Sorry not sorry

This is a bit of non-post. Having come back to work, a lot of work is coming at me, and time is not available this week to post anything other than these few words, so sorry not sorry.  Perhaps better luck next week re time. Maybe England will learn to play proper test cricket by then, Trump and Rubio will tell Russia their talking points are not Ukraine’s best peace plan, and Kiwiland will find a way through its economic torpor. 

Today’s gospel, for Christ the King, Luke 23:33-43, portraying the king of kings dying in order that we may live, stands in stark contrast to the agenda of the world today.

POSTSCRIPT

Since writing the above I have come across a "well, worth reading" article for this week ...

They’re doing to America what they did to Christianity | Christianity | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/nov/23/america-christian-evangelical-discrimination-immigration

Sabbatical ending ... back to work!

I have been privileged these past two months to be on sabbatical leave (with July making up the third month of the allotted three months). These two months have actually seemed like a long time (rather than "flown by") and a long time is a good time when seeking some "r and r" from everyday working life. 

A long time is also a good time when seeking some uncluttered-mind-space for some writing, which has been the focus of the "study" part of the sabbatical. I cannot tell you how many words I have written (because some writing has been re-writing some writing accomplished during two previous sabbaticals, and some writing has been re-writing what I have written - judged myself to be rather poor and in desparate need of improvement - along with a bunch of new words). Suffice to say, there are now about 100k words washing around in a folder on my laptop. I also should say, for any wonderful but far too eager supporters looking for imminent publication, that while I have perhaps 90% of sheer quantity of words written, the quality estimate is around 60%, so I envisage a lot more work before I have a draft to share with a few trusted friends for comment, and then - hopefully - with a publisher. The book is on interpreting the Bible. Yes, I know this has been done before, and by others. Needless to say, my book will be the last book on the subject you will ever feel the need to read ... :). 

Here I share a few thoughts from my work over these past months, though with a certain constraint because I don't want to give away key ideas to another scholar working in a similar way. I have already come across a 2025 book a bit too like mine for my comfort!!

1. The Bible is a very complex book. More complex, to my mind, after forays into some of its nooks and crannies, than I have ever previously realised.

2. In the long run, despite many, many hermeneutical (interpretational) disputes, the church does get things right, eventually. The stand out example is slavery. We have interpreted the Bible correctly on this issue (that is, understood that though the Bible itself tolerates slavery, its overall message re human dignity means slavery has had to end). It only took about 1800 years.

3. Related question: could we have arrived at the abolition of slavery a lot sooner? (I am charting a possible pathway to an affirmative answer to that question.)

4. It is challenging to read the Bible consistently. In my research and reflections, I am struck by how the church has shifted its thinking on some issues the Bible addresses but not done so on others, when it is reasonable to assess that justice in life requires us to read (and apply) the Bible consistently. (Yes, this is a general statement without examples ... I don't want to give much away about the final content of the book!)

The first casualty of war is truth

In my first year of secondary school, 52 years ago, with the madness of war in south-east Asia playing itself out, and the Cold War continuing to be very cold, I learned in English that "the first casualty of war is truth". I think the larger topic within the English curriculum was "Propaganda."

In 2025 this acute and accurate phrase seems as pertinent to discernment when reading the news as ever.

No one doubts that Gaza has been mostly destroyed, that a lot of people have lost their lives, many more injured, and there have been shortfalls of basic facilities to meet needs - damaged hospitals, interruptions to supplies of food and the like. But what is true and what are lies (or fudges) about precise numbers, about whether there has been famine, about whether Hamas or other gangs have stolen emergency supply lorries and subsequently sold goods at inflated prices, about whether the undestroyed parts of Gaza have flourishing food markets and restaurants (I have seen photos ... but photos can be doctored, produced from the past as though present reality, etc), about whether (say) journalists have been working for Hamas (so Israel claims in justification of killing them), hospitals have been used as military commands, schools have hidden entrances to tunnels (again, so Israel has claimed) ... there is a long list. My point here is not to take any one side re truth-telling/false-narrative-spreading in this (horrible) war and this consequential war on truth, but to observe that there are reasons to think that the adage I first came across as a thirteen year old continues to hold true.

