Goddard v Avis and a few other things

Introduction

A few days ago, Mark posted this - thank you - in a comment which is worth posting as introduction to this week's post, assisting us in keeping perspective on the importance of the church ... the kingdom may be more important ... and also, brilliantly, connecting the Jesus of history with the Christ of faith:

"One of the great works of the Spirit has been not allowing Jesus’ dream of the reign of God to die. It was the Spirit who enlivened the apostles desolated by the failure of Jesus…[pouring] into them an unexpected and surprising energy for continuing to proclaim what Jesus proclaimed and did. The church as community of the faithful as we have it today is as much fruit of the Spirit as of Jesus. Jesus was seeking the reign and did not intend the church, but with his death a vacuum was created…It is the Spirit who comes to fill this vacuum, generating communities that propose to follow Jesus and attempt to make real his dream of the reign…

Without the Spirit there would be no way to understand the resonance achieved by Jesus in subsequent history. It was the Spirit who led communities to discover that beneath that weak man of working-class stock, itinerant prophet, was indeed hidden the incarnate Son of God. This discovery is still being made today by each generation.‍ ‍

- Leonardo Boff, Christianity in a Nutshell (2013)"

Once again into the NCP foray

Continuing to think about Anglican Communion present and future, with particular reference to the "NCPs", I see that Andrew Goddard's article titled, "The Wisdom of the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals: A Response to Paul Avis" has been re-published on Psephizo. A couple of further reflections by me:

First, I note that a commenter there offers these figures re attendance at ++Sarah's installation as Archbishop of Canterbury: 26 of the 42 global Anglican primates did attend Mullally’s enthronement and a further 6 sent representatives and indeed five African female Anglican bishops were there supporting our new Archbishop of Canterbury. This underscores at least a question if not a rejoinder to the NCPs, do they give too much credence to minority views about the future of global Anglicanism?

Secondly, while I appreciate both Avis (in sum: the proposals are seriously deficient) and Goddard (in sum: the NCPs make the best of a bad situation), I continue to be concerned that the NCPs do give way too much - far too much - by allowing for "historic connection" to the See of Canterbury to have priority ahead of "communion with the See of Canterbury", and prioritzing "baptism" ahead of "communion" as bedrock to being our label on our tin "Anglican COMMUNION" (caps mine!). Ultimately my views do not matter much, but it will be for the forthcoming Belfast meeting of the ACC to carefully consider where we head on this critical issue of communion for the Communion.

Again, into the True Church foray

Then thinking more generally about church life on this planet, not solely about Anglicanism ... the question of 'true church' figures on X again which draws attention to the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (a Catholic order with presence in the Canterbury region in which I live). According to this article, these Redemptorists "have issued a strident statement condemning the teaching of Vatican II, and rejecting the legitimacy of the popes since the council." (This "strident statement" is a 21 page letter issued on 2 May 2026 which may be found here.)

Within the 2 May 2026 letter is this stirring paragraph:

"The problem is, as St Pius X warned, that the structures of the Catholic Church have been infiltrated by men of a different non-Catholic religion. They use the Catholic name, they occupy the Catholic buildings, they know the Catholic culture. From the outside they look to be Catholics, but they do not profess the Catholic Faith as taught through the centuries. In reality, they have been formed as revolutionaries committed to the condemned Freemasonic heresies of Religious Liberty, Religious Indifference and False Ecumenism. Their infiltration has struck a lethal wound to the Catholic religion; they have brought about a major schism from the Mystical Body. We must stand firmly with the Catholic Church and move well away from the camouflage of its counterfeit."

I leave to the Catholic Church their engagement - if they choose - with this particular critique (save for one observation I make below). But what is of Anglican interest is that the above paragraph could be re-written for a certain kind of Anglican perspective (and no doubt, turn and turn about, Baptist ... Lutheran ... Presbyterian ... perspectives), thus:

"The problem is, as St Someone warned, that the structures of the Anglican world have been infiltrated by men and women of a different non-Anglican religion. They use the Anglican name, they occupy the Anglican buildings, they know the Anglican culture. From the outside they look to be Anglicans, but they do not profess the Anglican Faith as taught through the centuries. In reality, they have been formed as revolutionaries committed to the the following heresies ...* Their infiltration has struck a lethal wound to the Anglican religion; they have brought about a major schism from the Mystical Body. We must stand firmly with the authentic form of the global Anglican Church and move well away from the camouflage of its counterfeit."

*From one Anglican perspective, the warmly inclusive, broad Anglicanism of the accommodating Church of England-spread-unto-the-world has been infiltrated by a calculating exclusive, narrow Anglicanism reminiscent of the Puritanism that Richard Hooker so adroitly steered Elizabethan Anglicanism away from. From another Anglican perspective, the doctrinally sound Church of England spread large upon the world, disseminating the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles around the globe has been infiltrated by a cadre of theologians, clever lay synodspersons and errant epsicopoi preaching a message of liberal progressivism which would have Cranmer turning in his grave.

I am reminded, as I write, of an astute observation of St. Augustine (incidentally, formationally significant for Pope Leo XIV) which is noted on the side column of this blog:

"“The clouds of heaven thunder forth throughout the world that God’s house is being built. But these frogs sit in their pond and croak: ‘We’re the only Christians’!”"

Somehow I think Leonardo Boff would heartily endorse St. Augustine on this observation.

Best church, True church, NT church?

Introduction

Kind of continuing in the vein (vain?) of the past few posts, I offer further reflection this week on what it means to be the church (or, should we better say, "to be church"?), including being "Anglican church", in a world where an amazing and admirable run of public witness form by Pope Leo XIV is exemplifying the Catholic church in a wonderful way. Frankly, more wonderful because potential "rivals" (if we so may speak in ecclesiastical reflections) are contemporaneously attesting to forms of Christianity that at best are deeply unattractive and at worst base heresies relative to the Gospel of Christ the Prince of Peace: American Protestant evangelicalism (which gave rise through the middle of the 20th century onwards to Billy Graham, a dominant and much admired figure, capable of significant media interest) and Russian Orthodoxy (which through much of the 20th century was to be admired for its faithful witness to Christ in the face of continual persecution by the Soviet government).*

True church?

Present debates about church, whether we look at Anglican debates about the NCPs, the respective roles and aspirations of Gafcon and Global South or we look at Catholic debates, especially the allegations by some Catholics that Roman Catholicism has lost its way since Vatican 2 and there hasn't been a "real" Pope since ... [name your last real Pope] or look at Protestant debates in the USA where people seem to be ecclesiastically "cancelled" because ... [name your issue: support women in leadership ... do not unquestionally support President Trump ... etc], or dive into the claims and counter-claims of Eastren Orthodoxy generally (the true church continuous with the apostles) or between versions thereof in particularity, all amount to debates over the "true" church - the church as God has and presently intends it to be, as absolutely and clearly revealed through ... [again, name your preferred measure of "true church"].

It is noble to propose that one's church is the true church. It is impressive in certain cases to make such claim (e.g. it would be an odd God who only got around to revealing the true church in the 16th century (Protestantism) or in the 20th century (Pentecostalism), so, impressive indeed are the claims of churches that they date backwards to Jesus and the apostles with continuity of teaching and of practice.

It is not my present purpose to debate those claims save for observing that "true church" claims are proposed by more than one church, so merely making the claim does not void the need to examine such claims.

But, in principle, it is possible that the true church may yet be agreed on, and when and if so, we should all join up, merge into and gather under its ecclesial umbrella.

Best church?

Given potential to get stuck on "true church" claims, we might opt for "best church" claims. I suggest (at least) two levels of "best church" claims.

One is "best church for me or for my family." I see this working out in many Christians' lives these days which could be described as a "post-denominational" era. John and Mary have grown up Presbyterian, married in the Presbyterian church one of them belonged to, but worshipped in the other Presbyterian church until a shift of jobs takes them to another town. They have two children by now and a thriving children's ministry is sought, which is best found in this town's central Baptist church. Some years later, the children now teenagers, there is a move to another town, and this time it seems natural to join the church where their children's peers are involved in an excellent youth ministry, a relatively new church belonging to a network of independent Pentecostal churches established a few decades ago. Later, when the children are grown up and left home, a move to the leafy suburbs of the town seems a natural progression in life, and, for various reasons, the local Anglican church beckons. In each case John and Mary have belonged to the best church for them and their family, and they have enjoyed the advantageous features of each church, untroubled by any formal ecclesiological assessment of whether the church they were attending was the "true church."

