Looking back through the past 9 days, I can only say, What an interesting week!
Melbourne
Last weekend Archbishop Philip Freier, Archbishop of Melbourne and former Primate of Australia, retired from his role as Bishop of Melbourne, after 18 years in the role, six of which included being Primate of Australia. It was a privilege and a pleasure to be in Melbourne for a farewell dinner for bsihops and spouses on the Saturday evening and a participant in the Farewell Evensong on the Sunday afternoon. A bonus was that our plane from Christchurch to Melbourne arrived early enough on the Saturday morning for us to be present at ++Philip's last ordination service - perhaps uniquely, an ordination of eight deacons and one bishop! Read more about the final service for ++Philip and Joy Freier here, here and here.
Is nothing secure and permanent?
In an English-speaking world of many translations of the Bible, the ESV has a certain claim to fame, both for what it claims (to be a particularly faithful translation of the original languages of the Bible, in the KJV/RSV tradition, conservatively staunch against the alleged deficiencies of the NRSV/NRSVUE stream and the wobbliness of another claimant to be "the" translation for conservative evangelicals, the NIV) and for its popularity (increasingly among Catholics as well as conservative evangelicals, even being adopted as the text of Catholic liturgical reading, by some bishops' conferences.
Now I was once a fan of the ESV and used it a lot. I liked its rigour as a close, word for word translation, and its being in the KJV/RSV tradition but with some updates to the RSV's sometimes old-fashioned English. My increasing concerns over time were (a) its exclusive language (something the NRSV gets right, on the presumption that the people of God are addressed, male and female, even though original languages use male pronouns) and (b) it didn't sound right when read aloud (obviously so in respect of inclusive language; but also a certain clunkiness in phrasing). (My current preferences are NRSV and GNB (1994 or later editions/printings).)
But, my preferences and concerns with the ESV do not detract from respecting ESV as a solid translation of the Bible, with known slants and the possibility of using it when a Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text are not handy, knowing it will give one of the best word for word translations in the English language.
Except.
This week past Crossway, publisher of ESV, have announced changes to the text in forthcoming printings.
Whatever you or I think about these changes, have we reached a point of genuine stability to this text claiming to be "best" (most faithful ever)? The last changes were 10 years or so ago. Are we good now for the next century?
Now, to attempt to be clear: it is a good thing to update translations in the interest of revised estimation of the most accurate rendering in today's language; but perhaps there could be an accompanying sprinkling of humility about the wonderfulness of any given translation (and/or deprecation of allegedly lesser value translations). If any translation, even the ESV, can do some self-correcting over time, then no one translation is yet perfect!
Finally, a point made during an X exchange with my colleague Bosco Peters is worth reflecting: should the ESV re-describe its own name? If I say "the ESV says this" and you respond "which ESV version?" then might ESV help us by offering a new name such as "ESVUE [ESV Update Edition]"? Bosco notes that in the "other" KJV/RSV tradition, we have the NRSV and now the NRSVUE to distinguish updates on the RSV.
Independence of safeguarding?
The continuing discombobulation in the Church of England over safeguarding, well, continues. At its recent session of General Synod a decision was made about the "next step" in (better) safeguarding of ministry (in respect of overall structure for the whole church - it can be overlooked that many people, including many volunteers, "on the ground", are doing a great job, properly). A casual glance at some comments on X could lead to a conclusion such as "the bishops have got it wrong AGAIN" or "Synod has failed survivors of abuse." Now, it is not for me, from far off, to make a determination on what the Synod (including bishops) got right or wrong, but I can point you to a(n arguably) helpful post by Ian Paul on the nuances within the decision made and the process/debate towards that decision, here. I suggest the comments are worth reading as readers chime in with thier assessment of Ian's assessment of the situation. Other responses to the decisions are listed here.
175 years old
It was a joy this weekend to participate in events and a service to celebrate 175 years of existence for Christ's College, one of our Anglican schools in the Diocese of Christchurch. The Anglican settlement of Christchurch began in 1850 and Christ's College began that same year, with classes held in Lyttelton (Christchurch's port town). 175 years later it is going strong and its Warden [me] can remember one and only one thing from its 125th anniversary in 1975 (when I was a student there): Charles Upham (VC and Bar - WW2 hero, perhaps most famous of our Old Boys) planted a tree in the quad within the school known as the Upham Quad. There must have been an anniversary service but, to be honest, I do not remember attending it. Yesterday's service was wonderful and moving - a tribute to the quality of the choristers - and a reminder of the wonders of worship when music lifts our hearts to God.
Wider world
No comment required from me as the whole world is commenting but this past week has also been interesting (meaning, very alarming) in respect of the further machinations of a certain global leader.
