My life is in a bit of upheaval at the moment. Through this year I have been keenly desiring a change in ministry work. Some doors have had the handles turned on them, but they have remained shut. One has opened, and Wednesday just past it was announced in the Diocese of Christchurch (NZ) that I will be its new Director of Education*, working on the staff of Bishop Victoria Matthews, beginning late January 2010. It is with much regret and mixed feelings that I leave my current role in the Diocese of Nelson - it has been a great and wonderful journey these last sixteen years, nine of which in my role as Ministry Educator - peopled by colleagues who have been friends and friends who have been colleagues. But when it is time to go, it is time to go.
Anyway, months ago, before it was at all clear that I would seek this appointment, let alone that I would be successful with my application, I agreed to lead a workshop on Preaching Luke's Gospel in Christchurch. As it began yesterday I became aware of the irony of the situation: within 48 hours of being appointed to the Education role those appointing me would have opportunity to regret the appointment!
Thanks be to God the workshop went well. The sun even shone warmly today (it does not do so as frequently there as up here in Nelson). All will be well.
*The Director of Education role will include responsibilities for theological education of lay and ordained (co-ordinating some courses, leading others), oversight of the Diocesan Ordination Training and Post Ordination Training programmes, in service training, and being part of the Bishop's executive staff team. For those knowledgeable of the "NZ scene" the role incorporates and extends the previous role of Director of Theology House. See also here.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Hey, bishop, don't trash our church
Titus One Nine has posted the following, from here:
"Bishop [John] Broadhurst said that Pope Benedict has made his offer in response to the pleas of Anglicans who despair at the disintegration of their Church. “Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues,” said the bishop.
“There is widespread dissent across the [Anglican] Communion. We are divided in major ways on major issues and the Communion has unraveled. I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own. I personally think it has gone past the point of no return. The Anglican experiment is over.”
In an emotional closing speech on Saturday, Bishop Broadhurst used the metaphor of the frog and the boiling pot to describe the current Anglican status."
Bishop John Broadhurst, by the way, is an Anglican bishop. Why is he trashing his own church with talk about 'the Anglican experiment'? Should he be sacked on the spot?
If he isn't, his statements stand rather exposed for shallowness of thinking thinner than a drop of paint in a bucket of turps. Think with me:
'The Anglican experiment is over'? Not this Sunday. Pretty much the usual millions will be in church across the world. Even in England the usual numbers in the pews will still be there. Bless them, faithful ones all!
'Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues.' That would be the same joke being played out in a number of churches which live with lively issues which do not go away because that is humanity? (Rewritten) Has the RCC 'dealt' with all issues relating to a celibate priesthood, including falling numbers of priests in many countries?
We might go onto observe that that particular church, which Broadhurst appears keen on, cannot say it has dealt with any issue the Anglican church is currently facing. At best it can say it is keeping these issues at bay!
'the Communion has unraveled' Really? Unraveling here and there, yes; but past tense? No, I do not think so. Certainly not in this fair corner of the Anglican world.
'I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own.' So Anglicans have no doctrine of our own? And that's a problem? Is not doctrine, true orthodox Christian doctrine, truth which belongs to all? Does he mean we have absolutely no doctrine period? (We do). Does he mean we have no distinctive doctrine to call our own? (I hope a church which is rooted in the undivided church and then reformed according to the best teaching of the Continental Reformation has no distinctive doctrine of its own).
"Bishop [John] Broadhurst said that Pope Benedict has made his offer in response to the pleas of Anglicans who despair at the disintegration of their Church. “Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues,” said the bishop.
“There is widespread dissent across the [Anglican] Communion. We are divided in major ways on major issues and the Communion has unraveled. I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own. I personally think it has gone past the point of no return. The Anglican experiment is over.”
In an emotional closing speech on Saturday, Bishop Broadhurst used the metaphor of the frog and the boiling pot to describe the current Anglican status."
Bishop John Broadhurst, by the way, is an Anglican bishop. Why is he trashing his own church with talk about 'the Anglican experiment'? Should he be sacked on the spot?
If he isn't, his statements stand rather exposed for shallowness of thinking thinner than a drop of paint in a bucket of turps. Think with me:
'The Anglican experiment is over'? Not this Sunday. Pretty much the usual millions will be in church across the world. Even in England the usual numbers in the pews will still be there. Bless them, faithful ones all!
'Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues.' That would be the same joke being played out in a number of churches which live with lively issues which do not go away because that is humanity? (Rewritten) Has the RCC 'dealt' with all issues relating to a celibate priesthood, including falling numbers of priests in many countries?
We might go onto observe that that particular church, which Broadhurst appears keen on, cannot say it has dealt with any issue the Anglican church is currently facing. At best it can say it is keeping these issues at bay!
