputes centre on what a holy life looks like and at the same time present an opportunity to engage one another in as holy and godly a way as possible. By listening carefully and charitably, marking conscientious disagreements with respect, and refusing to coerce one another, we invest in the one communion we seek to cultivate, even as we find it wounded by our divisions (see NCP, §§40-48). 

• We hear the summons of the Scriptures and the ancient Church to catholic witness, which includes the space within which inter- and intra-ecclesial dispute and discernment take place on the way to resolution. The communion of the baptised is a mixed body of pilgrims, sustained by sacramental and synodical life together, and enabled by grace to persevere to the end (see NCP, §§49-57). 

• We also hear the call to apostolic faithfulness, which refers to the truth of the faith as given by God in Scripture and discerned by the bishops and councils of the Church. The apostolic character of Christian faith is ever renewed as it is taught and received afresh and proclaimed as the Good News of Jesus Christ for the nations — in “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) (see NCP, §§58-71). 2 

5. Based on these ancient marks of the Church and with continual reference to them, we have returned as a Commission to the two primary proposals of the NCPs. First Proposal: Revised description of the Anglican Communion 

6. After further reflection and conversation, we — with the Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates — remain confident in our first proposal of an updated description of the Anglican Communion to reflect its current structure and reality (see NCP, §73ff.). 

(i) The character of communion 

7. Full communion amongst us cannot be assumed by all Anglican churches but should be sought. The biblical, theological, sacramental, social, and missiological implications of communion (koinonia) must continually inspire and guide our thinking, praying, and acting as Anglican Christians and churches, even more profoundly than they have to date. This is why full communion in the one catholic and apostolic faith and order cannot simply be claimed, as if it has been achieved. At the same time, we are not at liberty to default to an accidental association or federation. The essential unity and catholicity of the Church, founded in baptism and common faith, must be strengthened in every way possible. The NCPs emphasise the Anglican bonds of 

(i) shared inheritance in faith and order, including liturgy and canon law, 

(ii) mutual service in mission, 

(iii) a commitment to taking common counsel together, and 

(iv) a historic connection with the See of Canterbury, both past and present. These bonds set us walking along the path of communion, however imperfectly (NCP, §76), and help us “not to neglect to meet with one another, as is the habit of some, but encourage one another, and all the more as we see the Day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). 

8. To seek to uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order in no way implies or intends a dilution of the Church’s urgent and perennial task of uncovering and articulating the orthodox truth of the Gospel, nor a merely subjective intention. We wish to re-present the ideals of the Anglican Communion in a realistic and hope-filled fashion. As we wrote in the Appendix of the NCPs, “the churches of the Communion seek to uphold and propagate one faith and order because ‘all of us’ are called to grow into ‘the unity of the faith’ (Eph. 4:13) (see §51, above).” Full communion is not easy, but it is what our Lord prayed for and prioritised on the night he was betrayed (see NCP, §17; cf. §76). We press on, therefore, even when many imagine that such unity can never be achieved, that our differences and divisions have overcome us, and that we need simply to agree to disagree. We need to find fair and flexible means of continuing to engage our differences in charity. We need to ask what it means to “make room for one another” (NCP, §§35-39). We do this in order to walk together and not apart, even when this entails walking “at a distance” (NCP, §§44-48). Such variegated walking will help us to “seek interdependently to foster the highest degree of communion possible one with another” (NCP, §76). 

(ii) Historic connection with Canterbury 

9. At the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the assembled bishops described the Anglican Communion as “a fellowship… of dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury” (resolution 49). This statement followed from a view of the Anglican Communion as a gathering of churches defined by its “full communion with the 3 Church of England,” as the bishops wrote in their encyclical (NCP, §§12, 74, emphasis added). The subsequent century, however, saw significant developments in our collective understanding of what it means to be Anglican, principally in the founding of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1968 and the Primates’ Meeting in 1978. These third and fourth Instruments of Communion, now inscribed in the Constitution of the ACC (NCP, §§70, 74), work in partnership with the Archbishop of Canterbury (as first instrument, dating back to 597) and the Lambeth Conference (as second instrument, from 1867).  

10. As the NCPs observe, the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury have never served as a “court of appeal or singular spokesperson amid conflict and disagreement”; this “would contravene the equality and mutuality” of the member churches of the Communion (NCP, §63; cf. §78). Instead, the Communion has reaffirmed, over and over, its early interest in “the historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church,” in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 (NCP, §§57, 60). Growing out of its rich experience of “the common counsel of the bishops” as a non-centralised, non-coercive college of equals (LC 1930, res. 49; see NCPs, Appendix), the Lambeth Conferences of 1968 and 1978 initiated the ACC and Primates’ Meeting as complementary partners. Working together, the four Instruments would seek to articulate Anglican faith and order, founded in a broad consensus about Scripture and our common traditions as the basis for unity in mission. 

11. Remembering this evolution of the Anglican Communion in the last century helps us grasp the living connection to the See of Canterbury that all Anglicans share. To describe this connection as “historic” (note: not historical) in no way relegates it to history. Just as the phrase historic episcopate refers to an ancient institution that shapes the life of the Church today, historic connection to Canterbury points, at once, to 

(i) the missionary origins of many churches of the Communion, 

(ii) the See of Canterbury’s place as a symbol of ancient apostolicity, and 

(iii) continuing relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion, which is a personal and pastoral gift, albeit one that needs to be received (NCP, §§76, 78-79, 85-86). The Archbishop is therefore “invited to serve, encourage, and persuade, as a brother or sister among siblings and peers, particularly in the college of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting,” which “bear collegial and communal responsibilities for the faith and order of the Communion” (§§86, 78; cf. §§85, 62).  

12. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury serves as “the primate of one particular church with its own polity and doctrine, which may or may not be shared fully by all other churches of the Communion,” full communion with Canterbury may not always be possible for every member church (NCP, §63; cf. §§7, §79). Again, all Anglicans should seek to strengthen the communion we share in every way possible. At the same time, IASCUFO believes that the Anglican Communion should rejoice in the fact that many of its networks are neither centred on nor organised by Canterbury or the Church of England — or any other member church (see NCP, §§56, 68). These polycentric groups sustain their own initiatives and seek to enrich the Anglican Communion as well as the wider Body of Christ.  

13. Notwithstanding the Communion’s connection to Canterbury, the Church of England cannot carry the faith of the Anglican family, nor should it be asked to do so. The sacred call of communion must be answered equally by all and taken with utmost seriousness. The churches of the Communion are called to seek the highest degree of communion possible, not the lowest degree that is tolerable (see NCP, §31ff.). Here again, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ministry of unity complements the other Instruments. 

4 Second Proposal: Broadened leadership of the Instruments 

14. Regarding the second principal proposal of the NCPs, our question has remained the same. Can the Archbishop of Canterbury’s personal and pastoral ministry in the Communion be “assisted and broadened” with the help of the regional primates who form the Primates’ Standing Committee? This was the suggestion of the Primates’ Meeting in 2024, which helped to shape the second proposal as presented (NCP, §82; cf. §63).  

15. To argue that “the leadership of the Communion should look like the Communion” (NCP, §85) is to raise questions of fairness, justice, contextuality, and mission, as well as questions of Anglican identity. It could mark a natural evolution to explore shared calling, convening, and representing as an outworking of equality and mutual respect (see NCP, §§63, 68, 74). In this way, the Communion as a whole, including the Church of England, might also continue to grow beyond its former colonial mindset and reckon with the polycentric character of global Christianity (see NCP, §§18-21). Here, we wish to propose two refinements to the second proposal of the NCPs. 

(i) Collegial sharing of the first Instrument 

16. In light of helpful feedback that we have received, and after further conversation with the whole of the Standing Committee of the ACC and Archbishop Sarah, IASCUFO wishes to propose a revision of the first part our second proposal, regarding the prospect of a “rotating presidency of the ACC” (§84). Good questions (from various perspectives) have been raised about potential rivalry with the Archbishop of Canterbury, inconsistent geographical and/or theological diversity in the “face” of the president, and potentially irregular funding and staffing of the office. A preferable approach will be simply for the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite the regional primates (who comprise the Primates’ Standing Committee) to share his or her ministry in the Communion in a collegial way and to begin to think about formalising such an arrangement in a kind of council. This might take place over a period of 3-6 years. 

17. We noted before the “increasingly collaborative” and collegial pattern of ministry among the Instruments and observed that “since at least 2016, primates have taken turns chairing sessions of the Primates’ Meeting, and the Primates’ Standing Committee has helped to shape the agendas in advance” (NCP, §83). Archbishop Justin Welby also asked the regional primates to provide pastoral support for the churches within each of their regions, when such support was requested. On his last day in office (6 Jan. 2025), Archbishop Justin wrote to the Secretary General to request that, in his absence, the regional primates take over all aspects of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ministry in the Communion. These were significant and positive developments of the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet they were provisional and dependent upon the discernment of one archbishop. 

18. We see several advantages to formalising the latter developments: 

• The standing committee of the Primates’ Meeting (also called the regional primates) could continue to share the pastoral ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the first Instrument in service of the global family.  

• Each primate on the proposed primatial council could represent the Communion (as the Archbishop of Canterbury does) in different settings, such as at the inauguration of a new province or the installation of a new primate. 5 • On such occasions, the relevant primate would precisely represent the Anglican Communion and not function as a delegate of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This follows from the principle of the diversified face of the Communion that ought not always be the face of the Church of England.  

• The Archbishop of Canterbury could continue to serve as the presumptive representative of the Communion in most ecumenical settings, even as the option of calling upon others could prove helpful (cf. NCP, §88). • The practical shape of this shared ministry would need to be discerned over time by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his or her colleagues, as they grow further into cooperating with one another in this way. This may also include a review of the current configuration of the five regions. 

19. Should this proposal be accepted by the Archbishop and the regional primates, we suggest that they might determine its structure, name, and remit. It would be fitting for ACC19 to commend such a development. 

(ii) President of the ACC 

20. ACC-19 can also make a way for the foregoing proposal by looking again at the role of President of the ACC, currently held by the Archbishop of Canterbury (see NCP, §85). As we noted before, the President of the ACC plays a largely symbolic and ex officio role (§84). Upon further reflection, IASCUFO believes that the role of President introduces an unnecessary level of complication in view of the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair. Within the life of the ACC today, it would be unthinkable to say, “we can’t do that because the President says so.” The Constitution of the ACC also stipulates that the President need not be “present” for the ACC to conduct its business (Article 7.1). Having discussed this question with the Standing Committee of the ACC, we agree that the role of President is no longer helpful. As the first Instrument of Communion, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury remain an ex officio member of the ACC and its Standing Committee, with both voice and vote, alongside the five other primatial members of that Standing Committee. 

21. We see several advantages to such a change: 

• Eliminating the role of President will enable the ACC to simplify its structure and clarify the role of the Chair. 

• Such a change fits with IASCUFO’s proposals and rationale regarding strengthened lay leadership on the Standing Committee (NCP, §94).  

• The Archbishop of Canterbury already works alongside the ACC and its Standing Committee, including its five primatial members, in collegial fashion. 

• The status quo hinders the work of the Anglican Communion Office (among others), which is charged with serving all churches of the Communion equally as an honest broker and servant of unity. 