A second way in which "best church" might work (as it does for me!) is a little bit of ecclesiological assessment, either choosing a church de novo or choosing to continue in a church for ecclesiological reasons - this church represents the best church of all possible churches. Pretty much, for example, this is why (having been brought up Anglican and in a vicarage) I choose continually to be Anglican. It is a church in which the best of being Catholic and the best of being Reformed can be and is expressed through judiciously balanced liturgies which themselves ensure that what we pray is what "we" believe and not what "I" as worship leader/priest/minister determine to be our belief. There are other "best" aspects but my point here is not so much to argue that the Anglican church is "the" best church but to make the point that whether or not the Anglican church is the "true church" it is (to my and many adherents' satisfaction) the "best church".

I fully expect there are happy Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and, of course, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who see similar satisfaction in their "best church".

Back to the Anglican considerations of the past couple of posts: what the NCPs miss is this sense of what makes the Anglican Communion the "best" global communion of churches, because "best" includes communion with the See of Canterbury (continuing communion with an historical see, a strong and admirable feature of the Roman Catholic Church, of various Eastern Orthodox churches), visible, locatable leadership in the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than in a "duty primate" (I note that "as I write" it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who is being welcomed ecumenically in Rome, even to the consternation of some Catholics on X who are aghast that the Pope should recognise the ABC/a female ABC by praying with her), and "communion" being a drawing together in fellowship of those in common Anglican heritage even when there are differences and disagreements (rather than communion being a means of asserting who belongs to the 'true" Anglican communion/conference and who does not).

New Testament church?

Is there an even better way than "true church" or "best church"? One of my reflections through these weeks of some pretty intense ecclesiological debate - think not only about intra-global-Anglican debates, but also intra-Catholic-debates as (e.g.) the Pope speaking about peace, capital punishment, homosexuality etc occasions carping comments from some and laudatory reTweeting from others, and then, as the ABC visits Rome, all kinds of, frankly, uncharitable and (in my experience of majority Catholicism) unrepresentative criticisms of both the ABC (the usual "not a real bishop" stuff) and of the Pope and other Roman prelates who are welcoming her to Rome - is that the New Testament charts another way ...

The New Testament is not, frankly, much help when it comes to settling "true church" or even "best church" debates. It just doesn't say enough to (say) nail down that the Bishop of Rome is to be the Prime Bishop of All Bishops. It doesn't even say enough to make crystal clear that the church is to be ordered by bishops, priests/presbyters and deacons. On the eucharist, it does set out Jesus' command to 'do this', but, intriguingly, for something we make much of and debate heaps and even divide one from the other over, only one epistle, 1 Corinthians, actually says something about the eucharist as common church practice. (Perhaps most intriguingly, the Pastoral Epistles, which do say a number of things about the ordering of church life, say nothing about the eucharist, and Hebrews, which has a lot to say about the inadequacy of the worship life of Israel (sacrifices, tabernacle, etc) says zilch about the eucharist as a replacement for that particular form of worshipping life.)

But what the New Testament does have a lot to say about is what constitutes authentic Christian life aka being church. That authentic life, whether we focus on, say, Jesus washing the disciples' feet, or Paul talking about the Philippian Christians having the same mind as the Christ who gives up all divine privilege in order to save us, or James' urging congregations to live justly and mercifully, or Matthew charting the way of following Jesus through the Sermon on the Mount, beginning with the Beatitudes, is all about quality of life - quality of the inner person (Be-attitudes), quality of relationships with one another (Love one another), quality of relationship with God through allowing the Spirit of God to fill our lives, gifting us and making us fruitful. 

The church of such people is not best defined in terms of "order" or "office" or "conciliar decision" (though these are part of the NT church). If we think in terms of "judgement", does the NT invite us to think we will be judged by whether we have belonged to the "true church" or the "best church", whether we have approved of women being ordained or resisted the possibility, and the like? No. Not at all. But the NT does provoke us to think that we will be judged on the quality of the lives we have sought to live in response to Jesus calling us to follow him in the light of what has been revealed to us through Scripture.

Turning this around a little, to current debates, what matters is not, say, whether the ABC has "valid orders", is a man rather than a woman, acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and so forth, but whether Sarah, baptised child of God, is a true follower of Jesus Christ, the best disciple she can be.

When I engage with you, and you with me, when we engage with another Christian - be they Methodist or Baptist or Coptic Orthodox etc - do we find in each other a true Christian?

Thankfully, on that count, in my experience, there are wonderful people of God spread throughout the world, belonging to many different denominations, carrying all kinds of labels. The truest, bestest church of God in the world today is the church of authentic believers.

*By "Russian Orthodoxy" I mean the Russian Orthodox church in Russia itself, which with a few notable and often defrocked exceptions, is led by warmongering, Putin-supporting prelates and priests. Outside of Russia, Russian Orthodoxy often is, and thankfully so (as locally here in NZ) less bellicose.

POSSIBLE BONUS READ

God is back in fashion – and topping the bestsellers list https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/christianity-back-books-publishing-return/

I say "possible" because the article is behind a paywall though I was able to read it via a "gift article" from a Tweeter on X.

Avis v Goddard

The article by Paul Avis I drew attention to last week has had a reply by Andrew Goddard, in The Living Church, which you can read here. In my assessment of this response I acknowledge some very helpful thinking from a correspondent who wishes to remain anonymous.

Paul Avis makes this critical observation about the so-called Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (as I cited last week):

"THE core proposal is to demote the see of Canterbury and to promote the Primates instead. One goes down, and the other comes up. The NCPs want to delete “in communion with the See of Canterbury” in the benchmark Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and insert in its place “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury”, thus removing the reference to “communion” and to the unity of episcopal sees.

This follows from the claim that baptism, not holy communion, should be a sufficient future basis for the Communion, and that “Communion” in the term “Anglican Communion” should be understood as at least baptismal communion. Baptism is the ground of communion, but it comes to fulfilment in holy communion, and that is how “communion” in the Anglican context has been understood hitherto."

The tin says "Anglican Communion". The contents of that Anglican Communion tin should be identifiable as "Anglican" (connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury) and Communion (in communion with the Archbishop and with each other). 

What is not in the tin called "Anglican Communion" is a bunch of commestibles such as "a historic connection with the See of Canterbury" (Methodists could claim that! Roman Catholics too!! Tourists visiting the Cathedral in Canterbury could claim that, especially if they made a donation to its upkeep as the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury!!!) or some link via baptism (which could include all Christians).

Andrew Goddard has responded to Paul Avis' concern with, in my view, this key statement:

"He [Avis] opens with an account of IASCUFO’s mandate and here he fails to acknowledge a key element of the mandate that sheds light on his fundamental disagreements. The ACC resolution which he quotes not only referred to the need to “address our differences in the Anglican Communion” (3(a)). It also affirmed “the importance of seeking to walk together to the highest degree possible, and learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully.”

This recognition of the need to acknowledge degrees of communion among the churches of the Communion and to accept we now have to consider some form of “good differentiation” (the resolution’s title), learning from ecumenical conversations, is part of the mandate. It seems Avis is unwilling to countenance these steps as regrettable necessities even as he recognizes that the Communion is “currently fractured and dysfunctional.”

It could be argued that these steps have for some time been necessary, but they became even more pressing once a growing number of provinces in the Communion felt unable to continue in full communion with the see of Canterbury (a core feature of the historic 1930 description of the Communion) amid Prayers of Love and Faith as made clear in, for example, the 2023 Ash Wednesday Statement by Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA)."

On the face of it, this is all entirely reasonable: the family union of Anglican provinces has become frayed and faulty, we are now in a relationship marked by "separation", in varying degrees, from all but "divorced" (Gafcon) through to "separated" but in complicated ways if one measures things such as who will turn up to which meetings with whom and so forth, and, consequently, the terms of reference for get togethers, who sits at the head of the table for family meals and so forth, need adjusting towards the reality of being an unhappy and divided family.

But, when was ecclesiology "reasonable"?  Church as the body of Christ is unreasonable. Disparate individuals form one entity, by virtue of sharing bread and cup together in which Christ is actually present, with bonding via the unseen glue of the Holy Spirit, flowing with unendingly patient love (1 Corinthians 10-13). That's irrational. 

More simply, the church is called to mimic and to witness to God who is Trinity who is a Communion-of-Love.

What Andrew Goddard proposes - taking account of differences between provinces, varying degrees of willingness to meet together or even to not meet together at all, fracturing of the whole body of the Communion into sub-body networks and conferences such as Gafcon and Global South - makes reasonable allowance for the reality of our frayed and faulty Communion. But it pays a price in doing so. The price it pays is the giving up of a wonderful theology of communion underpinning the meaning of "Anglican Communion" (pace 1930 Lambeth Conference etc) for a barebones, "what is the minimum we can agree on in order to keep some semblance of connection with each other as provinces of an entity called the Anglican Communion?"

I would also make the point that talk of "degrees of communion" is unfortunate. Communion is something you are either in, or not in. If you are not in full communion - completely and unreservedly willing and able to share in the bread and wine of communion - then you are not in communion.

