The Pilling Report must be on the right path ... look at its critics

Additional Addition

Am a bit pressed for time at moment re December madness.

Part of that madness is no time to read the whole of Pilling. But thanks be to God for others having time. Here is a great focus on pastoral accommodation via Oliver O'Donovan.

Might I commend a searching post from Steve Bell on grace in the face of evil madness, here.

A different kind of madness, good madness, is cricket joy. NZ doing well against the West Indies. Adelaide Ashes test about to start. Here is a pic, courtesy of Jonathan Agnew (here) of the pitch.

What a belter! Even I could score runs on that :)

Addition

Head to Living Out for a great site, much longed for in the conservative evangelical wing of the Anglican church, of people speaking out about their same-sex attraction.

The Bishop of Birkenhead's dissenting statement is worth reading. Here is the first paragraph (i.e. para 415 of the whole document).

"A Dissenting Statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead

415. It is with much regret that I have concluded that I cannot sign
the report of the House of Bishops’ Working Group on Human
Sexuality (‘the Report’). I offer this dissenting statement to set out
another vision and explain why. Those who have been part of the
Working Group on Human Sexuality have gone out of their way to
listen to my views. They have sought to produce a report that, in their
view, goes as far as possible to meet those concerns. I am supportive of
many of the Report’s recommendations and share many of the concerns
driving the Report as we wrestle with being faithful to Christ in our
changing culture. For the sake of the peace and unity of the Church
I would have loved to have put my name to a unanimous report. I
have no desire to see issues of human sexuality distracting us from
proclaiming the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. However,
after much prayer and soul searching, I have concluded I cannot sign."

The remainder of his statement can be accessed here (look for paragraph 416 on page 119 and keep reading until paragraph 489). Further, a paper of Bishop Sinclair is included as Appendix 3.

In my own quick read I note this:

"459. On theology the Report summarizes the presentations to the
Group made by Fr Timothy Radcliffe and Professor Oliver O’Donovan
(Paragraphs 254–278 and 313–315). It emphasizes that they warn us to
take seriously the things that we do not know and to avoid closing
down the debate about sexual ethics prematurely. But remaining open
to debate is not the same thing as claiming that the Church no longer
has a basis for what it has taught until now. " Precisely!

Original Post

I am thrilled that the Pilling Report, which apparently bears imprints of a Down Under invisible hand, has generated a very good conversation in the comments below the previous post.

One of the issues highlighted by the process of reception of the report is what is the right path a divided church takes on a difficult issue.

For example, picking up from one comment, should the weight of content for such a matter be on the side of doctrine  rather than practice (including the action of holding the church together)?

To take another matter, does the Pilling Report represent the beginning of the end of the Church of England? That is, when the various 'hedging your bets' and 'buying a bit more time' bits of the report are taken away, is the long-term impact of the report a compass steer to some kind of pure liberalism, of the kind which essentially finishes a church off because it is indistinguishable from 21st century Western secular social democracy?

Then there is the endlessly interesting historical perspective on such a report: if only in 19XX (or even 17XX or if Bloody Mary had never ascended to the throne halting the inexorable destination of the reforms) the church [or, Evangelicals] had not decided to take [a certain progressive and/or compromising step] then we would never be in this confounded situation.

But we are in this confounded situation. And we are in it for a very good reason: our predecessors were neither more nor less gifted in decision-making than we are. In their lights they made the best of their confounded situation. As for historical circumstances beyond influence of decision-making, e.g. Queen Mary. There is no point in 'if only'. No one knows what a confounded mess an alternative situation would have produced! If Edward VI had lived he might have turned on his Protestant advisors ... or turned out to be a playboy like some of his namesake successors :)

Now one interesting aspect of the present moment is that it is difficult to find a 'liberal' chorus for the Pilling Report singing a congratulatory anthem. If we go to Changing Attitude we find a very disappointed lament for the Report being chanted. Here is a summary of the lament from this CA 'initial response':

"This report does not herald radical change and does not therefore fulfil the expectations of Changing Attitude. There are no practical proposals which will begin to dismantle the present culture of secrecy, denial of reality, suppression of identity and the maintenance of unhealthy attitudes. The group has met people and listened and the unhealthy attitudes remain unchanged as the report demonstrates."

