Spong at work?

"Maybe you’re religious, and maybe you’re not. Maybe you’re one of many who claim to be spiritual but not religious—which I take to mean that you hold many of the values espoused by one religion or another, but you’re highly suspicious of organized/institutional religion and its failure to live out its stated values. It reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s famous line: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”...

Much of what you will read here will be critical of organized religion, since along with Chesterton, I believe in Christianity but seldom see it put into practice. Love is the central theme of the Bible, and yet we find it so hard to live lives of love. The enemy of love is not hate, but fear. When confronted by those who seem filled with hate, I try to ask “What are they afraid of?” with as much sympathy as I can muster. Responding to hate with love is one of the most daunting tasks of those who claim to follow Jesus.

This column will also go far beyond Christianity. God is infinite, and it comes as no surprise to me that there have developed, over time, many credible and faithful approaches to understanding God. In the end, no religion holds a lock on the reality of God. Each religion grasps only a part of the infinite God and offers insight into God’s reality, and we would do well to exercise a good measure of humility in claiming we know God’s will. Better to begin each pronouncement we make about God with “In my experience…” or “From my perspective…” or simply “For me….” At the end of the day, no matter how much we believe we know God’s will, we must acknowledge that each of us is only doing the best she/he can."

Sounds like Spong. But it is not. More like 'channelling Spong.' The author is a bishop of an Anglican church. To that Anglican church the Diocese of South Carolina once belonged. Here is a useful illustration of why that Diocese has said Enough is enough. A bishop, intended within Anglican polity to be a teacher of the faith, belittles his own religion and its claim to have received the fullness of God's revelation in Jesus Christ by declaring 'Each religion grasps only a part of the infinite God.' Further, as a bishop authorised by the church to proclaim the Word of God, the best he can do is boil down all proclamation of God's truth to 'In my experience.'

This is not Christianity. Nor is it Anglicanism as a manner of being Christian which is both catholic and reformed.

Andrew Brown reveals key reason for schism: we do not understand each other

With H/T to Christopher Johnson, I read this opinion from Andrew Brown and want to express my gratitude to Andrew for what he reveals about the unfolding Anglican schism (i.e. as TEC breaks up, as divisions occur in the Anglican Communion and now as the CofE looks like it is only being held together by a controversial paper from its bishops).

Andrew Brown is offering an explanation for 'Why the church's gay marriage schism is here to stay?' His specific focus is the contretemps within the CofE about the bishop's recent statement (links to which are in his article).

The thrust of the column is that conservatives are unbudgeable about what they think is God's will re marriage and how that will is discerned. What he does not quite spell out is that (at least in his perspective of how liberals think) liberals are also unbudgeable about what they think is God's will re marriage (it's flexible) and how that will is discerned (Scripture is something from which "it would be unwise to draw conclusions" while history, science and law give guidance of better quality than Scripture). Thus between the unbudgeable sides the schism will not go away. One might add, the only interesting question remaining about the C of E is whether the schism will result in formal separation or ongoing tension. Separate houses or separate bedrooms?(!)

In the course of his column he writes,

"What God wants is by definition more valuable than anything else in the world and what God wants – Conservatives believe – is a straight man married to a straight woman: Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve are the perfect couple. It is that relationship that shows the kind of love that leads us towards God. You or I might point out that since Adam and Eve never existed it would be unwise to draw conclusions from their relationship, but that's not how the religious imagination works."

I suggest this reveals more the Andrew Brown is intending because it discloses an understanding of conservative thinking that is at odds with the way conservatives actually think. If we are going to misunderstand each other in this way, then of course there is going to be division amongst us. (No doubt conservatives misunderstand liberals and that also contributes to division).

I suggest that this is what conservatives think:

What God wants is by definition more valuable than anything else in the world and what God wants is for men and women to marry in order to continue the fruitfulness of creation and for children to be born into a lasting stable loving marriage between father and mother. The covenant between a man and a woman in marriage is important enough for God to use it to illustrate his own love for Israel and Christ's love for the church. Conversely, the strength of God's commitment to Israel and of Christ's commitment to the church is an inspiring and instructive model for a husband and wife's commitment to each other. (Marriage is not the only relationship which shows the kind of love that leads us towards God, Scripture provides other examples, through familial love, and friendship). Whether Adam and Eve existed or not, it would be unwise to dismiss conclusions drawn from the scriptural narratives and reflections in which they feature as the religious imagination works from what has been given to us, especially that which is understood as being given by God as revelation to God's people. In particular, religious imagination works from asking whether what God wants and what the world wants (e.g. expressed through history, science and law) is compatible or incompatible seeks to develop a way of life (discipleship) which is primarily faithful to what God wants.

