A centre line running through the middle ground?

Roger Harper, UK, has alerted me to a site he has developed called Gay Marriage Maybe: Robust Middle Ground in Christian Debate. 

What do you think? Is there a centre line running through the middle ground which we can walk on this matter?

Jesus weeps

"Of the $38 million left for the church’s operating budget, some $4 million was spent on communications, $3 million on philanthropic grant spending and $2.5 million on the church’s music program, church officials said. Nearly $6 million went to maintain Trinity’s historic properties, including the main church building, which was built in 1846; St. Paul’s Chapel; and several cemeteries, where luminaries including Alexander Hamilton and Edward I. Koch are buried. The remainder went into the church’s equity investment portfolio."

The whole report on Trinity Wall Street's mega-investments is here. Makes for interesting reading on how to make as little information as possible to the people who matter.

Let us do some arithmetic.

From Trinity Wall Street's property investments $38 million is surplus after costs.

$4 million is spent on communications. Wow!

$2.5 million is spent on the church's music programme. Hey, choirs cost!

$6 million maintains the church's historic properties. Fair enough. Anglicans know that stone church cost their weight in gold.

So now we are down to 38-4-2.5-6= $25.5 million dollars to spend with a certain freedom and flexibility, what with no worries mate about the choir, organ and buildings.

Let me see, what would Jesus do?

(1) That would be what Trinity does: $3 million on philanthropy and $22.5 million into "the church's equity investment portfolio" ($160 million in 2011). Always sound investment strategy to grow the equity base!

(2) That would be to give all the surplus away: $25.5 million. I can think of a cathedral project or two which would be greatly helped!

(3) That would be to ... what do you think?

It is difficult, as an Anglican (these trust funds are all over the Communion) knows.

Light fantastic

Continuing on the Christ Church cathedral journey to new design, note a Press article pointing to background of Design 3 in Christ the Light cathedral, Oakland, Cal.

I do not ask for these emails

but somehow they come. Anyway, this one looks interesting for hymnic musicologists and musical hymnologists. Or even simple versifiers.

New Hymn Competition Announced

As part of the ongoing Together in Song project of The Australian Hymn Book Pty Ltd, an International Hymn Competition is announced. The terms and conditions of the Competition are included in the Guidelines below.

Entries close 5pm Australian Eastern Standard Time 31 July 2013.

Please distribute this announcement far and wide to any people and networks you think may be interested.

CALL FOR ENTRIES

The Australian Hymn Book Pty Ltd is delighted to announce its first international hymn competition as part of its work of gathering the finest congregational songs for its growing Together in Song collection. The competition has two entry levels, either of which may be selected by an individual competitor: General and Specific.

Level 1: General

The General Level competition is seeking texts that re-imagine Pauline theological emphases / allusions / metaphors / images, expressing them as song texts that are accessible to, and understood by, twenty-first century worshippers.

 [As an historical model, note how in his hymn ‘And can it be’ (#209 in Together in Song) Wesley employed the following emphases / allusions in meaningful ways for congregations of his time: Verse 1: Col 1.19-21, Eph 1.7; Verse 2: 1 Peter 1.6-12; Verse 3: Phil 2.6-8; Verse 4: Acts 12.6-11; Verse 5: Rom 8, Phil 2.9 and 3.9, Heb 4.16, and 1 Cor 9.25]

Level 2: Specific Pauline Text(s) Focus

This competition level is planned to focus on Pauline texts, which deal with Paul's notion that believers must experience a ‘crucifixion’ or ‘death’ of their old selves, before they can be fully reconciled with God.

The aim of this part of the competition is to elicit faith-based responses to one or other of the quoted texts. Each response will form a ‘story’.

The ‘story’ should (a) ‘unpack’ the meaning of the text and (b) convey a sense of why the text is important to the author.

Texts for Consideration:

* 1 Corinthians 2.2 *Galatians 6.14 *Romans 6.6 *Colossians 3.3

[As an historical model, Charles Wesley re-imagined Colossians 3.3 in the text of his hymn "Thou Shepherd of Israel, and mine". The Appendix includes the Text.]

Guidelines

1. Content

Level 1: Open to any Pauline theological content of the applicants’ own choosing (see above explanation)

Level 2: Hymn to focus on one of the ‘Texts for Consideration’ (see above)

2. Form

Entries will be in the form of a congregational song, either Hymn or Contemporary Song style.