13 comments:
I agree, Peter, the machinations of Xi in the South Pacific are a cause of great concern. What are we going to do about the Cook Islands? Personally I think we should never have left ANZUS. Meanwhile what do you think about hakas in the middle of the road or in public libraries? Is it a sacred taonga (like morris dancing) to be respected and honoured wherever it is performed or is it unruly behaviour? A tough one, that - a bit like the new kiwi diversity taonga of drag king story time. I feel a Father Ted meme coming on: "I hear you're a drag queen, Father. Should we all be drag queens now? What's the position of the Church on this one? It's just that the farm takes up all my time and I don't have much time for the old drag queen t'ing."
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Dear William,
I am as concerned as anyone about the growth of the role of China in the South Pacific. On the question of protests (with or without hakas, within or without libraries), i think all protestors should conduct themselves respectful of people, including thinking about whether their mode of protests is making children feel unsafe. And I think this is especially so for protestors who claim to be Christian.
Peter, I am keenly aware of the multiple layers of irony in life - as any realist Christian should be. On the one hand there is the fetishisation of all things Maori as "sacred" and demanding automatic reverence (well, not quite everything - utu, slavery and cannibalism of the pro-colonial past have to be airbrushed from history), on the other hand, the haka, which is taught to every school child in NZ, is called "unsafe" and "threatening" to children. So is it taonga or criminal behaviour? But more importantly, why are adults taking children to "child pride events"? Is this, as Destiny says, the sexualisation of children? Does the Anglican Church have any views on the morality of "child pride" events, as it does on, say, vaping among teenagers? That was the point of my laboured Father Ted joke. (Personally l am bored by hakas - which are just ritual war dances and have nothing sacred or Christian about them - but amused that they can be conducted in Parliament or in the street.)
It does seem that the function of liberal churches is to end up agreeing with where secular liberal society has got to and is headed, as religious faith gets vaguer and the manipulative power of emotion becomes dominant in public discourse. This is exactly what JD Vance has put his finger on. I have just watched a profound and provocative analysis of this in a youtube conversation with Al Mohler and Joe Digney on "The Sin of Empathy" - a very perceptive and theological background to these events in Te Atatu.
Meanwhile: continuing Anglican silence on "child pride" - one more subject liberal Christians must shut up about?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William,
Only a little bit of reflection is needed to see that a haka in one context is a good, and safe thing; and in another context might be a terrifying experience (such as seems to have been the case at the library).
There are ways in which the church can disagree with the culture of the society around it which honour and respect people and ways which do not do so. I have seen nothing to suggest that the protest at the library honoured and respected people. There are countless ways to protest against X or Y, without making people feel unsafe etc. I have no objection to Destiny or any other Christian groupings protesting in ways which honour Christ. Do you really think what Destiny did the other day enhances Christian witness in our country.
I may or may not have views on what Destiny was protesting against, but I also have views on (i) freedom of expression in our society (ii) ways in which to address sensitive issues in human sexuality. If you wish to lump me and other Anglicans into a box of your defining because I/we live in the tension of the moment within our church/culture/society, then that is your perfect right in a world which endorses freedom of expression (noting that such a world is not the world ruled by Putin, Xi or Trump). It is also my right to yawn and reflect on being put in the wrong box.
Peter, it's clear to me that you do condemn the haka in the library as frightening to the kids (which it may well have been, but nobody has actually said anything on this), but you have evaded answering three questions: 1. What about the haka in the main road that held up the "rainbow pride" march? Do you consider this bold Christian witness? Or disruptive behaviour? Maybe you know that this one has gone viral on the internet and is being shown on many youtube chanels in the United States. 2. Do you actually have views "on what Destiny was protesting about"? Do you think it good and wholesome, in keeping with Christian morality, for drag queens to be telling stories to small kids and to run "child pride events"? Is this sexualisation of children as Destiny claims, aka grooming? 3. Does the Anglican Church in NZ think this is fine? (I know other Anglicans in Colombo Street who think differently. ) ... I do not know what "living in the tension of the moment means", because there is not much tension involved in agreeing with or quietly going along with post-Christian NZ society in the sexualisation of children. Tension comes when you speak out, not when you censor yourself. That is when you face criticism or ostracism or even unemployment.
As for living in a world "which endorses freedom of expression ", this is precisely what is disappearing from the western world, as JD Vance told the Munich Security Conference. For the sake of children, speak up prophetically against the sexualisation of children. This is what real men and real fathers do. Our Lord had some harsh warnings about millstones for those who harmed little ones.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Freedom of expression's disappearing mighty fast from the US under the *current* Administration:
"The list of banned words circulating at the National Science Foundation and science circles across the country includes: women, disability, bias, status, trauma, Black, Hispanic communities, as well as socioeconomic, ethnicity and systemic."
What a ridiculous question, William...
Does the Anglican Church have a position on drag queens reading to kids in libraries?
As if all local community events can be generalized into a issue of *cultural war*. Let us not be sucked into this world.
Dear William
On feedback to me to date, Destiny has not enhanced the general reputation of churches in NZ as attractive witnesses to Jesus Christ. Viral distribution of a movie scene of the protest makes no difference to this unfortunate result for the Christian faith in NZ.
I would be surprised if any church in NZ (save for Destiny) has an "official" position on drag queens reading in libraries; though I get it that most churches would, if questioned with this specific question, have leaders who would view such things unfavourably.