'the Communion has unraveled' Really? Unraveling here and there, yes; but past tense? No, I do not think so. Certainly not in this fair corner of the Anglican world.
'I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own.' So Anglicans have no doctrine of our own? And that's a problem? Is not doctrine, true orthodox Christian doctrine, truth which belongs to all? Does he mean we have absolutely no doctrine period? (We do). Does he mean we have no distinctive doctrine to call our own? (I hope a church which is rooted in the undivided church and then reformed according to the best teaching of the Continental Reformation has no distinctive doctrine of its own).
Kiwi cartoonist take on Benedict's kind invite (T. Scott)
For the record, I do not agree with Tom Scott's characterization of the situation. But it's a great cartoon!
No, really, Hans, feel free to speak frankly
Hans Kung, speaks, one German to another, to the Pope and his minions about the offer to Anglicans. Reading Kung, and knowing the Pope's nickname, I am having trouble working our who is the rottweiler! Here's a sample of the Kungian bark:
"Since the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?"
Read it all here.
"Since the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?"
Read it all here.
Be Anglican boldly!
John Richardson of The Ugley Vicar has a post which says things dear to my heart about being Anglican and evangelical. I think what he says is quite challenging to many Anglican evangelicals/evangelical Anglicans, especially of the 'it's a good boat to fish from' variety ('so long as it doesn't leak faster than the bilge pump works I'll stay on board'!). Here's a sample:
"In the face of this, the natural response of traditionalist Evangelicals has been to withdraw both physically and mentally from the Church of England. The more they have done this, however, the worse —oddly enough —the problem has become. The answer advocated by most is increasingly to formalize this distancing from the institution. The answer I am advocating is that we reverse the process entirely.
"I remember once listening to George Carey, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury, describe himself as a Christian first, an Anglican second, and an Evangelical third. At the time I was distinctly unimpressed. I now want to suggest he was right, albeit for the wrong reasons. I now want to suggest that those who currently think of themselves as ‘Evangelical Anglicans’ should see themselves as Christians first, Church of England second, and Evangelicals only as a distant and carefully nuanced third.
"How can I, as a hitherto-dedicated Conservative Evangelical, make such a suggestion?
"The first reason is that, at the time of the Reformation, the Church of England committed itself to the principle that Scripture is its final authority in matters of faith. The formularies of the Church of England (to which incidentally it is bound by the law of the land), declare that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation (Article 6), and that whilst the Church itself has “authority in Controversies of Faith” it cannot “ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written”. It is this commitment, above all, which makes me glad to be a member of that body which bears the name ‘the Church of England’.
"In his magnum opus, Bishop Stephen Neill wrote that the theological essence of Anglicanism is this:
'Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it.' (Anglicanism, Pelican Books, 1965, p 417)
"Yet, as some will point out, this is exactly what Evangelicals would claim for themselves. Why not, then, go on being Evangelicals within Anglicanism?
"The answer lies in the fact that evangelicalism no longer has —if it ever had —a unifying theology. The Church of England, however, has at its core precisely that, for it is still (by the grace of God!) tied to the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Thirty-nine Articles. It is bound to these by law, and it is rooted in them historically via the Reformation itself."
I especially like the quote from Stephen Neill. Read the whole here.
"In the face of this, the natural response of traditionalist Evangelicals has been to withdraw both physically and mentally from the Church of England. The more they have done this, however, the worse —oddly enough —the problem has become. The answer advocated by most is increasingly to formalize this distancing from the institution. The answer I am advocating is that we reverse the process entirely.
"I remember once listening to George Carey, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury, describe himself as a Christian first, an Anglican second, and an Evangelical third. At the time I was distinctly unimpressed. I now want to suggest he was right, albeit for the wrong reasons. I now want to suggest that those who currently think of themselves as ‘Evangelical Anglicans’ should see themselves as Christians first, Church of England second, and Evangelicals only as a distant and carefully nuanced third.
"How can I, as a hitherto-dedicated Conservative Evangelical, make such a suggestion?
"The first reason is that, at the time of the Reformation, the Church of England committed itself to the principle that Scripture is its final authority in matters of faith. The formularies of the Church of England (to which incidentally it is bound by the law of the land), declare that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation (Article 6), and that whilst the Church itself has “authority in Controversies of Faith” it cannot “ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written”. It is this commitment, above all, which makes me glad to be a member of that body which bears the name ‘the Church of England’.
"In his magnum opus, Bishop Stephen Neill wrote that the theological essence of Anglicanism is this:
'Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it.' (Anglicanism, Pelican Books, 1965, p 417)
"Yet, as some will point out, this is exactly what Evangelicals would claim for themselves. Why not, then, go on being Evangelicals within Anglicanism?