Now, let's be clear, Goddard's support for the NCPs is support for the Communion failing as a communion and Avis's support for the Communion being a communion is potentially support for a very slimmed down communion with (in my view) some danger that it is a very "white Anglican" dominated Communion.

Neither outcome is inspiring.

But the advantage is to Avis: he advances the theology of being "Anglican-in-Communion", and that theology is historically coherent with the Church of England - the one church for the whole nation, in all its diversity and difference, the church in which Evangelicals, Broad Church and Anglo-Catholics found themselves at home - a Protestant church with Catholic vision for its indivisibility and for its universal reach to the whole of society.

Goddard is, to be sure, wholly realistic and fulsomely pragmatic. Things are in a sorry state and we just have to make the best of it. But "the best of it" is neither Anglican (IMHO) nor Communion, yet there is no proposal to change the name on the tin.

What might be different?

I would like to see from both the modern apostles of Anglicanliness, Paul and Andrew, that there is a call back to Anglican first principles, an appeal to the better hearts of Anglicans around the globe, that is, a cry to re-find our unity in our differences, sharp though they are, to renew commitment to communion as Christ's inclusive fellowship with those whom he has called to follow him (remember, Judas took part in the last supper, as did denying Peter, and doubting Thomas), and to refresh our love for one another a la 1 Corinthians 13 with its strenuous code which spares no effort to truly, deeply, lastingly love the other. Or, again, more simply, might we call ourselves back to what God calls us to as church, to be on earth what the God who is Communion-of-Love is in heaven. This call is not made by the NCPs.

In sum, an appeal to be Christian in a Trinitarian manner coherent with the English form of being Christian - a form of being Christian which has borne many challenges and found ways to adjust to and live with change but seemingly in the late 20th and early 21st century hit a rock and founded.

I would also like to see a re-think, on all sides, on the question of how and why, of all possible issues to found the good ship Anglicana upon, it is the issue of humans unable to marry in the usual way seeking nevertheless a pathway to permanent, loving, faithful partnership. 

Why has this issue, and no other issue, become the rock on which the ship Anglicana has crashed? Should we not be re-addressing this issue and possible ways to live with our varied responses to it rather than completely re-configuring what we think being Anglicans-in-communion means? As best I understand the NCPs, if followed through and agreed to, we would be revising what the Anglican Communion means to the point where we would be an association of Anglicans, but without the courage to re-name ourselves accurately and honestly.

So, in the battle of proposals, in the field of Anglican dreams, Avis is the winner.

Postscript: an observation from a correspondent, "The ACCs haste to push the NCPs at this juncture sets it against the more authentic See of Canterbury. Why should we not view the Nairobi-Cairo Report as an assault of one ambitious "instrument of communion," the ACC, on another one. the ABC? ".

Why we need the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead Anglican Communion (and bonus Easter reflections)

Why We Need the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead the Anglican Communion

Pope Leo has been in terrific form as a global Christian leader in recent weeks, unashamedly, un-backing-downed-ly, consistently speaking for and praying for peace in respect of current wars. For a sample article on this pacific leadership see here.

It has gotten me thinking a bit about some current analyses and prognoses for global Anglican leadership. You know, the ones that sum up as "We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury," with the Gafcon version being the hard one, "We really don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury and you shouldn't either if you want to be a Gafcon leader" and the Anglican Communion one itself (according to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals - still being discussed) being the soft version "We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury, do we? Well, okay, some kind of role, but let's share Communion leadership round the globe."

But, here's the thing which Pope Leo's leadership in recent weeks highlights: the world pays attention to the Christian leader who bears the title and holds the mana of church office which is both "high" and "historic". The Roman Catholic Church itself pays attention to its high, historic office holder: "the Pope says ..." has impact more than "the Bishop of Oxbridge says ...".

What would be the global impact of, say, "the duty Anglican primate for 2026 says ...".

You're correct: Zilch!

Let's stick with, let's support, let's settle on the high, historic leadership office for Anglicans which is ... the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Important Addendum: since drafting the above paragraphs, I have noticed an article by Paul Avis in Church Times, highly critical of the N-C Proposals. Key citations from that article are:

"Some emphases of the NCPs are welcome: the equality and autonomy of the Churches (“Provinces”) of the Anglican Communion, and the wider sharing of chairing positions. But the Commission’s key proposals are deeply troubling.

The NCPs contain factual errors, both historical and constitutional; and they exhibit an animus against the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury which is uncharitable. The Communion is currently fractured and dysfunctional, but, if the NCPs were accepted, the Communion would not be a “communion” at all, as ecclesial communion has been universally understood: namely, as a eucharistic communion with an interchangeable ordained ministry."

Then:

"THE core proposal is to demote the see of Canterbury and to promote the Primates instead. One goes down, and the other comes up. The NCPs want to delete “in communion with the See of Canterbury” in the benchmark Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and insert in its place “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury”, thus removing the reference to “communion” and to the unity of episcopal sees.

This follows from the claim that baptism, not holy communion, should be a sufficient future basis for the Communion, and that “Communion” in the term “Anglican Communion” should be understood as at least baptismal communion. Baptism is the ground of communion, but it comes to fulfilment in holy communion, and that is how “communion” in the Anglican context has been understood hitherto."

And (pretty much my point above):

"Any form of primacy needs to be recognisable and “findable”. Rome is the locus of the papacy, and Constantinople is the locus of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Anglican primacy is located at Canterbury, and so is recognisable and findable. A floating Primates’ Council, which exercises the functions of primacy but has no home, no base, does not do it."

Avis is particularly focused on the proposed change from "communion" to "baptism" as key to gloabl Anglican relationship and rightly points out that this is an ecumenical basis for any and all Christian, inter-church relationships:

"THE proposal that baptism should be sufficient for “communion” rests on a confused cross-over from Anglican relations with Churches with which Anglicans are not in ecclesial communion to Churches with which they are in ecclesial communion. The relationship between the Churches of the Anglican Communion would then be no different in kind from the relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain through the Anglican-Methodist Covenant (2003), or between the Church of England and the EKD (Protestant Churches of Germany) through the Meissen Agreement (1991)."

Bonus Easter Reflections

Preparing for yesterday's sermon, focusing on readings, Acts 2:41a, 22-32, 1 Peter 1:3-9, John 20:19-31, got me thinking a little more about Easter in this Easter season of 2026.

1. Simon Peter via Luke's reporting to us says "Nuts" to all those theologians/preachers who attempt to make the case that "It doesn't really matter whether Jesus' body remains in the tomb, Jesus still rose from the dead." In Acts 2, he cites Psalm 16 (Greek Old Testament version), not once but twice"

Verse 27 (=Psalm 16:10): "because you will not abandon me in the world of the dead; you will not allow your faithful servant to rot in the grave." [GNB]

Verse 31 (= Psalm 16:10): "[King] David [writer of Psalm 16] saw what God was going to do in the future, and so he spoke about the resurrection of the Messiah when he said, 'He was not abandoned in the world of the dead; his body did not rot in the grave'." [GNB]

Luke reports Simon Peter arguing that what happened to Jesus' body in the tomb was that it did not rot (that is, in the usual way a body rots when buried following death). By implication the tomb was emptied of Jesus' body when that body was raised to new life: "God has raised this very Jesus from death, and we are all witnesses to this fact." [GNB].

Importantly, Luke also reports Simon Peter strengthening this argument when he makes a plain distinction between David and Jesus in verse 29:

"My friends, I must speak to you plainly about our famous ancestor King David. He died and was buried, and his grave is here with us to this very day." [GNB]

By contrast, everything Peter is saying in this Pentecost sermon is that Jesus died, was buried and is no longer in the grave he was buried in. David's body, in David's tomb could be visited and venerated. Not so with Jesus: rephrasing the last part of 2:31 and 32, "God has raised this very Jesus from death, his body is not rotting in his grave."

2. The three readings for yesterday, from Acts, 1 Peter and John, provide three great themes for resurrection reflections:

- Acts: the resurrection as a question of historical fact, or, "the apologetics of the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead."

- 1 Peter: the appropriate response to the resurrection is Thanksgiving and Praise: "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (1 Peter 1:3).

- John/1 Peter: the resurrection of Jesus Christ is resurrection for us: John emphasises in 20:19-31 (in keeping with Matthew and Luke) that the resurrected Jesus appears to the disciples (and thus also to us his contemporary followers) to direct our discipleship so that we are assured of "Peace", commissioned "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" and gifted the Holy Spirit. All of which is so that "through your faith in him you may have life" (John 20:31 GNB). Peter makes a similar point in his epistle, "... he gave us new life by raising Jesus Christ from death" (1 Peter 1:3 GNB).

Time for another annual reflection on the Gospel Resurrection Narratives

Each Easter, especially with sermons to prepare, the gospel narrarives (along with 1 Corinthians 15) prod and provoke me about how they tell the narrative of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the provocation includes trying to put together the differences between the accounts as much as the common features. Last year's reflection is here. This year's takes a different course.

