Oh, so that is why you have been somewhat distracted lately ...

It is true. Blogging will never be the same again. I will need to be even more diplomatic than I have, ahem, always mostly tried to be. But I will keep blogging even though this is now my life. The ways of God are mysterious and I never thought I would reach this day, but it has come to pass - thanks be to God.

Sydney, Hamilton, Dunedin: Anglicans Down Under!

Sydney/Hamilton

Last Thursday I went to a fascinating and memorable meeting in Hamilton. Its genesis lay in the GS 2018 Motion 7 decisions, a response to that from the Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, and a response to that response from our Archbishops by way of invitation to meet kanohi ke te kanohi (face to face). Around 20 of us gathered at Hemi Tapu, a Maori Anglican pastorate church and hall, to speak freely to Archbishop Glenn and then, at the end of our day together, for Glenn to speak to us. Those from our church included bishops, clergy, laity, drawn from Tikanga Pakeha and Tikanga Maori, most of whom self-identified in respect of our spectrum of theologies, of responses to GS 2018*, and sexualities.**

It was a fascinating and memorable meeting because of the mix of people and views present, because of the gracious and warm hospitality shown us, because of the warm fellowship in the place as we mixed and mingled over food and drink as well as engaged in discussion, and, last but not least, because of the careful and considerate contribution Archbishop Glenn himself made to our hui.

A report from Archbishop Glenn is here on the Sydney.net website.

I understand that Anglican Taonga may also soon have a report on its site. (It is working on another story at the moment - more on that in my next post, hopefully later today).

I encourage you to read the Davies report.It contains an attractive vision for a way forward for our church but also, and perhaps more helpfully, for the global Anglican movements. (I say "more helpfully" because a shift in tone and stance between global Anglican movements would be very encouraging for us locally as we work on the almost certain future in which we have two Anglican churches in these Blessed Isles.)

(*A leading figure re disaffiliation was there, three key leaders in the formation of the "AFFIRM Christian Community" contributed, I was specifically asked to be present as an evangelical who is comfortable staying in our church. **A gay priest commented that in his experience this  gathering of our church had the highest percentage of gay and lesbian Anglicans ever. Let the reader understand: the percentage was some 15-20%, but there have been gathering to talk about gay and lesbian Anglicans at which no such Anglicans have been present.)

Dunedin

Recently an Anglo-Catholic hui was held in Dunedin and a full report is now on Taonga, here. The event seems most worthwhile and there is the prospect of another such hui being held in the Diocese of Wellington next year. Christchurch in 2020?

What can a Kiwi bishop authorise re liturgy?

This post has been significantly revised after its initial posting since I thought I had the correct version of Title G Canon XIV. I now have that canon correctly and have revised my words below accordingly.

Within our church we have had a fairly broad approach to what constitutes an "authorised" service. Currently, as the pertinent example for this post, bishops and priests are permitted to use for a eucharistic prayer, any such prayer authorised for use in any other province of the Anglican Communion.

This provision has been welcomed in a number of parishes because it enables use of eucharistic prayers seen as more appropriate for certain contexts than anything comparable within our authorised prayers - a popular example being the use of "Prayer H" from the Church of England's Common Worship service book (pp. 204-205 in my lovely black leather edition).

This provision has also been welcomed in a number of parishes because it enables (say) a new vicar from the Church of Mars to continue to use tried and familiar rites from the Martian prayer book.

At least two criticisms of this universal inclusivity of authorised eucharistic prayers matter in my mind.

1. It unwisely presumes that all Anglican authorised eucharistic prayers are equally valuable (even as they are equally "valid" as Anglican eucharists). But, intrinsically, this is unlikely because (e.g.) we do not find that across the Communion all provinces are equally committed to inclusive language. And, of course, only one province, our own, is committed to the use of Te Reo Maori in eucharistic services.

2.  While it usefully opens the doors to "valuable" eucharist prayers from other provinces, it also potentially closes the door in some parishes to use of our own eucharistic prayers - prayers liturgical servants of our church have laboured over to produce and for which our church through synodical decision has expressed its intent to use as the "common prayer" of this church.

Consequently I support (and voted for at GS 2018) a bill to remove the current permission to use any authorised eucharistic prayer from any Anglican province of the Communion. That removal comes before our Diocesan synod for consideration in a couple of weeks.

Already it is clear that the prospect of not being able to use (say) Prayer H is uncongenial. My own response will be to propose that we observe other aspects of our legislation which provide for use of services.

