This is what I would do ... in respect of the Communion side of things.
(1) I would see the Covenant process through to the point where it was clear whether we were going to have a Covenanted Communion or not (though that process may come to an end before the end of this year should the C of E itself decline to accept the Covenant). On the presumption that the Communion is not going to be a Covenanted Communion I would make clear my determination that this meant that the autonomy of local churches reigned supreme in Anglican thinking in respect of global fellowship, responding to Christ's ut unim sunt prayer, and working on matters of common life.
(2) I would then declare that no Lambeth Conference or Primates Meeting would be called by me until 90% or more of the bishops and primates signalled in writing that were such meetings to be called, they would join in eucharistic fellowship together.
(4) As far as possible the word 'Communion' would drop out of my vocabulary and I would talk about the 'Anglican global association' (Aga) instead.
(3) The point would be made that the Covenant process had revealed at least three significant theological groupings in the Communion,
- those who saw a Covenanted Aga as having a deficit of justice,
- those who saw a Covenanted Aga as having a deficit of truth, and
- those who saw an unCovenanted Aga as having a deficit of unity.
I would invite each of those groups to forge their own corporate Anglican identity via any means they saw fit. I would be available to attend any conferences or other meetings these groups decided upon. I would communicate my hopes for the future of the Anglican global association, that one day it would be united in following one of these three models for AnglicanLifeInternational.
(4) ACC would be allowed to continue to meet because it is unlikely to stop meeting even if I asked it to cease, what with it being an Anglican committee with a constitution and not being ruled by the ABC's fiat.
(5) I would take no part in any ARCIC deliberations until such time as the conditions for the Lambeth Conference and Primates' Meetings in (2) above were met. I would personally explain to the Pope that integrity required me not to pretend that some kind of common Anglican mind was being engaged through ARCIC with the common mind of the Roman church.
(6) Whenever I met a primate or bishop I would remind them of (2) above and ask whether the Anglican global association grouping they belonged to had any proposal to bring for renewing the eucharistic fellowship of the global association.
(7) I would write a magnum opus on communio ecclesiology. It might not be a very good book but it would be quite large because its opening chapter would need to be quite a long account of why the Anglican global association had become what it is. There would also be another long chapter in which I bewailed the folly of those bishops who harped on about the deficiencies of the Covenant while having nothing useful to say about how the corporate life of the Anglican global fellowship could be improved (example here).
By the way, this is not a candidacy speech. Apparently since the ABC is one of the Lords Spiritual sitting in the upper chamber of the British parliament, certain citizen requirements must be met, none of which I qualify for being a Kiwi without British parent or grandparent to secure me useful bits of paper!
PS What would I do if I were the ABC, in respect of the C of E part of the role?
I would appoint Tom Wright and John Milbank as my theological advisors. That should get the chattering classes chattering :)
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query what I would do. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query what I would do. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Four letters and an essay
OK, let me see, a couple of letters from Presiding Bishop Schori and President, TEC HoD, Anderson to the ABC on resolutions D025 and C056 (here and here), one from the Communion Partner bishops to the ABC (see here), and one to the whole Communion from Archbishop Duncan (here). Mark Harris at Preludium reports on Duncan's letter here and offers an essay of his own on the future of the Communion here.
That is quite a lot to digest. I wonder what ++Rowan will make of it all? Here is what I make of it all!
(1) TEC really does want to remain in the Anglican Communion and it really does want to be able to confirm the election of a gay or lesbian bishop (should one be elected) and to make pastoral provision for same sex partnerships. But it knows this may not be possible. (Whether the two TEC leaders are worried about this situation is hard to say. My hunch is that they are prepared for TEC to be told it is suspended or even expelled from the Communion).
(2) For the both-and of TEC's wishes it needs a Communion which is, in Mark Harris' essay's phrasing 'a community of mutual regard' rather than 'a moral community'. The former is capable of adjustments to emerging differences between members of the community, the latter is not. (As an aside, we might note that TEC itself faces the challenge in succeeding years of whether it will be a community of mutual regard (e.g. in which conservative voices such as the Communion Partner bishops are respected) or a moral community which will not tolerate dissent from its pro-gay and pro-lesbian stances).
(3) The Communion Partner bishops are worried. Their worry is that TEC will be expelled or suspended for a long period from the Communion, and thus their attempt at a both-and, loyalty to TEC and loyalty to the Communion will be at an end ... unless the Communion permits what ++Rowan once hinted at, but Communion polity does not yet permit, that individual dioceses may be in communion with Canterbury even when their province is not.
(4) Bob Duncan is not worried. He is glad that TEC's 2009 GC can be interpreted as proving ACNA's analysis is correct: TEC is another religion, preaching another gospel. I sense that ACNA would like to be in the Communion, but if the Communion wants to follow TEC then ACNA is happy to find company elsewhere (i.e. GAFCON). The win-win for ACNA could be a Communion which clearly signals its unhappiness with TEC while offering welcome to ACNA.
But these assessments leave open the question 'what response will ++Rowan give to the letters he receives?' (A better question might be this, 'what response will the next significant Anglican Communion committee meeting give to the letters +Rowan receives?').
I do not know ++Rowan so will not attempt to second guess his mind, but the second best thing to propose is this, if I were the Archbishop of Canterbury for a day, and an autocratic one to boot, who did not need to discuss business with any committees, this is what I would do!
Mark Harris' essay is the key. I would propose that the Communion is indeed a flexible community of mutual regard rather than a fixed moral community, and thus it is an organic body, capable of adapting to changing circumstances. In particular, I would remind all and sundry of the following changing circumstances: the potential of D025 and C056 to not restrain TEC from further non-compliance with Windsor, and the existence of ACNA.
I would accept Bob Duncan's analysis that within the life of world Anglicanism 'Jerusalem' and 'Babylon' are firmly present, but I would refrain from accepting his equation of TEC with Babylon, proposing instead that judgement be suspended on which city is which church. I would refuse to countenance the expulsion or suspension of TEC from the Communion, but solely on the grounds that doing so would be to expel Windsor compliant Anglicans.
Then, on the grounds that the Communion is an organic body capable of adaptation, I would welcome ACNA into the Communion as a full member of the Communion. I would then ask that we all get on with our respective missions according to the gospel as we understand it, and meet together in one giant Anglican Congress in 2028 (2018 Lambeth having been skipped, and the funds saved put towards the cost of 2028).
In 2028 it should be clear whether TEC is on death watch (as Bob Duncan's analysis implies), ACNA has imploded (as many pundits cheerfully predict), or Islamists have taken over the world as we know it. :)
That is quite a lot to digest. I wonder what ++Rowan will make of it all? Here is what I make of it all!
(1) TEC really does want to remain in the Anglican Communion and it really does want to be able to confirm the election of a gay or lesbian bishop (should one be elected) and to make pastoral provision for same sex partnerships. But it knows this may not be possible. (Whether the two TEC leaders are worried about this situation is hard to say. My hunch is that they are prepared for TEC to be told it is suspended or even expelled from the Communion).
(2) For the both-and of TEC's wishes it needs a Communion which is, in Mark Harris' essay's phrasing 'a community of mutual regard' rather than 'a moral community'. The former is capable of adjustments to emerging differences between members of the community, the latter is not. (As an aside, we might note that TEC itself faces the challenge in succeeding years of whether it will be a community of mutual regard (e.g. in which conservative voices such as the Communion Partner bishops are respected) or a moral community which will not tolerate dissent from its pro-gay and pro-lesbian stances).
(3) The Communion Partner bishops are worried. Their worry is that TEC will be expelled or suspended for a long period from the Communion, and thus their attempt at a both-and, loyalty to TEC and loyalty to the Communion will be at an end ... unless the Communion permits what ++Rowan once hinted at, but Communion polity does not yet permit, that individual dioceses may be in communion with Canterbury even when their province is not.
(4) Bob Duncan is not worried. He is glad that TEC's 2009 GC can be interpreted as proving ACNA's analysis is correct: TEC is another religion, preaching another gospel. I sense that ACNA would like to be in the Communion, but if the Communion wants to follow TEC then ACNA is happy to find company elsewhere (i.e. GAFCON). The win-win for ACNA could be a Communion which clearly signals its unhappiness with TEC while offering welcome to ACNA.
But these assessments leave open the question 'what response will ++Rowan give to the letters he receives?' (A better question might be this, 'what response will the next significant Anglican Communion committee meeting give to the letters +Rowan receives?').
I do not know ++Rowan so will not attempt to second guess his mind, but the second best thing to propose is this, if I were the Archbishop of Canterbury for a day, and an autocratic one to boot, who did not need to discuss business with any committees, this is what I would do!