22. It will be up to ACC-19 to consider whether, alongside other revisions to its Constitution, it wishes to excise the role of President. As noted in the NCPs (see §89), the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury will be critically important, not least because she will remain President of the ACC unless and until the Constitution is altered. 6 Conclusion 

23. When Anglicans wake up thinking about their churches, they mostly, and rightly, focus on their local parishes and dioceses. We seek to see and serve Jesus in our communities, to hear the Gospel, and to share in healing, teaching, justice, and more, alongside our friends, families, neighbours, businesses, and nations. Some of us focus on how Anglicans go about doing this — through our worship, the marks of our mission, and our contribution to the wider Body of Christ. Few of us make it our daily work to reflect on the structures of our Communion or how the Instruments function. Yet these structures have the potential to enhance or inhibit how we share the communion of Jesus Christ in our churches worldwide.  

24. The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals — now prospectively revised in view of the foregoing refinements from our meeting in Rome — attempt to envisage the Church afresh as truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic so that Anglicans may carry the hope of a new creation into the world. The Anglican Communion remains committed to answering God’s call to unity and to finding our place in the Body of Christ. What happens between us, as we acknowledge our interdependence, matters for our integrity and effectiveness locally, regionally, and globally.  

25. The proposals boil down to three urgent calls for our common life: • Acknowledge developments in the structures of the Communion since 1930.  • Acknowledge that communion has been damaged between some churches, but that real communion remains, both as God’s gift and as something Christ calls us to intensify. • Ensure the Communion’s leadership looks like the Communion.  

26. To acknowledge the need for change and act accordingly will enhance the integrity of our witness, promote collegiality between our leaders, and amplify Anglican voices in both ecumenical and secular settings. It will also encourage all Anglican churches, even amid serious disagreements, to speak and embody a word of hope and healing.   

27. If we choose not to engage the need for change and try instead to maintain the status quo, we will in effect be refusing to engage honestly and constructively with our problems and increasing the likelihood of more acrimonious division. In view of this reality, we can take heart in recalling that the Church is ever reforming. Continual testing and exploring will be needed and must be anticipated, until our Lord returns. We must, therefore, hold our structures lightly, recognising their proper provisionality in service of the healing of the one Body.  

28. As Michael Ramsey memorably wrote near the end of his great book, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (published in 1936, 25 years before he became Archbishop of Canterbury), the “credentials” of Anglicanism “are its incompleteness, with the tension and travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as ‘the best type of Christianity,’ but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died” (see NCP, §60). 

29. Looking to the months and years ahead, let us pray that the churches of the Anglican Communion can find ways to carry on together in good conscience with proper latitude, set within the framework established by the four Instruments. Pray that we can find ways to urge one another on in love, both in “the unity of the faith” and in “the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph 4.13). 

Whither Iran? Whither the world today? Can Might sometimes be Right?

This has been a fast-paced world at war weekend. On Sunday morning when I woke up, reflecting on news through the night that Israel/USA had bombed Iran, I thought about an ADU post along the lines of "How to pray this week for Iran?" But early this afternoon, after two services and no checking my phone re news, I learned that Israel/USA's strike had achieved ruler-change, even if regime-change (a la Iraq) or regime-modification (a la Venezuela) is yet to be determined. This post is a bit more leaning towards questions such as "Should Israel/USA have breached the sovereignty of a nation in a first strike situation?" and "Is it ever ok to assassinate the ruler of another nation?" - philosophy more than prayer!

In the background to the questions in the title of this post is observing on X some commentary - to be frank, from the usual suspects - from an ordinary, secular perspective along the "this breaks convention, this is against usual protocols, and *remember the debacle of Iraq*" lines. And, also from a Christian perspective, "Does the current bombing, including the taking out of Khameni and other leaders, meet just war criteria? Answer: No."

Of course Operation Epic Fury is receiving support as well as criticism, with support including rejoinders to the usual suspects above along the "Oh, so you don't care about all the protestors recently killed, including women and girls, and just want to give the horrific, hated leaders in Iran a free pass to kill their own citizens" lines.

Also "of course" (as some are observing) one can hold two propositions simultaneously in this context:

1. Rejoicing that Ayatollah Khameni is dead and his deadly rule is over.

2. Questioning (e.g. from a just war theory perspective) that the initiative for this death has come as a first strike rather than a defensive response to a first strike.

Ditto, one can hold to a reasonable hope and a rational fear simultaneously:

3. Hoping that the bombings do lead to regime change, especially towards democracy, meaning an opportunity for every individual Iranian to flourish in ways currently restricted by the current Islamist regime.

4. Fearing that things in Iran will get worse rather than better, because regime change is sometimes, in time, a worse outcome for people: see Afghanistan today and the harsher Taliban government currently in power there than any previous government.

This weekend "the hounds have been unleashed" but (whether from a secular principles or just war theological concern) might it be better to have "let sleeping dogs lie"?

Further, 

5. Is it completely irrational to yet worry that we are now one significant step along the way to World War Three?

Nevertheless, we might usefully consider some details in the overall situation being addressed by political philosophers and theologians.

6. Iran is not an innocent player in this situation. It has clearly been a "first striker" inasmuch as it has fuelled proxy war against Israel for years via Hezbollah to the north and Hamas to the south. It has repeatedly made "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" threats which cannot be considered to be mere words given its military prowess, and especially given its development of nuclear technology which it has never wholly enabled the wider world to rest easy that no nuclear weapons were aspired to.

7. Iran is not an innocent player in this situation. It has clearly imposed a regime of constraint, restriction, punishment and execution on its citizens, from women unwillingly wearing the hijab through to protestors, especially in recent weeks. This is and always has been since 1979 a brutal regime. Khameni and his henchmen have the blood of many innocent people on their hands. They may have died unjustly because no one arrested them, tried them and punished them via the rule of law; but they did not die unjustly because they were innocent of murder.

However, the consequences of "Might is Right" which tramples its way through the world today, are yet unseen. Just because on this occasion Might may have been Right doesn't mean any advance on the case that "Might is Right" is morally, let alone legally right!

So, this week, we pray for Iran, we pray for our world. We may not know what to pray for (other than generally, for peace, for justice, for an end to violence as a means to various ends, for all Iranians and all humans to flourish) but we know to Whom we pray, and God is Wise, is Just, is Love, is Power. God is Life, not Death. 

