Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Fortunately Archbishop Rowan Williams, who else, has the brains, vision, and voice to recognise that the tinkering needs to stop and a root-and-branch review of Communion structures for the 21st century is required, as reported by George Conger:
"As he has done before, Archbishop Williams questioned whether the Communion’s structures are adequate for the 21st century. He pressed for further review, “So when it comes to looking at the complex questions of the Communion we have a better foundation upon which to build.”"
To help Dear Leader along, I offer the following plan for reconstruction. Broad picture stuff, of course, with many details to be worked out!
A starting and finishing point for this reconstruction begins with observing that in a couple of days Bishop Winston Halapua (currently a bishop of the Diocese of Polynesia, resident in Auckland, where he has also been principal of the College of Polynesia within the College of St John the Evangelist) will be installed as Archbishop of Polynesia, resident in Suva, and responsible for this oceanic diocese which includes Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, and congregations in New Zealand (principally Auckland city). In setting out his task Winston has said this brilliant and easily memorable vision, reported in Taonga, and noticed faraway by Preludium:
"The mission,” he said, “is simply to preach the Gospel, to teach the Gospel, to live the Gospel – and to pass it on."
A new Communion needs to be an appropriate expression of the ekklesia of God for preaching the gospel, teaching the gospel, living the gospel and pass it on. Understanding this is very important, and highlights the need for a Communion which shares a common understanding of what the gospel is. Our future Communion needs to be a 'Common union'. At the moment it has more the feel of a 'Disunited Diversity'!
From this starting point I suggest that the Communion of the 21st century needs structures that 'guard the gospel' in the sense of continually articulating the gospel of Jesus Christ which binds us together and propels Anglican mission forwards, and, where necessary, clearly maintains unity-in-the-gospel through procedures of discipline (i.e. of teaching what the gospel is, and is not).
Yet this is an Anglican Communion we are talking about, and new structures cannot, by definition, involve a 'pope', nor an understanding of the gospel which is narrowly construed on one and only one theological line. New structures, to avoid papalism, and to enhance reasonable, traditional, Scriptural diversity, will necessarily be conciliar, that is, involve councils.
We have some councils already, such as Lambeth and ACC, and, perhaps even the Primates Meeting could be called a council. But they are muddled in their structural relationship to each other, and they lack power because any time a resolution or similar is passed which people do not like, the cry goes up 'but council X has no authority in our realm'! A new Communion, if it is to have meaning as a new Communion will necessarily involve less autonomy for its member churches, and greater authority for its councils. Otherwise we may as well continue as we are.
But there is a theological argument to be considered here, against contentions of the overriding importance of autonomy. Is the Anglican Communion an expression of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of God', a branch, as some hold, of the global church for which other great branches are the Roman and Eastern churches? If it is such an expression, can it meaningfully claim to be 'one' when autonomy counts against common life across the globe? Further, can it meaningfully think of itself as a 'branch' when it entertains possibilities for its understanding of ministry which drive it further away from the other branches, rather than closer together? To be an expression of God's 'one' church, it necessarily needs to be open to greater oneness, to union with other expressions of God's 'one' church, rather than consistently inhibited in both its own unity to say nothing of greater unity with others by propensity to be governed by the value of 'autonomy'.
Cutting to the chase, I would like to see a new 21st century Anglican Communion of member churches from around the whole world, east and west, north and south, binding themselves together as a church of three orders, one common eucharist*, concurring with the ancient church that baptism is admittance to the eucharist, sharing a common lectionary with at least the Roman church, built upon a gospel of salvation from sin in which Christ's death on the cross is the one perfect sacrifice offered once and for all time.
The one point of difference with Rome and Constantinople I would not give away is the ordination of women to the three orders (and I think there is a theological case for this point of difference not being a complete barrier to future unity).
For this global Communion to hold together in contrast to its current spinning apart I suggest the following conciliar structure based on a starting point in which those who wish to belong to the new Communion both agree to a common doctrinal foundation for the Communion, and to this structure and its authority. That is, the role of the new conciliar structure would be to uphold what has been agreed, and to consider proposals for future variation to faith and order.