Mark Harris' essay is the key. I would propose that the Communion is indeed a flexible community of mutual regard rather than a fixed moral community, and thus it is an organic body, capable of adapting to changing circumstances. In particular, I would remind all and sundry of the following changing circumstances: the potential of D025 and C056 to not restrain TEC from further non-compliance with Windsor, and the existence of ACNA.
I would accept Bob Duncan's analysis that within the life of world Anglicanism 'Jerusalem' and 'Babylon' are firmly present, but I would refrain from accepting his equation of TEC with Babylon, proposing instead that judgement be suspended on which city is which church. I would refuse to countenance the expulsion or suspension of TEC from the Communion, but solely on the grounds that doing so would be to expel Windsor compliant Anglicans.
Then, on the grounds that the Communion is an organic body capable of adaptation, I would welcome ACNA into the Communion as a full member of the Communion. I would then ask that we all get on with our respective missions according to the gospel as we understand it, and meet together in one giant Anglican Congress in 2028 (2018 Lambeth having been skipped, and the funds saved put towards the cost of 2028).
In 2028 it should be clear whether TEC is on death watch (as Bob Duncan's analysis implies), ACNA has imploded (as many pundits cheerfully predict), or Islamists have taken over the world as we know it. :)
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Czar of ACANZP Liturgy
Over at Liturgy, Bosco Peters has taken up a cause dear to both our hearts, as well as the Synod of the Diocese of Christchurch, clarifying and improving the state of our church's liturgical life. The specific concern in the post I have linked to is whether we offer an easy to comprehend approach to finding out, within our own rules, what we may use, what we have to use, and what we may not use in the services of our church. That we do not offer such an approach is not, in the end, the fault of any one person or single decision of our General Synod, but it is the result of years of tinkering with our services, especially since 1989, and despite the amazing popularity of our 1989 prayer book (NZPB). Some tinkering I myself have been part of, and approve (I was part of General Synod's decision-making, 1996-2004). But that was mostly adjusting rubrics within the 1989 book. Since 2004 we have added eucharistic prayers and what have you, which is tinkering on a different scale.
There is one decision I supported but now regret, at least in part. That was the decision to authorise a raft of flexible possibilities in our services via a concept known as the Template. I do not regret trying to find a way to encourage flexibility in our services, but I regret doing that via the Template which quickly became a recipe for 'anything goes' - a fact admitted by General Synod when later it passed a clarifying resolution that variations used under the mandate of the Template must nevertheless conform in content with the theology of our prayer books. In my view the resolution effectively nullifies the Template and both should be excised from our canons ... that would be my first decision in my imaginary role as Czar of our church's liturgy.
What else would I do? I think there is already good flexibility in our eucharistic services (within the 1989 book) because so much of what we do is governed by the word 'may' rather than 'must', but I would want to offer a more flexible non-eucharistic worship service than currently in our book. The current service owes a lot to the Mattins and Evensong tradition of the BCP, but current practice in many of our churches is geared to a different set of 'canticles' than provided for in NZPB. A slightly revised order of service, with a few more 'mays' would cover the tendency in some churches to sing more Brooke Fraser than Mary mother of Jesus. Pause for recoil by some traditionalists reading this paragraph :)
I would get rid of all the eucharistic prayers we have recently approved. I do not think they add anything to our church's life. If anything they diminish it because of a noticeable tendency in this set of prayers to downplay the connection between sin and our Lord's sacrificial death. But I would want to propose a eucharistic prayer useful for family services: slightly shorter than anything we currently have, yet with great theological depth, and some better turns of phrase than the currently approved 'children's' eucharistic prayer.
Finally, I would take out a canonical broom and sweep up all our rules, scattered as they are through our canons and resolutions, and bundle them into one canon. In that canon would be a clear statement about what we may, must and may not use in the liturgical life of our church.
I am happy to do this work for no monetary reward. My reward would be in the satisfying experiences of liturgy which would be unleashed in all parishes :)
There is one decision I supported but now regret, at least in part. That was the decision to authorise a raft of flexible possibilities in our services via a concept known as the Template. I do not regret trying to find a way to encourage flexibility in our services, but I regret doing that via the Template which quickly became a recipe for 'anything goes' - a fact admitted by General Synod when later it passed a clarifying resolution that variations used under the mandate of the Template must nevertheless conform in content with the theology of our prayer books. In my view the resolution effectively nullifies the Template and both should be excised from our canons ... that would be my first decision in my imaginary role as Czar of our church's liturgy.
What else would I do? I think there is already good flexibility in our eucharistic services (within the 1989 book) because so much of what we do is governed by the word 'may' rather than 'must', but I would want to offer a more flexible non-eucharistic worship service than currently in our book. The current service owes a lot to the Mattins and Evensong tradition of the BCP, but current practice in many of our churches is geared to a different set of 'canticles' than provided for in NZPB. A slightly revised order of service, with a few more 'mays' would cover the tendency in some churches to sing more Brooke Fraser than Mary mother of Jesus. Pause for recoil by some traditionalists reading this paragraph :)
I would get rid of all the eucharistic prayers we have recently approved. I do not think they add anything to our church's life. If anything they diminish it because of a noticeable tendency in this set of prayers to downplay the connection between sin and our Lord's sacrificial death. But I would want to propose a eucharistic prayer useful for family services: slightly shorter than anything we currently have, yet with great theological depth, and some better turns of phrase than the currently approved 'children's' eucharistic prayer.
Finally, I would take out a canonical broom and sweep up all our rules, scattered as they are through our canons and resolutions, and bundle them into one canon. In that canon would be a clear statement about what we may, must and may not use in the liturgical life of our church.
I am happy to do this work for no monetary reward. My reward would be in the satisfying experiences of liturgy which would be unleashed in all parishes :)
Friday, February 15, 2013
Romans debate to date
It is just too neat, I suggest, to confine Romans 14 and 15 to matters of 'secondary' importance and be done and dusted with its relevance to contemporary discussion and debate over homosexuality.
When Paul writes in Romans 15:7, "Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God," he is placing our welcome of one another on the same level of importance as Christ's welcome to us. That is, if salvation, Christ's welcome of us, is a 'primary' matter of doctrinal importance, so is our love for one another (cf. a major theme in 1 John around God's love for us and our love for one another).
The issues in Romans 14 and 15 are also of primary importance because they have the potential to 'destroy the work of God' (14:20). In our current discussions we are talking about our welcome of one another and we have huge potential to destroy the work of God in how we handle these discussions. I stand by my assertion that Romans 14 and 15 is relevant to the situation at hand.
In catching up on where debate on this blog has gone over the last week, with a strong and robust critique of what I have said, including what I have said with less clarity than I would have wished to have achieved (!), I nevertheless continue to see analogies between the situation in Rome and our situation today.
Principally, there the Christian community was divided over the evaluation of a course of action. For some, eating certain foods was wrong because those foods were unclean. For others, all foods were clean so everything could be eaten. Paul, in his own mind, was clear on which side of the dispute he belonged: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (14:14). But what he does not then do is engage in an attempt to persuade those on the other side to change their minds. Rather he engages in a powerful, subtle plea to those who agree with him to live in such a way that they do not make their brothers and sisters on the other side of the dispute to stumble: "Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died (14:14) ... it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble" (14:21).
One analogy, I suggest, is that today in the Western church we have a powerful, strong group of theological and ministerial leaders who think that nothing is wrong in itself in respect of sex between any two people in a loving, committed, permanent relationship. As I read their arguments they would happily say, "We are persuaded in the Lord Jesus that this is so." The continuing analogy then would be that Paul would say to them, "Do not let what you affirm re sexual relationships cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died." Incidentally, I recognise that the chances of this particular group of the "strong" having regard in this Pauline way for those who think differently (the "weak") is zip!
But there is another analogy to consider, one which focuses less on any analogy between clean and unclean food and more on analogy between the church divided into "strong" and "weak" groups. For the Western church is divided at this time (indeed, all churches, as far as I can see) in another way over homosexuality (with the possible exceptions of a very few ultra-liberal churches). In this division the "strong" are those for whom the normative experience of life, of being Christian and of organising domestic households is innately heterosexual: husband and wife; mum and dad; boyfriend and girlfriend. In my personal experience of church this is the mainstream, overwhelming presentation of congregations to the point that single people (whether identifying themselves in any further way or not) often grizzle that church life is all about families. The "weak" then are the tiny or even invisible minority who openly identify as gay or would do so if they felt brave enough in the midst of the overwhelming majority to do so. (The "weak" are also those who are single). The analogy then would be that Romans 14 and 15 speaks to us of the ways in which those who belong to the "strong" can cause their brothers or sister who belong to the "weak" to stumble.
