Oh boy

This is what we need when reading the Old Testament, struggling to make sense of which bits belong where and were written by whom, J, D, E, P, or Thee:

"Over the past decade, computer programmes have increasingly been assisting Bible scholars in searching and comparing texts, but the novelty of the new software seems to be in its ability to take criteria developed by scholars and apply them through a technological tool more powerful in many respects than the human mind, Segal said.


Before applying the software to the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible, the researchers first needed a more objective test to prove the algorithm could correctly distinguish one author from another.

So they randomly jumbled the Hebrew Bible's books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah into one text and ran the software. It sorted the mixed-up text into its component parts "almost perfectly," the researchers announced."

NZH's whole article is here.

Oh dear

No time to post this morning. Apologetic energies have been taken up drafting up a response to an opinion piece in this morning's Press (A13), arguing that our "Cathedral no longer has a place at centre of city". By one George Sweet, self-described as "a Christian atheist." It is true. I read it in the newspaper!

Style and Substance

I like this post. Being Anglican is not - in my and in this poster's view - about maintaining a preference or familiar custom, filling a niche in the religious marketplace, or fermenting a good fit between faith and fashion. It is about what is true and what is not, about what the Bible says and what it does not say, about what is the correct course of Christian tradition and what is not. It is about style and substance in the manner of being Christian.

To be Anglican is to be faithful to Jesus Christ. Or it is nothing.

Elect your bishops democratically, Church of England!

The usual lather, if not blather is being worked up in the Church of England re the announcement of the formation of the AMiE ("Come, let us de-toxify our church"). Fulcrum, for instance, has published a formal response here, and discussion is beginning on this thread. But here is the thing we will see very little of in the blather: any loud, clear call to the Church of England to cease appointing its bishops through a committee and to begin instead to nominate bishops to the crown via diocesan elections.

In the present context there are two vital advantages to synodical election of bishops. First, each party within the church can put up its candidate for consideration, seek to persuade others of the merit of the candidate, and see how the wider body of Christ responds to that persuasion. If (say) conservative evangelicals or anglo-catholics are elected, then they have a voice in the episcopal corridors and the whole church is faced with the strength of grass-roots support for such bishops. Conversely, if such candidates are not elected, then their support parties are faced with numerical facts regarding what the grass-roots think. There is no chance of conspiracy theories arising about this or that cabal allegedly controlling the church from the top down.

Secondly, there is the great advantage in a situation in which a church is faced with the prospect of partnered gay bishops or women bishops, that those wanting or not wanting such bishops have an opportunity of voting accordingly (albeit via elected representatives from ministry units, representatives who have opportunity to discern the minds of their ministry units). Otherwise those not wanting such bishops have real fear that they will be imposed on them, and out of that fear will organise such things as AMiE. Meanwhile those wanting such bishops may have cause to criticise the hierarchy for being vacillating, prone to give into fears fuelled by the latest lobbying of a pressure group they have received, etc. Let democracy reign, and let respect for the power of the people begin.

Democracy in the C of E alone would not prevent movements such as AMiE arising. After all, that is what has happened in North America where bishops are elected through synodical elections. But at least in North America, churches there can say of a controversial bishop, "his or her people want this person to be their bishop." England cannot say that and it lacks the moral authority to respond to the formation of AMiE with a statement about how conservative evangelicals have the same opportunity to present candidates for bishoprics as any other group in the church.

Toxic and Exotic?

In the ongoing engagement with the future direction of global Anglicanism, some member churches of the Anglican Communion are of more interest to some engagers than others, one is TEC, another is the Church of England (CofE), with the result that attempts are being made, by various organisations, some old, some brand new, to influence if not alter radically, the general direction of that member church. The recent establishment of the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) is such an attempt. Its raison d'etre is:

"AMIE has been established as a society within the Church of England dedicated to the conversion of England and biblical church planting."

This sounds novel (but there are other societies dedicated to the conversion of England, including the hitherto much under-estimated "Church of England") and innocuous (but ask the question, "Will the church plants be authorised by the local C of E bishop?" and it is immediately unclear what the answer is). Some explanation is given by Charles Raven here, but his very celebration of the announcement begs a question or two, as Charles leads an Anglican church in England which is not of the Church of England. His Anglican church is one which has broken away from the formal structure of the Church of England. There are already Anglican churches in England which are plants and not breakaways. One example is Christchurch, Durham. It is linked to various Anglican organisations (e.g. Reform, the Proclamation Trust) but not to the Diocese of Durham.

Another intriguing element of AMiE is its talk of a 'panel of bishops' to oversee its work. I cannot find in the GAFCON statement linked to above whether those bishops are solely C of E bishops or a wider grouping, but Charles Raven's explanatory statement linked to above mentions that at the announcement meeting three Anglican clergy ordained out in Kenya by a Kenyan bishop were welcomed and commissioned for work in England. But to work in the Church of England (with a few exceptions*) requires the acceptance for and licensing of that work by a C of E bishop, thus raising the question that it is likely men who felt they would not be ordained in the C of E may have been ordained for Anglican work outside of the C of E. Then by turns it seems reasonable to suppose that the 'panel of bishops' will include bishops from outside of England.

Rachel Marszalek, whose blog is linked to here, has responded to the AMiE announcement via commentary on Richard Hooker. Her response is provoked by an analysis of the state of the Church of England which justifies the seemingly exotic origins of AMiE in terms of that state being 'toxic'.

