John Richardson of The Ugley Vicar has posted an outstanding analysis of ++Rowan's Williebrands address in Rome. He has entitled it Rowan's Roman Bluff. I encourage you to read it. In the comments below his essay I take issue with one aspect of the argument John Richardson mounts. But here I want to draw attention to something the essay highlights, which I describe in this way:
Archbishop Rowan Williams in this address (read here) offers a bold, intelligent, searching attack (albeit in the considered tones of theological language) on matters important to Roman ecclesiology (primacy, magisterium, universal church). But as I read John Richardson's citations of ++Rowan's address on these matters, along with John's own commentary, I am struck by how good the critique is and how weak the alternative is which ++Rowan proposes. On the one hand I am left wondering whether Rome might feel the effect of this address as a rampant All Black forward might feel the fend off of a spindly opposition fly-half, and on the other hand I wonder if the Anglican alternative to Rome on primacy, magisterium and universal church could be strengthened.
I would welcome any thoughts from readers ... I shall keep thinking about it myself!
Logically it is possible that ++Rowan is correct in (at least) this sense: the church as God in Christ intended it through the sending of the Spirit is a weak, fragile and vulnerable being, not actually designed to be made strong through human institutional machinery such as establishing primacy and magisterium. Paul's response to the messiness of Corinth is to patiently reply to each difficulty of doctrine and praxis, not to argue for the establishment of a Petrine type primacy. The Jerusalem church in Acts 15 forms a council rather than a magisterium, and (somewhat fatal for biblical arguments for Petrine primacy, James not Peter is the emergent leader of proceedings). But, as a counter, one could argue that the Pastoral Epistles represent the earliest church on the way towards primacy and magisterium as it begins to feel the full force of 'messy church' and its potential for damaging false teaching.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Understanding the character of the church (pace ++Rowan)
What if we fundamentally misunderstand the character of the church? Suppose we thought that the church was a body of one kind, and it turns out to be a body of another kind? Is it too late to recognize what God in Christ through the Spirit is up to within the communion of God, and in mission in the world; and thus change how we understand the church? No, says, ++Rowan, in his Willebrands Symposium address.
Please read the address. DO NOT DISMISS IT AS ANOTHER NERDY WORDY ESSAY. The church cannot afford to deceive itself about its true character and purpose before God. We have too much to lose if we get it wrong, and so much to gain if we get it right!
Here are what I consider to be the most fruitful parts of the address, with my comments in italics ...
When all is said and done, we have more in common as churches than differences:
"The strong convergence in these agreements about what the Church of God really is, is very striking. The various agreed statements of the churches stress that the Church is a community, in which human beings are made sons and daughters of God, and reconciled both with God and one another. The Church celebrates this through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion in which God acts upon us to transform us ‘in communion’. More detailed questions about ordained ministry and other issues have been framed in this context.
"Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight – issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope), and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance). Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?
"The central question is whether and how we can properly tell the difference between ‘second order’ and ‘first order’ issues. When so very much agreement has been firmly established in first-order matters about the identity and mission of the Church, is it really justifiable to treat other issues as equally vital for its health and integrity?"
What is the church? Is it a body organized by prescriptive rules whose life is measured by its faithful obedience to presciptions? This was the pre-Vatican II view of Roman ecclesiologists. It, arguably, is the view of some forms of evangelical ecclesiology found in Anglican circles, with appropriate substitutions of, say, 'Word' for 'sacraments':
"Part of what Vatican II turned away from is a way of talking about the Church as primarily an institution existing because of divine decree, governed by prescription from the Lord, faithfully administering the sacraments ordained by him for the salvation of souls – ‘an external, visible society, whose members, under a hierarchical authority headed by the pope, constitute with him one visible body, tending to the same spiritual and supernatural end, i.e., sanctification of souls and their eternal happiness’ (Pietro Palazzini, s.v. ‘Church (Society)’ in the Dictionary of Moral Theology, ed. F. Roberti and P. Palazzini, originally published in 1957). But what is missing from this account is any real explication of how the nature and character and even polity of the Church are grounded in and shaped by the nature of God and of God’s incarnation in history. A theological understanding of the Church would be one that makes this connection."