Is the C of E going to a liberal hell down a slippery slope on a handcart without brakes? Not according to Changing Attitude!

For me the Pilling Report ticks two important boxes in terms of an Anglican church responding to the present situation which (arguably) is without precedent in the history of the church.

Box One: No change to doctrine of marriage expressed through marriage liturgies.

Box Two: offering pastoral accommodation in a context where opposition to traditional doctrine is not going away, steadfastly remains open and vocal, and continues to tug on the heart strings of the undecided middle (and, taking up a comment below the freshly minted minds of younger generations).

I suggest a question to ask of the Report is whether it is both reasonable and responsible in the context of a divided church in a changing society?

The opposition of Changing Attitude to the report alerts me (at least) to the possibility that the report answers that question with more than a pass mark.

From a Down Under perspective the more work done well by others in the Communion the less we have to do here!

Coda: There is something I feel strongly about re some comments to the previous post. Evangelicalism is itself divided on such matters. But where does responsibility for that division lie? One implication in the comments is that the responsibility lies with open/moderate evangelicals such as organisations like Fulcrum and individuals such as, well, myself. When we could have been united, certain people/groups stepped out of line! But is this a fair analysis of the situation? Isn't there a question of why Fulcrum was formed and why evangelicals such as myself cannot go all the way down a certain conservative line (or set of lines)?

To give one answer, I suggest some conservative evangelical thinking is 'too conservative' to simply go along with it and not vocalise reservations. To give one example, and intentionally steering away from certain 'hot button' issues, there is a line of conservative evangelical theology which is deeply suspicious, if not downright antagonistic to charismatic theology and experience which supports exercising of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, and giving words of knowledge. I cannot go along with that and if I were travelling close to that path I could not be silent if suspicion/let alone antagonism was being preached from the pulpit and taught from the conference platform.

In other words, could we who happily wear the label (libel?) 'evangelical' be kind to one another? Within our community of faith, we have differences, some of which give rise to named groupings. Is there much to be gained from lamenting genuine differences among us, or from one group blaming another group for a currently difficult 'fissiparous' situation?

The Pilling Report and my role in its compilation

In a week in which I have been pressed hard to justify my commitment to sola fide, I need all the credit in the Heavenly Bank I can gain. So naturally I am delighted that this blog has made the key contribution to the writing of the just published Pilling Report.

Looks to me like the #Pilling report group have been reading @petercarrell 's blog!
— Andrew Reid (@spicksandspecks) November 28, 2013

Who am I, so deep in debt to the Heavenly Bank, to demur?

You can find out for yourself how all the key points in the Pilling Report have been anticipated here over the years, including one made in a short post in mid 2008. No, not really.

But you really can read about the Pilling Report for yourself at Thinking Anglicans (where the 18 recommendations are set out) and at Cranmer, who has a slightly worrying sub-headline given ADU's responsibility in writing the report, "a right-veering via media through sexual polarisation." That suggests ADU is a front for the Tea Party!

The report itself is here.

Here are the eighteen recommendations [with editorial emendation for the church of these islands in places], all of which I think especially pertinent to where ACANZP is heading (as best I can tell from the NSA reports lying in front of me of high-level conversations going on in smoke filled rooms behind closed doors):

"The foundation of our report

1. We warmly welcome and affirm the presence and ministry within the Church of gay and lesbian people, both lay and ordained. (Paragraphs 73 –6)

On the next steps for the [ACANZP]:

2. The subject of sexuality, with its history of deeply entrenched views, would best be addressed by facilitated conversations or a similar process to which [ACANZP] needs to commit itself at national and diocesan level. This should continue to involve profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture. (Paragraphs 55–83, 309–19, 361–4)