Consider this, as one instance: everything we discuss about Scripture and its meaning for our lives is clean (nothing is forbidden for discussion) but the ways in which we discuss things, the manner in which we emphasise some parts of the Bible and not others, the priority we give to some issues and not to others can be a stumbling block to others. A question about homosexuality in these times is whether the Bible requires us to make it the major issue we have made it. By making it a major issue (when, arguably, the major issue of our times is the breakdown of marriage among Christians) are we making a stumbling block for the "weak"?
When Paul writes in Romans 15:7, "Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God," he is placing our welcome of one another on the same level of importance as Christ's welcome to us. That is, if salvation, Christ's welcome of us, is a 'primary' matter of doctrinal importance, so is our love for one another (cf. a major theme in 1 John around God's love for us and our love for one another).
The issues in Romans 14 and 15 are also of primary importance because they have the potential to 'destroy the work of God' (14:20). In our current discussions we are talking about our welcome of one another and we have huge potential to destroy the work of God in how we handle these discussions. I stand by my assertion that Romans 14 and 15 is relevant to the situation at hand.
In catching up on where debate on this blog has gone over the last week, with a strong and robust critique of what I have said, including what I have said with less clarity than I would have wished to have achieved (!), I nevertheless continue to see analogies between the situation in Rome and our situation today.
Principally, there the Christian community was divided over the evaluation of a course of action. For some, eating certain foods was wrong because those foods were unclean. For others, all foods were clean so everything could be eaten. Paul, in his own mind, was clear on which side of the dispute he belonged: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (14:14). But what he does not then do is engage in an attempt to persuade those on the other side to change their minds. Rather he engages in a powerful, subtle plea to those who agree with him to live in such a way that they do not make their brothers and sisters on the other side of the dispute to stumble: "Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died (14:14) ... it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble" (14:21).
One analogy, I suggest, is that today in the Western church we have a powerful, strong group of theological and ministerial leaders who think that nothing is wrong in itself in respect of sex between any two people in a loving, committed, permanent relationship. As I read their arguments they would happily say, "We are persuaded in the Lord Jesus that this is so." The continuing analogy then would be that Paul would say to them, "Do not let what you affirm re sexual relationships cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died." Incidentally, I recognise that the chances of this particular group of the "strong" having regard in this Pauline way for those who think differently (the "weak") is zip!
But there is another analogy to consider, one which focuses less on any analogy between clean and unclean food and more on analogy between the church divided into "strong" and "weak" groups. For the Western church is divided at this time (indeed, all churches, as far as I can see) in another way over homosexuality (with the possible exceptions of a very few ultra-liberal churches). In this division the "strong" are those for whom the normative experience of life, of being Christian and of organising domestic households is innately heterosexual: husband and wife; mum and dad; boyfriend and girlfriend. In my personal experience of church this is the mainstream, overwhelming presentation of congregations to the point that single people (whether identifying themselves in any further way or not) often grizzle that church life is all about families. The "weak" then are the tiny or even invisible minority who openly identify as gay or would do so if they felt brave enough in the midst of the overwhelming majority to do so. (The "weak" are also those who are single). The analogy then would be that Romans 14 and 15 speaks to us of the ways in which those who belong to the "strong" can cause their brothers or sister who belong to the "weak" to stumble.
Consider this, as one instance: everything we discuss about Scripture and its meaning for our lives is clean (nothing is forbidden for discussion) but the ways in which we discuss things, the manner in which we emphasise some parts of the Bible and not others, the priority we give to some issues and not to others can be a stumbling block to others. A question about homosexuality in these times is whether the Bible requires us to make it the major issue we have made it. By making it a major issue (when, arguably, the major issue of our times is the breakdown of marriage among Christians) are we making a stumbling block for the "weak"?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Would Jesus rebuild our cathedrals?
This morning's Christchurch Press tells us that the repair bill for the Arts Centre in Christchurch is likely to be $100 million. This historic precinct of stone buildings (which once used to be our university site) is worth rebuilding in general terms, but I am not going to try to get my head around the dollar number which would mean we walked away from it! On that basis I imagine a rebuild of the cathedrals in Christchurch would be in the region of $10 million each. Would Jesus rebuild our cathedrals?
I imagine Jesus might answer that question with a question (as he often does in the gospels), 'What important priorities in Christchurch city need to be met ahead of restoring historic buildings?' Listening to people and reading letters to the editor I sense that the people of Christchurch would answer that question with a request that power, water, and sewerage be restored to our residential and business areas before we make decisions about restoring our heritage. (Also before we host Rugby World Cup games).
Suppose, however, that the infrastructure of the city is sorted, that good progress is being made on the myriad of decisions both at a personal and civic level about repairing and replacing damaged homes (in some cases planning for new suburbs to be developed), would Jesus rebuild our cathedrals?
In principle I suggest we can say that Jesus would encourage us to have architecturally significant large churches. He taught us to honour our Father in heaven, he encouraged people to meet together in his name (including in his own ministry some very large crowds), and he cared for people in times of significant events such as weddings and funerals, events which sometimes need large venues to accommodate those who wish to gather for them. With more than a little Anglican bias I suggest Jesus is in favour of bishops as successors to his apostles and understands the importance of bishops having a 'seat' from which to preside over their flock as teaching pastors. That seat or cathedra gives rise to the desire to have 'architecturally significant large churches' which we call 'cathedrals.'
But let us then tread carefully through the next steps to understanding the mind of Christ on rebuilding our cathedrals! Would Jesus have us rebuild two cathedrals or one? Would he wish us to maintain continuity with the past by rebuilding stone by stone (as our mayor has already said we will do, at least for the Anglican cathedral)? Or, always one to look ahead, would Jesus favour a new cathedral or cathedrals for a new dispensation?
If the past is important along with the future would Jesus favour the 'Coventry model' (the old as a memorial side by side with the new) or the 'Auckland model' (the old completed by a new addition, forming a hybrid)? Or could there be a fusion in which a brand new cathedral or cathedrals are partly constructed of present stone but in a completely new design? Then there is always the question whether a cathedral for the 21st century in the midst of a world with great poverty should be expensively designed and constructed or otherwise. Would Jesus be satisfied with a 'warehouse' box for a cathedral?
Finally - being only courageous enough to raise questions and not to answer them (smile) - should there be two cathedrals or one cathedral in our city?
I am not so blindly Anglican that I think Jesus would favour rebuilding the Anglican cathedral and not the Roman Catholic one. Nor as a good Anglican do I think Jesus would favour the converse (unless he wanted to have some teasing fun at Anglicans' expense)! Theologically I struggle with Jesus as the intercessor who prayed ut unim sint favouring two expensive rebuilds. So here is one bold thought:
What if we had an ecumenical cathedral in Christchurch, one and only one cathedral? It could be available for all the churches to use as required for large occasions of gathering (recalling that Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists and other denominations have lost their large inner city churches). It could have individual seats for individual bishops (at least three, Roman Catholic, Maori Anglican, and Pakeha Anglican). It would be available to the community for large funerals and weddings, to say nothing of concerts and performances which glorified God through the arts.
The obvious site for this ecumenical cathedral would be the centre of Christchurch (i.e. the site of the present Anglican cathedral) and to make it truly ecumenical we Anglicans would need to give up our ownership of that site to an ecumenical trust. (Easy words to write, I know, but something to ponder given our commitment to ecumenical relations).
Each denomination would then be free to build at a location of their choosing a 'fit for purpose' large church in keeping with the 21st century, at lowest reasonable cost, and built to the very highest earthquake standards. In the light of the devastation of the tsunami in Japan, somewhere in the west of Christchurch might be desirable. From an Anglican perspective I favour whatever we do being of flexible purpose so that we could hold both worship services and our synods and conferences in the same building.
Other bold thoughts should be considered. The full implications of the gospel as the manifesto of God's kingdom need reflecting on. What statements in keeping with the gospel will be made when we rebuild? What gospel priorities might constrain us from rebuilding? How do we provide for ourselves both a large meeting place for the diocesan family to meet as well as support parishes in their rebuild of smaller churches for local gatherings? When we have dreamed our dreams, what actual dollars will be available from insurance and fund-raising to do what we want to do?
What would Jesus do?
I imagine Jesus might answer that question with a question (as he often does in the gospels), 'What important priorities in Christchurch city need to be met ahead of restoring historic buildings?' Listening to people and reading letters to the editor I sense that the people of Christchurch would answer that question with a request that power, water, and sewerage be restored to our residential and business areas before we make decisions about restoring our heritage. (Also before we host Rugby World Cup games).
Suppose, however, that the infrastructure of the city is sorted, that good progress is being made on the myriad of decisions both at a personal and civic level about repairing and replacing damaged homes (in some cases planning for new suburbs to be developed), would Jesus rebuild our cathedrals?
