I was going to post about what makes an Anglican an Anglican but checking in to Stuff I see we have a priest here who has held the office of Diocesan Exorcist while not believing in demons.So let's hold what makes an Anglican until tomorrow (hint: South Carolina is Anglican) and consider this wonderful illustration of what may be wrong with our church: saying one thing and believing another.
The background to the local news item is the global item about the Pope performing an exorcism (or did he?) on a man in a wheelchair. Natch our local press goes to a go-to-guy to get comment and who better than a former diocesan exorcist who does not believe in demons.
Actually our Catholic Archbishop does not come out too well in this item. Though required by canon law to have a diocesan exorcist, he does not have one!
For the record, I am with Michael Hewat, also quoted in the article. I do not have a lot of experience in this area, but I believe that beyond the realm we call psychosis and neurosis, the devil and his minions can gain and retain a foothold on lives and houses. When we discern that, we should pray for deliverance.
For local Christchurch readers with long memories, one of the most memorable experiences of my curacy was being part of an exorcism performed in a house where the manifestation was the sound of a ticking clock. The then Diocesan Exorcist was Archdeacon Peter Witty. It was definitely a case of watch, listen, learn and never forget.
Back to our present day colleague who does not believe in demons. I see his comments as illustrative of something which is a problem in our church today: saying one thing openly with our lips and believing another privately in our hearts.
Here are a few other examples:
What we say: "We are proud of being a three tikanga church."
What we believe: Our church is not working. There are many problems as a result of being a three tikanga church which we are not addressing.
What we say: "We think gay people in same sex partnerships should be able to be ordained."
What we believe: Our parish needs a married vicar who has a young family to help regrow the Sunday School.
What we say: "Our prayer book is an amazing taonga of which we are very proud, especially when we hear how popular it is in North America."
What we believe: For next Sunday's service I can make whatever changes to the prayer book I want in order to make it relevant to 2013.
What we say: "We think its great that we are the kind of church which can make radical decisions such as electing the bare-footed, dreadlocked Justin Duckworth to be Bishop of Wellington."
What we believe: Apart from one or two bold decisions like that, we haven't got many clues on how to turn our aging, declining church around.
You may be able to supply more!
PS A few days ago I posted two links to a series of three Living Church essays. The third essay, Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore is now posted.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Free radicals: thoughts on vagrant dioceses
Not all bishops are anchored into geographical locations and such bishops may be what is known as episcopi vagantes, wandering bishops. The vagantes concept could also be invoked where whole dioceses secede from one province of the Communion, stake a claim to continue to belong to the Communion while not legally tied into a relationship with another province or network with provincial links or directly to the oversight of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a diocese wanders, we could say, canonically free. Currently such a diocese is the Diocese of South Carolina. It is a free radical diocese, pursuing without fear or favour where its Anglican roots might be replanted.
The Living Church has a useful and fascinating series of reflections on this situation.
Why Provinces Matter by Jesse Zink
Don't Cheat the Prophet by William G. Witt
A third essay is coming. AND IS NOW HERE Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore
The whole series has the title Sic et Non which plays on Abelard's mediaeval work trying to reconcile contradictions!
What do you think?
Or, do the real vagantes dioceses exist where a wandering occurs from one fad to another with bishops at the helm who chart a course according to the prevailing winds of society?
The Living Church has a useful and fascinating series of reflections on this situation.
Why Provinces Matter by Jesse Zink
Don't Cheat the Prophet by William G. Witt
A third essay is coming. AND IS NOW HERE Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore
The whole series has the title Sic et Non which plays on Abelard's mediaeval work trying to reconcile contradictions!
What do you think?
Or, do the real vagantes dioceses exist where a wandering occurs from one fad to another with bishops at the helm who chart a course according to the prevailing winds of society?
Monday, May 20, 2013
Brewing the Perfect Storm in our Church (3)
INTRODUCTION
If I lived in one of those great castles built on a cliff beside the sea I don't think a perfect storm would worry me too much. But what if I lived in a sandcastle on the sea shore? Jesus got there before me and told the story. The house built on the rock will stand.
Rather than prognosticate on how strong I think our church is to withstand controversy, let me ask readers these questions.