1. For the most part the gospel narratives are not doing the apologetics we might like them to do.

We can approach the narratives looking for proof that the resurreaction actually occurred as an event in history - an event we can, more or less, prove because X, Y, Z. But the narratives mostly do not answer our question "Did the resurrection of Jesus take place as an observable event (or set of events - empty tomb, consistent set of appearances, etc)?". 

Rather, they tell us about encounters between people and the risen Jesus: 

- some designed to inform us about how we might encounter the risen Jesus (e.g. in the breaking of the bread, per the Walk to Emmaus story in Luke 24, or through faith not sight, per Thomas meeting Jesus in John 20) and what our re-action to such encounter might be (e.g. undertaking the Great Commission, per the endings of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels; or being sent into the world as Jesus himself was sent, per John 20), and 

- at least two designed to inform us of significant commissioning or recommissioning of key apostles (per 1 Corinthians 15 for Paul, and John 21 for Simon Peter and for the Beloved Disciple).

2. Nevertheless, there is some apologetics going on

- Matthew 28:11-15 offers a refutation of any notion that the tomb was empty because the body was stolen (as does John 20:13ff);

- 1 Corinthians 15:4-8 offers the availability of an extensive set of witnesses (500+, although some have died) to the resurrection appearances, some two decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

3. Some choices are made as resurrections narratives are composed, which demonstrates that the gospel writers (and others, such as Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, or whomever laid down the tradition behind what he says there) were not mere reporters of the discovery of the empty tomb and of subsequent appearances of Jesus in the sense of sticking to the facts and the facts only. Editorial choices were made!

Consider: the 1 Corinthians 15 account, verses 3-12, mentions no women receiving appearances (other than the implication that a group as large as 500 people [even when described as "500 brothers"] would have included women and men, but each of the gospel accounts is definitive, women were among the key witnesses (to the empty tomb and an appearance of Jesus, Matthew 28; to the empty tomb, Mark 16 and Luke 24; and (albeit a single woman, Mary Magdalene) to the empty tomb and an appearance of Jesus, John 20.

Focusing on women in the resurrection narratives, consider also whom each gospel describes as being present at the discovery of the empty tomb:

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary [28:1]

Mark: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome [16:1]

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them [24:10]

John: Mary Magdalene [20:1]

Mark and Luke both have three or more women in the group which makes the discovery. Matthew reduces this to two women. John reduces this further to one woman. The woman common to all four narratives is Mary Magdalene. 

In a cultural milieu which features crowds and groups doing things, there is reason to suppose that Mark and Luke are correct, there was a group of women who went together to the tomb. 

Matthew simplifies things: the group becomes two. John, keen on telling us about individual encounters people have with Jesus (Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, the lame man at the pools of Bethsaida, the blind man) further reduces the group to one, Mary Magdalene.

Luke, incidentally, despite following Mark, consistent with his preface in Luke 1 (he will correct otther accounts), leaves Salome's name out of the group he describes, and adds another name in and proposes that there was quite a large group of women who went to the tomb.

That is, each of the gospel writers, on the simple matter of retailing the names of the women who discover the empty tomb, goes about things in their own way. 

Unexpectedly, then, we find Matthew offering a narrative in chapter 28 which is a little messy (Jesus is going to meet the disciples in Galilee, which he does, but he also meets the women, soon after, in Jerusalem), Mark may (if 16:1-8 be indeed the ending of his gospel) or may not (if there is a lost ending) be consistent with his whole narrative, that he tells us much about Jesus and leaves much out, Luke offers an entrancing, compelling, inspiring story, the Walk to Emmaus, which is wholly missing from any other account, and John is, well, John, very different to the other three gospels. 

And, as noted in earlier years, in their compositions, the four writers have varying attitudes to "Jerusalem (and surrounds)" and "Galilee" as the potential loci of the resurrections appearances (Matthew, both; Mark, Galilee; Luke, Jerusalem only; John, both).

Jesus rose from the dead but as with Jesus' birth, the gospel writers go about their renditions of the resurrection events in differing ways. Bethlehem is common to the birth narratives, and the empty tomb is common to the resurrection narratives in the gospels. Otherwise, recollections vary and/or narratival strategies in telling us the wondrous news of Jesus vary.

4. Finally, I am struck again, and going back to the theme of "apologetics," by Acts 10:40-41: God's own strategy with the manifestations of the risen Jesus was not to prove to the world at large that Jesus rose from the dead (apologetics), but to strengthen the faith of those who believed in Jesus and to embolden them to preach the Good News (Acts 10:42-43) (empowerment).

In Acts 10:44, the outcome of Peter's preaching is not that people stroked their chins and declared as one body of people, "Ah, I now see, Jesus did indeed rise from the dead." The outcome is that "the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word."

The ultimate proof, if we may so speak, of the resurrection of Jesus is that the Holy Spirit falls upon us, the living presence of Jesus Christ in the world today.

Yesterday's Sermon

Alternatively to the above, you might like to see/hear my sermon from Easter Day, 2026, at the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch, here, with sermon starting around 26:15.

Installation Wars?

We do live in such interesting times (by which I mean, terrible and terrifying times) that on the one hand Twitter this past week has had many pictures of young women (and young men) who face execution in Iran for protesting against a government that, among other things, imposes compulsory wearing of the hijab for women, along with many deprecatory comments about ++Sarah Mullaly, many, sadly, from Roman Catholics ("sadly" because, in fact, many Roman Catholics not on Twitter are not such "social warriors" but are kind and considerate to people in other churches ... as, indeed, Pope Leo has been in his public letter to ++Sarah).*

Of course not all Anglicans are being kind to ++Sarah, seeing the occasion as a useful opportunity to put the ecclesiastical boot into the Anglican Communion. Installation wars? Friendly fire from frenemies? 

I wonder what Jesus makes of it all? He was no stranger to disputes and disagreements within his own camp, but tended to subject the warring parties to some direct guidance, none of which disclosed which side was right, but all of which said, in today's language, pull your head in!

In Matthew 20:24-28, the twelve disciples are at odds with each other, 10 versus 2 upstarts (James and John) and Jesus tells all twelve to be servants and slaves to others, not to lord it over others.

John 13 is intriguing. It both honours Simon Peter and discloses how frail and fallible he was, while subtly revealing that another one of the disciples was actually "boss", but not through a role he plays, but through the intimacy of his relationship with Jesus. 

The honouring of Simon Peter is through a simple device: there are only three speaking parts in the chapter, which is effectively a dialogue between Jesus and Simon Peter apart from four words (in ET) spoken by another disciple. The disclosure of Simon Peter's flaws occurs when he questions whether his feet should be washed or not, and when he asserts that he will lay down his life for Jesus but Jesus dismisses this by predicting that he would deny him three times. By contrast, the third speaker is the disciple "whom Jesus loved" who reclines "next to Jesus". This disciple is boss! 

The (21st cerntury) point then is that important though Simon Peter and the Petrine church is, Jesus is closest to the disciple who says least and claims nothing for himself.

Which brings me back to our new Archbishop of Canterbury. I am confident that as Jesus looks upon her, he is not thinking "But she is not a real bishop, "Null and Void" and all that" nor is he thinking, "How could the CofE get Scripture so wrong that they agreed to ordain women as bishops and now, oh folly of follies, even appointed one to be the Archbishop?". No, he will be judging her as he judges you and me: is she serving God's people? What is the state of her heart? Does she love the church with the love with which Christ loves the church?

I have a feeling that when Leo meets Sarah at a forthcoming Vatican meeting - I have deliberately dropped both their titles from this sentence - they will get along just fine as followers of Christ.

Because they both love Jesus Christ and want nothing more than to serve the church Jesus loves.

As one astutue commentator has noted this week, all the dark clouds of negative comments re ++Sarah reveal one silver lining: the dear old CofE is not yet dead ... people care enough to slag it off!

*Archbishop Sarah's reply is here.

Installation of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Thinking Anglicans has links here to assist in viewing the service etc [albeit, for Kiwis, in the wee small hours of Thursday morning].

Short post this week because time is short. God willing next week will be time richer!

Dangers, toils and snares

Yesterday the gospel reading was the whole of John 9, the story of the man born blind who is given sight by Jesus. Appropriately Amazing Grace was one of the hymns we sung:

"I once was lost, but now am found,

  Was blind, but now I see".

But in my mind as we look at the world around us are these lines from this famous hymn:

"Through many dangers, toils and snares

I have already come:
'tis grace has brought me safe thus far,

and grace will lead me home"

Our world is in turmoil, with war faraway in the Middle East, affecting costs of life here in NZ as the price of petrol zooms above $3 a litre. I see many dangers, toils and snares ahead for us as a nation and for the church within our nation: this increase, if sustained because the war does not end, or, worse, goes much higher, affects not only whether we use our cars or not, it will flow through to every aspect of costs of life. For our parishes, already stretched with costs of ministry, there are significant challenges ahead.