In principle I suggest we can say that Jesus would encourage us to have architecturally significant large churches. He taught us to honour our Father in heaven, he encouraged people to meet together in his name (including in his own ministry some very large crowds), and he cared for people in times of significant events such as weddings and funerals, events which sometimes need large venues to accommodate those who wish to gather for them. With more than a little Anglican bias I suggest Jesus is in favour of bishops as successors to his apostles and understands the importance of bishops having a 'seat' from which to preside over their flock as teaching pastors. That seat or cathedra gives rise to the desire to have 'architecturally significant large churches' which we call 'cathedrals.'
But let us then tread carefully through the next steps to understanding the mind of Christ on rebuilding our cathedrals! Would Jesus have us rebuild two cathedrals or one? Would he wish us to maintain continuity with the past by rebuilding stone by stone (as our mayor has already said we will do, at least for the Anglican cathedral)? Or, always one to look ahead, would Jesus favour a new cathedral or cathedrals for a new dispensation?
If the past is important along with the future would Jesus favour the 'Coventry model' (the old as a memorial side by side with the new) or the 'Auckland model' (the old completed by a new addition, forming a hybrid)? Or could there be a fusion in which a brand new cathedral or cathedrals are partly constructed of present stone but in a completely new design? Then there is always the question whether a cathedral for the 21st century in the midst of a world with great poverty should be expensively designed and constructed or otherwise. Would Jesus be satisfied with a 'warehouse' box for a cathedral?
Finally - being only courageous enough to raise questions and not to answer them (smile) - should there be two cathedrals or one cathedral in our city?
I am not so blindly Anglican that I think Jesus would favour rebuilding the Anglican cathedral and not the Roman Catholic one. Nor as a good Anglican do I think Jesus would favour the converse (unless he wanted to have some teasing fun at Anglicans' expense)! Theologically I struggle with Jesus as the intercessor who prayed ut unim sint favouring two expensive rebuilds. So here is one bold thought:
What if we had an ecumenical cathedral in Christchurch, one and only one cathedral? It could be available for all the churches to use as required for large occasions of gathering (recalling that Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists and other denominations have lost their large inner city churches). It could have individual seats for individual bishops (at least three, Roman Catholic, Maori Anglican, and Pakeha Anglican). It would be available to the community for large funerals and weddings, to say nothing of concerts and performances which glorified God through the arts.
The obvious site for this ecumenical cathedral would be the centre of Christchurch (i.e. the site of the present Anglican cathedral) and to make it truly ecumenical we Anglicans would need to give up our ownership of that site to an ecumenical trust. (Easy words to write, I know, but something to ponder given our commitment to ecumenical relations).
Each denomination would then be free to build at a location of their choosing a 'fit for purpose' large church in keeping with the 21st century, at lowest reasonable cost, and built to the very highest earthquake standards. In the light of the devastation of the tsunami in Japan, somewhere in the west of Christchurch might be desirable. From an Anglican perspective I favour whatever we do being of flexible purpose so that we could hold both worship services and our synods and conferences in the same building.
Other bold thoughts should be considered. The full implications of the gospel as the manifesto of God's kingdom need reflecting on. What statements in keeping with the gospel will be made when we rebuild? What gospel priorities might constrain us from rebuilding? How do we provide for ourselves both a large meeting place for the diocesan family to meet as well as support parishes in their rebuild of smaller churches for local gatherings? When we have dreamed our dreams, what actual dollars will be available from insurance and fund-raising to do what we want to do?
What would Jesus do?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Jesus loves you more than you can know Gene Robinson
In the song it was ‘Mrs Robinson’ so my title does not scan that well! I think its time to do something I want to rarely do on this blog, and that is engage with the topic of homosexuality (or, at least, 'homosexuality in its context of Anglican controversy'). The spur here is a series of interviews currently being posted on different media sites as Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire, tours the UK promoting his latest book. This interview by Paul Handley in the Church Times caught my eye.
About the same time I read this interesting and provocative essay on ‘Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism rejected Homosexuality’ by Dennis Prager. Its worth reading both and doing some reflection on them and the tension between the two directions they take.
Here are some things Gene Robinson says in the Church Times’ interview, followed by my comments. Ihe interviewer's comments/questions are in bold type.
But conservatives say it’s not about sexuality: it’s a scripture issue.
"Well, I would believe that if the person saying it were keeping kosher, if they weren’t wearing two kinds of cloth on their bodies at the same time, or not planting two kinds of seed in the same field . . . because those kinds of proscriptions are in Leviticus, and yet somehow they don’t have eternal binding authority the way these two verses have been pulled out.
A piece of scripture which I have only noticed in the past year, which I know I must have read a thousand times, is in John’s Gospel where Jesus says to his disciples: “There is much more I would teach you, but you cannot bear it right now; and so I will send the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth.”
If you look back over the last 2000 years, the Church has changed its mind about what scripture means, the most notable example being that, out of Jesus’s own mouth come the words that remarriage after divorce is adultery, and yet the Church has changed its mind."
Comment: This is a bit sad in respect of understanding Scripture. It’s a cheap shot handling Leviticus in this way. There are sound reasons for setting aside some parts of Leviticus and adhering to others. It’s reasonable to expect a bishop to know and engage with these reasons. Quite what John’s Jesus meant by ‘lead you into all truth’ is a matter of much discussion, suffice to say that its unlikely to be anything which flatly contradicts Scripture. (It’s likely, actually, to mean a fuller understanding of Jesus Christ, such as John’s Gospel seeks to express in its inimitable way). Finally, it’s misleading to talk about the church changing its mind about what Scripture means in respect of Jesus and divorce. The church understands that Jesus meant to say that remarriage after divorce is adultery. If it now plays down or never mentions that it is not because the meaning has changed! The church has changed its mind about what it will say about divorce and remarriage, and some churches, but not all have changed their minds about presiding over the remarriage of divorcees. Surely the safer path for Gene Robinson to traverse would be the role of the church in applying Scripture to the changing circumstances of life?
Further, note the weakness of Gene Robinson’s understanding of the strength of the opposition against his episcopal appointment and how it might be overcome. The strength derives from a reading of Scripture which requires engagement if it is to be transformed into support for Gene. Airily wafting the matter away achieves nothing.
But how does the Church change its mind? How does it square inspiration with democracy?
"I think it happens over time. And the first person, or the first few people, who articulate a new understanding never meet with particularly positive reactions. It takes time for any kind of consensus to build.
You go back to Acts, and you have Gamaliel talking about the disciples’ teaching in the marketplace, saying: “You know, we ought to give this some time. If it’s not of God, it will go away. And if it is of God, do we want to be opposing it?” I think we’re in the middle of that now. All of us want it to be over, but the fact of the matter is that it’s going to take us some time to settle this."
Comment: Funnily enough, I too think Gamaliel is relevant to what is going on in the Anglican Communion these days. But Gamaliel’s advice cuts both ways. A challenge for those who believe it is of God to welcome and bless same sex relationships etc is whether the church which does that will grow or wither. There is some evidence of withering! From my conservative perspective I wonder whether conservatives are trusting enough of God through these days of controversy. If God is against Gene and co, why not leave that to God to sort out? We are an anxious presence in the church about these things, busily trying to change what we do not agree with. But is not God able to do something about that which is not according to God’s will? (Incidentally by speaking of God sorting these things out I do not mean God to smite anyone. I am thinking of God working out his purposes over time – and certainly beyond the present excitement which distorts the sense of what the long-term steady state of open, transparent involvement in the church of gay and lesbian people will turn out to be).
Incidentally, note the certitude of Gene Robinson that things will turn out the way he wants them to. Part of resentment against conservative Anglicans is resentment against their certitude (about what Scripture means etc). But certitude abounds on all sides in Anglicanism even though it allegedly loves ambiguity, doubt, and indefiniteness!!
If Rowan Williams came up to you at Lambeth and said: “We’ve changed our minds. Will you come and speak to us?” what would you say to the bishops?
"I would want them to know how amazingly orthodox I am. I think both the conservatives and the liberals would be shocked by that.
Because one of the things I’ve learned — and I’ve learned this from the most conservative people in our House of Bishops — is that they perceive that the fuller inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Church is the precursor, the sort of camel’s nose under the tent, to the deconstruction of other essentials, whether that be the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the resurrection. That could not be further from the truth about me."
Comment: Here I think Gene Robinson misunderstands the bigger picture. (Is ‘misunderstanding’ an emerging theme?). Gene may not himself be the thin end of a heretical wedge. But the support for him which agrees that Scripture is wrong on human sexuality seems questioning of other important Christian beliefs. Opponents within TEC ceaselessly highlight theological deficiency among the ‘liberal’ bishops of its hierarchy.