A PERFECT STORM WILL NOT NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE
In an important comment to the previous post in this series Bosco Peters makes the case that there need not be a perfect storm over the matter of the blessing of same sex partnerships (especially here). His supporting analogy is that on the question of divorce and remarriage where we have made decisions and pursued practice which is not biblical, nevertheless we have remained together as a church. I agree that there need not be a storm. I think that all those for whom 'biblical' is an important criterion for judging what we should and should not do would do well to ponder the following: what things in our church are practised which we think are unbiblical, and why do we accommodate them by staying rather than leaving?
In other words, in terms of disagreements in our church, as outlined in previous posts (e.g. approaches, attitudes, authority), we have experience of sharp disagreements being overcome and of disagreements being maintained in tension without spilling over into schism. The present brewing storm need not lead to division.
YET DANGER REMAINS BEFORE US
Nevertheless, I suggest there are possible decisions our church could make which would contribute to a perfect storm engulfing us. Here are three.
(1) If we changed our canon on marriage (and text of our marriage liturgies) in order to extend our ecclesial definition of marriage to include two people of the same gender.
As I listen in our church I hear voices which are open (some much more open than others) to our church doing something re 'blessing' same sex partnerships but draw the line at change to our understanding of marriage as being about a man and a woman. In other words some pragmatic recognition of same sex partnerships which does not revise what we already have written down about marriage in our formularies and canons may avoid the perfect storm developing.
A different voice, though getting at the same idea, that marriage between a man and a woman is sui generis, is expressed by Bryden Black, in various comments over time on this blog, but especially here.
In my words, at least two views of marriage are at work in the Western world (in one marriage is an estate ordained by God for the conjugation of a man and a woman with potential for fruitful procreation and capacity to both image the diversity-in-unity of the Triune God and of Christ and the church, and in the other marriage is a legally and morally acceptable arrangement in which two people express their committed love for one another).
Our allegiances within the church to one model over the other represent a cleavage between an understanding of the church as a body governed by a theology disclosed by God through revelation and as a body governed by theology built from the ground upwards where the ground is human reflection on experience. At some point in the history of the church in the 21st century this cleavage will result in conflict rather than conciliation. This may be that moment.
(2) If we made general willingness to conduct blessings of same sex partnerships determinative of selection for ordination or appointment to licensed ministry.
We likely will make a decision which in principle means that ministers are equally free to offer such blessings or to refuse to give them. After all, currently ministers are free to accept or to refuse to conduct a wedding. But that is not where controversy lies. Where controversy lies is in the processes of discernment for ordination and for appointment to licensed ministries. In that process questions can (and should) be put about attitudes to things. Examples include wearing robes, using the prayer book, following certain customs, approach to collaborative ministry. Sometimes these questions are put to yield a kind of profile of the interviewee with no one question being a "killer" question in which the wrong answer could mean a refusal to proceed to ordination/appointment. Sometimes one question is a killer. I will be upfront and say, I can imagine in some dioceses that an expression of refusal to offer blessings for same sex partnerships will determine the outcome of interviews.
(3) If we so approved whatever it is that we might approve by way of change that licensed ministers and officers of the church felt they could no longer sign with good conscience that they will abide by the authority of the General Synod.
On this matter I am speaking about a specific concern voiced by colleagues whose integrity is such that they would leave their current ministries by handing in their licences if a decision of General Synod meant they could not remain committed to the authority of General Synod. In reporting this concern I have no specific example to give of how GS might word a decision so that the concern is met and all is well. Put another way, while there is the obvious example that a change to our marriage canon (see 1) above would trigger this concern, it is not clear to me what might count as a change instituted by General Synod which either does not trigger the concern or is at least ambiguous enough for hesitancy to occur as to whether the trigger is pulled or not. But I will observe this: for General Synod to offer the possibility that each bishop may determine whether or not blessings of same sex partnerships may occur within their episcopal jurisdiction may be a step too far.
For now, that is the end of this series. Comments are welcome. They may yet trigger some further thoughts.
PS I am offering reflection on the possibility of a perfect storm arising if our church proceeds in certain directions. It is also possible (though may be not equally possible) that if our church does not proceed in certain directions there will be a perfect storm.