Specifically, our constitution (part G, cited below) provides for "authorised services" to include services authorised under Title G Canon XIV (cited below). If, as Tikanga Pakeha, we agree that it would be valuable to have (say) "Prayer H" used freely within our Tikanga, we have a mechanism for achieving that end. (That is, if we want to use Prayer H, and we deem it to be not inconsistent with the Constitution or Formularies of this church). Alternatively, if I am understanding Title G Canon XIV correctly, an individual diocesan bishop (following the specific instruction below) could authorise a service which included Prayer H

Thoughts?

NOTES:

Constitution part G

PART G    

GENERAL

1.            In this Constitution and in the Code of Canons if not inconsistent with the context thereof or by express words excluded all words and phrases referring to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopate, and in particular, but without limiting the generality hereof the words "Bishop", "Priest", "Deacon", "Curate", "Pastor", "Vicar" and "Minister", shall include both females and males.  In the use of Formularies of the Church words denoting males may be replaced with words denoting females consistently with the above provisions and when the occasion and circumstances so require.

2.            In this Constitution and in the Code of Canons if not inconsistent with the context thereof respectively and unless there are clear words to exclude or restrict such meaning the words and phrases following shall severally have the meanings hereinafter stated, namely,

Words importing the singular number include the plural number and words importing the plural number include the singular number.

Words denoting males or females include the other as the case may be.

“Clergy” includes all persons in Holy Orders who shall hold any spiritual charge or cure or a Bishop's  licence or permission to officiate in this Church, but shall not include a Bishop.

“Authorised Services” includes (a) Formularies, (b) Experimental uses as authorized by the Church of England Empowering Act 1928, and (c) other services authorized under Title G Canon XIV.[1]

3.            Any doubt which shall arise in the interpretation of the Constitution for the time being of this Church shall be submitted for final decision to the General Synod / te  Hīnota Whānui or to some Tribunal established by it in that behalf.

4.            It shall be lawful for the General Synod / te  Hīnota Whānui to alter amend or repeal all or any of the provisions hereof save and except those which have been hereinbefore declared to be FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS,

PROVIDED always that no such alteration shall be made until it shall have been first proposed in one General Synod / te Hīnota Whānui and been assented to by Te Runanganui o Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa, the Synod of the Diocese of Polynesia and a majority of the several Diocesan Synods in New Zealand and finally agreed to in the meeting of the General Synod / te Hīnota Whānui next ensuing.

In applying this Constitution the Māori and English texts shall be considered together.

---

[1] Statute 726, 2016

CANON XIV OF AUTHORISED SERVICES

Each Tikanga is authorised to approve forms of service not inconsistent with the Constitution / te Pouhere, or with the Formularies of this Church.

Within Tikanga Māori, Te Runanganui o te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa may act to grant such authorisation.

Within the Tikanga of the Diocese of Polynesia the Diocesan Synod of the Diocese of Polynesia may act to grant such authorisation.

Within Tikanga Pākēha the Synodical Conference may act to grant such authorisation provided that this authorisation will apply only in those dioceses in New Zealand whose synod has ratified the authorisation of the Synodical Conference.

Ngā Pīhopa Amorangi may authorise forms of service to be produced and used in different situations in Te Pīhopatanga upon such conditions as Te Pīhopa may determine.

The Bishop of Polynesia and other Bishops with episcopal jurisdiction within the Diocese of Polynesia may authorise forms of service to be produced in different situations in the Diocese of Polynesia upon such conditions as the Bishop may determine.

Diocesan Bishops and other Bishops with episcopal jurisdiction within a Diocese in New Zealand may authorise forms of service to be produced and used in individual ministry units, after consultation with the Vestry or equivalent body, and in other particular areas of the Church’s work, upon such conditions as they may individually determine in each case, and in consultation with their Diocesan liturgical committees.

Any form of service authorised under this Canon:

is an authorised service, but is not a Formulary unless it shall have been approved under the provisions of the Church or England Empowering Act 1928 and the Constitution / te Pouhere;

must conform to ‘A Form for Ordering a Service of the Word’ or ‘An Alternative Form for Ordering The Eucharist’; and

must not be inconsistent with the teachings of the Formularies.

A copy of any service so authorised shall be forwarded to the General Secretary, to be held in the records and archives of the Church.

Celibacy: a gift or a mandate?

Richard Rohr, Catholic writer much appreciated by many Protestants, in the light of recent news out of Pennsylvania re widespread sexual abuse by priests over many years, has posted a statement re celibacy here. Cited below:

"

Fr. Richard’s statement on the new revelations of priestly abuse and coverup:

This moral catastrophe first of all demands public and sincere lamentation from every segment of the Body of Christ, and only then can the deep healing begin.  It also demands public ownership, repentance and reform of our very immature teaching in regard to sexuality in general, male power issues in particular, and our “enforced” understanding of celibacy, which will predictably produce this kind of result.

