dIStinguIShed Anglican!

Is there another Anglican in the world today quite like Canon Andrew White? That is, quite like him for honest opinion fearlessly expressed, willingness to urge military action as only resort left to deal with the evil of ISIS, and, of course, personal courage? We might also add, Has any other Anglican ever invited the leaders of ISIS to dinner?

Two articles tell us about this extraordinary Anglican.

Cole Moreton writes up an interview in the Independent.

Ruth Gledhill reports in Christian Today.

We can all read Andrew White's forthcoming autobiography, My Journey So Far.

His story is entwined with the tragic depletion of the Christian community in Iraq and Syria.

A hermeneutical future?

In my current research in a library, I am doing some interesting reading. Some passages more thought provoking than others. Some potentially more seminal for my overall project re interpreting the Bible.

Here, for instance, is a passage from James Barr, writing in The Scope and Authority of the Bible (1980), p. 60:

‘Let us put it this way: our view of scripture has been too much dominated by the past. I want to suggest that the functioning of the Bible is much more directed towards the future. It is often said that Christianity is a historical religion, and that is in many ways true, though it is a much more vague and uncertain assertion than is commonly understood; but, if it means that Christianity works in the milieu of human historical experience, that milieu exists not only in the direction of the arrow pointing toward the past but also in the direction pointing towards the future. That Christianity is an eschatological religion, looking towards the future fulfilment of God’s promise to mankind, is just as important as that it is a historical religion looking back to certain foundational events.

‘Now this, if valid, is important for several of the questions we have been discussing. First of all, it is important for the direction of the interpretative process. Everyone knows that the Bible is an ancient book. Much of our interpretative striving has been directed towards the task of making the meaning of that ancient book lucid and relevant for the present day, i.e. you take the past meaning of the Bible and seek to transfer it into the present day, to make it clear, bright and meaningful today. But it is doubtful whether this can be done or whether when done it is as rich in results as one would hope.

'Perhaps we should look in the other direction and say that it is not the Bible that needs to be elucidated for the present day, but the present day that needs to be elucidated in the light of the Bible. The Bible is not a book, reporting on what to it was already past, that has then to be dragged into a much later present: rather, it was a book that, though on a first level narrating the past, on a deeper level was speaking of the future and for the future.’

Any comments?

This is the Day which the Lord has Made

So far so good for unity between Australian and New Zealand Christians. We agree that the Lord has made this day, 31 October (northern hemisphere time). It may have been hijacked in times past by pumpkin loving trick or treaters but today is a new day, the day when years of emotional anticipation and depth planning are put to the test. And I am not looking at you, the Head Usher at Twickenham, when I talk about years of planning for this day. St Steve and St Richie, with St Dan and St Ma'a and all the saints in the squad, may our prayers tomorrow on All Saints Day be prayers of thanksgiving and not tears of grief.

LATER: Prayers of Thanksgiving it is! A great game, played well by both sides, with many minutes of it absolutely suitable video material for "How to Play Rugby Perfectly."

Sexualised religion? Maybe misleading!

Jonathan Freedland - a practising Jew - writes for the Guardian about the state of play for religion today. Either he or his sub-editor has supplied the headline:

Religion is like sex – it can seem absurd, but it works

Nothing gets readers reading like making sure 'sex' is in the headline. But in this case the article really is about religion and not about sex. I hope Guardian readers do not feel disappointed :)

You, of course, can be the judge about what he writes.

My judgement is that he makes a small and valuable point: religion has its consolations and comforts; it even motivates compassion.

According to Freedland this is particularly so for Anglicans!

"For increasing numbers of Anglicans, it works that way too. Singing hymns in church is a comfort, reminding them of their childhood or their parents, and leaving them with a glow of warmth towards neighbours they might otherwise never meet."

I suggest all readers here would be united on a rejoinder: that is insipid Anglicanism. True Anglicanism is about changing the world with the gospel of Christ.

The great weakness of Freedland's argument is that he refuses to examine the truth of religious claims. Instead, all that matters are the pragmatic benefits.

Oh, and some Anglicans think neither sex nor religion is absurd :)

The meaning of the text exceeds the Eucharist

In my library perambulations on Scripture and the mercy (grace) of God, with specific reference to John 1:17, I have come across Richard Bauckham's latest book, Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015).

One of his chapters is entitled "Sacraments?" and in the course his reflections he has this to say about John 6:51c, 53-56:

"Since it is distinctively eucharistic language that appears in 6:53-56, it will almost inevitably call the Eucharist to the minds of Christian readers familiar with that language. We must reckon seriously with this "overtone," but at the same time we should not allow it to replace the primary meaning of the text. Responsible readers who recognize the eucharistic overtone will understand it in a way that is consistent with the primary meaning of the text. There is nothing in the context to support the view that John was actually warning against an unacceptable sacramentalism in which too much importance was attached to the material elements of the rite.* But the passage surely resists any eucharistic reading of it in which the material elements of the rite take the place of the faith in the crucified Jesus that it is primarily about. In other words, the Eucharist can be relevant to a reading of the text only insofar as the Eucharist is understood precisely as an expression of faith in the crucified Jesus and as a symbol of participation in his life. Then the text can function to teach participants in the Eucharist what the sacrament is actually about. At the same time, it is vital to recognize that while the Eucharist is the communal rite that focuses what this text is about in the life of the church, the meaning of the text exceeds the Eucharist. The primary meaning is both more basic and more extensive than the sacramental overtone." [p. 103; my italics]

*That blows away one theory of mine!