If I lived in one of those great castles built on a cliff beside the sea I don't think a perfect storm would worry me too much. But what if I lived in a sandcastle on the sea shore? Jesus got there before me and told the story. The house built on the rock will stand.
Rather than prognosticate on how strong I think our church is to withstand controversy, let me ask readers these questions.
If we engage in a perfect storm over the next few years, will there be an Anglican church in these islands in twenty years time?
Do we have the strength to survive the storm and rebuild after it passes through?
Where the Anglican church has exhibited a progressive agenda in these islands, can we measure the impact of that agenda in terms of congregational growth?
A PERFECT STORM WILL NOT NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE
In an important comment to the previous post in this series Bosco Peters makes the case that there need not be a perfect storm over the matter of the blessing of same sex partnerships (especially here). His supporting analogy is that on the question of divorce and remarriage where we have made decisions and pursued practice which is not biblical, nevertheless we have remained together as a church. I agree that there need not be a storm. I think that all those for whom 'biblical' is an important criterion for judging what we should and should not do would do well to ponder the following: what things in our church are practised which we think are unbiblical, and why do we accommodate them by staying rather than leaving?
In other words, in terms of disagreements in our church, as outlined in previous posts (e.g. approaches, attitudes, authority), we have experience of sharp disagreements being overcome and of disagreements being maintained in tension without spilling over into schism. The present brewing storm need not lead to division.
YET DANGER REMAINS BEFORE US
Nevertheless, I suggest there are possible decisions our church could make which would contribute to a perfect storm engulfing us. Here are three.
(1) If we changed our canon on marriage (and text of our marriage liturgies) in order to extend our ecclesial definition of marriage to include two people of the same gender.
As I listen in our church I hear voices which are open (some much more open than others) to our church doing something re 'blessing' same sex partnerships but draw the line at change to our understanding of marriage as being about a man and a woman. In other words some pragmatic recognition of same sex partnerships which does not revise what we already have written down about marriage in our formularies and canons may avoid the perfect storm developing.
A different voice, though getting at the same idea, that marriage between a man and a woman is sui generis, is expressed by Bryden Black, in various comments over time on this blog, but especially here.
In my words, at least two views of marriage are at work in the Western world (in one marriage is an estate ordained by God for the conjugation of a man and a woman with potential for fruitful procreation and capacity to both image the diversity-in-unity of the Triune God and of Christ and the church, and in the other marriage is a legally and morally acceptable arrangement in which two people express their committed love for one another).
Our allegiances within the church to one model over the other represent a cleavage between an understanding of the church as a body governed by a theology disclosed by God through revelation and as a body governed by theology built from the ground upwards where the ground is human reflection on experience. At some point in the history of the church in the 21st century this cleavage will result in conflict rather than conciliation. This may be that moment.
(2) If we made general willingness to conduct blessings of same sex partnerships determinative of selection for ordination or appointment to licensed ministry.
We likely will make a decision which in principle means that ministers are equally free to offer such blessings or to refuse to give them. After all, currently ministers are free to accept or to refuse to conduct a wedding. But that is not where controversy lies. Where controversy lies is in the processes of discernment for ordination and for appointment to licensed ministries. In that process questions can (and should) be put about attitudes to things. Examples include wearing robes, using the prayer book, following certain customs, approach to collaborative ministry. Sometimes these questions are put to yield a kind of profile of the interviewee with no one question being a "killer" question in which the wrong answer could mean a refusal to proceed to ordination/appointment. Sometimes one question is a killer. I will be upfront and say, I can imagine in some dioceses that an expression of refusal to offer blessings for same sex partnerships will determine the outcome of interviews.
(3) If we so approved whatever it is that we might approve by way of change that licensed ministers and officers of the church felt they could no longer sign with good conscience that they will abide by the authority of the General Synod.