"The answer lies in the fact that evangelicalism no longer has —if it ever had —a unifying theology. The Church of England, however, has at its core precisely that, for it is still (by the grace of God!) tied to the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Thirty-nine Articles. It is bound to these by law, and it is rooted in them historically via the Reformation itself."
I especially like the quote from Stephen Neill. Read the whole here.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Now that's interesting
... shows how much I know about the church in Sweden when quite a bit of the detail in this article by Andrew Brown is complete news to me!
It begins thus:
"The Church of Sweden's decision to make no distinction in its marriage service between straight and gay couples is not as straightforward a triumph for liberal attitudes as it may seem. For one thing, half the church's bishops signed a letter condemning it; but the extraordinary decision-making structure of the Swedish church means they have no special voice in its decisions.
The church is run by an assembly that is elected directly – in theory by all its members. In practice, the turnout is about 10% and the great majority are elected on the tickets of secular political parties. This is great for the political parties, who thus get another way to reward their members with office and a chance to practise getting out the voters. Before the last church assembly elections, Mona Sahlin, the leader of the Social Democrats, announced that party members have as much of a duty to vote in these as in any other elections. Sahlin is not herself a member of the church, nor a Christian."
Read it all here.
... shows how much I know what is going on in Benedict's grand plan, but Ross Douthat suggests that the real aim of the Anglican invite from B16 to join the fold as a separate flock is less increasing the acreage of Rome, and more keeping the growth of Islam at bay:
"But in making the opening to Anglicanism, Benedict also may have a deeper conflict in mind — not the parochial Western struggle between conservative and liberal believers, but Christianity’s global encounter with a resurgent Islam.
"Here Catholicism and Anglicanism share two fronts. In Europe, both are weakened players, caught between a secular majority and an expanding Muslim population. In Africa, increasingly the real heart of the Anglican Communion, both are facing an entrenched Islamic presence across a fault line running from Nigeria to Sudan.
"Where the European encounter is concerned, Pope Benedict has opted for public confrontation. In a controversial 2006 address in Regensburg, Germany, he explicitly challenged Islam’s compatibility with the Western way of reason — and sparked, as if in vindication of his point, a wave of Muslim riots around the world.
"By contrast, the Church of England’s leadership has opted for conciliation (some would say appeasement), with the Archbishop of Canterbury going so far as to speculate about the inevitability of some kind of sharia law in Britain.
"There are an awful lot of Anglicans, in England and Africa alike, who would prefer a leader who takes Benedict’s approach to the Islamic challenge. Now they can have one, if they want him.
This could be the real significance of last week’s invitation. What’s being interpreted, for now, as an intra-Christian skirmish may eventually be remembered as the first step toward a united Anglican-Catholic front — not against liberalism or atheism, but against Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe."
That's the end of the article. The beginning is brilliant. Read it all here. (H/T B Thomas)
It begins thus:
"The Church of Sweden's decision to make no distinction in its marriage service between straight and gay couples is not as straightforward a triumph for liberal attitudes as it may seem. For one thing, half the church's bishops signed a letter condemning it; but the extraordinary decision-making structure of the Swedish church means they have no special voice in its decisions.
The church is run by an assembly that is elected directly – in theory by all its members. In practice, the turnout is about 10% and the great majority are elected on the tickets of secular political parties. This is great for the political parties, who thus get another way to reward their members with office and a chance to practise getting out the voters. Before the last church assembly elections, Mona Sahlin, the leader of the Social Democrats, announced that party members have as much of a duty to vote in these as in any other elections. Sahlin is not herself a member of the church, nor a Christian."
Read it all here.
... shows how much I know what is going on in Benedict's grand plan, but Ross Douthat suggests that the real aim of the Anglican invite from B16 to join the fold as a separate flock is less increasing the acreage of Rome, and more keeping the growth of Islam at bay:
"But in making the opening to Anglicanism, Benedict also may have a deeper conflict in mind — not the parochial Western struggle between conservative and liberal believers, but Christianity’s global encounter with a resurgent Islam.
"Here Catholicism and Anglicanism share two fronts. In Europe, both are weakened players, caught between a secular majority and an expanding Muslim population. In Africa, increasingly the real heart of the Anglican Communion, both are facing an entrenched Islamic presence across a fault line running from Nigeria to Sudan.
"Where the European encounter is concerned, Pope Benedict has opted for public confrontation. In a controversial 2006 address in Regensburg, Germany, he explicitly challenged Islam’s compatibility with the Western way of reason — and sparked, as if in vindication of his point, a wave of Muslim riots around the world.
"By contrast, the Church of England’s leadership has opted for conciliation (some would say appeasement), with the Archbishop of Canterbury going so far as to speculate about the inevitability of some kind of sharia law in Britain.
"There are an awful lot of Anglicans, in England and Africa alike, who would prefer a leader who takes Benedict’s approach to the Islamic challenge. Now they can have one, if they want him.