There is another way, a way rediscovered by Willebrands and Congar, and embraced by Vatican II, continued by Kasper, and also found in recent Anglican-Orthodox dialogue. This is the ecclesiology of the church imaging the trinitarian communion of God:
"In broad outline, the picture is something like this. God is eternally a life of threefold communion; and if human persons are to be reconciled to God and restored to the capacity for which they were made, they must be included in that life of communion. The incarnation of God the Son recreates in human persons the possibility of filial relation with the Father, standing in the place of Christ and praying his prayer; and only the Holy Spirit, which animates and directs the entire human identity of the Incarnate Word, can create that filial reality in us. To be restored to life with God is to be incorporated into Jesus Christ by the Spirit; but because the gift of the Spirit is what takes away mutual fear and hostility and the shutting-up of human selves against each other, it is inseparably and necessarily a gift of mutual human communion also. The sacramental life and the communal disciplines of the Church exist to serve and witness to this dual fact of communion, with the Father and with all believers."
In other words, when we focus on God as communion, on the church as human persons in communion with God, then church itself is a communion in which love replaces fear, hostility and division between us. On this model of church-in-relation-to-God, Christians are confronted not with prescriptions which we may disagree about, and thus divide ourselves, but with the logic of God's love for us: being incorporated into the love of God we must love one another. For the true church understanding itself truthfully division is no more possible than it is for God himself.
++Rowan says much more, tackling some of the issues which remain points of division between Anglicans (and other Protestant churches) and Roman Catholics, but the essential point is laid out above: if the Church of Rome is true to its new ecclesiology of Vatican II, itself a theology of the Trinity grounded in Scripture (perhaps especially in the Johannine writings), then the presenting issues of ordination, primacy, etc should not, in the end, divide us.
But, mutatis mutandis, all that ++Rowan says applies to the Anglican Communion and our own unity. Do we love one another?
Please read the address. DO NOT DISMISS IT AS ANOTHER NERDY WORDY ESSAY. The church cannot afford to deceive itself about its true character and purpose before God. We have too much to lose if we get it wrong, and so much to gain if we get it right!
Here are what I consider to be the most fruitful parts of the address, with my comments in italics ...
When all is said and done, we have more in common as churches than differences:
"The strong convergence in these agreements about what the Church of God really is, is very striking. The various agreed statements of the churches stress that the Church is a community, in which human beings are made sons and daughters of God, and reconciled both with God and one another. The Church celebrates this through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion in which God acts upon us to transform us ‘in communion’. More detailed questions about ordained ministry and other issues have been framed in this context.
"Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight – issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope), and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance). Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?
"The central question is whether and how we can properly tell the difference between ‘second order’ and ‘first order’ issues. When so very much agreement has been firmly established in first-order matters about the identity and mission of the Church, is it really justifiable to treat other issues as equally vital for its health and integrity?"
What is the church? Is it a body organized by prescriptive rules whose life is measured by its faithful obedience to presciptions? This was the pre-Vatican II view of Roman ecclesiologists. It, arguably, is the view of some forms of evangelical ecclesiology found in Anglican circles, with appropriate substitutions of, say, 'Word' for 'sacraments':
"Part of what Vatican II turned away from is a way of talking about the Church as primarily an institution existing because of divine decree, governed by prescription from the Lord, faithfully administering the sacraments ordained by him for the salvation of souls – ‘an external, visible society, whose members, under a hierarchical authority headed by the pope, constitute with him one visible body, tending to the same spiritual and supernatural end, i.e., sanctification of souls and their eternal happiness’ (Pietro Palazzini, s.v. ‘Church (Society)’ in the Dictionary of Moral Theology, ed. F. Roberti and P. Palazzini, originally published in 1957). But what is missing from this account is any real explication of how the nature and character and even polity of the Church are grounded in and shaped by the nature of God and of God’s incarnation in history. A theological understanding of the Church would be one that makes this connection."