• Our own Catholic theology says that celibacy is a “charism” which means a free and empowered gift. In my experience, only someone who has an alive and warm inner experience of God is capable of celibacy at all.
• It is a contradiction in terms for the Catholic Church to think it can mandate a free gift, which of course, has no precedent in Jesus. It is clearly not necessary for ministry, and is often a liability, creating an aura of spiritual superiority when the exact opposite is often the case.
• I personally believe the actual charism of male celibacy that produces both happy and healthy men by the second half of life, is quite rare.
• Until the Catholic church disconnects celibacy from ministry, I think we will continue to have ordained men, who are both unhappy, unhealthy, and a scandal to the Body of Christ. (Lest anyone think incorrectly, I am not saying that celibacy causes pedophilia, but I am saying that the idealized culture of celibacy allowed it to hide there for a long time.)

This shadowy material will keep emerging unless we own it and hold it fully accountable. In the meantime, let’s all pray and try to live more authentic sexual and spiritual lives ourselves.

"
Within the context of the Roman Catholic church this is (presumably) a stirring call which many Catholics will agree with and many Catholics will resist (as, to date, all such calls have been resisted). But within the Anglican churches of the Communion, is this not also food for thought in our debates re permanent, faithful, loving same-sex partnerships which often boils down to "partnership" v "celibacy", with the latter mandated without - in my reading - much discussion about celibacy itself.

On the one hand, Rohr makes a statement about Catholic theology's treatment of celibacy as a gift. Anglican theologians might not agree that celibacy is a gift. But then, whatever adjective we use for our theology, a critical Scripture is 1 Corinthians 7:7 where Paul describes his own celibate situation in terms of "a particular gift from God". Anglicans can scarcely escape the force of that, can we?

So, here, to keep discussion focused and not escaping into fields over which we have trampled many times, the specific question for discussion is this: is celibacy a gift or a mandate?

Writing theology before blogging?

I am introducing myself to the theology of Robert W. Jenson. He is seriously cool and I should have begun reading him years ago. He writes so clearly (unlike another modern theologian I dipped into recently) and yet with such profoundness that he must be read slowly (as advised by my friend and commenter here, Bryden Black).

But I have come across something he has written which (arguably) is written BB (Before Blogging).

In Systematic Theology Vol 1 The Triune God Oxford: OUP, 1997, p. 39, he writes:

"In one way, a reader is therefore more free - it may seem, indeed, omnipotent - over against a text than is a listener over against a speaker. A speaker is there to defend his or her intention against my interpretation. Once discourse has become text, it lacks this defense."

That was in 1997. In 2018 a blogger can post a text and can choose to defend it in the comments section. Or not!

NZ's Other Religion

On my sidebar I reserve the right to avoid theology and stuff and to "write about cricket and politics." The article I link to below is not about cricket. It is about rugby. It is written by Linda Burgess. And she can write! Her husband Bob Burgess was a brilliant first-five who I saw with my own eyes score two tries against the 1971 Lions at Lancaster Park. (I also saw one of the greatest tries of all time, Ian Kirkpatrick running 50m, fending off Lions' players  as though they were annoying flies, from an amazing viewpoint: the then "Boys Enclosure"on the south-west corner of the Park was in exact line of sight of his run down the field.) I digress. Back to Linda Burgess.

She writes about an era in All Black rugby which straddled changes in our society - to the role of women, to attitudes to sporting contact with South Africa, to rugby's religious role in society. I find her article to be both a walk down memory lane and an evocation of a different world. She also touches on a contentious subject in NZ rugby history, the treatment of Keith Murdoch, expelled from the 1972 rugby tour to the UK, Ireland and France. Indeed his biography sparks the article's writing.

I won't spoil the potential reading pleasure of the whole article by citing from it. It is here.

The bread of life: a sermon on the eucharist

Recently I posted a couple of times on the eucharist (here and there) and promised to post on Brant Pitre's book on Jesus and the Last Supper which remains a sin of omission.

Below I post today's sermon, focused mostly on the gospel passage, John 6 and the bread of life. I don't normally post sermons I have preached. That is mostly because I write them on the back of envelopes. The sermon below is unusual: I actually typed it out on my laptop. I think the sermon below is worth a post, on two grounds.