On this matter I am speaking about a specific concern voiced by colleagues whose integrity is such that they would leave their current ministries by handing in their licences if a decision of General Synod meant they could not remain committed to the authority of General Synod. In reporting this concern I have no specific example to give of how GS might word a decision so that the concern is met and all is well. Put another way, while there is the obvious example that a change to our marriage canon (see 1) above would trigger this concern, it is not clear to me what might count as a change instituted by General Synod which either does not trigger the concern or is at least ambiguous enough for hesitancy to occur as to whether the trigger is pulled or not. But I will observe this: for General Synod to offer the possibility that each bishop may determine whether or not blessings of same sex partnerships may occur within their episcopal jurisdiction may be a step too far.
For now, that is the end of this series. Comments are welcome. They may yet trigger some further thoughts.
PS I am offering reflection on the possibility of a perfect storm arising if our church proceeds in certain directions. It is also possible (though may be not equally possible) that if our church does not proceed in certain directions there will be a perfect storm.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Apropos of things American
A bit of a fuss is being made about an interview Rob Bell has given in the UK. The Ugley Vicar calls it a 'train wreck'. Head there to click into the interview. I have not seen the whole interview so am not commenting directly upon it. Could it be turned into a Nooma video on the word Obfuscation?
Noted in comments below is a sermon which Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has preached in Curacao in the Diocese of Venezuela. [Thanks for correction to original wording in a comment below]. This is also being made a bit of a fuss about. It involves the most extraordinary wrongheaded, or just plain wrong interpretation of a passage in Acts. It is "beyond" commenting on! It would be insulting to liberals to call this an example of liberalism. It is beyond that. It is sui generis, in a class of its own as an example of just plain wrong interpretation! (Later: do not just take my word for it. Note the plethora of negative comments about the sermon which the ENS publishes in the link about). A word to the wise preacher: it is not necessarily a smart idea to publish sermons.
PS in proper deference to the Presiding Bishop I will only accept comments about this which either discuss the "exegesis" without naming the preacher or which name her properly e.g. the name with title used above, or ++Jefferts Schori. I think Rob Bell can be called "Rob" or "Bell". As far as I know he is not holding any church office other than "free lance speaker and writer."
PPS It is not the case that wrong exegesis of Scripture is confined to Anglican bishops. A very interesting, unusual and sad-for-Christians everywhere case is unfolding in Singapore. It concerns the misuse of funds donated to a mega church, a misuse which has led to a trial. In following progress on this situation (via my colleague Gerard Jacobs' blog) I noticed this description of wrong exegesis at this church:
"One of his examples is as follows: In the gospel account of the feeding of the 5000, when Jesus asked the disciples to feed the crowds, the disciples responded by saying that it was difficult to get food because of the lateness of the day where most places would be closed. Kong Hee alluded to this response as being an indication that Jesus and the disciples had the money to feed the crowds, but could not do so because of the places to purchase food were closed due to the lateness of the hour. Therefore proving that Jesus was wealthy and had the financial means to feed the multitudes. This interpretation of that scripture is completely out of line with the derived meaning scholars and theologians accept; it’s out of line with the rest of scripture!"
PS For a voice within TEC concerned at "delusional exegesis", read here.
Noted in comments below is a sermon which Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has preached in Curacao in the Diocese of Venezuela. [Thanks for correction to original wording in a comment below]. This is also being made a bit of a fuss about. It involves the most extraordinary wrongheaded, or just plain wrong interpretation of a passage in Acts. It is "beyond" commenting on! It would be insulting to liberals to call this an example of liberalism. It is beyond that. It is sui generis, in a class of its own as an example of just plain wrong interpretation! (Later: do not just take my word for it. Note the plethora of negative comments about the sermon which the ENS publishes in the link about). A word to the wise preacher: it is not necessarily a smart idea to publish sermons.
PS in proper deference to the Presiding Bishop I will only accept comments about this which either discuss the "exegesis" without naming the preacher or which name her properly e.g. the name with title used above, or ++Jefferts Schori. I think Rob Bell can be called "Rob" or "Bell". As far as I know he is not holding any church office other than "free lance speaker and writer."