We must double down on praying for peace - first and foremost for the sake of the lives of others: those in Iran, Gaza, the West Bank [some very worrying reports of Christians being massacred there by the IDF in recent days], Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan.

But John Newton also reminds us in the verse cited above, that "grace" - God's unlimited kindness, mercy and generosity - will lead us home.

We also must double down on being a people of faith, not of sight.

Whither the Anglican Communion? Revised new proposals ... and Gafcon's last minute revision ...

Last year the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals were published for a new way of being the Anglican Communion. 

On the one hand, these proposals tried hard to reflect the reality of impaired communion in the Anglican Communion. 

On the other hand, these proposals were not warmly received to universal acclaim. Fortunately some have listened and now a "supplement" to the proposals has been issued, copy-and-pasted [far] below. 

Head here for a summary of the situation, and from that page you can download the original proposals and the supplement. Head to this Thinking Anglicans' post re various links ...

My own sense of these proposals is that they may be:

1. over anxious about various provinces' views on the Communion's future, noting Gavin Drake's major point, see below, that despite rhetoric, no province has actually left the Communion yet.

2. correct that the ABC's job, as Primate of All England and "primus inter pares" for the whole Communion is unsustainable.

3. incorrect that a "job sharing" approach with regional primates is the best possible response to 2 above. There could, alternatively, be a strong role for the General-Secretary of the Communion ...

Always good, however, to know that people listen to one another.

Speaking of which, the recent Gafcon plenary in Nigeria seemed to be headed towards a major announcement of Gafcon becoming "the" Global Anglican Communion and an announcement of a (not their term) "Anti-Archbishop of Canterbury". Not so! At all but the last minute, the key leaders at the conference announced that listening to the Holy Spirit sent them in a different direction, so that the announcement was:

"As we develop new structures for the Global Anglican Communion, the Gafcon Primates have dissolved the Gafcon Primates Council, which has faithfully led and served the Gafcon movement since 2008.

In a world where most organizations and individuals are concerned about keeping power and authority, the Gafcon Primates Council has made an unprecedented decision to share its stewardship of the Global Anglican Communion by creating the Global Anglican Council which includes primates, advisors, and guarantors, which will include bishops, clergy, and lay members each with full voting privileges."

More an Alternative ACC than an Alternative Archbishop of Canterbury!

Incidentally, for a tenor of the kind of advice in the air in the Nigeria event, read this about ++Davies talk. In my best understanding of what the Gafcon announcement means, that talk has been disregarded. Which I am glad about because being Anglican is not "all about" doctrine, it is also about history and relationship, with the ABC central to both aspects. If Anglicanism is all about doctrine then we are merely an accident of the history of Christian thought, in which some erudition in the context of turmoil in the 16th century sets the course for all future "authentic" Anglicanism, without recourse to any developments since then, in life, in understanding of the meaning of the Bible, etc, etc.

Whither then the Communion in relation to Gafcon, and vice versa? Gavin Drake has a fascinating take on what is what and what, despite protestations otherwise, is not what - threats have not been realised!

The bit that is missing from Drake's piece is consideration of the role of Global South in the life of the Communion (a consideration in my view which is driving forward the Nairobi-Cairo proposals and now their proposed revision).

So, back to those proposals ...

Lent 2026

Supplement to The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (Rome, 2025) by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order 

Executive summary 

IASCUFO’s Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (NCPs), published in Advent 2024, envision the Church afresh as truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic so that Anglicans may carry the hope of a new creation into the world. The Anglican Communion long ago committed itself to answering God’s call to unity and to finding our place in the Body of Christ. What happens between us as we acknowledge our interdependence matters for our integrity and effectiveness locally, regionally, and globally. The following supplement to the NCPs, developed at a meeting in Rome in December 2025, summarises IASCUFO’s learning as we have listened to responses to our paper and suggests several revisions for the consideration of ACC-19, meeting in June/July 2026. 

The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals boil down to three urgent calls for our common life: 

• Acknowledge developments in the structures of the Communion since 1930. When the Lambeth Conference of 1930 offered its description of the Anglican Communion, it presumed an understanding of all Anglican churches as gathered round the Church of England as mother. This has not been the case since at least 1968. All Anglican churches, including the Church of England, are now sisters. The Constitution of the ACC governs the Communion’s membership. In view of these facts, an updated description of the Communion will enable all Anglicans to speak truly and honestly about the faith, ministry, and mission that we share. 

• Acknowledge that communion has been damaged between some churches, but that real communion remains, both as God’s gift and as something Christ calls us to intensify. All the churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together, despite our differences, in living relationships with one another, aided by the Instruments of Communion. We are not defined by the decisions of any single member church. This fact enables us to articulate our communion in various ways, and to walk together to the highest degree possible. It encourages us to be honest about our divisions and make room for one another in love.  

• Ensure the Communion’s leadership looks like the Communion. This means recognising the fact that the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ Meeting, as well as the Lambeth Conference, complement and complete the unique ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Communion. The ACC incorporates lay voices and leadership: we propose that these contributions be enhanced. The regional primates already assist the Archbishop of Canterbury in his or her ministry in the Communion: we propose that the collegial character of this shared ministry be developed.  

To acknowledge the need for change and act accordingly will enhance the integrity of our witness, promote collegiality between our leaders, and amplify Anglican voices in both ecumenical and secular settings. It will enable us to shed some of the baggage of colonialism while celebrating a shared theological and sacramental inheritance, to which the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury bears witness. And it will encourage all Anglican churches, even amid serious disagreements, to speak and embody a word of hope and healing in a world riven by violence and despair.  

Introduction 

1. Since the publication of The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (NCPs) in Advent 2024, the membership of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has carefully considered the formal responses we have received. IASCUFO has continued to consult regularly with the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council, which includes the Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting, also referred to as the “regional primates.” We have also spoken several times with the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, as well as with ecumenical partners.  

2. At our meeting in Rome in December 2025 we reflected on these conversations alongside consideration of a recently published paper by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, entitled The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues (2024). We saw that the Catholic Church is re-casting its theology of the papacy, including the claims of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), in the light of changing circumstances and new discernments, not least with other Christians and churches.  

3. The Anglican Communion similarly is engaged in a reconsideration and re-casting of its history and its claims in order faithfully to respond to the Spirit’s call to unity. The Anglican Communion has changed enormously in the last 100 years, especially through its emerging understanding of the equality of all member churches. No member is more “indispensable” than others (1 Cor. 12:22), though old colonial habits are hard to break on all sides. All are sisters, and all are encouraged to invest in their communion, one with another. 

4. The NCPs recount the history and theology of these developments in the Anglican Communion by mapping them onto an understanding of the Church as persistently one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (see NCP, §§24-71). Founded in this faith and order, the NCPs seek to offer a fruitful framework and provisional direction of travel for the next season of Anglican life together, without pretending to solve every problem or anticipate future questions. A gift of Anglicanism remains our principled “variability” (see NCP, §60ff.), as an offering of hope in the Gospel that we, with all Christians, would urgently share with the world. 

• There is only one body of Christ, the unity of which is, at once, a gift of the Holy Spirit and a call that must be answered by each generation. Anglicans (and other Christians) are simultaneously made one in Christ by baptism and faith and called to a yet more complete, full, and visible communion (see NCP, §§25-29).  

• Our present disputes centre on what a holy life looks like and at the same time present an opportunity to engage one another in as holy and godly a way as possible. By listening carefully and charitably, marking conscientious disagreements with respect, and refusing to coerce one another, we invest in the one communion we seek to cultivate, even as we find it wounded by our divisions (see NCP, §§40-48). 

• We hear the summons of the Scriptures and the ancient Church to catholic witness, which includes the space within which inter- and intra-ecclesial dispute and discernment take place on the way to resolution. The communion of the baptised is a mixed body of pilgrims, sustained by sacramental and synodical life together, and enabled by grace to persevere to the end (see NCP, §§49-57). 

• We also hear the call to apostolic faithfulness, which refers to the truth of the faith as given by God in Scripture and discerned by the bishops and councils of the Church. The apostolic character of Christian faith is ever renewed as it is taught and received afresh and proclaimed as the Good News of Jesus Christ for the nations — in “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) (see NCP, §§58-71). 2 

5. Based on these ancient marks of the Church and with continual reference to them, we have returned as a Commission to the two primary proposals of the NCPs. First Proposal: Revised description of the Anglican Communion 

6. After further reflection and conversation, we — with the Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates — remain confident in our first proposal of an updated description of the Anglican Communion to reflect its current structure and reality (see NCP, §73ff.). 