(1) The Archbishop of Canterbury remains convening bishop for the common life of the Communion, reinforcing the historical base of Anglican life, as that beginning with the Church of England, and before that with the ancient church of the British isles.
(2) The supreme council of the church is the regular gathering of its bishops, i.e. 'the Lambeth Conference', and this council has authority over the common life of the Communion, including admitting new member churches (and, concomitantly, suspending or expelling errant members). To this council, bishops 'bring their dioceses', so the chief route of the voices of clergy and laity are via diocesan synods and general synods of member churches (who should elect bishops who will represent them well, and not elect mavericks or heretics!)
(3) A new feature of conciliar life would be regional councils of bishops held at least once between supreme councils of bishops. These regional councils would play at least this decisive role in global Anglican faith and order: no resolution affecting faith and order would be proposed at the supreme council unless it was proposed by a regional council. (An important detail to be worked out here would be whether some or all matters of faith and order resolved at a supreme council needed to be ratified by regional councils).
That should sort out the gold from the dross, and prevent even a supreme council from being carried away in the emotion of the moment.
I would suggest regions that incorporated diversity such as 'Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa', 'North America, South America, the Caribbean, and North Pacific', 'Central, West and Southern Africa, and West Asia', and 'South-East Asia, and South Pacific'. Actually, even better would be placing TEC, Nigeria, and Uganda in one region. If they could agree on something, it could really fly :)
(4) The 'standing committee' or 'executive council' of the new Communion, meeting on a regular basis between supreme councils of bishops, would be the Primates meeting together. (Member churches: through your general synods of bishops, clergy, and laity choose your primates well, because they will be representing all of you!)
(5) The councils would need to have a unified constitutional basis for operating, be supported by an efficient 'Anglican Communion Office', paid for by all member churches contributing (and not beholden to any one source of finance), and have power to appoint appropriate advisory bodies such as theological and liturgical commissions.
All of this, remember, is for the sake of the mission of God which is, "to preach the Gospel, to teach the Gospel, to live the Gospel – and to pass it on."
*A common eucharist: would it be that difficult to agree to a common eucharist that we could pray together? There could be other eucharists authorised for use (e.g. by continuing currently authorised ones), but would it not be wonderful to have a common Anglican eucharist for the 21st century? Without any bias on my part - of course not! - I suggest the eucharist on page 404 of A New Zealand Prayer Book as a starting draft for such a common eucharist ...
Postscript: any Anglican who says that if we had had this structure in place in the 20th century then X, Y, or Z would not have happened will be summarily excommunicated :) Other arguments against this structure will, however,be considered on their merits!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
"Progress of the Covenant
Some news of special interest to me and my current role:
"Theological Education in the Anglican Communion
Two major pieces of work for the Working Party on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion over the coming year will be an international consultation for theological college Principals, and the production of a web-based course on Anglicanism. The Principals consultation is aimed particularly at Principals who work in isolated situations. It plans to offer encouragement, support, and sharing of insights about curricula and the spirituality of ministerial formation. The web-based course on Anglicanism will be based on the already available 'Signposts statement' (a concise expression of 'The Anglican Way' published by TEAC in 2007) Members of the Standing Committee acknowledged the importance of theological education in helping to share the life and well-being of the Communion."
Then some more news about covenant/moratoria/governance of the Communion:
"Further discussion on moratoria breach
Um. Wonder what the voting was on that resolution. Did +Douglas and Fitchett, both vocally identifying themselves as representing ACC, not their own provinces, vote for a motion which expressed regret for the consecrations of +Gene Robinson and +Mary Glasspool? (Yes, the motion included other things, including other moratoria, but read these words carefully, "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion." One of those moratoria is the consecration of bishops in same-sex partnerships. Ergo ...).
Still good to see that the Standing Committee, even in its present diminished form, can vote for a motion mildly (but inconsequentially) critical of TEC.