And then there is this ‘wedge’ aspect to support for Gene Robinson: we can notice that the support for gay and lesbian Christians is much spoken of these days in terms of an extension of a 'gay and lesbian' agenda to a ‘GLBT’ agenda. That is, the church is being asked to support and affirm gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-sexual Christians. Some are asking, where does this stop? Will polyamory Christians be added to the list? Others draw attention to the ambiguity involved in the notion of support for bi-sexual Christians: is this support for the inner struggles of a bi-sexual as they work through diverse feelings of attraction, or is it support for exploration of bi-sexuality with one partner of one gender then a partner of another gender? The latter, of course, being a little difficult to square with a commitment to monogamy! My point here is not to dismiss the possibility that the questions and issues at the thicker end of the wedge can be resolved, but to note the over-simplification of Gene Robinson’s account of conservative thinking.
But it’s not just a personal consideration. It’s a political question.
"I could tell you stories that would make you weep about what life is like for them, and the fear with which they live: the difficulty in having their bishop come to dinner at their home, with their partner, have a lovely time, and the bishop be fully affirming of them — and to have the bishop say: “You know, if this ever becomes public, I’m your worst nightmare. I will see to it that you are punished.” Now that does something not just to the bishop and to the couple; that does something to the Church."
Comment: if this has happened in the life of the church then surely this is rank injustice against gay and lesbian clergy.
But the thought of having two or three openly gay bishops must be attractive.
"It would be a wonderful thing. It’s a pretty lonely place to be, and I probably never feel lonelier than at meetings of my own House of Bishops. Not because I don’t have support, because the support there is extraordinary; but, perhaps more than at any other time, I feel that I’m the only one carrying this particular load in this particular way. I just long for the day when the next two or three come along.
It’s not unlike being the first person of colour, or the first woman — it’s why Barbara Harris is such a mentor and a hero to me. It would be nice to have a brother or sister to share this with."
Comment: Here Gene Robinson indirectly goes to the heart of the chasm which divides the Communion at the moment. In his mind, and I am sure in the minds of virtually all other gay and lesbian Christians, being gay or lesbian is a matter of identity and not iniquity. 'I am the only one of my people group in the House of Bishops,' is the effect of what Gene is saying, 'so when can we get more of the group in to share the load?' By contrast Gene’s critics are saying, 'You are an unrepentant sinner; you should not be a bishop; there is one too many of you in the House of Bishops.' This is a gulf in categorisation I do not know how to bridge. Do conservatives need to suspend judgement about the iniquity and think more imaginatively about identity? Do gay and lesbian Christians need to think more deeply about our identity in Christ?
How often does the issue of your sexuality come up in your normal ministry?
"Oh, almost never. I keep saying to people: if you want to see what the Church is like after we’ve finished obsessing about sex, come to New Hampshire. We’re so over it. Really, we are getting on with the gospel, and this occupies almost none of it. It’s what keeps me sane."
Comment: Perhaps Gene is right about the land Beyond Obsession. But his critics say there are less and less churches there!
Now, back to the essay cited above, ‘Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism rejected Homosexuality’. This essay makes the singular point that a great contribution of Judaism to the world was the change it wrought in human sexuality from a free for all practice without distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, often deeply enslaving and depraving of those who became what today we would call victims of abuse, and/or who were caught up in pervasive temple prostitution, to a practice in which sexual expression was constrained towards and expressed within marriage. Its subsidiary point is that Judaism’s refusal to embrace the indiscriminate sexual practices of the cultures around them, that is, to distinguish between homosexuality and heterosexuality, and to prohibit the former, was a leap forward in human social development. Our question today, in the light of that argument, could be this: is the homosexuality of Gene Robinson’s lifestyle (faithful, sober, stable lifelong partnership) a reversion backwards before the time of Leviticus, or a necessary adjustment to Leviticus? That is, is it possible for the Judeo-Christian tradition to accept a form of homosexuality which is different to the pre-Leviticus form because it parallels the constraint of sexuality towards marriage?
Without presuming to answer a significant question like that in a sentence or two, I will finish with this observation. Exemplary though Gene Robinson’s lifestyle appears to be, after its own fashion, it is a lifestyle being lived out in a larger context in which human sexuality according to the path laid down by Judaism (and continued by Christianity and Islam) is under severe strain and stress (to give one trivial example, this is the week in which topless news readers make their debut on NZ television, albeit on a reasonably obscure channel; another example might be that this is also the week in which Sex in the City: the Movie makes its debut). My sense is that the ‘liberal’ support for Gene Robinson downplays the significance of the larger backdrop of socio-sexual change against which the drama of his episcopacy is being played out, while ‘conservative’ opposition to Gene Robinson at the very least is right to ask whether socio-sexual change when embraced by the church ultimately leads to a better society and church.
Nevertheless Jesus loves us all, Gene, me, anyone reading this blog, more than we can know. Our greatest challenge as Christians is not to resolve intricate moral questions, but to make that love known through deed and word. Gene Robinson is committed to doing just that. Maybe that is common ground for our future together in the Anglican Communion?
About the same time I read this interesting and provocative essay on ‘Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism rejected Homosexuality’ by Dennis Prager. Its worth reading both and doing some reflection on them and the tension between the two directions they take.
Here are some things Gene Robinson says in the Church Times’ interview, followed by my comments. Ihe interviewer's comments/questions are in bold type.
But conservatives say it’s not about sexuality: it’s a scripture issue.
"Well, I would believe that if the person saying it were keeping kosher, if they weren’t wearing two kinds of cloth on their bodies at the same time, or not planting two kinds of seed in the same field . . . because those kinds of proscriptions are in Leviticus, and yet somehow they don’t have eternal binding authority the way these two verses have been pulled out.
A piece of scripture which I have only noticed in the past year, which I know I must have read a thousand times, is in John’s Gospel where Jesus says to his disciples: “There is much more I would teach you, but you cannot bear it right now; and so I will send the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth.”
If you look back over the last 2000 years, the Church has changed its mind about what scripture means, the most notable example being that, out of Jesus’s own mouth come the words that remarriage after divorce is adultery, and yet the Church has changed its mind."
Comment: This is a bit sad in respect of understanding Scripture. It’s a cheap shot handling Leviticus in this way. There are sound reasons for setting aside some parts of Leviticus and adhering to others. It’s reasonable to expect a bishop to know and engage with these reasons. Quite what John’s Jesus meant by ‘lead you into all truth’ is a matter of much discussion, suffice to say that its unlikely to be anything which flatly contradicts Scripture. (It’s likely, actually, to mean a fuller understanding of Jesus Christ, such as John’s Gospel seeks to express in its inimitable way). Finally, it’s misleading to talk about the church changing its mind about what Scripture means in respect of Jesus and divorce. The church understands that Jesus meant to say that remarriage after divorce is adultery. If it now plays down or never mentions that it is not because the meaning has changed! The church has changed its mind about what it will say about divorce and remarriage, and some churches, but not all have changed their minds about presiding over the remarriage of divorcees. Surely the safer path for Gene Robinson to traverse would be the role of the church in applying Scripture to the changing circumstances of life?
Further, note the weakness of Gene Robinson’s understanding of the strength of the opposition against his episcopal appointment and how it might be overcome. The strength derives from a reading of Scripture which requires engagement if it is to be transformed into support for Gene. Airily wafting the matter away achieves nothing.
But how does the Church change its mind? How does it square inspiration with democracy?
"I think it happens over time. And the first person, or the first few people, who articulate a new understanding never meet with particularly positive reactions. It takes time for any kind of consensus to build.
You go back to Acts, and you have Gamaliel talking about the disciples’ teaching in the marketplace, saying: “You know, we ought to give this some time. If it’s not of God, it will go away. And if it is of God, do we want to be opposing it?” I think we’re in the middle of that now. All of us want it to be over, but the fact of the matter is that it’s going to take us some time to settle this."
Comment: Funnily enough, I too think Gamaliel is relevant to what is going on in the Anglican Communion these days. But Gamaliel’s advice cuts both ways. A challenge for those who believe it is of God to welcome and bless same sex relationships etc is whether the church which does that will grow or wither. There is some evidence of withering! From my conservative perspective I wonder whether conservatives are trusting enough of God through these days of controversy. If God is against Gene and co, why not leave that to God to sort out? We are an anxious presence in the church about these things, busily trying to change what we do not agree with. But is not God able to do something about that which is not according to God’s will? (Incidentally by speaking of God sorting these things out I do not mean God to smite anyone. I am thinking of God working out his purposes over time – and certainly beyond the present excitement which distorts the sense of what the long-term steady state of open, transparent involvement in the church of gay and lesbian people will turn out to be).
Incidentally, note the certitude of Gene Robinson that things will turn out the way he wants them to. Part of resentment against conservative Anglicans is resentment against their certitude (about what Scripture means etc). But certitude abounds on all sides in Anglicanism even though it allegedly loves ambiguity, doubt, and indefiniteness!!