Good News for the world today - Anglican slant!

The following is a reworked sermon from a few years back, originally delivered to an Anglican society.

 Introduction 

I want to begin by making a few observations about being Anglican, then to talk about Good News in Mark’s Gospel and in today’s world, and finally say something about the Kingdom of God in today’s world. 

Being Anglican

Some years ago I purchased a wonderful commentary on the Book of Ruth by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (The JPS Bible Commantary Ruth: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, Philadelphia: Thew Jewish Publication Society, 2011).

This Jewish commentary has the text in Hebrew and English and its introduction is a comprehensive, well written coverage of a number of issues in Ruth.

One issue my eyes were opened to is this: Ruth is a Moabitess but I had not known that in the Mosaic Law there is a striking and decisive condemnation of Moabites in relation to Israel.

Deuteronomy 23:3-4, 6 says this:

No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord, because they did not meet you with good and water on your journey out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

[6] You shall never promote their welfare or their prosperity as long as you live.

By contrast the next verses in Deuteronomy 23 go on to instruct Israel not to abhor any of the Edomites nor any of the Egyptians.

How come Ruth the Moabitess has a story told about her which is included in the Scriptures of Israel, indeed in our Old Testament, despite her marrying Boaz, an Israelite in Israel in contradiction of the Law?

That this is a problem is readily seen when we see what rabbinical commentators have said through the centuries. They have argued that the Deuteronomic prohibition applied solely to men and/or that Ruth converted to the faith of Israel (as a possibility open to Moabite women but not to Moabite men) (pp. xlv - xlvii).

Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky observe that within Scripture there are "competing traditions" about Moabites:

"Interestingly, Deuteronomy also preserves a different tradition about the Moabites in which the Moabites welcome the Israelites during their wilderness trek (Deut. 2:26-29). The coexistence of competing traditions suggests that the debate about Moabite status was already embedded within Deuteronomy and reflects different hands or changes in attitudes over time." (pp. xlvii-xlviii)

That is, the deeper we dig into what Scripture says, the more we have to ponder about how the "one" Scripture nevertheless includes "more than one" perspective on matters of importance.

The Book of Ruth also figures, in respect of competing traditions about intermarriage.

It is well-known, for instance, that biblical accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah strongly oppose intermarriage between Israelites and people of other nations.

On the one hand, this "post Exilic" writing reflects the vulnerability of Israel settling in its own land.

On the other hand, it is not the only post Exilic voice which reflects on Israel among the nations. Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky note that, in contrast to the exclusivity of Ezra-Nehemiah,

"Isa. 56:3-7 (also likely from the fifth or fourth century B.C.E.) promises the foreigner a venerable place in God's house." (p. xli)

In respect of Ruth, our commentators observe that,

"her story functions as a counterpoint to the negative attitude toward Moabite and other foreign women in the biblical accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah. In its own biblical context, then, the Book of Ruth exemplifies a way that a Moabite woman can marry a Judean and join the community, despite what we read in Deut. 23. Rabbinic sources will seek a basis for reconciling the tension between Ruth's place in the Jewish community and Deut. 23:4-7 regarding Moabites." (p. xlv)

In other words, on the questions of (i) intermarriage between Israel and other nations, and (ii) exclusion or otherwise of Moabites from existence within Israel, the Scriptures of Israel (the Christian Old Testament) do not speak with one voice.

It is not so much that we then conclude the Old Testament contradicts itself as that we observe that within the Old Testament there are signs of lively debate on matters critical to Israel's identity as God's people.

Within the New Testament we also see signs of lively debate - not all of which is resolved neatly (see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 11:16 on a particular, but relatively small matter concerning men, women and their hair in congregational settings; and Romans/Galatians and James on a relatively large matter concerning salvation via faith and/or works, with considerable importance for major theological difference within Western Christianity, between Protestants and Roman Catholics).

One of the questions for the church in the world today, which all too often seems to want to present binary solutions for discussion with a disposition to choose (or impose) but one option for permanent solution, is whether "faithfulness to Scripture" is understood as openness to lively and continuing debate among Christians bound together through shared commitment to the one Christ.

For many Christians who identify as Anglican, to be Anglican is to understand the church as an accommodation of different voices. And this is very much in keeping with biblical tradition itself since the Bible is an accommodation of different voices in the scriptures of Israel and of the church.

What is Good News? What is "the Gospel"?

Back to the Book of Ruth. One of the great themes in that book is “chesed” or loving kindness:

1:8: The Lord’s loving kindness is hoped for;

2.20: the Lord’s loving kindness has blessed Ruth and Naomi with the guardianship of Boaz;

3:10: Ruth is praised by Boaz for her loving kindness towards him.

Chesed speaks both of undeserved kindness and of loyal kindness – that is, of grace and faithfulness. Ruth is not only the story of the lineage of David from whom the Messiah will come, it is also a story of the grace of God which the Messiah will both announce and enact through dying and rising for the sake of God’s people.

Before getting to a response to the questions in the sub-heading above, I came across a statistic the other day:

“% of Americans who say they believe in God

1͟9͟8͟1͟-͟1͟9͟8͟4͟      No: 2 percent              Yes: 96 percent

2͟0͟1͟7͟-͟2͟0͟2͟0͟      No: 22 percent            Yes: 76 percent”

(World Values Survey Association, https://t.co/4MHSYrjfCI?amp=1 )

It is worth thinking about that decline in belief in God in the USA. Through those 26 years there has been no shortage of Americans preaching the gospel, communicating the gospel by many means (e.g. through TV and social media), and yet the upshot is fewer Americans believing that God even exists.

Of course, we have more than a few statistics of our own like that here in these islands of Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is a challenging time for Christians keen to communicate our faith. We are battling disinterest in the Christian message (whatever answer we give to the question What is the Good News?) and facing the loss of common ground with our hearers: the common ground that both we and they believe God exists.