3. Consultation on [whatever we decide at GS 2014] should be conducted without undue haste but with a sense of urgency, perhaps over a period of two [better, four??] years. (Paragraphs 83, 364–5)

4. [ACANZP] should address the issue of same sex relationships in close dialogue with the wider Anglican Communion and other Churches, in parallel with its own facilitated conversations and on a similar timescale. (Paragraphs 323–5, 360, 366–8)

On the teaching of the Church and the missiological challenge:

5. Homophobia – that is, hostility to homosexual people – is still as serious a matter as it was and the Church should repent for the homophobic attitudes it has sometimes failed to rebuke and should stand firmly against it whenever and wherever it is to be found. (Paragraphs 174–92, 320–8)

6. No one should be accused of homophobia solely for articulating traditional Christian teaching on same sex relationships. (Paragraphs 186–91, 327–8)

7. The Church should continue to pay close attention to the continuing, and as yet inconclusive, scientific work on same sex attraction. (Paragraphs 193–219, 329–35)

8. Since Issues in Human Sexuality was published in 1991 attitudes to same sex attraction, both in English society generally and also among Christians in many parts of the world, have changed markedly. In particular, there is a great deal of evidence that, the younger people are, the more accepting of same sex attraction they are likely to be. That should not of itself determine the Church’s teaching. (Paragraphs 39–51, 156–73, 336–49)

9. The Church should continue to listen to the varied views of people within and outside the church, and should encourage a prayerful process of discernment to help determine the relationship of the gospel to the cultures of the times. (Paragraphs 304–7, 309–11)

10. [ACANZP] needs to recognize that the way we have lived out our divisions on same sex relationships creates problems for effective mission and evangelism within our culture, and that such problems are shared by some other Churches and in some other parts of the Anglican Communion. [ACANZP] also needs to recognize that any change to the Church’s stance in one province could have serious consequences for mission in some other provinces of the Communion. (Paragraphs 85–100, 146–7, 325, 346–9)

11. Whilst abiding by the Church’s traditional teaching on human sexuality, we encourage the Church to continue to engage openly and honestly and to reflect theologically on the circumstances in which we find ourselves to discern the mind of Christ and what the Spirit is saying to the Church now. (Paragraphs 313 –6)

12. Through a period of debate and discernment in relation to the gospel message in our culture, it is right that all, including those with teaching authority in the church, should be able to participate openly and honestly in that process. (Paragraphs 122, 350)

On the Church’s pastoral response:

13. The Church needs to find ways of honouring and affirming those Christians who experience same sex attraction who, conscious of the church’s teaching, have embraced a chaste and single lifestyle, and also those who in good conscience have entered partnerships with a firm intention of life-long fidelity. (Paragraphs 131–5, 328, 386–8)

14. The whole Church is called to real repentance for the lack of welcome and acceptance extended to homosexual people in the past, and to demonstrate the unconditional acceptance and love of God in Christ for all people. (Paragraphs 186–92, 320–3)

15. The Church’s present rules impose different disciplines on clergy and laity in relation to sexually active same sex relationships. In the facilitated conversations it will be important to reflect on the extent to which the laity and clergy should continue to observe such different disciplines. (Paragraphs 371–3)

16. We believe that there can be circumstances where a priest, with the agreement of the relevant [vestry], should be free to mark the formation of a permanent same sex relationship in a public service but should be under no obligation to do so. Some of us do not believe that this can be extended to same sex marriage. (Paragraphs 120, 380–3)

17. While the Church abides by its traditional teaching such public services would be of the nature of a pastoral accommodation and so [ACANZP] should not authorize a formal liturgy for use for this purpose. The House of Bishops should consider whether guidance should be issued. (Paragraphs 118, 384–8, 391–3)

18. Whether someone is married, single or in a civil partnership should have no bearing on the nature of the assurances sought from them that they intend to order their lives consistently with the teaching of the Church on sexual conduct. Intrusive questioning should be avoided. (Paragraphs 400–14)"

I certainly see above wise words written which have been anticipated here over the years by commenters, if not by myself. To give one instance, Recommendation 10 could have been written by Malcolm who has often commented on precisely the issue at stake in that recommendation.