My question, from a long way a way, is What the attitude of evangelicals in AMiE is to evangelicals not in AMiE or its associated organisations? If the attitude is, We will plant churches in your parishes if we deem you to be insufficiently evangelical, then I suggest AMiE take a very careful look at itself and reflect carefully on what is 'toxic' and what is not in the life of God's mission and ministry in England.

But AMiE may have no such attitude. It may be solely concerned to fight progessivism and liberalism where it deviates from orthodox Anglican theology as that is understood in the Church of England (cf. Canon A5 of that church). It may be aiming to spearhead a movement for renewal in the Church of England with a keen evangelistic edge which gathers up all parts of the C of E committed both to A5 and the conversion of England. It may be so compelling in its raison d'etre that it scoops up support of a great majority of C of E bishops, drawn to renew the vigour and enthusiasm with which they lead the church in its apostolic mission.

We shall see.

Meanwhile, I really like the approach of Cranmer's Curate, another English blog linked to here, whose latest post is both supportive of AMiE and critical with a twist, urging consideration of mission to the north of England. POSTSCRIPT: I see that Cranmer's Curate has CHANGED his original post to this. All reference to AMiE removed. Now why would that be?

Incidentally, I like CC's simplicity of description of the core of ministry:

"preaching Christ's Word and administering his Sacraments."

*In England there are a few "proprietary chapels" which are Anglican and yet can appoint whom they choose to be their minister, without reference to the local bishop (though if that minister wished to be a licensed Anglican clergyperson they would need a license of thir bishop). Or, so I understand these ecclesiastical anomalies.

How did that sermon go? Well, it was "interesting."

Don't worry. You will not have to put up with preacher navel gazing here at ADU week by week. But occasionally I shall indulge myself. My sermon this morning on the readings discussed in yesterday's post went across quite well. Some comments were kind. But one person as they left the service thanked me for my "interesting sermon."

On reflection I realise that "interesting" in such a context is full of possibilities (most of which are not encouraging for the preacher). You can probably think of more possible meanings. Here are the ones I have thought of:

"I completely disagreed with what you said but am too polite to say so."

"What a pot-pouri of a sermon. So many things to think about. I have no idea what main message you were trying to get across."

"I have been a Christian for many years and thought I understood our orthodox faith very well, but I have never heard any Christian teaching like what you put forward. You're probably a heretic, but I had better check with the vicar before I write to the bishop."

"I do not normally go to church and have no idea what the purpose of sermons is, but what you said was as interesting as any talk I hear at Rotary these days."

"Basically all the sermons I have heard lately have been extremely boring, so it was quite a surprise this morning to find that I actually listened to some of what you said."

"I had not realised the full depths of obscure details in the Bible but I have had my eyes opened, thanks to you!"

Tomorrow's Interesting Readings

Jeremiah 28:5-9
Romans 6:12-23
Matthew 10:40-42

Straight up confession to fellow Kiwis. I cannot get too excited about the possibility of speaking about Te Pouhere - the Constitution (of our church) this Sunday 26th June, which day to celebrate Te Pouhere it is on our local ecclesial calendar. But if I were to choose that, what a dog's breakfast for a prospective Pouhere preacher lies in our lectionary - multiple gospel readings. What's with that? Why not one this year, another next and work on a four year cycle? Our constitution is a good thing, but I suggest there are better ways to attend to it than in a sermon. (Were I a vicar I might write an insert for the parish newsheet).

So the standard, non-dog's breakfast readings it is. An interesting set (here the Related readings rather than the Continuous) so Jeremiah (False Prophecy) and Matthew (one theme is 'prophets') are related, though perhaps here more like cousins than siblings, let alone parent and child. Romans then sticks out a bit like a sore hitch-hiker's thumb, pointing in a seemingly different direction: sin/righteousness, law/grace, death/life.

I quite like the challenge of interesting sets of readings such as this. One of my principles in preaching is to have 'one message' - whatever is said coheres around a single theme so that hearers leave the service with one and only one message to recall. What is the single theme in this set? Is there one?

Incidentally, I think is an honourable strategy to opt to choose one reading and major the sermon on that, but I encourage some reference, even just a sentence, to the other readings. But back to our set. Is there a single theme?

Re-reading Matthew 10:40-42 we find:

"10:40 “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

 10:41 Whoever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward. Whoever receives a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward.

 10:42 And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, I tell you the truth, he will never lose his reward.” "

Hmm. Plenty of potential to get sidetracked into details. What is a "prophet's reward"? What does "in the name of a disciple" mean? (The NET here follows the Greek very closely. Interestingly the ESV interprets this phrase with "because he is a disciple"). But what, if anything, is a potential theme connecting the readings together? What in one sentence is a message we can read out of these readings (not read into them)?

Any thoughts from you are most welcome!

I am posting this c. 6.30 am NZ time ... my own thoughts are coming together, so will offer a postscript later today ... a couple of meetings and other stuff to get through first!

POSTSCRIPT: c. 6.45 pm "The message and messengers of the gospel matter" is what I am working on.
Jeremiah tells us that it matters whether the message we preach is true or false. Jesus tells us that the messengers matter. Paul tells us that the message of the gospel is a matter of life and death.

Just the question of relating all that to the earthquake ...