If Rowan Williams came up to you at Lambeth and said: “We’ve changed our minds. Will you come and speak to us?” what would you say to the bishops?
"I would want them to know how amazingly orthodox I am. I think both the conservatives and the liberals would be shocked by that.
Because one of the things I’ve learned — and I’ve learned this from the most conservative people in our House of Bishops — is that they perceive that the fuller inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Church is the precursor, the sort of camel’s nose under the tent, to the deconstruction of other essentials, whether that be the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the resurrection. That could not be further from the truth about me."
Comment: Here I think Gene Robinson misunderstands the bigger picture. (Is ‘misunderstanding’ an emerging theme?). Gene may not himself be the thin end of a heretical wedge. But the support for him which agrees that Scripture is wrong on human sexuality seems questioning of other important Christian beliefs. Opponents within TEC ceaselessly highlight theological deficiency among the ‘liberal’ bishops of its hierarchy.
And then there is this ‘wedge’ aspect to support for Gene Robinson: we can notice that the support for gay and lesbian Christians is much spoken of these days in terms of an extension of a 'gay and lesbian' agenda to a ‘GLBT’ agenda. That is, the church is being asked to support and affirm gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-sexual Christians. Some are asking, where does this stop? Will polyamory Christians be added to the list? Others draw attention to the ambiguity involved in the notion of support for bi-sexual Christians: is this support for the inner struggles of a bi-sexual as they work through diverse feelings of attraction, or is it support for exploration of bi-sexuality with one partner of one gender then a partner of another gender? The latter, of course, being a little difficult to square with a commitment to monogamy! My point here is not to dismiss the possibility that the questions and issues at the thicker end of the wedge can be resolved, but to note the over-simplification of Gene Robinson’s account of conservative thinking.
But it’s not just a personal consideration. It’s a political question.
"I could tell you stories that would make you weep about what life is like for them, and the fear with which they live: the difficulty in having their bishop come to dinner at their home, with their partner, have a lovely time, and the bishop be fully affirming of them — and to have the bishop say: “You know, if this ever becomes public, I’m your worst nightmare. I will see to it that you are punished.” Now that does something not just to the bishop and to the couple; that does something to the Church."
Comment: if this has happened in the life of the church then surely this is rank injustice against gay and lesbian clergy.
But the thought of having two or three openly gay bishops must be attractive.
"It would be a wonderful thing. It’s a pretty lonely place to be, and I probably never feel lonelier than at meetings of my own House of Bishops. Not because I don’t have support, because the support there is extraordinary; but, perhaps more than at any other time, I feel that I’m the only one carrying this particular load in this particular way. I just long for the day when the next two or three come along.
It’s not unlike being the first person of colour, or the first woman — it’s why Barbara Harris is such a mentor and a hero to me. It would be nice to have a brother or sister to share this with."
Comment: Here Gene Robinson indirectly goes to the heart of the chasm which divides the Communion at the moment. In his mind, and I am sure in the minds of virtually all other gay and lesbian Christians, being gay or lesbian is a matter of identity and not iniquity. 'I am the only one of my people group in the House of Bishops,' is the effect of what Gene is saying, 'so when can we get more of the group in to share the load?' By contrast Gene’s critics are saying, 'You are an unrepentant sinner; you should not be a bishop; there is one too many of you in the House of Bishops.' This is a gulf in categorisation I do not know how to bridge. Do conservatives need to suspend judgement about the iniquity and think more imaginatively about identity? Do gay and lesbian Christians need to think more deeply about our identity in Christ?
How often does the issue of your sexuality come up in your normal ministry?
"Oh, almost never. I keep saying to people: if you want to see what the Church is like after we’ve finished obsessing about sex, come to New Hampshire. We’re so over it. Really, we are getting on with the gospel, and this occupies almost none of it. It’s what keeps me sane."
Comment: Perhaps Gene is right about the land Beyond Obsession. But his critics say there are less and less churches there!
Now, back to the essay cited above, ‘Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism rejected Homosexuality’. This essay makes the singular point that a great contribution of Judaism to the world was the change it wrought in human sexuality from a free for all practice without distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, often deeply enslaving and depraving of those who became what today we would call victims of abuse, and/or who were caught up in pervasive temple prostitution, to a practice in which sexual expression was constrained towards and expressed within marriage. Its subsidiary point is that Judaism’s refusal to embrace the indiscriminate sexual practices of the cultures around them, that is, to distinguish between homosexuality and heterosexuality, and to prohibit the former, was a leap forward in human social development. Our question today, in the light of that argument, could be this: is the homosexuality of Gene Robinson’s lifestyle (faithful, sober, stable lifelong partnership) a reversion backwards before the time of Leviticus, or a necessary adjustment to Leviticus? That is, is it possible for the Judeo-Christian tradition to accept a form of homosexuality which is different to the pre-Leviticus form because it parallels the constraint of sexuality towards marriage?
Without presuming to answer a significant question like that in a sentence or two, I will finish with this observation. Exemplary though Gene Robinson’s lifestyle appears to be, after its own fashion, it is a lifestyle being lived out in a larger context in which human sexuality according to the path laid down by Judaism (and continued by Christianity and Islam) is under severe strain and stress (to give one trivial example, this is the week in which topless news readers make their debut on NZ television, albeit on a reasonably obscure channel; another example might be that this is also the week in which Sex in the City: the Movie makes its debut). My sense is that the ‘liberal’ support for Gene Robinson downplays the significance of the larger backdrop of socio-sexual change against which the drama of his episcopacy is being played out, while ‘conservative’ opposition to Gene Robinson at the very least is right to ask whether socio-sexual change when embraced by the church ultimately leads to a better society and church.
Nevertheless Jesus loves us all, Gene, me, anyone reading this blog, more than we can know. Our greatest challenge as Christians is not to resolve intricate moral questions, but to make that love known through deed and word. Gene Robinson is committed to doing just that. Maybe that is common ground for our future together in the Anglican Communion?
Monday, September 18, 2017
The Politics of Jesus: who would Jesus vote for this election?
Crunch time. Votes to be cast by end of this Saturday 23rd September 2017. Who to vote for? Jacinda? Bill? Winston? James? Marama? Gareth? I'll concentrate here on the "party vote" but there is also the question of which local person to vote to become your local MP.*
If the criterion of your vote is voting for the winning side, well, good luck predicting that!
If the criterion of your vote is voting for a government which will keep NZ running well, planes flying, etc, then good luck with that!
If the criterion of your vote is voting for a government which has already informed you what their taxation policy is, then very good luck with that.
Perhaps you fancy gaining some insight from the partners of the prospective Prime Ministers? Then this article might help. But, then again, it might not, as each partner thinks their stumping partner is perfick!
If you do not fancy, as I do not, having Winston Peters being the queen or king maker, then, almost certainly, no predictions required, you and I will be disappointed!
But enough of secular political punditry (on which I fancy myself having some expertise :),) what would Jesus do?
Who would Jesus vote for this Saturday? (Well, okay, he was an observant Jew, so probably would cast an early vote so as not to do that sort of work on the Sabbath.)
It is tempting, incidentally, and I think some Christians will do this, to vote for Bill English (because a Christian, a married man and a family man) and not for Jacinda Ardern (because she is not married to her partner, not even engaged, and because she is not a committed Christian - she has distanced herself from her upbringing as a Mormon). Alongside that "moral approach" to voting decision-making, I would bring to bear this question: how honest is Bill English the politician? There are significant questions about his honesty in respect of the imbroglio over Todd Barclay and, more recently, a question about his continuing support for Murray McCully's shambolic if not dishonest performance explaining away an apparent bribe to a a Saudi sheikh.
What I think Jesus would do is to do what Jesus always did, which was to talk and act with a preference for the last, the least and the lost.
This election we are well aware that even if the country is working pretty well for many of us (who have jobs, who live in houses we can afford to rent or pay the mortgage for, who can pay our bills and buy good food for our families), it is not working well for all.
We have the last, the least and the lost among us - homeless, jobless, hungry, poor, waiting on hospital lists for treatment - to say nothing of those who feel hopeless and, perhaps, are turning to drugs as a result. Not all such situations can be fixed by government legislation and government department intervention. Some such situations could be helped significantly by the government governing better (e.g. using current tax revenue better) and by the government having more resources at its disposal (i.e. by raising more tax revenue).
But, just before we jump to the conclusion that Jesus would necessarily vote for one of our left-wing parties, it is worth remembering that Jesus was intelligent and wise. I think we could also assume that Jesus would not be so stupid as to vote for a solution to the problems of the last, the least and the lost which foreseeably would take us into a socialist world liable to become bankrupt (cf. Venezuela) or totalitarian (cf. anti-Christian Soviet Union, China).