Mark’s Gospel, as a Gospel for the Roman world, sets out to announce the Good News of Jesus Christ to people inclined to believe the world is governed by one God (the Jews) or full of divinities – of gods (the Greeks and the Romans).

Mark tells the story of Jesus who works mighty deeds and teaches authoritatively about divine things, advancing the argument that the true divinity is the God of Israel now made manifest in the Son of this one and only one God. This Markan telling of the story of Jesus is Good News for Jews, Greeks and Romans in at least three ways.

First, this Son of God is powerful. He undertakes mighty works of healing, control over nature, deliverance and feeding crowds. He even forgives sins.

Secondly, this Son of God is compassionate. Jesus cares for the problems and pains of people and goes about solving the problems and dealing with the pain.

6:34: “As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.” (And, then, when the crowd was hungry, he fed them. Jesus lived out the chesed of the Book of Ruth.)

Thirdly, this Son of God is the antitype of the usual Greek and Roman divinities, whether the gods from heaven or the deified caesars and kings in their palaces:

10:45: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

In other words, Jesus offers a new deal for the world: a world which is different in respect of power and love, with Jesus living out a new way for this new world: the power of love as vital to a better life rather than the love of power.

The way into this world is simple: repent, believe, follow. (Turn to Jesus, trust in Jesus, travel with Jesus).

The possibilities in this world are magnificent: sins are forgiven, sicknesses healed, hunger fed, and demons delivered.

Jesus offers a better life than either the Roman authorities or the teachers of Israel can offer.

The Good News is an announcement that this new world is not a dream about the future but a reality beginning here and now.

God’s best life is available today, a life which is experienced in a new world which God is creating through Jesus. That world is the kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God in today’s world

There is an irony within the stories the gospels tell. Jesus comes because God loves the world so much that in Jesus Christ, God enters the world to save it. There is a hugely social dimension to this love: God loves us all and loves us as “the world” and not as a series of individuals.

Yet in the gospels, encounters with Jesus are often (but not always) encounters between individuals and Jesus who invites or even directs each individual to follow him. 

Cue a feature of Christian history in which being Christian is a private experience of individuals, sometimes manifest in remarks such as “You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian” or “My faith is very private to me and I prefer not to talk about it.”

That such privatization of the faith is not what Jesus intended is seen when we remember that what Jesus taught most frequently about was the kingdom of God.

And “kingdom” by definition is about people in their plurality and not individuals in their individuality.

So, to announce the kingdom is to announce a new world which God is making, a world filled with people loved by God and responsive to that love.

What Jesus works for, when he is teaching publicly, explaining privately, healing all comers and feeding crowds is a new society – a new community of God’s people committed to the rule of God as King of the kingdom.

Individuals are called to follow Jesus but as followers they are called to be together, to be a community and a family. 

The Kingdom is made up of communities of God’s people. 

In each of our communities - parishes, para church organizations, other ways of gathering together as Christians, our challenge is to be a community which represents, illustrates and advertises all that is good about the Kingdom of God – all that exemplifies godliness, outward facing love, enthusiasm to share the message of Jesus, and passion to expand the kingdom through growth in people who become its citizens. 

Conclusion 

A Kiwi scholar, Douglas Campbell, in a recent book said a couple of things which I think are relevant to thinking about the Good News as an Announcement of the Kingdom, and I will conclude with these: 

First, “Jesus did not write a book; he called disciples.” (The Triumph of God’s Love: Pauline Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), p. 69)

Then, in an exposition about the great theme of his book The Triumph of God’s Love, Campbell raises this likely question in the mind of someone hearing about God’s great love for humanity:

 

“It’s all very well to speak of a personal God of love definitively revealed in Jesus, yada, yada, yada, but where exactly do we meet Jesus and this overpoweringly benevolent and kind God? I haven’t met Jesus personally myself. So how do I get this deep internal conviction that he was God living among us, loving us, and dying for us? After all, he lived a long time ago.” (p. 56-57)

Campbell then proposes that this is the answer Paul the Apostle gives, as found in his New Testament writings:

“We meet God through people like him – that is to say, through the community [community of Christians], and especially through its designated leaders. And we learn from this phenomenon that Jesus’s followers mediate God’s revelations.” (p. 57)

 We are Jesus’ disciples when we continue to live out the Incarnation of God’s love in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ash Wednesday 2026 - Pope Leo's Message

Pope Leo has given this message for Lent 2026 (source: here). OTOH I think it worth posting in full as part of sharing a message for all Christians. OTOH doing so is handy for me to access this important message, as I prepare to preach on Wednesday night in the Catholic Pro Cathedral here in Christchurch!

Dear brothers and sisters, 

Lent is a time in which the Church, guided by a sense of maternal care, invites us to place the mystery of God back in the center of our lives, in order to find renewal in our faith and keep our hearts from being consumed by the anxieties and distractions of daily life. 

Every path towards conversion begins by allowing the word of God to touch our hearts and welcoming it with a docile spirit. There is a relationship between the word, our acceptance of it and the transformation it brings about.  For this reason, the Lenten journey is a welcome opportunity to heed the voice of the Lord and renew our commitment to following Christ, accompanying him on the road to Jerusalem, where the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection will be fulfilled.

Listening 

This year, I would first like to consider the importance of making room for the word through listening. The willingness to listen is the first way we demonstrate our desire to enter into relationship with someone.  

In revealing himself to Moses in the burning bush, God himself teaches us that listening is one of his defining characteristics: “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry” (Ex 3:7). Hearing the cry of the oppressed is the beginning of a story of liberation in which the Lord calls Moses, sending him to open a path of salvation for his children who have been reduced to slavery. 

Our God is one who seeks to involve us. Even today he shares with us what is in his heart.  Because of this, listening to the word in the liturgy teaches us to listen to the truth of reality. 