You do seem to over simplify the matter in the question you pose. There are at least two questions involved here:
1. Do you [church leader] support drag queens reading in public libraries (e.g. by attending yourself and taking your own children)? My answer is No.
2. Do you [church leader] support the right of public libraries to host a variety of events to promote use of books, including drag queens reading to children? My answer is Yes.
On the question of the over sexualization of our society: I agree that we are over sexualized ... but how is the church to respond to this? By chasing every over sexualised advertisement? Vigorously re-embarking on a more draconian censorship of movies and TV shows (a la Patricia Bartlett and Mary Whitehouse)? By [only] protesting against drag queens reading to children? And would the church then be seen as a one trick pony: Christianity stands for "anti-sex" (and nothing else). We live in a fraught world, William, which is not helped in many situations by narrowly framing the questions posed to us and the options which apparently determine whether we are truly Christian or not.
Despite what may be happening elsewhere as Trump and other dictators shut down freedom of expression*, we remain a liberal democracy.
*I see in this morning's news that GOP lawmakers are scared to speak out against Trump's lies about Ukraine for fear that he will turn his MAGA supporters loose on them. But, hey, many Christians think Trump is a good guy!
Well, Peter, you have finally answered my question. You clearly think its wrong that homosexual men dressed up as women should be sexualising small children under the guise of reading them stories - why can't their own parents read to them? -but you can't bring yourself to say the state (to which you pay your rates and taxes) shouldn't be facilitating this. Deep confusion here, because you are (rightly) happy to outlaw (say) the sale of vapes to kids and teenagers. Your confusion lies in your failure to distinguish what is permitted to adults even though it is morally harmful (drug taking, alcohol, prostitution, strip shows etc) from the duty of care we have to children. You are inconsistent and you are forgetting the warnings of the Good Shepherd to those who would cause of these little ones to stumble.
What is the source of your confusion and inconsistency? I suspect it is because you realise that drag queens are overwhelmingly part of the homosexual world and 'adult entertainment', and NZ Anglicans are afraid to oppose this sub-culture and thd sexual confusion it propagates among children, especially those on the autistic spectrum.
If you understood natural law rightly, you would grasp that your aversion to drag queen story times (part of the wedge strategy of the LGBT culture) is based on a correct natural instinct. What you rightly understand about children and vaping, you fail to follow through when it comes to sex and small children. The Good Shepherd tells us differently, and it is to Him we will have to answer, not to Auckland media culture. Are you certain of your answer?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I read to my kids but would be *so* happy if someone else was willing to read to them too. It might give me the opportunity to read to myself!
William, you continue the over sexualization of society in your views that homosexual men are sex obsessed perverts out to get our children etc etc. So tired and awful and sad and hypocritical.
Male priests aren't the only one allowed to wear dresses and read to kids.
Hi William
There is a significant difference between what I would ban if I were the autocrat of society and what I acknowledge is "permitted freedom" withn the context of laws made within a diverse society by a varied political body (such as central parliament or local council). I am not campaigning to ban vape shops. I am not campaigning to ban movies the censor thinks are fit for adults but not children. I am not campaigning to have public funding whether by taxpayer or ratepayer removed from every activity in public buildings or public spaces I do not happen to approve of or to like; not, for that matter, am I generally campaigning against waste of public funds - though naturally I would prefer no wastage of my taxes or rates. I will, when elections come, choose carefully re whom I think will [so to speak] give value for money re their approach to decision-making; along with good ethical formation to their decision-making; and I will, from time to time, sign some petitions and join some protest marches.
I will, of course, at all times, seek to live as a citizen in NZ society as best I understand my duties and obligations as a follower of the Good Shepherd, and I will make choices such as not to vape myself. But, to be frank, there will be times when I participate in events funded by either the taxpayer or the ratepayer or both (such as free concerts) which, on a strict ACT Party or Musk-DOGE view are a 'waste' of money. Very likely I will watch the Crusaders play rugby games in a stadium whose construction and operating costs are not strictly speaking completely covered by the price of my and fellow spectators' tickets! I may even take my grandchildren to some readings of some books by some persons in a public library!!
"forgetting the warnings of the Good Shepherd to those who would cause of these little ones to stumble"
Of far more immediate concern to the Church is responsibility regarding *religious* abuse and we know +Peter's rightly attentive to church safeguarding matters.
Kerre Woodham, NewstalkZB: "...you'll have probably seen the posting that's been doing the rounds for some time now, the post that shows a chart: Two different groups have been convicted of sexually abusing children in New Zealand between 1990 and 2022. Drag Queens on one side, church leaders and members on the other. Number of drag Queens have been convicted of the sexual abuse of children over 32 years. None. Not one. Number of church members have been convicted of the sexual abuse of children over 32 years. 22."
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-brian-tamaki-needs-to-look-at-the-churchs-history/
Thank you Liz and Kerre Woodham. That says it all!
Post a Comment