3. Categories

Submission may be one of two categories, reflect Pauline content as outlined above and have a minimum of three (3) stanzas in English.

Category #1: New Text and Tune

- Original melody and text

- Melody in metric balance with the text

- Style either:

(i) traditional 4-part harmony with SATB, or

(ii) contemporary single-line melody for unison congregational singing, with basic keyboard accompaniment for solo line,and guitar chords.

Category #2: New Hymn Text for an Existing Tune

- Original text that is in metric balance with chosen tune

To be eligible, submission(s) must meet all the requirements for the respective category. (NB New tunes for the winning entry may be sought in the future).

4. New Work

Hymns previously published or currently entered in other contests should not be submitted. It is permissible, however, to have a local congregation or other group sample your hymn before submitting it.

5. Contemporary Application

Entries are to avoid archaic language, such as "Which wert, and art, and evermore shall be", and non-inclusive language, such as "O brother man, fold to thy heart thy brother".

6. Copyright

Copyright of the winning hymn text/s and music will become the property of The Australian Hymn Book Pty Ltd.

7. Use of Entries

The entries may be used:

(a) at celebratory Hymn Competition Services or Conference

(b) on the Together in Song World Wide Web site with copyright approval for prescribed usage

(c) in future Together in Song publications

(d) on accompaniment discs

8. Submission Information

Entry is open to all who are neither employees nor their relatives of The Australian Hymn Book Pty Ltd, nor competition judges nor their relatives.

Entrants should specify whether they are entering Level 1 or Level 2 of the Competition. They should either (a) provide four copies of each hymn, which should not include the entrant’s name; or (b) submit scanned hymn by email.

Entrants have the option of submitting a CD/mp3 track with vocal lines.

All entrants should provide a cover letter with their full name, postal address, e-mail address, telephone number, and the title of the entry or entries. All entries will be acknowledged within two weeks of receipt.

9. Closing date and address for submission

All entries must be submitted by 5pm on 31 July 2013 to:

The Australian Hymn Book Pty Ltd

International Hymn Competition

PO Box 128

PARKVILLE V 3052

AUSTRALIA

enquiries@togetherinsong.org

10. Judging

The judges will arrive at their decision by 30 September 2013, and their decision is final. The winning entries will be announced after the winners have been notified. Only one winning entry is anticipated in each level, but the judges may decide to split the prize among several co-winners. The judges also reserve the right not to select any entry as a winner. Each entrant will receive notification of the contest winners and a copy of the winning entries.

11. Prize(s)

Winning prizes at each of the two levels will be AUD 1,200.

APPENDIX

Methodist Hymn Book #457

Thou Shepherd of Israel and mine, Thou joy and desire of my heart; For closer communion I pine, I long to reside where thou art. The pasture I languish to find Where all, who their Shepherd obey, Are fed, on the bosom reclined, And screened from the heat of the day.	John 10.14 Jesu, meine Freude John 13.23-25
Ah, show me that happiest place, The place of thy peoples abode; Where saints in an ecstasy gaze, And hang on a crucified God. Thy love for a sinner declare, Thy passion and death on a tree; My spirit to Calvary bear To suffer and triumph with thee.	2 Corinthians 5.2 Philippians 3.12-14 Ephesians 3.18-19 Galatians 2.20 2 Timothy 2.11 Philippians 1.29
Tis there with the lambs of thy flock, There only I covet to rest; To lie at the foot of the rock, Or rise to be hid in thy breast. Tis there I would always abide, And never a moment depart; Concealed in the cleft of thy side, Eternally held in thy heart. Let me hide myself in thee.	Ephesians 1.4-6 Jesu, meine Freude Rock of ages, cleft for me

If unity seems impossible

I have always been intrigued to meet a fellow minister whose pastoral work seems to major in responding to marriage crises. My own pastoral experience has been quite different. Comparatively few people have ever sought my counsel with marriage difficulties. But among those few I have observed that their difficulties, in a proportion of approximately 9 out of 10 cases, have been such that my instinctive reaction has been ‘Leave your spouse now!’ The presenting difficulties have involved physical violence and it is widely agreed that the general mandate of Scripture, that we stick with our marriages, is trumped by the matter of simple physical safety, especially where children are involved. Incidentally, in about 2 out of 9 cases, the physical threat has stemmed from the wife and not the husband.