(I remain curious about the logic involved in +Ian Douglas' prominent role on the Standing Committee. Consider this: another breach of the moratoria concerns blessing of same-sex partnerships. These occur in the Diocese of Connecticutt (I recall reading at the time of +Douglas' consecration). In theory the following may have happened, consistent with +Douglas' words reported above: outside of his diocese +Douglas supports a motion critical of breaches of the moratoria in his capacity and commitment as a representative of the ACC, while inside his diocese and member church he supports breaches of the moratoria. If so, there is some interesting logic at play. And if +Douglas voted against the motion, consistent with the situation inside his diocese and member church, the question continues to be underlined for me about the logic of a system of representation within the Communion which includes moratoria-breaching persons on such an august committee, when they are excluded from other august bodies!)
In sum, and to try to clarify my underlying argument through this and yesterday's posts: the governance of the Anglican Communion is being exposed in our generation as at best muddly (note the way the "Standing Committee" here throws certain responsibilities to other bodies) and at worst absurd (as measured by sound organisational practice); there is significant inconsistency at work in the structure of the Communion when certain actions lead to suspension of reps of one member church from some but not all important councils/committees; it is painful to find that instigators of divisive actions seemingly have more say in the running of the Communion than those trying to represent the mind and mood of the majority of the Communion; and it is likely that lack of action on the inadequacies of the current situation will (a) further deepen the rifts in the Communion as presently organised, and (b) lead to new forms of Anglican networking and cooperation outside of, and beyond the control of the present Instruments of Unity.
In sporting parlance, we are in the process of scoring an own goal against ourselves.
If I had my way (!!) I would begin the Communion again.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The committee agreed that its response to those who'd resigned "would express regret that their voices would be missed and that the committee's work was diminished when it lacked a range of opinion as well as full representation.""
From ENS' report on the winding up of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Read the whole report here.
Let us get this straight: the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic' because it has failed to get on top of the difficulty created by one of its significant (in money, power, loquaciousness) member churches undertaking a strategic course of action which is not representative of the 'church catholic'. It has so failed to get on top of the difficulty that one of its leading committees - the Standing Committee, no less - has lost members from it through resignation. One of them, in the same ENS article is reported thus:
"East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has "no value whatsoever" and that his voice is "like a useless cry in the wilderness.""
Unfortunate though those resignations are, they are not the primary reason why the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic.' The primary reasons lie further back: in the Communion's inadequate and tardy response to the strategic direction TEC has pursued in respect of its gay and lesbian members, to say nothing of the strategic direction itself. (Remember: if that strategic direction had not stretched to include ordaining partnered same sex persons to the episcopacy, we would not be in the situation we are in today!)
The spin here, by +Ian Douglas, is that all would be well if only the resignations had not occurred. But on the reason for the resignations he says nothing.
But there is another spin here. The impression is conveyed that the Communion is in a state of 'diminishment' rather than 'division.' If the SC really thinks we are just a bit diminished at the moment; that the effective loss of Nigeria, Uganda, and the like (including the many parishes in North America they have offered support to), amounts to 'diminishment' and not 'division', then we are not being well served by this committee. At least not as the true global Anglican Communion we could be.
It sounds like we are shrinking downwards to a moderate, middling, mediocre Communion which cannot stomach its more conservative member churches, which prefers to march to the beat of one social democratic cultural drum rather than a multi-cultural one, and which occasionally gets a razz from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but otherwise is really led by the spinmeisters. Is the "official Anglican Communion" really in American hands? Reading elsewhere in the ENS report one could be excused, I think, for concluding that the Millenium Development Goals are now the gospel of the "official Anglican Communion."
Except I do not think that is the whole story. Douglas and co can spin these things like a top, but a whole lot of Anglicans are not for turning. Keep spinning this way, Standing Committee & co, and the "official Anglican Communion" will spiral off into irrelevance to the majority of Anglicans.
Neither truth nor reality can be suppressed ... or spun to be what they are not.
Incidentally, can anyone find in reports of the meeting anything remotely forwarding the adoption of the Covenant?
It should not be surprising if the answer is negative. Some of the leading opponents of the Covenant are on this committee!
Then a final question to end with: if the continuing, active, voting presence of members of TEC is suspended from certain important Communion bodies at this time, why not from all the important bodies?