PPS It is not the case that wrong exegesis of Scripture is confined to Anglican bishops. A very interesting, unusual and sad-for-Christians everywhere case is unfolding in Singapore. It concerns the misuse of funds donated to a mega church, a misuse which has led to a trial. In following progress on this situation (via my colleague Gerard Jacobs' blog) I noticed this description of wrong exegesis at this church:
"One of his examples is as follows: In the gospel account of the feeding of the 5000, when Jesus asked the disciples to feed the crowds, the disciples responded by saying that it was difficult to get food because of the lateness of the day where most places would be closed. Kong Hee alluded to this response as being an indication that Jesus and the disciples had the money to feed the crowds, but could not do so because of the places to purchase food were closed due to the lateness of the hour. Therefore proving that Jesus was wealthy and had the financial means to feed the multitudes. This interpretation of that scripture is completely out of line with the derived meaning scholars and theologians accept; it’s out of line with the rest of scripture!"
PS For a voice within TEC concerned at "delusional exegesis", read here.
Apropos of things Sydney
In the run up to the election of a new Archbishop of Sydney, you may like to read this long but informative review of Michael Jensen's book Sydney Anglicans. The review is by Kevin Giles.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Brewing the Perfect Storm in our Church (2)
The ideal Anglican church is one in which everyone agrees about everything. For those who think such a church would be terrible, let me point out a resounding attractive feature of it: no committees would be required. :)
The next best Anglican church is the one to which most Anglicans belong most of the time. That is the Anglican church in which terrible disagreements take place but we continue to exist together in a form of coalition. We are able to do this, I venture to suggest, because in this Anglican church we find we are able to pursue different visions for how the church should be, what gospel should be preached and what missional activity is consistent with that preaching.
This is and has been the life of my church, ACANZP ever since the time when Bishop Selwyn arrived and promptly forged a coalition between his high church for settlers and CMS's low church for Maori and (later) evangelical settlers. Albeit with many bits bolted on so that we could also talk of our church as a coalition of progressive liberals, moderates, and conservative evangelicals, of three tikanga, and of those desperate for the church to break out into fresh expressions and those not at all desperate about changing anything.
Coalitions generally withstand ordinary storms of controversy, as our church has done. But can we withstand a perfect storm of controversy?
The brewing storm, previously suggested here in part 1, arises from divisions among us which are not proving easy to reconcile. It is this, should some final failure to reconcile be reached, which sets this current controversy apart from previous ones.
As a church we have managed to propose and receive a new prayer book acceptable to the whole coalition, revise our 1857 constitution to form a new three tikanga coalition, and introduce the ordination of women to all three orders without significant breakage to the coalition. We have also, to pick up a pertinent example, been a coalition which has absorbed change to the way we respond to divorce and remarriage after divorce. But this time things are not turning out so straightforwardly. We are struggling to find common ground.
When one group argues for the acceptance of gay marriage because it is just and another group argues against it because it is unsupported in Scripture, there is not just a difference in the ends of the argument but also in the means to the end!
But the perfect storm brewing is not solely because we have difficulty with arguments. Potentially we could work a lot harder on these but even if we did there are other elements in the storm. (And to those who say, "Haven't we already done a lot of work on the arguments?" I say, "Yes, we have done a lot of work, but it has not been hard work." We have not, for instance, taken a dozen of our best theologians, locked them in a room and told them to not come out until resolution of the arguments has been achieved!)
The storm is also brewing because we have division in attitudes. In my first part I noted that in our church there is a gulf between those who accept our relatively lax approach to sexual discipline and those who do not. Can we have agreement on new sexual ethics for our church if we are not agreed on taking sexual ethics seriously?
Then there is also a contribution because of differences in our understanding of authority in the life of the church. The key legal and theological phrase we are concerned with is "the right ordering of sexual relationships." Order is something which is determined by someone. If we are to determine a new "right ordering", whose orders will we follow? How will we determine whether that person/group has the authority to give the orders?
On the specific matter of homosexuality and the right ordering of sexual relationships, I suggest that we have a problem we are not facing, and that is the problem of authority. May General Synod order sexual relationships? May the bishops? Is it up to individuals? Or individual parishes or dioceses? Somehow that doesn't sound right! Does not General Synod (and all lesser bodies of the church) have to live according to the doctrine of Christ, that is, teach what Christ teaches? Thus we need to know how Christ orders sexual relationships. As many people have pointed out, on the direct matter of same sex partnerships, Christ never said anything! (If, as a church, we wish to say that we have disregarded Christ on the matter of divorce and remarriage, surely we are not to take our disobedience to Christ as a reason to make a determination about what is the 'right ordering' of same sex sexual relationships?)