(i) The character of communion 

7. Full communion amongst us cannot be assumed by all Anglican churches but should be sought. The biblical, theological, sacramental, social, and missiological implications of communion (koinonia) must continually inspire and guide our thinking, praying, and acting as Anglican Christians and churches, even more profoundly than they have to date. This is why full communion in the one catholic and apostolic faith and order cannot simply be claimed, as if it has been achieved. At the same time, we are not at liberty to default to an accidental association or federation. The essential unity and catholicity of the Church, founded in baptism and common faith, must be strengthened in every way possible. The NCPs emphasise the Anglican bonds of 

(i) shared inheritance in faith and order, including liturgy and canon law, 

(ii) mutual service in mission, 

(iii) a commitment to taking common counsel together, and 

(iv) a historic connection with the See of Canterbury, both past and present. These bonds set us walking along the path of communion, however imperfectly (NCP, §76), and help us “not to neglect to meet with one another, as is the habit of some, but encourage one another, and all the more as we see the Day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). 

8. To seek to uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order in no way implies or intends a dilution of the Church’s urgent and perennial task of uncovering and articulating the orthodox truth of the Gospel, nor a merely subjective intention. We wish to re-present the ideals of the Anglican Communion in a realistic and hope-filled fashion. As we wrote in the Appendix of the NCPs, “the churches of the Communion seek to uphold and propagate one faith and order because ‘all of us’ are called to grow into ‘the unity of the faith’ (Eph. 4:13) (see §51, above).” Full communion is not easy, but it is what our Lord prayed for and prioritised on the night he was betrayed (see NCP, §17; cf. §76). We press on, therefore, even when many imagine that such unity can never be achieved, that our differences and divisions have overcome us, and that we need simply to agree to disagree. We need to find fair and flexible means of continuing to engage our differences in charity. We need to ask what it means to “make room for one another” (NCP, §§35-39). We do this in order to walk together and not apart, even when this entails walking “at a distance” (NCP, §§44-48). Such variegated walking will help us to “seek interdependently to foster the highest degree of communion possible one with another” (NCP, §76). 

(ii) Historic connection with Canterbury 

9. At the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the assembled bishops described the Anglican Communion as “a fellowship… of dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury” (resolution 49). This statement followed from a view of the Anglican Communion as a gathering of churches defined by its “full communion with the 3 Church of England,” as the bishops wrote in their encyclical (NCP, §§12, 74, emphasis added). The subsequent century, however, saw significant developments in our collective understanding of what it means to be Anglican, principally in the founding of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1968 and the Primates’ Meeting in 1978. These third and fourth Instruments of Communion, now inscribed in the Constitution of the ACC (NCP, §§70, 74), work in partnership with the Archbishop of Canterbury (as first instrument, dating back to 597) and the Lambeth Conference (as second instrument, from 1867).  

10. As the NCPs observe, the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury have never served as a “court of appeal or singular spokesperson amid conflict and disagreement”; this “would contravene the equality and mutuality” of the member churches of the Communion (NCP, §63; cf. §78). Instead, the Communion has reaffirmed, over and over, its early interest in “the historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church,” in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 (NCP, §§57, 60). Growing out of its rich experience of “the common counsel of the bishops” as a non-centralised, non-coercive college of equals (LC 1930, res. 49; see NCPs, Appendix), the Lambeth Conferences of 1968 and 1978 initiated the ACC and Primates’ Meeting as complementary partners. Working together, the four Instruments would seek to articulate Anglican faith and order, founded in a broad consensus about Scripture and our common traditions as the basis for unity in mission. 

11. Remembering this evolution of the Anglican Communion in the last century helps us grasp the living connection to the See of Canterbury that all Anglicans share. To describe this connection as “historic” (note: not historical) in no way relegates it to history. Just as the phrase historic episcopate refers to an ancient institution that shapes the life of the Church today, historic connection to Canterbury points, at once, to 

(i) the missionary origins of many churches of the Communion, 

(ii) the See of Canterbury’s place as a symbol of ancient apostolicity, and 

(iii) continuing relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion, which is a personal and pastoral gift, albeit one that needs to be received (NCP, §§76, 78-79, 85-86). The Archbishop is therefore “invited to serve, encourage, and persuade, as a brother or sister among siblings and peers, particularly in the college of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting,” which “bear collegial and communal responsibilities for the faith and order of the Communion” (§§86, 78; cf. §§85, 62).  

12. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury serves as “the primate of one particular church with its own polity and doctrine, which may or may not be shared fully by all other churches of the Communion,” full communion with Canterbury may not always be possible for every member church (NCP, §63; cf. §§7, §79). Again, all Anglicans should seek to strengthen the communion we share in every way possible. At the same time, IASCUFO believes that the Anglican Communion should rejoice in the fact that many of its networks are neither centred on nor organised by Canterbury or the Church of England — or any other member church (see NCP, §§56, 68). These polycentric groups sustain their own initiatives and seek to enrich the Anglican Communion as well as the wider Body of Christ.  

13. Notwithstanding the Communion’s connection to Canterbury, the Church of England cannot carry the faith of the Anglican family, nor should it be asked to do so. The sacred call of communion must be answered equally by all and taken with utmost seriousness. The churches of the Communion are called to seek the highest degree of communion possible, not the lowest degree that is tolerable (see NCP, §31ff.). Here again, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ministry of unity complements the other Instruments. 

4 Second Proposal: Broadened leadership of the Instruments 

14. Regarding the second principal proposal of the NCPs, our question has remained the same. Can the Archbishop of Canterbury’s personal and pastoral ministry in the Communion be “assisted and broadened” with the help of the regional primates who form the Primates’ Standing Committee? This was the suggestion of the Primates’ Meeting in 2024, which helped to shape the second proposal as presented (NCP, §82; cf. §63).  

15. To argue that “the leadership of the Communion should look like the Communion” (NCP, §85) is to raise questions of fairness, justice, contextuality, and mission, as well as questions of Anglican identity. It could mark a natural evolution to explore shared calling, convening, and representing as an outworking of equality and mutual respect (see NCP, §§63, 68, 74). In this way, the Communion as a whole, including the Church of England, might also continue to grow beyond its former colonial mindset and reckon with the polycentric character of global Christianity (see NCP, §§18-21). Here, we wish to propose two refinements to the second proposal of the NCPs. 

(i) Collegial sharing of the first Instrument 

16. In light of helpful feedback that we have received, and after further conversation with the whole of the Standing Committee of the ACC and Archbishop Sarah, IASCUFO wishes to propose a revision of the first part our second proposal, regarding the prospect of a “rotating presidency of the ACC” (§84). Good questions (from various perspectives) have been raised about potential rivalry with the Archbishop of Canterbury, inconsistent geographical and/or theological diversity in the “face” of the president, and potentially irregular funding and staffing of the office. A preferable approach will be simply for the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite the regional primates (who comprise the Primates’ Standing Committee) to share his or her ministry in the Communion in a collegial way and to begin to think about formalising such an arrangement in a kind of council. This might take place over a period of 3-6 years. 

17. We noted before the “increasingly collaborative” and collegial pattern of ministry among the Instruments and observed that “since at least 2016, primates have taken turns chairing sessions of the Primates’ Meeting, and the Primates’ Standing Committee has helped to shape the agendas in advance” (NCP, §83). Archbishop Justin Welby also asked the regional primates to provide pastoral support for the churches within each of their regions, when such support was requested. On his last day in office (6 Jan. 2025), Archbishop Justin wrote to the Secretary General to request that, in his absence, the regional primates take over all aspects of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ministry in the Communion. These were significant and positive developments of the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet they were provisional and dependent upon the discernment of one archbishop. 

18. We see several advantages to formalising the latter developments: 

• The standing committee of the Primates’ Meeting (also called the regional primates) could continue to share the pastoral ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the first Instrument in service of the global family.  

• Each primate on the proposed primatial council could represent the Communion (as the Archbishop of Canterbury does) in different settings, such as at the inauguration of a new province or the installation of a new primate. 5 • On such occasions, the relevant primate would precisely represent the Anglican Communion and not function as a delegate of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This follows from the principle of the diversified face of the Communion that ought not always be the face of the Church of England.  

• The Archbishop of Canterbury could continue to serve as the presumptive representative of the Communion in most ecumenical settings, even as the option of calling upon others could prove helpful (cf. NCP, §88). • The practical shape of this shared ministry would need to be discerned over time by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his or her colleagues, as they grow further into cooperating with one another in this way. This may also include a review of the current configuration of the five regions. 

19. Should this proposal be accepted by the Archbishop and the regional primates, we suggest that they might determine its structure, name, and remit. It would be fitting for ACC19 to commend such a development. 