In the midst of the many voices present in our personal lives and in society, Sacred Scripture helps us to recognize and respond to the cry of those who are anguished and suffering. In order to foster this inner openness to listening, we must allow God to teach us how to listen as he does. We must recognize that “the condition of the poor is a cry that, throughout human history, constantly challenges our lives, societies, political and economic systems, and, not least, the Church.” [1]

Fasting 

If Lent is a time for listening, fasting is a concrete way to prepare ourselves to receive the word of God. Abstaining from food is an ancient ascetic practice that is essential on the path of conversion. Precisely because it involves the body, fasting makes it easier to recognize what we “hunger” for and what we deem necessary for our sustenance. Moreover, it helps us to identify and order our “appetites,” keeping our hunger and thirst for justice alive and freeing us from complacency. Thus, it teaches us to pray and act responsibly towards our neighbor. 

With spiritual insight, Saint Augustine helps us to understand the tension between the present moment and the future fulfilment that characterizes this custody of the heart. He observes that: “In the course of earthly life, it is incumbent upon men and women to hunger and thirst for justice, but to be satisfied belongs to the next life. Angels are satisfied with this bread, this food.  The human race, on the other hand, hungers for it; we are all drawn to it in our desire. This reaching out in desire expands the soul and increases its capacity.” [2] Understood in this way, fasting not only permits us to govern our desire, purifying it and making it freer, but also to expand it, so that it is directed towards God and doing good.

However, in order to practice fasting in accordance with its evangelical character and avoid the temptation that leads to pride, it must be lived in faith and humility. It must be grounded in communion with the Lord, because “those who are unable to nourish themselves with the word of God do not fast properly.” [3] As a visible sign of our inner commitment to turn away from sin and evil with the help of grace, fasting must also include other forms of self-denial aimed at helping us to acquire a more sober lifestyle, since “austerity alone makes the Christian life strong and authentic.” [4] 

In this regard, I would like to invite you to a very practical and frequently unappreciated form of abstinence: that of refraining from words that offend and hurt our neighbor. Let us begin by disarming our language, avoiding harsh words and rash judgement, refraining from slander and speaking ill of those who are not present and cannot defend themselves. Instead, let us strive to measure our words and cultivate kindness and respect in our families, among our friends, at work, on social media, in political debates, in the media and in Christian communities. In this way, words of hatred will give way to words of hope and peace. 

Together 

Finally, Lent emphasizes the communal aspect of listening to the word and fasting. The Bible itself underlines this dimension in multiple ways. For example, the Book of Nehemiah recounts how the people gathered to listen to the public reading of the Law, preparing to profess their faith and worship through fasting, so as to renew the covenant with God (cf. 9:1-3). 

Likewise, our parishes, families, ecclesial groups and religious communities are called to undertake a shared journey during Lent, in which listening to the word of God, as well as to the cry of the poor and of the earth, becomes part of our community life, and fasting a foundation for sincere repentance.  In this context, conversion refers not only to one’s conscience, but also to the quality of our relationships and dialogue. It means allowing ourselves to be challenged by reality and recognizing what truly guides our desires — both within our ecclesial communities and as regards humanity’s thirst for justice and reconciliation. 

Dear friends, let us ask for the grace of a Lent that leads us to greater attentiveness to God and to the least among us. Let us ask for the strength that comes from the type of fasting that also extends to our use of language, so that hurtful words may diminish and give way to a greater space for the voice of others. Let us strive to make our communities places where the cry of those who suffer finds welcome, and listening opens paths towards liberation, making us ready and eager to contribute to building a civilization of love. I impart my heartfelt blessing upon all of you and your Lenten journey. 

From the Vatican, 5 February 2026, Memorial of Saint Agatha, Virgin and Martyr LEO PP. XIV ____________________________________________________ 

[1] Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te (4 October 2025), 9. 

[2] Augustine The Usefulness of Fasting, 1, 1. 

[3] Benedict XVI, Catechesis (9 March 2011). 

[4] Paul VI, Catechesis (8 February1978).

Waitangi 2026

 

(Photo taken during 9 am service, Friday 6 February 2026, at Waitangi, Bay of Islands.)

I have visited Waitangi twice before - the place that is - but never for 6 February celebrations and commemorations. This year I targeted being at Waitangi for 6 February and was able to be there by 2 pm on Thursday 5 February, in time for a powhiri [formal welcome] for church leaders. Ideally one would be at Waitangi two or three days out from 6 February itself as various meetings and events take place, including a hui [forum] with leading politicians. This year's politicians hui was taking place as I arrived at Waitangi.

On Waitangi Day itself there is a lot going on, from events involving waka (canoes), food stalls, events/meetings focusing on specific themes or issues, a traditional naval parade around the middle of the day with 21 gun salute from a naval vessel moored out in the bay, and generally a fun and festive day with thousands of people. Most importantly, from a spiritual perspective, there is a well attended Dawn Service at 5 am and another service (similar but not exactly the same) at 9 am. I took part in both services (being invited to share in leading prayers in each service) and it was a privilege to do so.

A key figure in the preparation and leading of these services is Bishop Kito Pikaahu, Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau. I was glad to support Bishop Kito this year.

There are many things to be said each Waitangi Day and there is no shortage of news articles and opinion pieces to look up, read and reflect on, with this year being no exception. In what I offer as my reflection here I am attempting to say something I have not seen others say. I see no need to either repeat or to comment on what others have said, especially about the political "temperature" of this year's events, meetings and services.

Is Waitangi a "thin" place?