There is another way, a way rediscovered by Willebrands and Congar, and embraced by Vatican II, continued by Kasper, and also found in recent Anglican-Orthodox dialogue. This is the ecclesiology of the church imaging the trinitarian communion of God:
"In broad outline, the picture is something like this. God is eternally a life of threefold communion; and if human persons are to be reconciled to God and restored to the capacity for which they were made, they must be included in that life of communion. The incarnation of God the Son recreates in human persons the possibility of filial relation with the Father, standing in the place of Christ and praying his prayer; and only the Holy Spirit, which animates and directs the entire human identity of the Incarnate Word, can create that filial reality in us. To be restored to life with God is to be incorporated into Jesus Christ by the Spirit; but because the gift of the Spirit is what takes away mutual fear and hostility and the shutting-up of human selves against each other, it is inseparably and necessarily a gift of mutual human communion also. The sacramental life and the communal disciplines of the Church exist to serve and witness to this dual fact of communion, with the Father and with all believers."
In other words, when we focus on God as communion, on the church as human persons in communion with God, then church itself is a communion in which love replaces fear, hostility and division between us. On this model of church-in-relation-to-God, Christians are confronted not with prescriptions which we may disagree about, and thus divide ourselves, but with the logic of God's love for us: being incorporated into the love of God we must love one another. For the true church understanding itself truthfully division is no more possible than it is for God himself.
++Rowan says much more, tackling some of the issues which remain points of division between Anglicans (and other Protestant churches) and Roman Catholics, but the essential point is laid out above: if the Church of Rome is true to its new ecclesiology of Vatican II, itself a theology of the Trinity grounded in Scripture (perhaps especially in the Johannine writings), then the presenting issues of ordination, primacy, etc should not, in the end, divide us.
But, mutatis mutandis, all that ++Rowan says applies to the Anglican Communion and our own unity. Do we love one another?
Williams has his mojo back
Now, this is more like it, as More than a Via Media observes, Archbishop Rowan Williams is "back", confidently articulating an Anglican future without anxiety. Indeed he rather turns the tables on Benedict! As The Times reports,
"Speaking before he meets Benedict XVI tomorrow, Dr Rowan Williams told a conference in Rome that the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women was a bar to Christian unity."
As indeed it is. Rome can change - Benedict has demonstrated that - but can and will it change on this matter which lies at the heart of human dignity, of male and female created equal in God's sight, and redeemed equally on the cross of Christ?
"“For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women,” [++Rowan] said."
Here is the confident expression of the validity of Anglican life:
"“Is it nonsense to think that holding on to a limited but real common life might be worth working for within the Anglican family? And if it can be managed within the Anglican family, is this a possible model for the wider ecumenical scene?”"
Here is the challenge which he will bring to the table when he meets with Benedict tomorrow:
"But yesterday the Archbishop made clear that there would be no turning back the clock on women priests in order to appease critics. He dismissed the Pope’s offer to disaffected Anglicans as barely more than a “pastoral response”, which broke little new ground in relations between the two Churches.
Dr Williams said: “It does not build in any formal recognition of existing ministries or methods of independent decision-making, but remains at the level of spiritual and liturgical culture.
“As such, it is an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some; but it does not break any fresh ecclesiological ground,” he told the meeting of senior priests, bishops and cardinals.
Dr Williams put the row over the apostolic constitution, as the Pope’s plan is known, into the context of a centuries-old debate about reuniting the Christian Churches. He questioned whether unity talks should even continue if disagreements over issues such as papal primacy had no hope ever of being resolved.