(ii) President of the ACC 

20. ACC-19 can also make a way for the foregoing proposal by looking again at the role of President of the ACC, currently held by the Archbishop of Canterbury (see NCP, §85). As we noted before, the President of the ACC plays a largely symbolic and ex officio role (§84). Upon further reflection, IASCUFO believes that the role of President introduces an unnecessary level of complication in view of the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair. Within the life of the ACC today, it would be unthinkable to say, “we can’t do that because the President says so.” The Constitution of the ACC also stipulates that the President need not be “present” for the ACC to conduct its business (Article 7.1). Having discussed this question with the Standing Committee of the ACC, we agree that the role of President is no longer helpful. As the first Instrument of Communion, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury remain an ex officio member of the ACC and its Standing Committee, with both voice and vote, alongside the five other primatial members of that Standing Committee. 

21. We see several advantages to such a change: 

• Eliminating the role of President will enable the ACC to simplify its structure and clarify the role of the Chair. 

• Such a change fits with IASCUFO’s proposals and rationale regarding strengthened lay leadership on the Standing Committee (NCP, §94).  

• The Archbishop of Canterbury already works alongside the ACC and its Standing Committee, including its five primatial members, in collegial fashion. 

• The status quo hinders the work of the Anglican Communion Office (among others), which is charged with serving all churches of the Communion equally as an honest broker and servant of unity. 

22. It will be up to ACC-19 to consider whether, alongside other revisions to its Constitution, it wishes to excise the role of President. As noted in the NCPs (see §89), the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury will be critically important, not least because she will remain President of the ACC unless and until the Constitution is altered. 6 Conclusion 

23. When Anglicans wake up thinking about their churches, they mostly, and rightly, focus on their local parishes and dioceses. We seek to see and serve Jesus in our communities, to hear the Gospel, and to share in healing, teaching, justice, and more, alongside our friends, families, neighbours, businesses, and nations. Some of us focus on how Anglicans go about doing this — through our worship, the marks of our mission, and our contribution to the wider Body of Christ. Few of us make it our daily work to reflect on the structures of our Communion or how the Instruments function. Yet these structures have the potential to enhance or inhibit how we share the communion of Jesus Christ in our churches worldwide.  

24. The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals — now prospectively revised in view of the foregoing refinements from our meeting in Rome — attempt to envisage the Church afresh as truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic so that Anglicans may carry the hope of a new creation into the world. The Anglican Communion remains committed to answering God’s call to unity and to finding our place in the Body of Christ. What happens between us, as we acknowledge our interdependence, matters for our integrity and effectiveness locally, regionally, and globally.  

25. The proposals boil down to three urgent calls for our common life: • Acknowledge developments in the structures of the Communion since 1930.  • Acknowledge that communion has been damaged between some churches, but that real communion remains, both as God’s gift and as something Christ calls us to intensify. • Ensure the Communion’s leadership looks like the Communion.  

26. To acknowledge the need for change and act accordingly will enhance the integrity of our witness, promote collegiality between our leaders, and amplify Anglican voices in both ecumenical and secular settings. It will also encourage all Anglican churches, even amid serious disagreements, to speak and embody a word of hope and healing.   

27. If we choose not to engage the need for change and try instead to maintain the status quo, we will in effect be refusing to engage honestly and constructively with our problems and increasing the likelihood of more acrimonious division. In view of this reality, we can take heart in recalling that the Church is ever reforming. Continual testing and exploring will be needed and must be anticipated, until our Lord returns. We must, therefore, hold our structures lightly, recognising their proper provisionality in service of the healing of the one Body.  

28. As Michael Ramsey memorably wrote near the end of his great book, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (published in 1936, 25 years before he became Archbishop of Canterbury), the “credentials” of Anglicanism “are its incompleteness, with the tension and travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as ‘the best type of Christianity,’ but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died” (see NCP, §60). 

29. Looking to the months and years ahead, let us pray that the churches of the Anglican Communion can find ways to carry on together in good conscience with proper latitude, set within the framework established by the four Instruments. Pray that we can find ways to urge one another on in love, both in “the unity of the faith” and in “the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph 4.13). 

Whither Iran? Whither the world today? Can Might sometimes be Right?

This has been a fast-paced world at war weekend. On Sunday morning when I woke up, reflecting on news through the night that Israel/USA had bombed Iran, I thought about an ADU post along the lines of "How to pray this week for Iran?" But early this afternoon, after two services and no checking my phone re news, I learned that Israel/USA's strike had achieved ruler-change, even if regime-change (a la Iraq) or regime-modification (a la Venezuela) is yet to be determined. This post is a bit more leaning towards questions such as "Should Israel/USA have breached the sovereignty of a nation in a first strike situation?" and "Is it ever ok to assassinate the ruler of another nation?" - philosophy more than prayer!

In the background to the questions in the title of this post is observing on X some commentary - to be frank, from the usual suspects - from an ordinary, secular perspective along the "this breaks convention, this is against usual protocols, and *remember the debacle of Iraq*" lines. And, also from a Christian perspective, "Does the current bombing, including the taking out of Khameni and other leaders, meet just war criteria? Answer: No."

Of course Operation Epic Fury is receiving support as well as criticism, with support including rejoinders to the usual suspects above along the "Oh, so you don't care about all the protestors recently killed, including women and girls, and just want to give the horrific, hated leaders in Iran a free pass to kill their own citizens" lines.

Also "of course" (as some are observing) one can hold two propositions simultaneously in this context:

1. Rejoicing that Ayatollah Khameni is dead and his deadly rule is over.

2. Questioning (e.g. from a just war theory perspective) that the initiative for this death has come as a first strike rather than a defensive response to a first strike.

Ditto, one can hold to a reasonable hope and a rational fear simultaneously:

3. Hoping that the bombings do lead to regime change, especially towards democracy, meaning an opportunity for every individual Iranian to flourish in ways currently restricted by the current Islamist regime.

4. Fearing that things in Iran will get worse rather than better, because regime change is sometimes, in time, a worse outcome for people: see Afghanistan today and the harsher Taliban government currently in power there than any previous government.

This weekend "the hounds have been unleashed" but (whether from a secular principles or just war theological concern) might it be better to have "let sleeping dogs lie"?

Further, 

5. Is it completely irrational to yet worry that we are now one significant step along the way to World War Three?

Nevertheless, we might usefully consider some details in the overall situation being addressed by political philosophers and theologians.

6. Iran is not an innocent player in this situation. It has clearly been a "first striker" inasmuch as it has fuelled proxy war against Israel for years via Hezbollah to the north and Hamas to the south. It has repeatedly made "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" threats which cannot be considered to be mere words given its military prowess, and especially given its development of nuclear technology which it has never wholly enabled the wider world to rest easy that no nuclear weapons were aspired to.

7. Iran is not an innocent player in this situation. It has clearly imposed a regime of constraint, restriction, punishment and execution on its citizens, from women unwillingly wearing the hijab through to protestors, especially in recent weeks. This is and always has been since 1979 a brutal regime. Khameni and his henchmen have the blood of many innocent people on their hands. They may have died unjustly because no one arrested them, tried them and punished them via the rule of law; but they did not die unjustly because they were innocent of murder.

However, the consequences of "Might is Right" which tramples its way through the world today, are yet unseen. Just because on this occasion Might may have been Right doesn't mean any advance on the case that "Might is Right" is morally, let alone legally right!

So, this week, we pray for Iran, we pray for our world. We may not know what to pray for (other than generally, for peace, for justice, for an end to violence as a means to various ends, for all Iranians and all humans to flourish) but we know to Whom we pray, and God is Wise, is Just, is Love, is Power. God is Life, not Death. 

Good News for the world today - Anglican slant!

The following is a reworked sermon from a few years back, originally delivered to an Anglican society.

 Introduction 

I want to begin by making a few observations about being Anglican, then to talk about Good News in Mark’s Gospel and in today’s world, and finally say something about the Kingdom of God in today’s world. 

Being Anglican

Some years ago I purchased a wonderful commentary on the Book of Ruth by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (The JPS Bible Commantary Ruth: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, Philadelphia: Thew Jewish Publication Society, 2011).

This Jewish commentary has the text in Hebrew and English and its introduction is a comprehensive, well written coverage of a number of issues in Ruth.

One issue my eyes were opened to is this: Ruth is a Moabitess but I had not known that in the Mosaic Law there is a striking and decisive condemnation of Moabites in relation to Israel.

Deuteronomy 23:3-4, 6 says this:

No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord, because they did not meet you with good and water on your journey out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

[6] You shall never promote their welfare or their prosperity as long as you live.

By contrast the next verses in Deuteronomy 23 go on to instruct Israel not to abhor any of the Edomites nor any of the Egyptians.

How come Ruth the Moabitess has a story told about her which is included in the Scriptures of Israel, indeed in our Old Testament, despite her marrying Boaz, an Israelite in Israel in contradiction of the Law?