I know the answer is that the ABC had power to do so for those bodies but not for this one. But the point is that our Communion's rules (such as they are) are stupendously inadequate: suspension should be from all bodies of important, not some.
The Communion has no single set of rules governing all aspects of its governance and management.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
In other, and Down Under relevant news, we can read from the ACO site:
Canon Kearon then reported that during his visit to New Zealand earlier this year he had met with an informal group about the planning of ACC-15. Bishop John Paterson has been selected to Chair an official planning group and the venue has been selected as Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland. The group also identified the strong mission theme of ACC-14 as something they would like to continue."
I think this meeting will be in May, 2012.
Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland is a lovely venue for a conference. Auckland city itself is a multicultural, polyglot of a city. And it has multiple Anglican jurisdictions at work in it :)
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Some may say that is because various people have resigned who should have stayed around.
Why did they resign?
How come TEC has so many bishops on this important committee?
Well, not to worry too much: if they misplay their cards in the game they are playing, there will be consequences.
And a committee to blame!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
I wonder if we use the same word in different ways and thus making some distinctions could be helpful.
Here are some ways I think may have been touched on in the comments below:
(1) Denominational validity: there are these rules pertaining to the ordering of eucharistic ministry. Sure they reflect great theological insights and powerful Scriptural injunctions and examples, but their sharp edges are provided by the denomination. Thus we Anglicans can entertain thoughts like 'a Methodist celebrating a Methodist eucharist in an Anglican church is offering a valid eucharist, but a Methodist (not having been ordained by a bishop) offering an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church is offering an invalid eucharist.' The measurement of 'validity' at this point is 'our rules'. And, I do not think we are saying such a eucharist is theologically invalid (or, if you like, invalid from God's perspective). I suppose 'invalid' here has a strong sense of 'illegal.' Yet the rules are not rules for rules sake: the rules of denominations re eucharist reflect particular theologies of church, ministry, liturgy as well as eucharist.
(2) Transformational validity: there is a view that something happens to the bread and the wine when the eucharist is held, according to order, presided over by a correctly ordered person (so Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and (perhaps depending who one is talking to) Presbyterians), and, depending precisely on the view held, those holding to the view accept a variety of denominational eucharists as valid, and a potential variety of correctly ordered persons presiding over the eucharist as being okay; and even where we do not think some things are correct we can respect the transformational intention of such churches. But the one thing many holding this view are united on is that a non-transformational intention (e.g. to steadfastly view the bread and the wine as nothing more or less than tokens or emblems) results in an invalid eucharist. Thus most Anglicans (so I understand) view Roman and Eastern Orthodox eucharists/masses/divine liturgy as valid eucharists (the exceptions could be certain evangelical Anglicans); and would see no need for a further ordination to take place of a Roman priest or E.Orthodox priest who (if we can imagine it) was willing to preside over an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church. I understand Romans to view E. Orthodox divine liturgies as valid eucharists, but hold Anglican eucharists to be invalid ... yet I think they respect our eucharists in a way in which they do not (say) a Baptist or Brethren eucharist. It is on this sense of 'validity' that an Anglican might say that a Brethren or Baptist eucharist is invalid.
(3) Scriptural validity: all Christians undertaking eucharistic ministry aim to be faithful to the words of Scripture, both the narratival material concerning the last supper of Jesus, and the instructions of Jesus, reinforced in Paul's teaching. What Christians believe happens, or does not happen in respect of transformation of the bread and wine, and whether or not certain words are said as received by the church through tradition (such as the words known as the epiclesis or calling down of the Spirit), where Christians are faithful to Scripture in their enactment of eucharist, in this perspective, a valid eucharist is performed. Thus, as an Anglican, if I am a participant in a Baptist eucharist or a Brethren eucharist, I think I have been present at a valid eucharist. (I might also find it unsatisfactory in a number of respects and choose not to make it the form of eucharist I regularly attend).
Walter Russell Mead has announced the new name for his blog, Via Meadia.
He outlines its Anglican (and other characteristics) in this post, which includes a very fine Anglican war song :)
Many years ago I began to hear the name "Loren Mead" mentioned in hushed tones of reverence for his speeches and writings, and for the farsighted and thoughtful body of work emerging from the Alban Institute. I was fascinated to read one of WR Mead's posts and find that he is Loren Mead's son.