This also seems to be the case in a very recent bit of news. The older news is that terrible, deadly conflict has been going on in Nigeria between (putting it evenly, even if that itself is not a true reflection of the conflict) Christians and Muslims, especially in rural areas. The recent news is that President Trump has offered assistance to the Nigerian government to bring an end to what he describes as "persecution of Christians." Clearly a number of concerned Christians in the West, presumably particularly in the USA itself, have found the ear of the President and he has listened. My interest has then been in seeing some news articles which have taken up the challenge of explanation: what is really going on, are Christians being persecuted by marauding Muslim forces (beyond control of the Nigerian government), or is there another explanation, a socio-economic one between different groups seen from an economy perspective (which happen to be Christian and Muslim respectively)? Now I don't know enough to give any kind of precise rebuttal to such articles, but reports of terrible atrocities against Nigerian Christians have been made for years now, if not in mainstream media, then in Christian media. Where does the truth lie? Is it possible that the truth (Christians are being killed and their buildings destroyed by Muslim forces such as Boko Haram) is becoming a casualty of this particular war, aided and abetted by some elements in Western media?

It is also the case that the truth of any situation can be challenging for any of us, whether we are in a a non-military conflict or a family argument or ... church life. What actually happened? Who provoked whom? Who said what? All too many inter-personal conflicts, in the church and outside the church, in my experience (and no doubt in yours) involve "she said/he said" versions of whatever it was that actually happened. Few of us have the time to engage in detailed enquiries to determine what was actually said and who, if anyone, was at fault. But there are other situations where it is important that we determine the truth of what happened - well-being of hearts and minds, appointments, employment are at stake, depending on what actually happened between two people or two factions. In the Anglican world, recent years have highlighted around the globe, and here in these islands, both that we are in a new world of transparency (things cannot and should not be "swept under the carpet") and that we are in a new world of public accountability: locally, this has been pressed on us by the recent Royal Commission on Abuse.

Within Christian contexts we may usefully recall texts such as 1 John 1:7, "If we walk in the light as [God] himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."; and Ephesians 4:1-3, " ... lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love ... maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

But, if many conflicts most of us will experience in our lifetimes are helped by attitudes such as "patience", we should not lose sight of the crisis in Nigeria: the longer it takes to secure peace, the more people will be hurt, maimed and killed. We should be impatient for a resolution there and, of course, to what is continuing conflict in Gaza, despite the ceasefire, and what is terrifying for Palestians in the West Bank.

Some Anglican Oddities

There is quite a lot of Anglican news these past days and weeks. Hard to keep up!

My continuing interest in "global" Anglican affairs leads me to focus this week mostly on "Anglican Communion" news, which, naturally, at the moment is "the" Anglican Communion news and the "Global Anglican Communion" news.

Three articles are of great interest in giving insight into how GAFCON's leadership came to announce the formation of the Global Anglican Communion, and what significant response to that announcement is:

The Inside Story on GAFCON’s Communiqué

Living Church | Mark Michael and John Sandeman

GSFA Leader Questions GAFCON Communique

Living Church | Mark Michael 

In the room deciding to form the Global Anglican Communion

The Other Cheek | John Sandeman

Gerry Lynch, English cleric, makes this comment - summary - on X/Twitter:

""Global Anglican Communion" founded after 55 minute meeting in Sydney; only 2 serving Anglican Communion Primates were in attendance (Rwanda & Nigeria); 7 of 12 attendees were US or Australian. 5 of the Primates they claim support them didn't attend the subsequent Zoom call & 4 still haven't replied to emails."

The Living Church itself, in a tweet promoting its article says this:

"Latest #News: "Global Anglican Communion" drafters all hail from dioceses and churches that have never been part of the #AnglicanCommunion or have been largely disengaged from it for the last two decades. #Anglican #GAFCON #ACNA "

These observations neatly capture an oddity (if not absurdity) in the situation: a group of men [no sign of women involved!], not actively involved in any meetings, gatherings of the actual Anglican Communion, determine that the actual Anglican Communion henceforth will be the Global Anglican Communion under their leadership (control?).

A further oddity is this: a claim to be "global" in the Anglican world can reasonably be presumed to involve "all Africa" but this does not seem to be achievable:

- I am intrigued that Uganda was not at the meeting (but am not reading much into that - schedules etc), since Uganda is one of the key African provinces for GAFCON.

- Significantly, Kenya is remaining coy, and one of their bishops has poured cold water on the idea:

"The Anglican Church of Kenya is likely a crucial bellwether for the project’s success. The Global South’s third-largest church and the host of important institutions like the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, Kenya has long been an active participant both in GAFCON and the Instruments of Communion. 