POSTSCRIPT

(1) Peter Ould has a go at the Pilling Report here. He makes a very odd pair of criticisms for someone so versed in Anglican ways. One concerns clergy making up things as they go along. The other concerns the church holding contradictory positions. But these have been features of our life for a long time. Stories of clergy making up a 'pragmatic pastoral' response to an unusual situation are legion (I could tell a few myself but will not bore you). Contradictory positions simply exist, not least on the ordination of women (as sharply felt in my own diocese where we have both a woman bishop and clergy who do not think a woman should be in a position of authority), but we could also mention abortion and remarriage of divorcees. 

On sexual relationships and a specific point about gay Anglicans being part of a church which both affirms celibacy/marriage and other relationships, well, hello, we are already in that church. That is, we are a church where teaching on celibacy/marriage occurs (and some if not many faithfully follow that discipline) and other relationships exist (e.g. murmurs are made here in NZ about youth leaders living before marriage with their partners) and seemingly we can do little about that (unless we want to embark on a certain kind of intrusive, moralistic crusade)

I suggest the proper evaluation of the Pilling Report is whether it is properly Anglican, with particular reference in (1) upholding doctrine as received by this church (2) providing a pastoral way forward for those who sincerely and conscientiously demur from the doctrine. On a first reading of the recommendations the report seems to pass that test.

But it would wouldn't it, given its genesis :)

(2) Convictional Anglican with a rather good pic says this is going to be a train wreck for the CofE. But does that oversimplify things? Would another stance (e.g. strictly 'conservative' or strictly 'liberal') not be another kind of train wreck?

Authority (2)

Jesus came back to the Temple; and as he taught, the chief priests and the elders came to the servant of the word and asked, "What authority do you have to say these things? Who gave you this authority?"

Jesus answered them, "I will ask you just one question, and if you give me an answer, I will tell you what authority I have to do these things. Where did John's authority to baptise come from: was it from God or from human beings?"

They started to argue among themselves, "What shall we say? If we answer, 'From God,' he will say to us, 'Why, then, did you not believe John?' But if we say, 'From human beings,' we are afraid of what the people might do, because they are all convinced that John was a prophet."

So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."

And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you, then, by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-27)

I suggest this parable is instructive for considering the authority of Scripture.

Where does Jesus Christ's authority come from? In terms of this dialogue, Jesus implies that his authority is similar to John's. It comes from God and it is recognised by the people. (The people cannot and do not bestow authority on John the Baptist, but they can perceive the authority of God working in him, recognise it, and, by submitting to baptism, receive that authority).

The religious leaders who question him are confronted with a question which challenges their pose as questioners. Why do they not recognise the divine authority of John the Baptist or of Jesus? Why do they not understand, acknowledge and join with the reception of that authority given by the ordinary people?

Within this exposition of the authority of Jesus Christ, via a subtle question-and-question dialogue, we see important elements concerning divine authority. Such authority is not bestowed by the non-divine (i.e. humanity). No committee or council of the wise and powerful determines that Jesus has divine authority. There is no election of Jesus to the position of Son of God via democratic vote. Yet such authority is meaningless among humanity if it is not recognised and received by humanity. In human terms the authority of Jesus is 'self-authenticating.'

The subtleties of Jesus' divine origin and divine power, of recognition and non-recognition, of reception and rejection are well worked out in John's Gospel, notably in chapter 8, particularly in verses 14-19 and 54-58.

What then of the authority of Scripture in the life of the church?

I suggest the claim, at least in evangelical theological expression, has similarities with the authority of Christ himself, as expounded above and in John 8.