Analogously with church unity, there are instances where the difficulties in church life are such that ‘Leave your church now!’ is warranted. Without elucidating the reasons for saying so, I accept that the circumstances of the Western church in the 16^th century were such that departure from the rule of Rome was necessary for the sake of the gospel. I can accept that if we then run over the history of Protestantism since then, we could come up with further justifiable instances of schism. A plausible instance, I believe, is the transformation of Methodism from movement within the C of E to church outside of it. The intransigence of the English bishops of the day was an unwarranted quenching of the Spirit. But I do not accept that each and every instance of schism in Protestantism is justifiable as we have become a many splintered set of ecclesial communities: in too many cases, to our shame, personal egos, deficient understanding of the true breadth of the gospel, and a simple failure to be patient have contributed to the splintering. ‘For the sake of the gospel’, at least in historical hindsight, appears to have been ‘for the sake of my/our understanding of the gospel.’

In our day and in our contexts, local and global Anglicanism in the 21^st century, just as we might urge ourselves to maintain the unity of the Spirit, we should pause to ask what happens if the unity cannot be maintained and what circumstances might count as a justified constraint on maintenance of unity. A commenter here this morning (on yesterday’s post) raises such questions in respect of the searching judgement of our Lord on the excessively tolerant church in Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29).

Intriguingly, there are matching concerns about ‘tolerance’ from both ends of ACANZP and of the Communion. Some in our church, for instance, seem aghast that we should continue to tolerate a conservative approach to marriage which holds back the blessing of same-sex relationships; and vice versa. Within the Communion there are those who call for the expulsion of TEC, and there are those sympathetic to TEC who long for the day when (say) the GAFCON churches formally secede from the Communion. I also observe that similar theological dynamic concerning ‘for the sake of the gospel’ drives this aghastliness: from both ends of the theological spectrum there is a passionate conviction that the gospel means X and so anti-X (or non-X) should not be tolerated. Cue a certain bewilderment for those at the centre of Anglicanism!

What to do? No doubt there are many things to say, and there is always the possibility of drawing up a “unity” checklist with tick boxes and a formula for determining when a certain number of check boxes are not ticked then schism should take place. For today  I simply share one idea which has been percolating in my mind. In a church where varied understandings of the gospel intermingle a decisive question could be this: may I continue to witness to the understanding of the gospel I believe with all my heart and mind to be the true understanding?

If I can continue to witness to that understanding of the gospel then it always remains an open question whether, over time, my witness may lead to a new allegiance to that understanding in the future.

Evangelicals in the C of E and in ACANZP (to just cite two instances) can look back on past times and see their respective churches in quite different places to what they are today in respect of evangelical allegiance. In both cases what was once viewed by the majority as a tiny and somewhat weird minority is now a stronger, no longer tiny influence (possibly in the C of E, even now a majority), and (with exceptions) not viewed as weird. That change of fortunes has come about because 

(1) evangelicals in the past stayed within their Anglican churches, sometimes with a polite turning down of invitations to join other churches; 

(2) evangelicals remained faithful in their witness to an evangelical understanding of the gospel; and 

(3) the possibility of that witness being given was not suppressed (though sometimes it nearly was).

Is one question before Anglicans in the 21^st century the question of whether (3) will remain a feature of Anglican life?

Unity and unity

I admit I am a somewhat naïve person in respect of Christian unity. I think there should be more of it. I think we should strive harder to achieve it in this world since even a bit of achievement here would be both a witness to Christ now and make life easier for Christians in the new heaven and earth.

One of my starting points is Jesus’ own prayer, ut unim sint. But another starting point for my naive motivation is the simple truth that in the life to come there will be one and only one church. No denominational sections will exist in heaven. But then neither will there be popes, bishops, moderators, superintendents, synods, assemblies or councils!

Here at ADU I am especially concerned that we do not fracture further whatever unity we currently enjoy, with a special eye on my own church, ACANZP, but also a keen eye on the Anglican Communion. But reflecting on these situations, and building on some pertinent points made in comments here in recent days, I recognise that there are varying aspects to either maintaining unity or building unity out of previous difference or even pretending unity exists or moves are being made towards unity when this is not actually so. We could perhaps say that some forms of Christian unity are worth more than other forms!