This could be the real significance of last week’s invitation. What’s being interpreted, for now, as an intra-Christian skirmish may eventually be remembered as the first step toward a united Anglican-Catholic front — not against liberalism or atheism, but against Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe."
That's the end of the article. The beginning is brilliant. Read it all here. (H/T B Thomas)
Are Pitcher and Global South on the same page?
George Pitcher writing in the Sunday Telegraph has an optimistic view of the future of the C of E, for which I am grateful. He ends his column with this:
"It may not have been his intention, but not a few [gay] Anglican priests will have had their bluff called by his generous offer. If they really object to women bishops so much, they are going to have to leave their partners.
"But that is not their only choice. The Pope's initiative could serve to move the Church of England in a mysterious way. It could concentrate all our minds on what it means to be a tolerant, broad church in the Reformist tradition. An unintended consequence of the Pope's offer could be the recognition of a rich tradition that can accommodate all kinds of churchmanship. And, crucially, all kinds of people on equal terms, whatever their sexuality or gender. There was fighting talk from Anglo-Catholics at the weekend that "the Anglican experiment is over" and that "to stay in the Church of England would be suicide". But I suspect that they, and even the Pope, would concede that rumours of the death of the Church of England are greatly exaggerated."
He pitches it right when he says, "It could concentrate all our minds on what it means to be a tolerant, broad church in the Reformist tradition. An unintended consequence of the Pope's offer could be the recognition of a rich tradition that can accommodate all kinds of churchmanship." That after all is our history and what leads many of us to join and/or remain Anglicans. (His next sentence is an aspiration, whether we can get there from our history is another thing).
The Global South Primates Steering Committee has this to say by way of pastoral exhortation on the occasion of the Pope's announcement:
"4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and principled way forward in pursuing God’s divine purposes together in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the Covenant.
"5. In God’s gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part. In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight."
Not a word about being tolerant or broad! Yet Pitcher's approach, if taken literally, must take account of the concerns of the Global South statement. An Anglican Communion, and a C of E which is genuinely inclusive of "all kinds of churchmanship" must account for those of us concerned for "matters of faith and order" while offering effective pastoral leadership "so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight".
Global South, of course, is making a subtle point in the last sentence cited above. There are Anglicans who have taken to unusual episcopal arrangements in order not to be bereft of spiritual oversight - a matter which does not seem of sufficient concern to some Anglican primates. So GS critiques this omission. But "effective leadership in nourishing the flock", precisely, is what the Pope is offering to those Anglicans who will take up his offer. GS primates are giving their fellow primates a rev up over the same issue that the Pope is using as reason for making his offer.
"It may not have been his intention, but not a few [gay] Anglican priests will have had their bluff called by his generous offer. If they really object to women bishops so much, they are going to have to leave their partners.
"But that is not their only choice. The Pope's initiative could serve to move the Church of England in a mysterious way. It could concentrate all our minds on what it means to be a tolerant, broad church in the Reformist tradition. An unintended consequence of the Pope's offer could be the recognition of a rich tradition that can accommodate all kinds of churchmanship. And, crucially, all kinds of people on equal terms, whatever their sexuality or gender. There was fighting talk from Anglo-Catholics at the weekend that "the Anglican experiment is over" and that "to stay in the Church of England would be suicide". But I suspect that they, and even the Pope, would concede that rumours of the death of the Church of England are greatly exaggerated."
He pitches it right when he says, "It could concentrate all our minds on what it means to be a tolerant, broad church in the Reformist tradition. An unintended consequence of the Pope's offer could be the recognition of a rich tradition that can accommodate all kinds of churchmanship." That after all is our history and what leads many of us to join and/or remain Anglicans. (His next sentence is an aspiration, whether we can get there from our history is another thing).
The Global South Primates Steering Committee has this to say by way of pastoral exhortation on the occasion of the Pope's announcement:
"4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and principled way forward in pursuing God’s divine purposes together in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the Covenant.
"5. In God’s gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part. In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight."
Not a word about being tolerant or broad! Yet Pitcher's approach, if taken literally, must take account of the concerns of the Global South statement. An Anglican Communion, and a C of E which is genuinely inclusive of "all kinds of churchmanship" must account for those of us concerned for "matters of faith and order" while offering effective pastoral leadership "so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight".
Global South, of course, is making a subtle point in the last sentence cited above. There are Anglicans who have taken to unusual episcopal arrangements in order not to be bereft of spiritual oversight - a matter which does not seem of sufficient concern to some Anglican primates. So GS critiques this omission. But "effective leadership in nourishing the flock", precisely, is what the Pope is offering to those Anglicans who will take up his offer. GS primates are giving their fellow primates a rev up over the same issue that the Pope is using as reason for making his offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)