First, the authority of Scripture as the writing down of the divine Word or message of God both comes from God and is (and was) recognised by the people. The decision regarding what was in the canon of Scripture and what was not was a decision about recognition and reception by the people of the church of which circulating scriptures were of divine origin and authority and which were not. The church did not write Scripture in such a mode that it could later rewrite it. Nor did the church determine the canon of Scripture in such a way that a later vote could determine it to be otherwise. What was determined was what had been universally received by the whole church as God's Word written down and what had not.

Secondly, the authority of Scripture as similar to the authority of Christ is less than the full story. In an important sense the authority of Scripture is the authority of Christ. For the Christian Scripture, of Old Testament and New Testament, is the message of Christ. The Old Testament informs that message and provides the context for its reception. The New Testament is the gospel of Christ (according to four authors/authoritative preachers of that gospel) and authorised-by-Christ apostolic interpretation of the gospel (i.e. the epistles). The canon of Scripture is the Christ-centred word of the Lord for all who will receive it as the divine message of God, the Word of God written. The authority of Scripture, that is, is the authority of its divine Author.

Thus questioning the authority of Scripture in the life of the church places the questioner in a difficult relationship with Scripture and with God revealed in Christ through this specific 'Word of Christ'. Does the questioner deny the authority of Scripture as the authority of God? Is the questioner denying that the church has properly recognised and received this word?

Further, there tends to be a logical absurdity when Christians question the authority of Scripture. For every Christian is a Christian precisely because they have received a portion of Scripture as authoritative. Every Christian acts under at least one aspect of that authority. This one believes that at communion the bread becomes the body of Christ: why? Because Jesus himself said [in Scripture], 'This is my body.' That one believes that God loves everyone: why? Because we read [in Scripture] that 'God is love.' Another asserts dogmatically that we should be merciful and kind to all we meet: why? Because Christ said so [in Scripture].

On what basis then does a Christian questioning the authority of Scripture determine that some parts are unquestionably authoritative while others are undoubtedly irrelevant to the church today? I have no idea.

Addendum: for an erudite and challenging approach to authority, which I think is in heated agreement with this post and its predecessor, read Bryden Black's article, Lion's Work, here.

Authority (1)

Jesus came back to the Temple; and as he taught, the chief priests and the elders came to the servant of the word and asked, "What authority do you have to say these things? Who gave you this authority?"

Jesus answered them, "I will ask you just one question, and if you give me an answer, I will tell you what authority I have to do these things. Where did John's authority to baptise come from: was it from God or from human beings?"

They started to argue among themselves, "What shall we say? If we answer, 'From God,' he will say to us, 'Why, then, did you not believe John?' But if we say, 'From human beings,' we are afraid of what the people might do, because they are all convinced that John was a prophet."

So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."

And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you, then, by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-27)

At the heart of all theological debates, including debate over the role of Scripture, whether Sola Scriptura is a worthy summary of that role, is the question of authority.

Look Protestantly in askance at the hierarchy of Rome in relation to doctrine (Papal Infallibility, Magisterium, etc) and you are asking about authority.

Claim as one bishop in the church we are not allowed to criticise here that because the church wrote the Bible we can rewrite the Bible and you have smuggled into subsequent conversation the question of authority.

Pronounce from the pulpit as many preachers do that despite centuries of the church believing this or despite multiple commentaries of sound scholarship saying that, nevertheless 'I say unto you, We no longer need to believe this or that,' and authority in the life of the church is presenting itself.

Sigh and sit back bemused at Protestants tying themselves into Protestant knots or Romans entangling themselves in Roman doctrinal nets because as an Eastern Orthodox you know that everything was sorted out theologically with the cessation of the seventh Ecumenical Council then you have made a claim about where authority in the life of the church lies.