If Andrew Brown is representative of a liberal understanding of conservatives then we are in trouble because as long as we misunderstand each other then the conversation between us is going to be more than difficult. When we understand each other the chances of respectful conversation and mutually agreeable living with difference rises. It would help the CofE's future if more care was taken to clarify how each side thinks.

Presumption is the mother of prejudice and prejudice is the father of conflict.

I would prefer comments on the matter of whether we understand in each other well in the Communion today rather than on the many other issues Andrew Brown touches on re marriage and human sexuality (all of which have been given a good rehearsing here at ADU).

In breaking news, South Carolina is first off the blocks

Recently we noted here that the Global South Primatial Oversight Council is offering episcopal oversight and support for Anglicans dissenting from local jurisdictional authority structures.

Today it looks like South Carolina will be the first Diocese to take up this offer as a resolution to this effect is announced on Titus One Nine as on the books for the forthcoming Diocesan Convention next weekend.

ADDITIONAL NOTE

It is tempting to see South Carolina's move as solely related to one matter, homosexuality and then to either condemn South Carolina for making one issue, not found in the creeds, a reason for schism (which took place a while ago) and now for revision of structural arrangements as an Anglican diocese within the Anglican Communion, or to commend the example of South Carolina as a way forward for other dioceses (perhaps even parishes) around the world to remain within the Anglican Communion when they experience disagreement with their province (or parish with diocese and/or province) over homosexuality.

The reality (as being noted in various comments below) is that South Carolina has left it larger church body (The Episcopal Church [TEC]) because it has determined that the differences between its understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ (as revealed to us through Scripture and taught in the tradition of the Anglican church since the days of the English Reformation) and TEC's understanding of the gospel are a barrier to remaining in continued communion with TEC.

Thus condemning South Carolina for making a schism out of homosexuality is a condemnation based on a peculiar understanding of the situation South Carolina in relationship to TEC finds itself in.

Conversely, before rushing to imitate South Carolina, I suggest it worth hitting the 'pause' button in order to reflect, Is the larger body to which I and my parish/diocese are a part in great disagreement over the gospel itself? (For example, a helpful related question could be, Is that larger body inhibiting the preaching of the gospel in my parish or in the churches of my diocese?)

Many Anglicans who have worried about what other Anglicans in their patch really believe about the gospel have lived with considerable disagreement over the gospel for a long time. Is anything different in your patch about preaching the gospel today? Speaking only for myself, and only about my church ACANZP, I do not see any great difference about the mix of views roundabouts today compared with many yesterdays.

Fellow Kiwi Anglicans, what do you think?

Other Anglicans, what is happening in your patch?

If every diocese does a 'South Carolina', there will be quite a bit of chaos!

A culture on the cusp of scorning God

UPDATE

Here is Chris O'Dowd: "thinks following a religion will eventually become as offensive and unacceptable as racism."

ORIGINAL
There is a force of nature at work in Oz culture. He is called Peter FitzSimons. Journalist and writer of excellent big books (e.g. the stunning Mawson and the Ice Men of the Heroic Age), Peter is also an evangelist for atheism (as in it would be good news if people stopped believing in an imaginary friend). Now it is not him but an SMH/Fairfax colleague, Sam De Brito who offers an evangelistic proclamation in favour of not believing in God by way of criticizing Matthew McConaughey's Oscar winning acceptance speech the other night.

If you saw the speech, Matthew first of all thanks God for his success. Sam De Brito asks, 'Why bring God into it?' Peter FitzSimon gives it the seal of approval, paradoxically with religious language, Amen!