In short, on what authoritative basis would we as a church institute a "right ordering" of sexual relationships different to what we have inherited from Scripture and tradition?
Part of our storm is that some of us think there is no such basis, some of us do not care whether that basis is secured or not, and some think they have found it but struggle to explain it in theological terms distinct from modern Western social democratic policy.
The next best Anglican church is the one to which most Anglicans belong most of the time. That is the Anglican church in which terrible disagreements take place but we continue to exist together in a form of coalition. We are able to do this, I venture to suggest, because in this Anglican church we find we are able to pursue different visions for how the church should be, what gospel should be preached and what missional activity is consistent with that preaching.
This is and has been the life of my church, ACANZP ever since the time when Bishop Selwyn arrived and promptly forged a coalition between his high church for settlers and CMS's low church for Maori and (later) evangelical settlers. Albeit with many bits bolted on so that we could also talk of our church as a coalition of progressive liberals, moderates, and conservative evangelicals, of three tikanga, and of those desperate for the church to break out into fresh expressions and those not at all desperate about changing anything.
Coalitions generally withstand ordinary storms of controversy, as our church has done. But can we withstand a perfect storm of controversy?
The brewing storm, previously suggested here in part 1, arises from divisions among us which are not proving easy to reconcile. It is this, should some final failure to reconcile be reached, which sets this current controversy apart from previous ones.
As a church we have managed to propose and receive a new prayer book acceptable to the whole coalition, revise our 1857 constitution to form a new three tikanga coalition, and introduce the ordination of women to all three orders without significant breakage to the coalition. We have also, to pick up a pertinent example, been a coalition which has absorbed change to the way we respond to divorce and remarriage after divorce. But this time things are not turning out so straightforwardly. We are struggling to find common ground.
When one group argues for the acceptance of gay marriage because it is just and another group argues against it because it is unsupported in Scripture, there is not just a difference in the ends of the argument but also in the means to the end!
But the perfect storm brewing is not solely because we have difficulty with arguments. Potentially we could work a lot harder on these but even if we did there are other elements in the storm. (And to those who say, "Haven't we already done a lot of work on the arguments?" I say, "Yes, we have done a lot of work, but it has not been hard work." We have not, for instance, taken a dozen of our best theologians, locked them in a room and told them to not come out until resolution of the arguments has been achieved!)
The storm is also brewing because we have division in attitudes. In my first part I noted that in our church there is a gulf between those who accept our relatively lax approach to sexual discipline and those who do not. Can we have agreement on new sexual ethics for our church if we are not agreed on taking sexual ethics seriously?
Then there is also a contribution because of differences in our understanding of authority in the life of the church. The key legal and theological phrase we are concerned with is "the right ordering of sexual relationships." Order is something which is determined by someone. If we are to determine a new "right ordering", whose orders will we follow? How will we determine whether that person/group has the authority to give the orders?
On the specific matter of homosexuality and the right ordering of sexual relationships, I suggest that we have a problem we are not facing, and that is the problem of authority. May General Synod order sexual relationships? May the bishops? Is it up to individuals? Or individual parishes or dioceses? Somehow that doesn't sound right! Does not General Synod (and all lesser bodies of the church) have to live according to the doctrine of Christ, that is, teach what Christ teaches? Thus we need to know how Christ orders sexual relationships. As many people have pointed out, on the direct matter of same sex partnerships, Christ never said anything! (If, as a church, we wish to say that we have disregarded Christ on the matter of divorce and remarriage, surely we are not to take our disobedience to Christ as a reason to make a determination about what is the 'right ordering' of same sex sexual relationships?)
In short, on what authoritative basis would we as a church institute a "right ordering" of sexual relationships different to what we have inherited from Scripture and tradition?
Part of our storm is that some of us think there is no such basis, some of us do not care whether that basis is secured or not, and some think they have found it but struggle to explain it in theological terms distinct from modern Western social democratic policy.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Ad Hominem With Style
If one is going to make ad hominem remarks then one could do worse than learn from the master!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)