For that matter, in case a major church stream feels left out, get up in church this Sunday morning and confidently claim, 'Thus says the Spirit of God, the glory has departed this fellowship, ichabod, ichabod,' then a Pentecostal take on authority is being expressed.

At the heart of current Anglican controversies, whether we are in England sorting out a reasonable way forward on women bishops, or here in ACANZP wondering which way forward we should go on same sex partnerships, or, to also look into 2014, what is the gospel we should preach in celebration of Marsden first preaching the gospel, is the question of authority.

In particular the questions whether Scripture speaks authoritatively on such and such a matter, and whether Scripture charts a way forward when the church disagrees. But the question also sharply arises - should we find a way to, so to speak, neutralise Scripture on a matter - by what authority we will proceed to do a new thing in the life of the church?

Already I am in deep waters and time is limited so just a few more thoughts today ...

Recently some considerable efforts have been made in the Communion to understand what role or roles the Bible plays across the Communion and, we might say, across the spectrum of theological commitments which make up our collective Anglican life. This project's web presence is here.

The situation the report addresses is summed up in these words of ++David Moxon:

""The Anglican Communion has always cherished Scripture and given it a central place in its life. This emphasis was historically summed up in Article 6 of the 39 Articles, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation" and is confirmed by the way Scripture is so heavily drawn on in our liturgical life. In recent years the Communion has sought to handle the diversity of opinions in relation to moral and ethical issues. However, in turning to Scripture for insights we have discovered that we reach different conclusions as to the way forward. This raised the question as to whether we might benefit, as a Communion, by exploring in some depth the way we go about this engagement with and interpretation of Scripture.""

Necessarily the report is descriptive rather than prescriptive but I sense that one effect of the report has been for a slight raising of collective Anglican respect for Scripture. Some aspects of the controversies in our life currently have involved statements dismissive of Scripture: my sense is that we now recognise that being dismissive of Scripture is not a viable Anglican response to the controversies. However we may resolve them, they will involve serious engagement with Scripture because we have reminded ourselves that Anglicans are scriptural Christians.

Locally this seems - anecdotally - to be an outcome of the four Hermeneutical Hui held in ACANZP over recent years (driven forward by ++Moxon and directly catalytical of the report above). Our church now recognises collectively (so I am told by interpreters of the mood of our church) that however we move forward on these matters, we cannot do so by leaving the Bible closed in an anteroom to the room in which we make decisions.

But all the above is consistent with a generalised understanding that 'Scripture is important to Anglican life'. Can Anglicans say more than that? Should Anglicans say more than that? In particular, what about claims from evangelical Anglicans that Scripture is authoritative for our faith and practice?

An insight I would like to share is this: the authority of Scripture is like the authority of Christ.

But time is up and mundane but urgent tasks of the day call loudly, sands of time before Christmas falling fast and all that, I shall return to that insight ...

Why I accept the Solas

Over at Liturgy, Bosco Peters has a post entitled 'Wrong about sola scriptura' It includes reference to N. T. Wright, including some humorous riffs on N. T. Wright's greatness as a scholar. The essence of the post is captured in these words, "Once you’ve accepted this, and handed over that particular Reformation weapon, now attention turns to the next link, the next weapon, in the Reformation camp, the next sola". That is (in my interpretation) the Reformation was a form of category mistake.

In some forms of such critique of the Reformation, the real business of reform of the church in the 16th century took place at the Council of Trent and the real business of the (non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox) church in the 21st century is to move on from the Reformation. One does such moving on when embarrassing episodes occur in one's past! It intrigues me in the post-and-comments that some recognition is given to the (debatable) possibility that N.T. Wright ends up promoting a Roman understanding of salvation.

Specific engagement with the details in the argument of the post should take place there, not here.

But I am prompted by that post to offer some positive thoughts on the 'Solas'. In what follows I offer just three Anglican reflections on the Solas by way of citing relevant Articles.

(1) It is easy to misunderstand, or misoverestimate, the scope of the 'Solas'. Sola Scriptura/Scripture Alone, for instance, as I understand things, has two meanings.