That this is a problem is readily seen when we see what rabbinical commentators have said through the centuries. They have argued that the Deuteronomic prohibition applied solely to men and/or that Ruth converted to the faith of Israel (as a possibility open to Moabite women but not to Moabite men) (pp. xlv - xlvii).

Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky observe that within Scripture there are "competing traditions" about Moabites:

"Interestingly, Deuteronomy also preserves a different tradition about the Moabites in which the Moabites welcome the Israelites during their wilderness trek (Deut. 2:26-29). The coexistence of competing traditions suggests that the debate about Moabite status was already embedded within Deuteronomy and reflects different hands or changes in attitudes over time." (pp. xlvii-xlviii)

That is, the deeper we dig into what Scripture says, the more we have to ponder about how the "one" Scripture nevertheless includes "more than one" perspective on matters of importance.

The Book of Ruth also figures, in respect of competing traditions about intermarriage.

It is well-known, for instance, that biblical accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah strongly oppose intermarriage between Israelites and people of other nations.

On the one hand, this "post Exilic" writing reflects the vulnerability of Israel settling in its own land.

On the other hand, it is not the only post Exilic voice which reflects on Israel among the nations. Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky note that, in contrast to the exclusivity of Ezra-Nehemiah,

"Isa. 56:3-7 (also likely from the fifth or fourth century B.C.E.) promises the foreigner a venerable place in God's house." (p. xli)

In respect of Ruth, our commentators observe that,

"her story functions as a counterpoint to the negative attitude toward Moabite and other foreign women in the biblical accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah. In its own biblical context, then, the Book of Ruth exemplifies a way that a Moabite woman can marry a Judean and join the community, despite what we read in Deut. 23. Rabbinic sources will seek a basis for reconciling the tension between Ruth's place in the Jewish community and Deut. 23:4-7 regarding Moabites." (p. xlv)

In other words, on the questions of (i) intermarriage between Israel and other nations, and (ii) exclusion or otherwise of Moabites from existence within Israel, the Scriptures of Israel (the Christian Old Testament) do not speak with one voice.

It is not so much that we then conclude the Old Testament contradicts itself as that we observe that within the Old Testament there are signs of lively debate on matters critical to Israel's identity as God's people.

Within the New Testament we also see signs of lively debate - not all of which is resolved neatly (see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 11:16 on a particular, but relatively small matter concerning men, women and their hair in congregational settings; and Romans/Galatians and James on a relatively large matter concerning salvation via faith and/or works, with considerable importance for major theological difference within Western Christianity, between Protestants and Roman Catholics).

One of the questions for the church in the world today, which all too often seems to want to present binary solutions for discussion with a disposition to choose (or impose) but one option for permanent solution, is whether "faithfulness to Scripture" is understood as openness to lively and continuing debate among Christians bound together through shared commitment to the one Christ.

For many Christians who identify as Anglican, to be Anglican is to understand the church as an accommodation of different voices. And this is very much in keeping with biblical tradition itself since the Bible is an accommodation of different voices in the scriptures of Israel and of the church.

What is Good News? What is "the Gospel"?

Back to the Book of Ruth. One of the great themes in that book is “chesed” or loving kindness:

1:8: The Lord’s loving kindness is hoped for;

2.20: the Lord’s loving kindness has blessed Ruth and Naomi with the guardianship of Boaz;

3:10: Ruth is praised by Boaz for her loving kindness towards him.

Chesed speaks both of undeserved kindness and of loyal kindness – that is, of grace and faithfulness. Ruth is not only the story of the lineage of David from whom the Messiah will come, it is also a story of the grace of God which the Messiah will both announce and enact through dying and rising for the sake of God’s people.

Before getting to a response to the questions in the sub-heading above, I came across a statistic the other day:

“% of Americans who say they believe in God

1͟9͟8͟1͟-͟1͟9͟8͟4͟      No: 2 percent              Yes: 96 percent

2͟0͟1͟7͟-͟2͟0͟2͟0͟      No: 22 percent            Yes: 76 percent”

(World Values Survey Association, https://t.co/4MHSYrjfCI?amp=1 )

It is worth thinking about that decline in belief in God in the USA. Through those 26 years there has been no shortage of Americans preaching the gospel, communicating the gospel by many means (e.g. through TV and social media), and yet the upshot is fewer Americans believing that God even exists.

Of course, we have more than a few statistics of our own like that here in these islands of Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is a challenging time for Christians keen to communicate our faith. We are battling disinterest in the Christian message (whatever answer we give to the question What is the Good News?) and facing the loss of common ground with our hearers: the common ground that both we and they believe God exists.

Mark’s Gospel, as a Gospel for the Roman world, sets out to announce the Good News of Jesus Christ to people inclined to believe the world is governed by one God (the Jews) or full of divinities – of gods (the Greeks and the Romans).

Mark tells the story of Jesus who works mighty deeds and teaches authoritatively about divine things, advancing the argument that the true divinity is the God of Israel now made manifest in the Son of this one and only one God. This Markan telling of the story of Jesus is Good News for Jews, Greeks and Romans in at least three ways.

First, this Son of God is powerful. He undertakes mighty works of healing, control over nature, deliverance and feeding crowds. He even forgives sins.

Secondly, this Son of God is compassionate. Jesus cares for the problems and pains of people and goes about solving the problems and dealing with the pain.

6:34: “As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.” (And, then, when the crowd was hungry, he fed them. Jesus lived out the chesed of the Book of Ruth.)

Thirdly, this Son of God is the antitype of the usual Greek and Roman divinities, whether the gods from heaven or the deified caesars and kings in their palaces:

10:45: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

In other words, Jesus offers a new deal for the world: a world which is different in respect of power and love, with Jesus living out a new way for this new world: the power of love as vital to a better life rather than the love of power.

The way into this world is simple: repent, believe, follow. (Turn to Jesus, trust in Jesus, travel with Jesus).

The possibilities in this world are magnificent: sins are forgiven, sicknesses healed, hunger fed, and demons delivered.

Jesus offers a better life than either the Roman authorities or the teachers of Israel can offer.

The Good News is an announcement that this new world is not a dream about the future but a reality beginning here and now.

God’s best life is available today, a life which is experienced in a new world which God is creating through Jesus. That world is the kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God in today’s world

There is an irony within the stories the gospels tell. Jesus comes because God loves the world so much that in Jesus Christ, God enters the world to save it. There is a hugely social dimension to this love: God loves us all and loves us as “the world” and not as a series of individuals.

Yet in the gospels, encounters with Jesus are often (but not always) encounters between individuals and Jesus who invites or even directs each individual to follow him. 

Cue a feature of Christian history in which being Christian is a private experience of individuals, sometimes manifest in remarks such as “You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian” or “My faith is very private to me and I prefer not to talk about it.”

That such privatization of the faith is not what Jesus intended is seen when we remember that what Jesus taught most frequently about was the kingdom of God.

And “kingdom” by definition is about people in their plurality and not individuals in their individuality.

So, to announce the kingdom is to announce a new world which God is making, a world filled with people loved by God and responsive to that love.

What Jesus works for, when he is teaching publicly, explaining privately, healing all comers and feeding crowds is a new society – a new community of God’s people committed to the rule of God as King of the kingdom.

Individuals are called to follow Jesus but as followers they are called to be together, to be a community and a family. 

The Kingdom is made up of communities of God’s people. 

In each of our communities - parishes, para church organizations, other ways of gathering together as Christians, our challenge is to be a community which represents, illustrates and advertises all that is good about the Kingdom of God – all that exemplifies godliness, outward facing love, enthusiasm to share the message of Jesus, and passion to expand the kingdom through growth in people who become its citizens. 

Conclusion 

A Kiwi scholar, Douglas Campbell, in a recent book said a couple of things which I think are relevant to thinking about the Good News as an Announcement of the Kingdom, and I will conclude with these: 

First, “Jesus did not write a book; he called disciples.” (The Triumph of God’s Love: Pauline Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), p. 69)

Then, in an exposition about the great theme of his book The Triumph of God’s Love, Campbell raises this likely question in the mind of someone hearing about God’s great love for humanity:

 

“It’s all very well to speak of a personal God of love definitively revealed in Jesus, yada, yada, yada, but where exactly do we meet Jesus and this overpoweringly benevolent and kind God? I haven’t met Jesus personally myself. So how do I get this deep internal conviction that he was God living among us, loving us, and dying for us? After all, he lived a long time ago.” (p. 56-57)

Campbell then proposes that this is the answer Paul the Apostle gives, as found in his New Testament writings:

“We meet God through people like him – that is to say, through the community [community of Christians], and especially through its designated leaders. And we learn from this phenomenon that Jesus’s followers mediate God’s revelations.” (p. 57)

 We are Jesus’ disciples when we continue to live out the Incarnation of God’s love in the world.