And here is a set of Qs and As about the SC.
Clearer about everything now?
Anyone care to say that this committee IS representative of the whole Anglican Communion?
(H/T Thinking Anglicans)
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
It is timely, therefore, for us to reflect again on our own position in this church on this matter.
The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia long ago affirmed and provided for the ordination of women to all levels of ordained ministry, as deacons, priests and bishops.
This has resulted in widespread, in-depth and effective ministry, with a unique and special character, across all three Tikanga.
As the Church of England comes close to providing for the ordination of women bishops, we pray that all three orders in that church will benefit as richly as we have done from taking this step.
This church also takes part in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, both here in New Zealand and abroad.
For some decades now, our affirmation and celebration of the ordination of women has been a feature of our contribution to these conversations.
We draw our authority for these ordinations from scripture, tradition and reason, as well as from the decisions of many General Synods of the Anglican Communion.
At a time when the Vatican-based Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has restated its commitment not to proceed in this way, we affirm again the fundamental value of all ordained women within our church.
For us, such ordinations are a profound enrichment of the sacraments – and when ordained women and men work together in ministry and mission, we have found this both invigorating and life-giving.
++David Moxon, Senior Bishop of the New Zealand dioceses
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
First, she spoke about the history of the civil rights movement in the USA. This made it clear that gay rights stands in a trajectory with black rights and women's rights. In other words, the inclusion of gay clergy at all levels is not singularly a theological issue as much as it is a civil rights matter. She asked, "What is the normative human being?" and argued that no gender, race, or orientation is normative for all human beings. She spoke a lot about TEC canons and regulations including a 1985 canon that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then 1989 saw the first openly gay priest ordained in TEC and she made clear that it was not considered a matter of doctrine. Most of all, she argued that TEC is obligated to affirm gay partnered relationships when they show signs of 'holy living'.
Second, Jefferts Schori spent time talking about how TEC elects its bishops. She noted that each diocese has its own canons and processes that must be respected. Furthermore, the presiding bishop has no power of veto over appointments. Jefferts Schori said that the presid-ing bishop has no power to intervene in a diocese except on moral grounds. This caused me to cough up a laugh with an embarrassing loudness that made people nearby turn around and look at me to see what I was smirking at. I couldn't conceal my jolted laugh-ter since I know about Jefferts Schori's legal representations in the Diocese of South Carolina that constitute a pre-emptive strike against Bishop Mark Lawrence.
Third, attention was given to changing views of marriage in TEC. Jefferts Schori summarized Paul's view of marriage as "don't bother about it" because Jesus was coming soon and the world was going to end according to Paul.
She rightly noted that marriage as a sacrament did not begin until the 1100s and that was usually for the purpose of legitimating an heir. The original Book of Common Prayer purposed the purpose of marriage as being to avoid fornication and for a child-bearing. In contrast, TECs Book of Common Prayer sees marriage for the purpose of mutual joy which can include child bearing but not necessarily requiring it. The Presiding Bishop also noted that between the 1100s to the late 1800s the blessing of friendships was common, especially for knights, and the intimacy of their friendship was never examined in such a blessing. All this served to demonstrate TECs unique theology of marriage that can accommodate committed long term same sex relationships.
Fourth, she addressed the matter of incursions into TEC's episcopal jurisdiction by Afri-can, Asian, and South American bishops. She noted that ordaining bishops to work in North America occurred in 1999/2000, three years before Gene Robinson was elected. She also mentioned that the Sydney Anglicans have a congregation in New York City (the abdominals.). I had another one of those embarrassing smirks on my face when I heard her appeal to the council of Nicea that forbade wandering bishops from operating out of their own area of jurisdiction. Since when did TEC regard itself as bound by the authority and regulations of the ecumenical creeds and councils?