I am a sucker for natural beauty and ona previous visit to the Waitangi treaty grounds, I was blown away by the immense beauty of the location and its buildings. On any reckoning, it is a place of beauty: land meets sea meets trees meets historica houses. On Friday morning, sitting through two services, as part of wider celebrations of Te Tiriti, I was struck by the "thinness" of the place - a sense that heaven meets earth there as much as land meets sea. Althought it is 186 years since the signing in 1840, it felt like the signing was only last year, and somewhere nearby were the missionaries and chiefs, the Busbys and Hobsons who signed the treaty. Might we call the Waitangi treaty grounds one of NZ's "sacred spaces"? Can we properly deem that on 6 February 1840 a spiritual compact was formed between two peoples, even though the language is focused on more material matters of land, sea and sky, and governship and chieftainship?

Te Tiriti matters, not only as a document but as a cultural pivot

Moving through the remainder of the day, which was literally moving through throngs of many groups of friends and families as (I suppose) more than 10,000 people flocked to Waitangi, Maori and Pakeha, I was struck by the thought of how - notwithstanding many shortfalls and significant work-ons - we happily mingle, Maori and Pakeha, in a cultural, social, relational mixing which flows from 6 February 1840. Our history is different because of 1840. Different from the histories of, say, Australia, Canada, the United States of America, as well as of New Caledonia and Tahiti. Even though we have had long periods of neglect of Te Teriti and continue to have raging controversies over its active meaning for us in present times, nevertheless, Maori and Pakeha relationships have always been on a different footing to relationships in other countries between first peoples and new settlers. We might have been different as a nation but we are not, and that is due to Te Tiriti. Whatever we make of the wording of Te Tiriti, its signing is a pivotal moment in the development of our distinctive Kiwi culture.

Church-state relationships in NZ are ambiguous but the church was "there" when Te Tiriti was signed

Part of Bishop Stephen Lowe's sermon emphasised the role Bishop Pompallier played as one of the religious overseers to the process of Te Tiriti's wording being finalised and signed off. Indeed, if I have my facts correct, it was Pompallier as much as anyone whose influence pushed for the "Article 4" (verbalised but not written into the Treaty) which promised protection for differing religions in NZ. Other missionaries were involved, notably the Williams' brothers from CMS. What might the Treaty have been if the missionaries, Anglican, Catholic and Wesleyan had not been around? Perhaps more importantly, what might the Treaty have been without some specifically evangelical Christian minds at work in the British government and bureaucracy? We have never been a church-state and there is no formally defined state-church, yet our history records the church as being present for and in the background to this pivotal moment. As Christians we can be proud of that presence, and we can and should celebrate God at work on 6 February 1840. We also need to continue to assert the importance and appropriateness of the Dawn Service (and any later services) as vital to celebrations of Te Tiriti as anchored into the historical fact of the missionaries' role.

A Note on John's Gospel and History

I have enjoyed the discussion in the comments to the post below about John's Gospel, a discussion which has ranged over a number of questions concerning the history John tells and the theology expressed through that telling. Is John's theological history more theology than history?

I want to offer an observation or two here but am not specifically relating these observations to any observations in the comments below as I do not have time this week - much travelling about to take place - to fully engage in a fascinating conversation (and a respectful one too - thank you commenters).

Observation 1

John's Gospel, whatever we make of the cleansing of the temple (is John's "early" cleansing a shift in time or a second cleansing to the Synoptics' late cleansing?) or the day of Jesus' crucifixion (which differs by a day from the Synoptics' version) or any other anomaly we seeby comparing John with the Synoptics, is a historical account in at least this way: John's narrative outline is the Synoptics' outline in respect of the big events: baptism, miracles/signs and teaching/discourses, entry into Jerusalem at the end of his life, debate and dispute, a last supper with disciples, betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial and resurrection. That is, when John talks about the Word being made flesh (1:14), he is talking about the Word being made Jesus of Nazareth in the same way as the Synoptics. This man called Jesus and no other man called by any other name, and this man Jesus has things happen to him and is involved in events as all the gospels recount. John's Gospel is historical in the same way as the Synoptics regarding most of the significant events of Jesus' life. Whatever spiritual or heavenly insights we glean from John such as about Jesus as the apocalyptic revealer-agent of God, descended to us and ascending back to the Father (see end of John 1, John 3), with all the mystical overtones involved in such passages, everything in John's Gospel is about the man Jesus, just as the Synoptics are.

Observation 2

John's Gospel can be historical (per observation 1 above) without implication that the way it tells history satisfies expectations we may have for consistency. If the cleansing of the temple according to John is placed chronologically differently to the Synoptics, that is awkward to explain because it means there is an inconsistency between the Johannine and Synoptical histories of Jesus. We don't like inconsistencies between histories. But what if there is an explanation other than that "there must have been two cleansings, one told by John, one told by the Synoptics"? What if, in a different world and in a different time, that way of telling history, driven by wish to make a theological point or three, was accepted as "okay"? And, if that is so, it may undermine our regard for John as history and not exactly uplift the mana of John as theology. But is the "our" here as important as understanding the "he": John wrote the gospel not us!

That is enough for now. I am off on a roadie to Waitangi. Next week, see my report on events there. Might it be a theological history of what happened in a deeply historical place, over which there is much arguing as to the meaning and significance thereunto :).

If John draws directly on the Synoptics, what do we then draw from that?

My "best book I have read this summer" is Mark Goodacre's The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John's Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2025). It is not a long book but it packs a punch. Written by the New Testament world's leading proponent of the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (i.e. that non-Markan material common to Luke and Matthew is explained by Luke's knowledge of Matthew rather than by proposing use of a hypothetical document called Q), this book argues that 

"the author of John's Gospel knew, used, presupposed, and transformed the Synoptics" (p. ix). 

This is not a new position since for most of Christian history Christians have assumed John's Gospel had a relationship to the other three gospels, but it is a renewed position (with good arguments in the light of latest scholarship) since much of NT scholarship since the middle of the 20th century has either  argued or simply assumed that John is independent of the Synoptics. 