In other words, Jesus would be a centrist like me!
OK, maybe not. But thinking like Jesus would think should bring into our minds both compassion and wisdom, both concern for people in need (think Parable of the Good Samaritan) and concern for society flourishing over the long-term in respect of freedom, sound economy, solid institutions (think Proverbs).
It might also be worth thinking about how Green Jesus would be, if voting in this election. As supreme Agent of Creation, I find it hard to think of Jesus as being unconcerned about how polluted our rivers, lakes and underground water supplies are becoming (think Genesis 1-2).
Trying to think Christianly in this way may or may not help us to finally determine which party we will vote for, because this way of thinking, leaves a number of options open to us. But it might also make us think a bit harder about which party we would vote for - it might make us pray more for good discernment.
I know which party I am voting for but won't say here. I am happy to say whom I am voting for in my intriguing local electorate, Ilam, where the incumbent National MP, Gerry Brownlee, is apparently being chased hard by a popular city councillor, Raf Manji, standing as an independent. My vote, however, is going to Tony Rimell, the Labour candidate and a Baptist minister here in Christchurch. In his favour is the fact that he is the only candidate I know personally!
*For overseas readers, NZ has a Mixed Member Proportional voting system in which each voter has two votes. One vote is for the local electorate MP, the other vote is for the preferred party to govern. The latter vote determines, proportionally, the make-up of parliament with MPs being drawn in from party lists to make up the proportionality required after the electorate MPs are taken into account. Theoretically a party could score >50% of the votes and govern alone but in practice no government has been formed under MMP without either a formal coalition with one or more other parties and/or a confidence-and-supply agreement with one or more other parties.
A further point of history to bear in mind: not since 1969 has NZ elected a government for a fourth term. The present National-led government has governed for three terms. The arc of history bends against a return of a National-led government, but the arc of history is a quaint notion and not a law of the Medes and Persians.
If the criterion of your vote is voting for the winning side, well, good luck predicting that!
If the criterion of your vote is voting for a government which will keep NZ running well, planes flying, etc, then good luck with that!
If the criterion of your vote is voting for a government which has already informed you what their taxation policy is, then very good luck with that.
Perhaps you fancy gaining some insight from the partners of the prospective Prime Ministers? Then this article might help. But, then again, it might not, as each partner thinks their stumping partner is perfick!
If you do not fancy, as I do not, having Winston Peters being the queen or king maker, then, almost certainly, no predictions required, you and I will be disappointed!
But enough of secular political punditry (on which I fancy myself having some expertise :),) what would Jesus do?
Who would Jesus vote for this Saturday? (Well, okay, he was an observant Jew, so probably would cast an early vote so as not to do that sort of work on the Sabbath.)
It is tempting, incidentally, and I think some Christians will do this, to vote for Bill English (because a Christian, a married man and a family man) and not for Jacinda Ardern (because she is not married to her partner, not even engaged, and because she is not a committed Christian - she has distanced herself from her upbringing as a Mormon). Alongside that "moral approach" to voting decision-making, I would bring to bear this question: how honest is Bill English the politician? There are significant questions about his honesty in respect of the imbroglio over Todd Barclay and, more recently, a question about his continuing support for Murray McCully's shambolic if not dishonest performance explaining away an apparent bribe to a a Saudi sheikh.
What I think Jesus would do is to do what Jesus always did, which was to talk and act with a preference for the last, the least and the lost.
This election we are well aware that even if the country is working pretty well for many of us (who have jobs, who live in houses we can afford to rent or pay the mortgage for, who can pay our bills and buy good food for our families), it is not working well for all.
We have the last, the least and the lost among us - homeless, jobless, hungry, poor, waiting on hospital lists for treatment - to say nothing of those who feel hopeless and, perhaps, are turning to drugs as a result. Not all such situations can be fixed by government legislation and government department intervention. Some such situations could be helped significantly by the government governing better (e.g. using current tax revenue better) and by the government having more resources at its disposal (i.e. by raising more tax revenue).
But, just before we jump to the conclusion that Jesus would necessarily vote for one of our left-wing parties, it is worth remembering that Jesus was intelligent and wise. I think we could also assume that Jesus would not be so stupid as to vote for a solution to the problems of the last, the least and the lost which foreseeably would take us into a socialist world liable to become bankrupt (cf. Venezuela) or totalitarian (cf. anti-Christian Soviet Union, China).
In other words, Jesus would be a centrist like me!
OK, maybe not. But thinking like Jesus would think should bring into our minds both compassion and wisdom, both concern for people in need (think Parable of the Good Samaritan) and concern for society flourishing over the long-term in respect of freedom, sound economy, solid institutions (think Proverbs).
It might also be worth thinking about how Green Jesus would be, if voting in this election. As supreme Agent of Creation, I find it hard to think of Jesus as being unconcerned about how polluted our rivers, lakes and underground water supplies are becoming (think Genesis 1-2).
Trying to think Christianly in this way may or may not help us to finally determine which party we will vote for, because this way of thinking, leaves a number of options open to us. But it might also make us think a bit harder about which party we would vote for - it might make us pray more for good discernment.
I know which party I am voting for but won't say here. I am happy to say whom I am voting for in my intriguing local electorate, Ilam, where the incumbent National MP, Gerry Brownlee, is apparently being chased hard by a popular city councillor, Raf Manji, standing as an independent. My vote, however, is going to Tony Rimell, the Labour candidate and a Baptist minister here in Christchurch. In his favour is the fact that he is the only candidate I know personally!
*For overseas readers, NZ has a Mixed Member Proportional voting system in which each voter has two votes. One vote is for the local electorate MP, the other vote is for the preferred party to govern. The latter vote determines, proportionally, the make-up of parliament with MPs being drawn in from party lists to make up the proportionality required after the electorate MPs are taken into account. Theoretically a party could score >50% of the votes and govern alone but in practice no government has been formed under MMP without either a formal coalition with one or more other parties and/or a confidence-and-supply agreement with one or more other parties.
A further point of history to bear in mind: not since 1969 has NZ elected a government for a fourth term. The present National-led government has governed for three terms. The arc of history bends against a return of a National-led government, but the arc of history is a quaint notion and not a law of the Medes and Persians.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Decision 2018: Q and A (1)
Among recent comments to the post below, a few questions were asked of me and I am posting responses here in a new post, along with a few further thoughts/reflections from me.
First, the further thoughts:
As the days unfold after General Synod in New Plymouth, I am aware of rumblings if not ructions in various parishes up and down these islands. I offer two personal hopes to any readers in any such parishes.
(1) that discussions in parishes are based on accurate information about what General Synod has done, on fair and reasonable expectations of trust and goodwill among Anglicans as we work these things out, including trust that our bishops are open to working out how conservative parishes are supported through this new era.
(2) that parishes do not try to work out difficult questions in (say) parish meetings without calling on outside assistance such as an archdeacon to be an external voice in proceedings. Archdeacons are busy people and may not love me for expressing this hope, but I do worry about parishes working on these matters within the framework of limited viewpoints.
Tomorrow I hope to tackle a couple of questions raised with me "off-blog" but for now, two questions raised the other day here on ADU
Sarah's question: "My question is not in regards to the SS issue but rather your thoughts on other examples of permanent/de facto relationships. Forgive me if this has been addressed before, I am a sporadic reader.
Question: if a heterosexual couple came into the church, having been in a de-facto relationship for a number of years and, let us say, have children in tow, and whom had a genuine desire to know the God's teaching on family order, what would your response be?
Where in Scripture (and I would like the answer to be Scripturally based, please) would you point this young couple?
I am genuinely interested as I have read your thoughts on the SS aspect of such a scenario, and wonder - if the basis is a committed relationship (and how more committed can a couple be by having children!) - where your line is drawn for gentle and loving rebuke? "
My response: The hypothetical couple you refer to are married, theologically speaking. There is no Scriptural text I am aware of which demands that a de facto married couple become a de jure married couple. There is no text that prescribes what form the beginning of a marriage should take but 1 Corinthians 5 teaches that every act of sexual intercourse forms a marriage, even sex with a prostitute does that, and such brief marriages are injurious. But the point is that consummation of a relationship is critical to the beginning of a marriage and historically non-consummation has been grounds for annulment of a(n apparent) marriage.
At
least twice in my pastoral ministry I have found the right words to say which
have led to couples formalising their de facto marriages. I do not recall those
words being a "rebuke".
Sam's question: "you wrote, "There is another image that fits here too, it is called whanau or extended family. ACANZP is that family"
To which family do you consider yourself primarily attached, the parish, the denomination, or the universal church? To which of these do you think Christ calls us to show greatest fidelity? Even at the expense of the others?"