Several TEC bishops have brazenly denied and denounced every single line of the Nicene Creed at one time or other. If Jack Spong is free to disregard the creeds and councils, why not anybody else? The irony here was most amusing. Anyway, Jefferts Schori spoke earnestly about the "gospel of liberty" that is compromised if the issue of gay and lesbian inclusion is not adequately addressed. She recognized a diversity of views in the church. She was adamant that she wants to keep talking and dialoguing with those who do not agree and does not insist that everyone follows the TEC on this matter.
Several questions followed which addressed her specific views of sexuality and Scripture. I learned that Jefferts Schori expects to be invited to the next Primates Meeting. There was a question about whether TEC's actions would prove to be worth it given the rupture that it has caused. She said she believed it was worth it because dioceses and provinces have to be allowed to determine how they will minister in their own context.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
We stopped at a red light and I looked over at the next car, to see a Sikh in turban and full beard, with a ceremonial knife hanging from his rear view mirror. That knife is actually a symbol of freedom – in the ability to choose non-violence.
The next block was filled by a beautiful old stone church complex – Mary, Queen of Martyrs Roman Catholic Church. The shops and storefronts gave evidence of the world’s many families, languages, peoples, and nations.
Are we free enough to see that as blessing? Are we free enough to meet all the world’s people with a desire for their full flourishing? Can we be martyrs – witnesses – to the image of God in all people?
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
What could be a measure of a successful Hui on Hermeneutics? One measure could be down the track of life, “Where the church is now, is down to that hui back in 2010.” We will pass that one by. Another measure could be a sense as people leave that some things in our life together are better. That may not be much of a measure, since whatever sense we have at the end of the hui could result in no action such as follow up reporting back to our dioceses and hui amorangi. Here are my thoughts about what is better in our life together because of our hui this week:
1. We may have a deeper commitment to move forward together resolved to lose no one, conservative or liberal (or those who do not identify as either), straight or gay or lesbian – a commitment deepened because we have listened to each other in a responsible way, recognising that both experiences and theological commitments matter.
2. We may have begun to say to ourselves that our reading of Scripture corporately is something we cannot sidestep. Holy Scripture is our Holy Scripture. We may, in this (new) beginning, be realising two things. First, that Scripture says what it says about sexuality (including homosexuality). Despite some creative hermeneutical explorations around the possibility of concluding that Scripture does not say what the church has thought it has been saying, it does say what it says (i.e. an overall negative approach to homosexuality). Secondly, that it is possible that we may need to go beyond Scripture because we face a new situation, unknown when the Bible was written. A ‘going beyond’ akin to what we have done on matters such as usury and remarriage of divorced persons. Yet it is notable that on those two matters our church has gone forward together.
3. We are recognising that each tikanga is engaged with consideration of the place of gay and lesbian and transgender and bisexual people in our church. Once upon a time we could only have said that of one tikanga.
4. We may be recognising that finding a way forward towards reaching some kind of decision as a whole church (any decision, one way or another) may involve “re-envisioning” of the situation. Perhaps a new framing of the situation in different language to the language that has been used hitherto. (I hope to offer further reflection on this soon on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity).
5. We may be recognising that through this last decade some things have been changing about our church, things which we need to factor into our reflections and explorations, such as certain ways in which we are becoming more conservative, and certain ways in which an underlying therapeutic model of church is being transformed into a missional model of church.
6. We may be recognising that more people are affected by the way we are handling these matters than we have recognised before: ‘more people’ including gay and lesbian people in our congregations, and gay and lesbian people in the extended families or whanau which make up our churches.
7. We may be recognising that some arguments are better than other arguments in order to advance whichever cause we are promoting. In each of the three hui so far there have been arguments advanced which have not gained traction across the majority of those present. Arguments are not everything in ‘changing attitude’ but for some aspects they are important. They need to be good, in tone and content, otherwise they will not persuade.
Well I never set out to write down seven emerging things; but I have. I will stop for now. If you are asking the question, ‘Where will this end up?’, then my answer is, ‘I do not know.’ But I think it is more likely that we will end up in a place where we are both undivided and inclusive than if we had not held the hui.
Please read this as a personal statement of one individual at the Hui. It is not a description of the Hui per se, nor a record of its outcomes. It is an attempt to offer a sense of what its meaning for the church might be.