Compromise for unity

One line from ARCIC in recent years has been that unity between Anglicans and Romans would involve recognition of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. As I recall the relevant document, the language used was as agreeable to Anglicans as could be reasonably hoped but the bottom line was recognition of that specific primacy. Here then, were it ever to happen, would be a compromise, a position not entirely satisfactory to one side of the joining together for the sake of the joining together. Given that a whole lot of other things would be satisfactory (e.g. creedal agreement, continuation of bishops), such a compromise could be worthwhile making. (For simplicities sake here I am not listing many other compromises which would also have to be made!)

By contrast, we could think about potential unity between Anglicans and (non-episcopal) Methodists which always seems to get stuck on the matter of episcopacy because, one way or another, one side would make a compromise which so far as it seems is not able to be made in a manner worthwhile to the one making the compromise. (In particular, from the Anglican side of things, to give up the episcopacy would be to also give up all thought of unity with Rome).

Lowest common denominator unity

This was mentioned in a comment the other day. The specific example advanced was the Uniting Church of Australia. I make no comment about that as I do not know anything much about the history of that joining together. But what can be said here is that to a degree much Anglican unity works in this way: we are united by what we agree on and … that appears to be not much. In respect of the Covenant, for example, a renewal of Communion unity is offered via a high common denominator (i.e. agreement on each and every detail of the Covenant). But the outcome on current prognosis is rejection of the Covenant which de facto is a settling for Anglican unity on as few essentials as possible.

In my own church it is highly arguable that we agree on very little (we ought to have bishops,we have  a constitution which provides for significant cultural delineation in our practical arrangements, and we have a prayer book and lectionary perfectly suited to ‘the Church of Or.’) 

Even more cynically, it is sometimes voiced in our church that we are only held together as three tikanga because we have the St John’s College Trust Board treasure chest of funds for which access has to come through a church united under one General Synod. 

(I myself would wish to be less cynical than that and say that our unity is a binding together of many friends and families in one small set of islands in which we recognise needs for inter-dependency, and the discussions over money keep us talking together and getting to know one another’s situations more deeply than ever before.)

Paper unity

It is also observable in our ecclesiastical arrangements that some proclamations of unity are scarcely worth the writing on the paper that underlines them. A few years ago to a bit of hoopla and what have you, there was proclamation of a covenant between NZ Methodists and NZ Anglicans. I can detect not one whit of difference that has been made by that Covenant. Methodists do not have bishops and we have not abolished them. Friendly relations with Methodists were ever friendly before the Covenant and just as friendly afterwards. I imagine that if the Methodists asked for financial assistance from us they would receive no more or less favourable hearing than before there was a covenant.

Although we will never have a Covenant for the Communion I think it a reasonable thought that if we did have, it would (as time went by) prove to be the harbinger of nothing more than paper unity.

Real unity among Christians is measured by deeds and not by words.

Containing the uncontainable?

One reason for working on a united church is that it holds us together while we are far apart in the present and allows for a natural coming together at a point in the future when we are closer together.

We often comment on how close Methodists are to Anglicans which begs the question why the bishops of the 18th century C of E allowed Wesleyanism to spin off into a separate church.

We note the closeness of Vatican 2 Catholicism to 20th century Anglicanism (i.e. an Anglicanism that in various ways has refound some Catholic dimensions) and wonder what might have been if the Bishop of Rome in the 16th century had been kinder to the socio-political realities of England.

One question before us today, both globally as a communion and locally in (say) the CofE and ACANZP, is whether our differences should be contained by whatever means it takes because an historically informed prophetic eye can see the future point when we will not be so stretched in our diversity.

On the one hand there is a sociological insight that as our respective societies become used to change we will conflict less over change. Here in NZ we might note that we once used to have a law which criminalized sodomy and today we have no one within the Anglican church pressing for its reinstitution. Arguably, however we understand the dynamics of theological difference in our church today, at a future point the dynamics will be different, likely with less angst and more agreement.

On the other hand there is a history-of-theology insight that as our churches engage with contemporary currents in thinking various radicals proposals to depart from traditional orthodoxy capture headlines, even whole seminaries, but eventually we come to our senses and re-assert that (say) God is Trinity, Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and Mary was a virgin when she conceived her son Jesus.

My prediction is that 100 years from now the dust from the present storm will be well settled and any break in our church would be much regretted. How the dust settles will be of interest to future bloggers. I also predict that it will settle in ways that both liberals and conservatives alive today might find unsettling!