“I want to propose that we now need urgent clarification of whether these continuing points of tension imply in any way that the substantive theological convergence is less solid than it appears, so that we must still hold back from fuller levels of recognition of ministries or fuller sacramental fellowship,” he said.
But he went on to argue that if there was hope that such issues could be resolved, the Churches could begin to talk about converging their structures of administration and governance, and seeking “sacramental” fellowship.
The speech laid the ground for a frank encounter behind closed doors with the Pope, the highlight of Dr Williams’s Rome trip."
Read the address Archbishop Williams gave at the Willebrands Symposium here.
Ruth Gledhill's blogpost re all this is here, entitled "Rowan in Rome: the Fightback begins"
"Speaking before he meets Benedict XVI tomorrow, Dr Rowan Williams told a conference in Rome that the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women was a bar to Christian unity."
As indeed it is. Rome can change - Benedict has demonstrated that - but can and will it change on this matter which lies at the heart of human dignity, of male and female created equal in God's sight, and redeemed equally on the cross of Christ?
"“For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women,” [++Rowan] said."
Here is the confident expression of the validity of Anglican life:
"“Is it nonsense to think that holding on to a limited but real common life might be worth working for within the Anglican family? And if it can be managed within the Anglican family, is this a possible model for the wider ecumenical scene?”"
Here is the challenge which he will bring to the table when he meets with Benedict tomorrow:
"But yesterday the Archbishop made clear that there would be no turning back the clock on women priests in order to appease critics. He dismissed the Pope’s offer to disaffected Anglicans as barely more than a “pastoral response”, which broke little new ground in relations between the two Churches.
Dr Williams said: “It does not build in any formal recognition of existing ministries or methods of independent decision-making, but remains at the level of spiritual and liturgical culture.
“As such, it is an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some; but it does not break any fresh ecclesiological ground,” he told the meeting of senior priests, bishops and cardinals.
Dr Williams put the row over the apostolic constitution, as the Pope’s plan is known, into the context of a centuries-old debate about reuniting the Christian Churches. He questioned whether unity talks should even continue if disagreements over issues such as papal primacy had no hope ever of being resolved.
“I want to propose that we now need urgent clarification of whether these continuing points of tension imply in any way that the substantive theological convergence is less solid than it appears, so that we must still hold back from fuller levels of recognition of ministries or fuller sacramental fellowship,” he said.
But he went on to argue that if there was hope that such issues could be resolved, the Churches could begin to talk about converging their structures of administration and governance, and seeking “sacramental” fellowship.
The speech laid the ground for a frank encounter behind closed doors with the Pope, the highlight of Dr Williams’s Rome trip."
Read the address Archbishop Williams gave at the Willebrands Symposium here.
Ruth Gledhill's blogpost re all this is here, entitled "Rowan in Rome: the Fightback begins"
Voices rising against Uganda's legislation
From Warren Throckmorton's site:
"Exodus Sends Letter Opposing Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
November 16, 2009
Exodus International sent the following letter to Uganda’s President Museveni regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 currently being considered in the Parliament. The bill would criminalize and prosecute homosexual behavior and would require pastors, missionaries, health care providers and counselors to report those suspected of such behavior. Exodus International, along with its board members and broader network, opposes this legislation as it inhibits the global Christian church’s mission to share the life-giving truth of the Gospel and extend the compassion of Christ to all.
President & Mrs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
c/o Principal Private Secretary, Amelia Kyambadde
State House Nakasero
P.O. Box 24594
Kampala, Uganda
Dear President & Mrs. Museveni,
As evangelical Christian leaders dedicated to advancing the truths of the Bible worldwide, we commend your work to promote ethics in Uganda. In addition, your efforts to eradicate the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been appropriately praised internationally and we are praying for your continued success.
We want to humbly share our concerns regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, introduced before the Ugandan parliament on October 14, 2009. First, we believe that sexual crimes against children, homosexual or heterosexual, are the most serious of offenses and should be punished accordingly. Homosexual behavior in consensual relationships, however, is another matter.