AMEN Why bring God into it, Matthew McConaughey? http://t.co/jUzY1YJPva via @smh
— Peter FitzSimons (@Peter_Fitz) March 7, 2014

That sets off a bit of Twitter debate with @Peter_Fitz. Two Tweets catch my eye:

@Peter_Fitz I assumed god would be busy with famine & child slavery. I feel silly now.
— BaliBrett (@brettmckellar) March 7, 2014

Which seems like a knockout blow. I mean why would God help an actor star in a movie when others' needs are more desperate than that?

But a Christian theological nous, Rocky G, is at hand.

@brettmckellar @Peter_Fitz Hi Fitz, you don't seem to realise that you are actually making the moral argument for God's existence... :)
— Rocky G (@markch9v23a) March 7, 2014

That is quite a fair retort. Worrying about a god who helps movie stars ahead of the starving is a moral action with no rational foundation in a world without god.

But such good responses on behalf of the God of Jesus Christ do not change the fact that (as I read around on blogs and media outlets based in Oz and here) I notice quite a lot of bold criticism of Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) along the lines of 'why do people waste time believing in an imaginary friend?' Indeed De Brito himself writes of 'the world's most popular imaginary friend.'

It is quite a good line, is it not? There is no denial of the existence of God in some sense (imaginary = you think God exists and in a sense he does in your mind, but nowhere else) and there is an element of affectionate care (we all need friends, you have a friend, that's nice) laced in with the withering scorn of 'imaginary.'

Here, dear readers, is the great challenge of our age for Christians, for (perhaps) Australians and New Zealanders in particular: we now live not just in a world of unbelief but in a world willing to scorn belief. Whatever we make of challenges re issues of the day such as homosexuality, and however important it is to carefully assess whether our bishops are making a good job of being bishops (the essential issue in yesterday's ADU post about a controversy in Oz), they are trivial issues compared with the avalanche of disbelief and dissing of belief which is bearing down on us.

Let's be realistic about evangelism and how it 'works': we proclaim the gospel knowing our message is most effective when its hearers are already theists or at least agnostics with hearts open to the possibility of God existing. Atheists are stony ground territory. If our culture in the West, down here Down Under is on the cusp of turning from a few Christians, some theists and many agnostics to one where most people laugh at the notion of an imaginary friend, the future for the gospel is bleak.

The most important question facing Christians does not concern the blessing of relationships other than marriages between a man and a woman nor whether penal substitutionary atonement is or isn't the heart of Anglican understanding of the gospel.

How do we demonstrate that God our friend is real not imaginary, is available to the world and not just to imaginative Christians, and is the solution to problems in our world and not the cause of the problems?

Ould news from Australia

Here at ADU we wish to honour the breadth of the phrase, Down Under, which includes a mysterious island to the west of Aotearoa New Zealand. On this mysterious island, Anglicanism takes different courses to Anglicanism here. For example we very, very rarely make a fuss about the election of a bishop. And when we do it is in muttered conversations over coffee cups. But not so in Australia, where, just to give some context, its culture permits the ruling political party to change its leader and therefore the Prime Minister whenever inner party turmoil erupts into the public domain, there for all to see controversy played out.

Thus we find that the election of a clergyperson* with, shall we say, views basically in keeping with most of the bishops of my church in these islands (sympathies for progress on homosexuality, doubts about the primacy of penal substitutionary atonement) is generating some controversy, particularly through the blogging of David Ould.

Background posts are here and here. In one of the posts are very interesting range of responses from other Oz bishops is reported.

On Twitter last night David Ould forecast a new development:

Grafton story. Tomorrow. 10am. AEDT
— David Ould (@davidould) March 6, 2014

That's around midday our time, I think (depends who is and isn't running Daylight Saving etc).

I will keep you posted ... Indeed here is the post: in my words, "Poacher turned gamekeeper?"

*The clergyperson is a woman and thus a question in the Oz Anglican context also arises re whether women should be bishops. Here I am not interested in discussion on that question and may not publish comments which focus on that aspect of the situation. What I am interested in is the general question of Anglicanism and substitutionary atonement: does the latter lie at the centre of the former? Should it? Did it?

PS The power of blogging is much overrated and leads to some stupid things being said. So here we read that 'All eyes are on you' re the Ordinariate. That is just false. No one is looking at the Ordinariate in the reign of Franciswho is making quite different waves re Anglican relationships!