1. While not directly citing Brant Pitre, my reading of his book is definitely influential on what I say below. I am - of course - responsible for what is written below; Pitre is not responsible for the sermon.

2. I was struck, while preparing the sermon, by the neat way in which 6:41-43 illustrates how the bread of communion can be simultaneously the body of Christ. Your feedback [bad pun] will be gratefully received. I am sure what I write below is entirely unoriginal, but it is a new-to-me insight from this passage.

Ephesians 4:25-5:2 and John 6:35, 41-51:

If we want to live we need to eat the bread of life.

How often should we have communion?

That simple question has had varied answers through Christian history.

From once or twice a year to quarterly to monthly to weekly to daily.

The New Testament, which faithfully reports to us that Jesus told his disciples at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of me”, doesn’t actually say how often we should do this.

Indeed the NT, perhaps to the surprise of Christians who put a lot of emphasis on regular communion, devotes very few words to the subject of “holy communion”.

But among those words are the words we find in John 6 as we read from this chapter over five Sundays – this is week three – if you have lost track.

John 6 – bread from heaven

Five Sundays on the bread, someone once complained.

But what bread it is to spend five Sundays on – the bread from heaven, the bread of life, the bread that gives eternal life.

Eat this bread, Jesus says, and you will never be hungry again.

Now we know, when someone talks like that, but our stomach tells us we are hungry, that this is not the bread we buy at the supermarket or cook in our bread makers.

What is this bread from heaven? Is it metaphorical – bread as a metaphor for spiritual union with Christ?

To be sure, there is an element of metaphor.

What counts is the life of Christ in us and our lives lived in union with Christ. We live this life 24/7, whether we share in communion that day or not.

Yet what Jesus says is very specific about eating him – eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

His flesh is the living bread, his blood is true drink. Jesus says, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (53).

It has been impossible for the church not to join this teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum with the later Last Supper –

the supper in which Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples; shared a cup of wine in the same way.

So, alongside the element of metaphor is an element of material reality.

To eat bread given thanks for, broken and shared among followers of Christ, is to eat the body of Christ.

To drink wine given thanks for, shared around followers of Christ, is to drink the blood of Christ.

The bread from heaven is that bread which we eat together in communion.

And whoever eats of this bread will live forever.

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (56)

At times in our Anglican history we have had long seasons in which communion was (and in some parishes still is) an optional extra (10 am Mattins and 11.15 am Holy Communion for those who stayed).

I don’t think that approach is faithful to John 6 and its connection to what Jesus did at the Last Supper and commanded us to continue doing in remembrance of his death.

If we want to live, really live, to live the life of Christ in the world, we need to meet, to break bread and to eat it and to share the cup and to drink it.

Thus the spiritual life of Christ comes to us through the material reality of bread and wine:

in this way we eat Christ’s body – his crucified, risen and ascended body – and we drink Christ’s blood – in which the life of Christ comes to us,

the life which was given up for the sake of the world.

As the last words of our Ephesian reading puts it, urging us to love with the same love Christ has for the world,

“live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (5:2)

John 6 – bread from heaven = Jesus, son of Joseph (6:41-43)

We may wonder – as many Christians have wondered – how bread and wine from the earth can convey the heavenly body and blood of Christ.

Fascinatingly there is a strong clue in our gospel reading today.

Jesus says he is the bread come down from heaven.

The Jews who hear this complain: this man is no bread from heaven, this is Jesus the son of Joseph. We know his Mum and Dad.

As readers we know that Jesus is both.

He is the bread come down from heaven:

he is Son of Man and Son of God, come to us from the Father, descended to us from eternal, heavenly intimacy with God his Father.

He is Jesus, son of Joseph.

An ordinary and very material/physical human being.

Same as you and me.

Simultaneously, Jesus is heavenly and earthly, divine and human.

No scientist could have done a blood test and found Jesus to be from heaven.

No theologian, hearing the witness of the Jews who were Jesus’ audience that day, could have denied Jesus to be from earth.

The bread we eat today and the wine we drink cannot be taken to a lab at the university and be found to be the heavenly body and blood of Christ.

And no matter what we believe about the body and blood of Christ which we partake at communion, it is simultaneously bread and wine.

John 6 – the wrap up

If we want to live we need to eat the bread of life.

We should not be vague about this and think of Jesus being all metaphorical.

We can be concrete, specific:

we should come – as we have done today – to communion – to eat the bread of life

– to be nourished and strengthened by Christ through the bread and the wine of communion.

And how often?

I am going to answer that question with another question ...

Can we ever have too much of Christ?