While we do not believe that homosexual behavior is what God intended for individuals, we believe that deprivation of life and liberty is not an appropriate or helpful response to this issue. Furthermore, the Christian church must be a safe, compassionate place for gay-identified people as well as those who are confused about and conflicted by their sexuality. If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue. The Christian church cannot and should not condone homosexual living or gay-identified clergy within its leadership, but it must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.
Many of us and those we know and work with have personally struggled with unwanted homosexual attractions and once lived as gay individuals, but have since found a new identity in Jesus Christ and have gone on to live lives that reflect the teaching of the Christian faith. We sincerely believe that such transformations cannot best be achieved in an environment of government coercion where the vital support, care and compassion of others in the Christian community is discouraged and prosecuted.
Please consider the influence this law will have upon those who may seek help in dealing with this difficult issue as well as church and ministry leaders committed to demonstrating the compassion of Christ to all. We are praying for you, for this matter and for the people of Uganda.
Sincerely,
Alan Chambers
President of Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexual
Randy Thomas
Executive Vice President, Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexual
Christopher Yuan
Adjunct Instructor, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois
HIV Survivor
AIDS Activist
Former homosexual
Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
Member of the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors
Grove City, Pennsylvania"
(H/T Peter Ould of An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy)
You see, it is possible for Christians around the world to be united on something in the realm of ethics!
"Exodus Sends Letter Opposing Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
November 16, 2009
Exodus International sent the following letter to Uganda’s President Museveni regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 currently being considered in the Parliament. The bill would criminalize and prosecute homosexual behavior and would require pastors, missionaries, health care providers and counselors to report those suspected of such behavior. Exodus International, along with its board members and broader network, opposes this legislation as it inhibits the global Christian church’s mission to share the life-giving truth of the Gospel and extend the compassion of Christ to all.
President & Mrs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
c/o Principal Private Secretary, Amelia Kyambadde
State House Nakasero
P.O. Box 24594
Kampala, Uganda
Dear President & Mrs. Museveni,
As evangelical Christian leaders dedicated to advancing the truths of the Bible worldwide, we commend your work to promote ethics in Uganda. In addition, your efforts to eradicate the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been appropriately praised internationally and we are praying for your continued success.
We want to humbly share our concerns regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, introduced before the Ugandan parliament on October 14, 2009. First, we believe that sexual crimes against children, homosexual or heterosexual, are the most serious of offenses and should be punished accordingly. Homosexual behavior in consensual relationships, however, is another matter.
While we do not believe that homosexual behavior is what God intended for individuals, we believe that deprivation of life and liberty is not an appropriate or helpful response to this issue. Furthermore, the Christian church must be a safe, compassionate place for gay-identified people as well as those who are confused about and conflicted by their sexuality. If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue. The Christian church cannot and should not condone homosexual living or gay-identified clergy within its leadership, but it must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.
Many of us and those we know and work with have personally struggled with unwanted homosexual attractions and once lived as gay individuals, but have since found a new identity in Jesus Christ and have gone on to live lives that reflect the teaching of the Christian faith. We sincerely believe that such transformations cannot best be achieved in an environment of government coercion where the vital support, care and compassion of others in the Christian community is discouraged and prosecuted.
Please consider the influence this law will have upon those who may seek help in dealing with this difficult issue as well as church and ministry leaders committed to demonstrating the compassion of Christ to all. We are praying for you, for this matter and for the people of Uganda.