For some Protestants it means (according to Wikipedia) "the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. "Scripture interprets scripture" is a governing principle of many Protestant denominations."

But for Anglicans it does not mean that everything any Christian ever needs to know about anything is found in Scripture. It means that Scripture alone is sufficient for knowledge of salvation; nothing outside of the teaching of Scripture is required for salvation. This is bog standard Anglican theology, as expressed within Article 6:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

That there might be things important for Christian life (e.g. how the church is governed by orders of ministry) which are not found or not found clearly in Scripture is okay for Anglicans. As Article 20 says,

"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

That is, the Anglican church might ordain (i.e. order into being) things which are not mentioned in Scripture but it may not do in contradiction of Scripture and certainly may not do so in respect of adding to Scripture any requirements for salvation.

If any Anglican reader here has any knowledge of anything necessary for salvation which is not found in Scripture, please let us know. If any Anglican reader here agrees that nothing necessary for salvation is found outside of Scripture, could you please accept that you, like me, are an Anglican Sola Scriptura person.

(2) It is surprising that Sola Fide/Faith Alone has become the subject of controversy these days in the way it has become. Who would want to argue over the offer of an utterly free gift?!

For Anglicans Sola Fide is, again, wonderfully expressed in the Articles.

From Article 11: "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification."

That is, whatever the role works play in the life of the Christian (on which there is much controversy, both generally between Romans and Protestants, and recently, among Protestants (as Bosco Peters' post points out, with N.T. Wright leading the charge in one direction), the role is not a saving role.

And thank goodness for that. Imagine if works did play a saving role in our lives. What works would save us? How many works would save us? Would some works be better than others (e.g. giving money to overseas missions rather than to local missions, serving the poor in faraway countries rather than on our doorstep)? The brilliance, the good news of Sola Fide is that the merits of our situation before God as Judge are the merits of Christ and not of ourselves.

Again, if any reader here can offer answers to questions such as above, as part of a case for the saving merits of our good works, even if your name be N.T. Wright, let us know. Indeed it is your "works" obligation not to withhold the truth from those of us who think the Reformers opened up the Scriptures rightly on this matter and challenged the creeping reliance on works which had become part of the Western European church.

Further, if any reader here thinks, with Scripture, that one can be saved even in the last seconds' of life, with a whole life of crooked deeds behind oneself, as was the case with the penitent thief, then please take the next step and join with me in celebrating Sola Fide!

(3) On the question of works, I clearly need to catch up with what N.T.Wright is saying in his latest writings, a veritable four part two volume doorstopping tome of 1519 pages (note the lovely correspondence with the chronology of the Reformation in that number!!). See pic below with my smartphone for comparison re size of Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 

But if what Wright has to say does not accord with Article 12,

"Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit."

then his bishopness is in conflict with his scholarship!

Dean Dares to Dream

Lovely article on our new Dean, Lynda Patterson, in our local Christchurch Press this morning.

Here is a taste:

"If the sparkling personality of the Northern Irish farm girl cannot carry her through such controversies, then her ability to see all sides and bring reconciliation to them should do it."

Lynda and I are working on our next jointly authored Lenten study book for 2014, published by Theology House Publications, Being Disciples: Through Lent with Matthew. Available in January. Orders now to Theology House, admin at theologyhouse.ac.nz. $5 per copy if ordered before 20 December, $6 after that, plus postage and packing.

Cherry Picking Canadians?

A little while ago I posted about Kiwi John Hebenton being a candidate for election for the Diocese of New Westminster's next bishop.

Now the long arm of Canada is reaching down to another Kiwi to stand for election. This time it is Anthony Dancer as a candidate for election to the Diocese of British Columbia.

Could the last person left please turn out the lights ...

UPDATE: A different kind of 'cheery picking', along with other concerns of Canadian Anglicans is highlighted in a Samizdat post here)