Anglican schismatics should pay attention to Ukraine

I have been doing a bit of reading up about Ukraine. What an awful history the present region enscribed by internationally agreed boundaries as Ukraine has had. The western region particularly has known various imperial masters through the centuries, most recently under Polish control before WW2. Stalin drove the Crimean Tatars out of Crimea but reports say they have been returning to Crimea more recently, with fervent loyalty to Ukraine (especially anti-Russia Ukraine) and hatred for Russia. Yet clearly many Russians in Crimea are the pretext for Putin's takeover of Crimea (which is some kind of 'South Florida' for freezing Russians from more northerly latitudes). So the region is full of antagonisms from the past and present shifting tribal or nationalist loyalties. As an outsider watching a country overthrow a democratically elected but corrupt leader and being set upon by a despot from a traditional imperial overlord, it is difficult to work out where the best interests of Ukraine in respect of governance lie if it is to be a united rather than a divided country.

Not dissimilar thoughts attend the Anglican Communion these days. To ask, "Where do its best interests in respect of governance lie if it is to be united rather than divided?" seems only to have a complicated answer. The complications lie with the tribal (and sometimes nationalist) loyalties of differing groups within the Communion.

Yet any Anglicans thinking schismatic thoughts might be advised to pay attention to Ukraine. It seems that some protesters in the Maidan in Kiev now realise they were naive. What they thought was an open and shut case of protest against legitimate-now-gone-bad rulers, with optimistic thoughts about replacing the government, has now become a murky situation in which the power of Russia over the dislodged government has become more dangerous rather than less. Is it possible that any Anglican schism in today's Communion looks an open-and-shut case to those contemplating it, but the reality will prove more difficult?

There are several scenarios to consider. What happens, for instance, if a parish or diocese attempts to breakaway from the body above them but then finds that within that parish or diocese are Anglicans loyal to the body above them and not to the breaking away entity?

But the particular concern I want to highlight in this post is that on the GAFCON if not Global South side of the Communion there are some 'interesting' ideas (to put it mildly) which beg questions about whether all conservative Anglicans wish to be in the same conservative boat. Recently we have seen the Nigerian and Ugandan Anglican churches taking stances on respective legislation in their countries concerning homosexuality which I assess as being - at best - ambiguous about the draconian nature of the laws. (At worst, it would appear that some Anglicans in public statements have been enthusiastic supporters). Now we find the Nigerian Anglican church may be making moves towards requiring office-holders swearing an oath that they are either not homosexuals or are former homosexuals. (I say 'may be' because it is not clear from this story whether this is a move confined to one parish or not).

Conservative as I am, I do not want to be in the same boat as Nigeria and Uganda Anglicans as they sail in the particular direction they are taking re homosexuality. Respectful understanding of their dilemmas re their local situation and how they are handling it is one thing, pledging undying tribal loyalty to this particular form of Anglican conservatism is another thing.

These are not the only issues for conservative Anglicans to ponder. Some of us support the possibility of women being bishops, some do not. Some of us are crazy about using prayer books and some are prayer book averse. In these very columns we have had commitment to one or other form of creationism while others are recognising of evolution as a fact of life. (Lest anyone think such theological division is a small thing, I once lived in a parish with a creationist vicar - it is not the easiest of theologies to live with when one is trying to be in unity and harmony with other Anglicans).

It is possible to then warn against schism by prognosticating about further schism then taking place as the schismatic group finds it is only united on the reason for the first schism. Such warning should not be discounted. But my greater concern is that Anglicans focus attention on what makes preaching the gospel possible in our local contexts (cf. my post on Monday this week).

I do not see, for instance, that public aligning of Kiwi Anglican conservatives with Ugandan and Nigerian Anglicans at this time is a better alignment for the sake of the gospel in NZ than remaining aligned with our church, messy as it is in the complexities of our current dilemmas.

Surely Ukraine would have been better off finding a way to live with its many tensions than ending up in the place it is now in?

PS Speaking about Ukraine, it appears NZ is punching above its weight with Putin ... !

PPS A serious and sober article about varying 'Orthodox' responses to Putinesque Russian nationalism is here.

Is this the Communion's Crimean moment?

While the world watches as Putin realigns Russian interests in Ukraine, taking over Crimea, threatening the possibility of further realignment of eastern Ukraine with Russia, the Anglican Communion is having its own Crimean moment. Some realignment is in the making.