Sincerely,
Alan Chambers
President of Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexual
Randy Thomas
Executive Vice President, Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexual
Christopher Yuan
Adjunct Instructor, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois
HIV Survivor
AIDS Activist
Former homosexual
Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
Member of the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors
Grove City, Pennsylvania"
(H/T Peter Ould of An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy)
You see, it is possible for Christians around the world to be united on something in the realm of ethics!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Archbishop Rowan: stick to your knitting ... and knit a better Anglican habitat
I admire and respect Archbishop Rowan Williams, think him often misunderstood, and unnecessarily criticized. But my admiration is not unqualified, and qualification enters into trying to admire his prognostications on the future of the planet as reported here. It is just nuts to argue that higher taxation will create a better life here on earth. Perhaps in the short term it will do something as present wealth is redistributed, and as we constrain our rampant use of carbon dioxide emitters. In the long-term, however, other solutions are required, solutions which continue to create wealth which people may share in.
Of course, the odd thing about this address of Archbishop Williams is that (a) it involves a clear vision for a better human habitat, and (b) a conviction boldly stated as to the achievement of that vision.
Would that (a) and (b) applied to the Anglican Communion were as forthcoming ...
(H/T Kendall Harmon)
Of course, the odd thing about this address of Archbishop Williams is that (a) it involves a clear vision for a better human habitat, and (b) a conviction boldly stated as to the achievement of that vision.
Would that (a) and (b) applied to the Anglican Communion were as forthcoming ...
(H/T Kendall Harmon)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
When old men speak, the young are rewarded through listening
(H/T Fulcrum News)
Walter Kasper clears up some confusion in the minds of journalists and of critics of Benedict's offer to Anglicans ...
Jim Packer is as sagacious as ever, from the ending of Mark's Gospel through the brilliance of C.S. Lewis to unpicking the difficulties of Canadian Anglicanism ...
Walter Kasper clears up some confusion in the minds of journalists and of critics of Benedict's offer to Anglicans ...
Jim Packer is as sagacious as ever, from the ending of Mark's Gospel through the brilliance of C.S. Lewis to unpicking the difficulties of Canadian Anglicanism ...
Stating an Anglican position is tricky business
Titus One Nine has published this release from the Modern Churchpeople's Union's about it's response to the latest version of what the C of E with women bishops might look like. The press release is this:
"Women Bishops and the Revision Committee
MCU has published a paper that welcomes the Revision Committee's change of policy. However, it questions the emphasis on seeking to satisfy the opponents of women bishops while showing no comparable concern for the majority appalled by the continuing gender discrimination.
The paper argues
* that the proposed proliferation of different classes of bishops (women, men consecrated or not consecrated by women, men who do or do not ordain women, etc) should be resisted;
* that church leaders should resist the influence of magical views of the sacraments, treating priests and bishops as if the value of their ministry depended on whether their appointment followed precise rules;
* that the 'theology of taint' - the idea that a bishop who has once ordained a woman priest is no longer an acceptable bishop - is not acceptable and no allowance should be made for it;
* that resistance to change, while characteristic of many reactionary religious campaigns, is unrealistic since churches do, and need to, make changes;
* that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted;
* and that the current reactionary mood among church leaders is in danger of being made permanent by the proposed Anglican Covenant." (The whole paper to which the release refers may be read here).
I find this to be an interesting mix of propositions, underlining the difficulty we Anglicans can have trying to state a position on something for which we do not have a handy comprehensive catechism to quote from! Consider:
"* that the proposed proliferation of different classes of bishops (women, men consecrated or not consecrated by women, men who do or do not ordain women, etc) should be resisted;" I agree. No problem.
"* that church leaders should resist the influence of magical views of the sacraments, treating priests and bishops as if the value of their ministry depended on whether their appointment followed precise rules;" I agree to the words before the comma. After that is tricky: if following precise rules is not important for the value of ministry then, hey, let's treat those ACNA bishops as ... bishops!
"* that the 'theology of taint' - the idea that a bishop who has once ordained a woman priest is no longer an acceptable bishop - is not acceptable and no allowance should be made for it;" I agree. No problem for me; but I acknowledge it will be for some.
"* that resistance to change, while characteristic of many reactionary religious campaigns, is unrealistic since churches do, and need to, make changes;" I agree. But I wonder if the MCU understands that sometimes those most resistant to change are those fronting 'progressive religious campaigns'. Here in NZ, for instance, some of the people most resistant to the establishment of a truly profound Three Tikanga life together have been ... progressives.