At the heart of Anglican Communion life is, well, communion and it is important that we understand (as far as we are able this side of the Parousia) what communion is and is not.

Mercy Nudges the Door

I am trying to make sense of the end of the Synod in Rome. Yesterday's post linked to a conservative commentator concluding it was a conservative victory. Ditto Damian Thompson here. 

Today I point you to Archbishop Cranmer, to a post which has many links to commentators of varying hues. 

I suggest that a wider reading of commentary on the concluding document of the Synod leads to a fuzzier conclusion about the meaning of the document and the question - if we might put it this way - of 'who won?'. (Update: see now Catholic Herald and the RNS. I think Francis will be well satisfied with the outcome.) 

(Very conservative) Rorate Caeli, for instance, feels quite bleak about the document as he offers citation of the most controversial passages and critical comment.

The concluding document in Italian is here. As best I can tell the English version is not available in full though clearly commentators are making available English versions of some paragraphs. (So also here).

Currently I am working on a project concerning Scripture as God's gracious truth. So I am slightly more interested in the outworking of 'mercy' in this document than I might ordinarily have been.

It beggars belief for this bear of small brain that the appearance of mercy nudging the door to communion for remarried-without-annulment Catholics brought such forceful opposition during the Synod proceedings, as characterised in these paragraphs in America- the National Catholic Review:

"Indeed, the most heated discussion in the synod revolved around one theme in this chapter: the controversial question of whether Catholics who have divorced and civilly remarried could, under certain circumstances, receive communion. A sizeable group of synod fathers, including three cardinals heading Roman Curia Offices (Ouellet, Sarah and Pell), sought to totally exclude this possibility from the text but in the end they failed.  

“Discernment” is the key word to understand the synod’s approach to this question, Cardinal Schonborn told the press. He said the synod gives “great attention” to their situation, which is so diversified that “there is no black and white answer, no simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’” as some insisted, instead “it’s necessary to discern in each case.” He recalled that this was exactly what John Paul II had advocated in his 1981 apostolic exhortation on the family, "Familiaris Consortio." Moreover, he added, “discernment” is something that Pope Francis knows a lot about; with his Jesuit background of the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, he has been doing it all his life. 

This key word—“discernment”—appears in several paragraphs, three of which (83-84-85) encountered very strong opposition from a group of synod fathers that wanted to totally exclude the possibility that the divorced and remarried could ever be allowed to receive communion."

As I understand the 'controversial' paragraphs of the final document, they are not controversial because they change the substance of Catholic teaching on marriage but because they open the door a crack (and only a crack) to some variation around the world as to how individual bishops guide their pastors in responding pastorally to people in new marriages after divorce.

As I also understand life itself, this possibility of variation via 'discernment' fits with life. Some sacramental* marriages breakdown because of wilful destruction (e.g. one partner embarks on an affair and subsequently marries that new partner); it may be (relatively) easy to discern the 'wrongdoer' and the 'wronged'; and it may be (relatively) easy to maintain an application of Jesus' teaching which permanently refuses to give communion to the wrongdoer. But what of the wronged person who then remarries? And what of other breakdowns in marriages which are not as straightforward as 'broken-by-unfaithfulness'?

Is the way of Jesus in these situations best captured by the 'group of synod fathers that wanted to totally exclude the possibility that the divorced and remarried could ever be allowed to receive communion'? Or is it better captured by the fathers who voted for the controversial paragraphs?

*I specifically refer to 'sacramental marriages' because I think it a distraction to keep referring to possibilities of 'annulment' as a way forward for some marriages/remarriages which (on Roman reckoning) never were a sacramental marriage. Sacramental marriages can and do breakdown. As I understand things, those situations are the 'interesting' ones because they do not admit of the theologically simple solution of annulment. (Most such situations are, of course, pastorally complex.) Mercy might apply even to these situations!

From an Anglican point of view it is refreshing to see open debate emerging through mainstream and social media within world Catholicism. This debate should restrain any temptation to cast Anglican anxieties and contretemps as somehow ill-befitting a global church with claims to catholicity. The Archbishop Cupichs and Cardinal Kaspers of the Roman Catholic church have demonstrated that thinking Christians of all persuasions are likely to engender controversy when they articulate the mind as well as the heart of Christ, when they voice the tension between doctrine and practice. They have our Anglican sympathies.

World Cup Doctrine and Practice Final: Rome v Canterbury

Am on a poor internet connection today so I will get you to do the work in this competition ...

Tim Stanley reports on the outcome of the Roman synod on family here.

[Spoiler Alert: Rome remains Roman!]

As I read the report I was struck by points of comparison (e.g. conservative Africa) and points of distinction between Rome and Canterbury on matters under discussion. Matters we Anglicans have debated publicly for years but which Roman bishops have only just found their public voice (including 'public' via leakage, spin and even blogging).

What strikes you?

PS in that other World Cup competition going on at the moment, just in case you missed the news, the All Blacks are the first team ever to make four Rugby World Cup Finals.