To be fair to the argument that John was composed independently of the Synoptics, there are multiple ways in which John's gospel is very different to the Synoptics. To take a few glaring differences, John reproduces none of the parables we know well from the Synoptics, he places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and not at the end, and he narrates three Passover visits by Jesus to Jerusalem when the Synoptics know of only one. 

Nevertheless, Goodacre argues, with the aid of a number of clearly set out textual parallels (in Greek and in English), that 

"there are significant literary parallels between the Synoptic Gospels and John , and that these are sufficient to establish that John was familiar with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The author of the Fourth Gospel did not use Synoptic-like traditions but the Synoptic Gospels themselves" (p. 17). 

I am persuaded that Goodacre is correct (and thus my personal position has shifted from "John seemed to know Mark's Gospel, possibly the other two" to "John definitely knew the Synoptic Gospels and drew on their wording in various parts of his gospel").

If Goodacre is correct, then what implications might that have for how we understand John's Gospel?

In no particular order of priority:

1. We must reckon with how John deals with the three Synoptic gospel accounts which he knows directly rather than allowing a form of wriggle room for John to have known "Synoptic-like" traditions so that where he differs from the Synoptics we can explain that in terms of his receiving variant traditions rather than the actual Synoptic material. 

If John knows the Synoptic material he absolutely changes a number of ways in which their collective narrative is conveyed to us.

In particular, note these examples from a larger set of possible examples of Johannine changes: 

- the revealing of various titles for Jesus is compressed into John 1 (along with some new John-sourced ones such as "Word" and "Lamb of God."); 

- the calling of the first disciples is (so to speak) fish-free in John 1 (though it is possible that there is an initial Johannine calling and a later Synoptic calling from their nets); 

- the cleansing of the temple by Jesus is brought forward chronologically (John 2); 

- the healing of an official's son (John 4:46-50) is strongly reminiscent of the healing of a centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-20: were there multiple such miracles in Jesus' ministry or has John recast the Synoptic stories?); 

- then the healing of the man at the Bethsaida pool (John 5:1-18) recalls the healing and forgiveness of the paralyzed man (Mark 2:1-12 and parallels), with particularly strong verbal links concerning talk of taking up his mat and walking (John 5:8-9/Mark 2:9-12 - see further in Goodacre, p. 7) - again, there were multiple instances of dramatic healings across the gospel narratives, and so maybe John's language in influenced by Mark, rather than John has made a dramatic transformation of Mark's 2:1-12 story; 

- then, the biggest change John makes to the narratives at the end of Jesus' life, is to detail his death occurring on the day of preparation for the Passover (Jesus is crucified as the lambs for Passover meals are slain, John 19:31) rather than on the day of Passover itself (so, the Synoptics).

2. We should note the ancient assessment of John's Gospel in relation to the Synoptic Gospels: 

"Last of all, aware that the physical facts had been recorded in the gospels, encouraged by his pupils and irristibly moved by the Spirit, John wrote a spiritual gospel" (Eusebius, History, 6:14, citing Clement of Alexandria [c. 150AD to c 215AD].)

On the one hand, this is testimony to the view of Christian scholars through most of Christian history, that John knew the contents of the other gospels.

On the other hand, this is testimony to a reasonable way to understand the different character of John's Gospel in relation to the Synoptic gospels: it is a "spiritual gospel" in comparison to the Synoptics giving us "physical facts." Today we (if we might assume Clement's role for a moment or two) would likely say, 

"Last of all, aware that the historical facts had been recorded in the Synoptic gospels, encouraged by his disciples (those belonging to his school of theological teaching about Jesus) and irristibly moved by the Spirit (who, according to John 16:13 "will guide you into all the truth"), John wrote a theological gospel (where "theological" means that John told the history of Jesus in such a manner that he took his students then, and his readers now, deeper into the truth of Jesus Christ in relation to the God of Israel and of the universe, summed up in John's conveying the idea that God the Father and Jesus the Son were one)."

3. We should allow that John has other sources of information than he has read in the Synoptic gospels. Some of this additional information may be due to his strong links with Jerusalem and Jewish leaders based in that city. But John's greatest source may be Jesus himself, if he (the beloved disciple) had intimate conversations with Jesus (perhaps including Jesus reporting to him special conversations between Jesus and others such as Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well). Nevertheless, it is far from explicable to suppose that every difference between John and the Synoptics is due to John's own sources.

4. We should allow that John may have changed what he read in the Synoptics because he lived in a different cultural context to our own and in that context saw no moral difficulty in writing what he wrote in comparison to the Synoptics. Today we would call such changes "spin doctoring" or "fictionalizing the facts." But our day is not John's day. In his day "biographies" and "histories" were different to our day. There is a wealth of scholarship devoted to those differences and I am not knowledgeable enough of that particular field of study to give a summary of findings. Suffice to say that we should not presume to conclude that John was doing anything other than writing the truth about Jesus Christ, with special reference to understanding the role of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus in guiding him to write what he wrote. The heart of that truth not being "historical facts" (if by that we mean "Jesus did this, then he did that, and afterwards he had a meal with these people, during which this particular dispute arose") but a profession of faith, that Jesus Christ was the Word of God become human flesh, that he was the ever existent Son of God in union with God the Father, and so forth. John writes not to recite for a fourth time (following Mark, Matthew and Luke) the historical facts of Jesus' life and times, but to lead us to belief in Jesus - the Jesus who is "the Messiah, the Son of God" so that through belief we might "have life in his name" (John 20:31).

5. We should allow that there are unexplainable (or yet to be explained) mysteries here. This is, I suggest, the critical question we do not have an answer to:

Why does John set out his understanding of Jesus Christ in relation to God and in relation to ourselves in the form of a gospel, structured similarly to the Synoptics (baptism, ministry, last supper, betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) rather than, say, in the form of an exposition such as Paul gives (e.g. Ephesians 1, Philippians 2-3 and Colossians 1) or as an extended sermon such as the writer of Hebrews gives?

There is much more to be said and perhaps I will come back to this topic later in 2026.