Tomorrow (as I write), perhaps today (as you read) is the celebration of the Queen's Birthday, the first Monday in June being the designated day for Kiwis to drink to her good health and (for nearly all) to drown their sorrows in missing out, once again, on a knighthood. But increasingly this day can be viewed as involving another celebration: it is another year closer to NZ becoming a republic!
I think our ecclesial leaders could put their backs into supporting the change to being a republic. It would be a small but significant step in reducing the inequality between the rich and the poor, the Queen being one of our richest citizens, and a republic meaning that she would no longer be one of us.
However I would understand if they do not have time to support a republican campaign at this time. I imagine they may be busy contacting other Anglican churches around the Communion, enquiring diplomatically as to what is going on and raising graciously the possibility that the Communion is not best furthered as a coherent global entity when Desmond Tutu' latest book is called God is Not a Christian, the Diocese of Nova Scotia is authorising same sex blessings, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is not disinviting Canadians from Communion committees nor downgrading their status to that of 'consultant' rather than 'member'. (The same concern for justice motivating us to urge the reduction in inequality between rich and poor should drive us to seek fair treatment for all in the Communion. If TEC is being 'punished' for failure to abide by the Windsor Report, then so should the ACCan. Or, if you prefer, if mercy is shown to one church, why not to the other?)
It is hard being consistent on matters of justice. Is it more difficult for we Anglicans? I note that yet another Al-Qaeda leader has been assassinated (or is being killed by a drone an 'act of war'?). Is the ABC also discomforted by this?
Still, here is a comforting thought: if God is not a Christian, perhaps we Anglicans do not have to live up to as high a standard of consistency as we previously thought?
While reflecting on Anglican standards of behaviour, Cranmer has a withering critique here of an Anglican whose toying with destroying the privacy of certain individuals is alarming; yet also revealing of the dark side of liberalism, when its obsession with progress relies on trashing the freedom of people to choose.
(Incidentally, I do understand that Archbishop Tutu's publisher can expect to sell way more books when they are entitled God is Not a Christian than if they were entitled God is a Christian. I have been known to come up with a few provocative titles myself. Let's face it, would anyone buy a book with the latter title?)