"* that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted;" On this, with special reference to controversial issues in our Communion, might we all, left/right, reactionary/progressive be united in our agreement?
"* and that the current reactionary mood among church leaders is in danger of being made permanent by the proposed Anglican Covenant." Really? The Anglican Covenant is designed to ensure that the Communion understands itself to be a body of believers committed to orthodoxy and orthopraxy and works to ensure that understanding, and not another prevails. Only if the 'current reactionary mood among church leaders' is in tune with orthodoxy and orthopraxy will it be made 'permanent'. Surely the MCU is not saying it is unconcerned with orthodoxy and orthopraxy being a permanent feature of the Communion?
The MCU would not be the first Anglican body to attempt to achieve too much in a statement, to the detriment of the effectiveness of the statement as a whole!
"Women Bishops and the Revision Committee
MCU has published a paper that welcomes the Revision Committee's change of policy. However, it questions the emphasis on seeking to satisfy the opponents of women bishops while showing no comparable concern for the majority appalled by the continuing gender discrimination.
The paper argues
* that the proposed proliferation of different classes of bishops (women, men consecrated or not consecrated by women, men who do or do not ordain women, etc) should be resisted;
* that church leaders should resist the influence of magical views of the sacraments, treating priests and bishops as if the value of their ministry depended on whether their appointment followed precise rules;
* that the 'theology of taint' - the idea that a bishop who has once ordained a woman priest is no longer an acceptable bishop - is not acceptable and no allowance should be made for it;
* that resistance to change, while characteristic of many reactionary religious campaigns, is unrealistic since churches do, and need to, make changes;
* that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted;
* and that the current reactionary mood among church leaders is in danger of being made permanent by the proposed Anglican Covenant." (The whole paper to which the release refers may be read here).
I find this to be an interesting mix of propositions, underlining the difficulty we Anglicans can have trying to state a position on something for which we do not have a handy comprehensive catechism to quote from! Consider:
"* that the proposed proliferation of different classes of bishops (women, men consecrated or not consecrated by women, men who do or do not ordain women, etc) should be resisted;" I agree. No problem.
"* that church leaders should resist the influence of magical views of the sacraments, treating priests and bishops as if the value of their ministry depended on whether their appointment followed precise rules;" I agree to the words before the comma. After that is tricky: if following precise rules is not important for the value of ministry then, hey, let's treat those ACNA bishops as ... bishops!
"* that the 'theology of taint' - the idea that a bishop who has once ordained a woman priest is no longer an acceptable bishop - is not acceptable and no allowance should be made for it;" I agree. No problem for me; but I acknowledge it will be for some.
"* that resistance to change, while characteristic of many reactionary religious campaigns, is unrealistic since churches do, and need to, make changes;" I agree. But I wonder if the MCU understands that sometimes those most resistant to change are those fronting 'progressive religious campaigns'. Here in NZ, for instance, some of the people most resistant to the establishment of a truly profound Three Tikanga life together have been ... progressives.
"* that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted;" On this, with special reference to controversial issues in our Communion, might we all, left/right, reactionary/progressive be united in our agreement?
"* and that the current reactionary mood among church leaders is in danger of being made permanent by the proposed Anglican Covenant." Really? The Anglican Covenant is designed to ensure that the Communion understands itself to be a body of believers committed to orthodoxy and orthopraxy and works to ensure that understanding, and not another prevails. Only if the 'current reactionary mood among church leaders' is in tune with orthodoxy and orthopraxy will it be made 'permanent'. Surely the MCU is not saying it is unconcerned with orthodoxy and orthopraxy being a permanent feature of the Communion?
The MCU would not be the first Anglican body to attempt to achieve too much in a statement, to the detriment of the effectiveness of the statement as a whole!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