This is not a Putinesque putsch in the sense of one major leader directing matters, but one group within the Communion is looking after those with whom it has common interest. The Global South Primates have had enough. Let's hear their voices:

"We thank God for the times of fellowship, Bible study and prayer together. We also appreciated the frank discussion, open sharing, and spirit of unity among us. We are also encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s emphases on renewal, mission and evangelism within the Church of England and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

3. As we reviewed the current situation, we recognized that the fabric of the Communion was torn at its deepest level as a result of the actions taken by The Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church in Canada since 2003. As a result, our Anglican Communion is currently suffering from broken relations, a lack of trust, and dysfunctional “instruments of unity.”

4. However, we trust in God’s promise that the “gates of hades will not overcome” the church. Holding unto this promise, we believe that we have to make every effort in order to restore our beloved Communion. Therefore we took the following decisions:

a) We request and will support the Archbishop of Canterbury to call for a Primates Meeting in 2015 in order to address the increasingly deteriorating situation facing the Anglican Communion. It is important that the  agenda of this Primates Meeting be discussed and agreed upon by the Primates beforehand in order to ensure an effective meeting.

b) We decided to establish a Primatial Oversight Council, in following-through the recommendations taken at Dromantine in 2005 and Dar es Salam in 2007, to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to dissenting individuals, parishes, and dioceses in order to keep them within the Communion.

c) We realize that the time has come to address the ecclesial deficit, the mutual accountability and re-shaping the instruments of unity by following through the recommendations mentioned in the Windsor Report (2004), the Primates Meetings in Dromantine (2005) and Dar es Salam (2007), and the Windsor Continuation Group report."

Note that this is a realignment 'within the Communion.' As they offer 'pastoral and primatial oversight to dissenting individuals, parishes, and dioceses' - an action analogous to the oversight Russia is offering Crimea as they dissent from the change of government in Ukraine - they do so 'in order to keep them within the Communion.'

No doubt much comment will be forthcoming in the "wringing hands" mode of voiced concern. But I wonder how much that comment will focus on the simple reason for the realignment?

I suggest Anglican observers around the world need to ponder this: theological difference is driving this realignment. That is tricky for those Anglicans used to geographical alignments: you in your province over there and me in my province over here.

It is difficult for some of us to get our heads around the possibility that the revising of Anglicanism to include same sex marriage or blessings of same sex relationships is a theological revision of what being Anglican means. For example, it involves a theological revision of where the weight of authority lies in the triad of Scripture/tradition/reason. The weight shifts with this revision to 'reason' (i.e. reasoning from experience to draw a conclusion).

In a reason-based Anglicanism, everything formerly weighted towards Scripture or Scripture and tradition is open for revision. That necessarily includes the tradition of a territorial understanding of episcopal authority which has divided Anglicanism into non-overlapping dioceses and provinces (with a few exceptions: Europe, our own three tikanga church, etc).

Effectively Global South is saying, "If the Communion is changing its theology of human sexuality then it can change its theology of episcopacy too."

Geography has allowed us to develop notions of Anglican diversity (we are different but, hey, we are stuck in the same corner of the vineyard so we just have to get along). What happens when the theological diversity is stretched so far that it breaks? Do we expel the minority group and depose them from being Anglican? Does the minority leave the Anglican fold because we have had enough? Or do we re-organise ourselves as Anglicans within the one Communion according to theology and not to geography? Global South seems to be offering the third alternative.

For my own church, as day by day we move through the months of 2014 to May, we face a stern test of wisdom. Given our differences, how will we work out living together? What will bind us together? What can we avoid which will break us apart? Where do we locate the commonality of our life in Christ: geography? theology? history? tradition? tikanga?

The Global South - whether it is right or wrong in what it is offering - is committed to remaining within the one Anglican Communion. I hope that in ACANZP we have a commitment to remaining as the one communion of Anglicans in these islands, whichever steps we take to re-organise our future. If we do not have that commitment, then the Global South has indicated that options are available for dissenting Anglicans to remain in the global Communion.

Pray for our General Synod reps as they begin meeting to ponder the meeting in May and as, aroundabout now, proposed motions and bills will be sent to them.