 The church’s primate, Archbishop Jackson Ole Sapit, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the Global Anglican Communion announcement (one of his staffers told our reporter that getting a response would be “a Hail Mary pass”).

But the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya’s Diocese of Garissa, Francis Omondi, said to TLC that breaking ties with Canterbury would be a major cultural shift for his church, which retains deep respect for its historical ties to the church that brought it the gospel and has a robust culture of internal consultation.

“Kenya will need a fundamental reworking to break with Canterbury. No archbishop can take Kenya away without changing the church’s law. This will be hard to achieve. Breaking with Canterbury may result in breaking the church locally, creating two provinces,” Omondi said.

“The position I take and which I advance is that we cannot and should not server links with Canterbury. We are so culturally intertwined that these breakaway talks cannot work. I think the challenge is desire for power and control. In Kenya, we represent reasoning from both sides but have chosen to reconcile them in a united church.”"

I do not see Tanzania as likely to join GAC, and certainly the Church of Southern Africa won't.

To me the biggest oddity here is the notion that a meeting held in and dominated by Sydney could imagine - some very intelligent men were there, I have met some of them - that it could be persuasive of provinces not currently in GAFCON to leave the Anglican Communion behind and become fully fledged members of GAC. 

Back to Sydney in a moment, but also in recent news, King Charles [Governor, Church of England] prayed witn Pope Leo. Ian Paul has a post titled King Charles and Pope Leo: a step towards 'full visible unity'? Not unexpectedly the usual formalities which stand in the way of "full visible unity" are brought out for our remembrance - and they do remain formal difficulties in the way of ultimate unity - but there is much to rejoice in when Catholics and Anglicans find all the ways we possibly can to work in unity together aside from those formalities.

I suggest that Jesus and the angels in heaven rejoice when they see and hear of our creative ecumenical endeavours.

But not all would agree with my suggestion (which, I further suggest, many, many Anglicans and Catholics around the globe would readily agree with). Within Ian Paul's post is this reaction from ... Sydney (I said we would be back to Sydney!):

But others saw it rather differently! Dominic Steele, on his channel The Pastor’s Heart, was unequivocal:

I feel betrayed by my king. On the most important issue, I feel like King Charles has betrayed me and Protestant Christians around the world. But even more significantly, he has grieved the Lord Jesus.

He explains his own upbringing as a Catholic (as I was!), and his coming to personal faith in an evangelical Anglican church (as I did!) and so how he personally feels about this event.

So for me it has been a punch in the heart this week to see the Pope and the King and the Archbishop of York praying together—something that the office holders of Pope and King have not done since at least the 12th century. And I feel so sad.

Okay. I didn't see that coming. Jesus grieved by two Christians praying together. Jesus grieved by a modest step along the journey to re-unity in the church of God.

In the context of surveying the "Anglican-scape" of our globe, I suggest this reaction by Dominic Steele is representative of the leadership of the Sydney Diocese (who readily and frequently appear on his Pastor's Heart channel). Such reaction is completely normal for the Sydney Diocese, no matter what the rest of us think about it around the global Anglican world. (Note, incidentally, within Ian Paul's post the way former Archbishop Peter Jensen responded to an invitation to pray with the Pope ...).

Now, we can understand - whatever we think of it - the logic behind such a "Protestant" approach to the Church of Rome, given starting points, with obvious Anglican roots into the 39A, that essentially say, Rome was wrong then, is still wrong now; and what counts in Christian action is doctrinal agreement, so, lacking that, we cannot act together, not even to pray. (And, any of us, from a Protestant or Catholic perspective can note that it is precisely lack of doctrinal agreement with Rome re the eucharist which is the sticking point in Anglicans and other Protestants being unable to share in the Roman Mass.)

There is another way (which King Charles and Pope Leo have exemplified) but that is not my concern at this point. 

My concern is that this particular Sydney-Protestant-Anglican view is not a widely shared view among Western hemisphere Anglicans. Why would "the" Anglican Communion want to follow a Sydney lead and evolve itself into the "Global Anglican Communion"?

There are a few presuppositions not shared between the two Communions! If the Global Anglican Communion wants to be "Anglican", it needs to look at its presuppositions.

So, here is a closing thought: when two people pray together and Jesus is grieved, there is the basis for one Anglican Communion; and when the same two people pray together and Jesus rejoices, there is the basis for another Anglican Communion.