My response: "To which (church) family am I loyal? I have this feeling, Sam, that my answer will not satisfy you! But why not give it a go. I am loyal (human frailty acknowledged) to Jesus Christ and to his followers and thus to God's family in the widest sense of all those who also confess loyalty to Jesus. But in a narrower sense, the Anglican part of that family, I am loyal to Anglicans ahead of (say) Presbyterians (even though my initial theological education was with them) or Catholics (even though I am married into that great family) or Protestants generally (even though I share many matters of theology with those unconvinced by all the claims of Rome).
In an even narrower sense I am loyal to the church - ACANZP - into which you and I have been ordained and have taken vows of obedience to the authority of our (respective diocesan) bishops, our constitution and canons, including the liturgies authorised for use by common agreement through General Synod which express our doctrine. That loyalty is congenial to me because of my upbringing as a cradle Anglican, my conviction as a thinking adult Anglican and by my many wonderful friendships across theological divides and cultural diversity in our Three Tikanga church (underlined again this most recent General Synod).
In
this church of ours I appreciate fellowship with Anglicans
loyal to Jesus who include two brothers and a sister who resigned this past
week from General Synod and gay Anglicans who did not. Our current and future
situation would appear to ask whether I will be loyal to one group rather than
another. If that is your underlying question then I can only say that I will
love all Anglicans in these islands, both those who stay in ACANZP and those
who may yet choose to depart.
You also ask to which of the forms of church, parish, denomination, universal church does Jesus Christ ask us to show the greatest fidelity? The answer is "all" because we have obligations to the local church to which we belong (and may, as licensed ministers, have made specific commitment to), to the denomination to which that local church belongs (and without which the local church would not be the local church), and to the universal church of which the denomination belongs, for the universal church is Christ's body on earth and we cannot opt out of that!
I do not see where 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12 implies that our love for fellow Christians is ever asked to be "at the expense of others." 1 John implies a situation in which some Christians have departed the fellowship to which the letter is addressed, and calls for ever deeper love for those that remain, but it is not clear exactly what has led to the departure, though it may be over the highest form of dispute possible between Christians, the nature and character of Jesus himself. From that perspective I would not say that (e.g.) I am obligated to have as much faithful love for Mormons, Muslims, Christadelphians, etc as for fellow Christians.
First, the further thoughts:
As the days unfold after General Synod in New Plymouth, I am aware of rumblings if not ructions in various parishes up and down these islands. I offer two personal hopes to any readers in any such parishes.
(1) that discussions in parishes are based on accurate information about what General Synod has done, on fair and reasonable expectations of trust and goodwill among Anglicans as we work these things out, including trust that our bishops are open to working out how conservative parishes are supported through this new era.
(2) that parishes do not try to work out difficult questions in (say) parish meetings without calling on outside assistance such as an archdeacon to be an external voice in proceedings. Archdeacons are busy people and may not love me for expressing this hope, but I do worry about parishes working on these matters within the framework of limited viewpoints.
Tomorrow I hope to tackle a couple of questions raised with me "off-blog" but for now, two questions raised the other day here on ADU
Sarah's question: "My question is not in regards to the SS issue but rather your thoughts on other examples of permanent/de facto relationships. Forgive me if this has been addressed before, I am a sporadic reader.
Question: if a heterosexual couple came into the church, having been in a de-facto relationship for a number of years and, let us say, have children in tow, and whom had a genuine desire to know the God's teaching on family order, what would your response be?
Where in Scripture (and I would like the answer to be Scripturally based, please) would you point this young couple?
I am genuinely interested as I have read your thoughts on the SS aspect of such a scenario, and wonder - if the basis is a committed relationship (and how more committed can a couple be by having children!) - where your line is drawn for gentle and loving rebuke? "
My response: The hypothetical couple you refer to are married, theologically speaking. There is no Scriptural text I am aware of which demands that a de facto married couple become a de jure married couple. There is no text that prescribes what form the beginning of a marriage should take but 1 Corinthians 5 teaches that every act of sexual intercourse forms a marriage, even sex with a prostitute does that, and such brief marriages are injurious. But the point is that consummation of a relationship is critical to the beginning of a marriage and historically non-consummation has been grounds for annulment of a(n apparent) marriage.
However in most churches in the Western world we like to know that couples
in our midst are in a de jure marriage rather than a de facto marriage.
This is probably because we doubt that a de facto married couple are quite as properly married as a de jure married couple, since the former lacks the public declaration of lifelong commitment and fidelity which the latter requires. But, to repeat, Scripture does not require a wedding as we
generally understand weddings. It would be fine if your couple said to your
vicar: "we are not married legally and have no intention of being so,* but we do
want to be married theologically and we want the congregation to know that, so
could we next Sunday together say to the congregation that we love each other,
that we promise to be faithful to the other and to remain married till one of
us dies." [*there are good arguments for the church having nothing to do with state registration of marriages.]
It is actually hard
to find one simple Scripture to cite which fulfills your request for Scriptural
reasoning for asking your hypothetical couple to make their marriage
either de jure or in some way more "proper". I think I would say to your couple that the general
discipline of the church through the ages, based on numerous Scriptural texts
about the importance of marriage, is that couples in a sexual relationship
should be married and the clearest sign of a couple embracing this challenge is to become legally married
I myself would not
think of offering a rebuke to such a couple as you cite. Many and varied are
the reasons why some couples are in a de facto marriage and not in a de jure
marriage and as a pastor I would want to listen to those reasons before
speaking.
Sam's question: "you wrote, "There is another image that fits here too, it is called whanau or extended family. ACANZP is that family"
To which family do you consider yourself primarily attached, the parish, the denomination, or the universal church? To which of these do you think Christ calls us to show greatest fidelity? Even at the expense of the others?"
My response: "To which (church) family am I loyal? I have this feeling, Sam, that my answer will not satisfy you! But why not give it a go. I am loyal (human frailty acknowledged) to Jesus Christ and to his followers and thus to God's family in the widest sense of all those who also confess loyalty to Jesus. But in a narrower sense, the Anglican part of that family, I am loyal to Anglicans ahead of (say) Presbyterians (even though my initial theological education was with them) or Catholics (even though I am married into that great family) or Protestants generally (even though I share many matters of theology with those unconvinced by all the claims of Rome).
In an even narrower sense I am loyal to the church - ACANZP - into which you and I have been ordained and have taken vows of obedience to the authority of our (respective diocesan) bishops, our constitution and canons, including the liturgies authorised for use by common agreement through General Synod which express our doctrine. That loyalty is congenial to me because of my upbringing as a cradle Anglican, my conviction as a thinking adult Anglican and by my many wonderful friendships across theological divides and cultural diversity in our Three Tikanga church (underlined again this most recent General Synod).
You also ask to which of the forms of church, parish, denomination, universal church does Jesus Christ ask us to show the greatest fidelity? The answer is "all" because we have obligations to the local church to which we belong (and may, as licensed ministers, have made specific commitment to), to the denomination to which that local church belongs (and without which the local church would not be the local church), and to the universal church of which the denomination belongs, for the universal church is Christ's body on earth and we cannot opt out of that!
I do not see where 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12 implies that our love for fellow Christians is ever asked to be "at the expense of others." 1 John implies a situation in which some Christians have departed the fellowship to which the letter is addressed, and calls for ever deeper love for those that remain, but it is not clear exactly what has led to the departure, though it may be over the highest form of dispute possible between Christians, the nature and character of Jesus himself. From that perspective I would not say that (e.g.) I am obligated to have as much faithful love for Mormons, Muslims, Christadelphians, etc as for fellow Christians.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Advantage, Christianity
One of the best things about a blog powered by (due acknowledgement coming up) Google's software is the "My Bloglist" on the right-hand side of the blog. At a glance I can see if any of my favourite blogistas have made a new posting. This morning, waking up Down Under to a perfect summer's day, two brilliant columns appear from the far side of the world. In one John Richardson, joining an ongoing, bubbling debate about the disestablishment of the Church of England, shares the luminous wisdom of T. S. Eliot. In the other, noted by Bishop Alan's Blog, and long enough for just a taster to be given here, Matthew Parris, Times columnist and confirmed atheist, gives as near perfect an apologia for 'the difference Jesus makes' as any Christian could! In tennis parlance (the Australian Open is not far away), 'Advantage, Christianity'!
John Richardson, The Ugley Vicar:
Why now would be a very bad time for disestablishment
The disestablishment of the Church of England makes very good theological sense. At the same time, I firmly believe that now would be a very bad time for it, since those who advocate it the loudest do so, I suspect, not for the effect it would have on the Church of England but for the effect it would have on our society. And what they intend, I'm sure, would would be very bad:
"It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe have —until recently — been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Christian culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche [both unbelievers]. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith. ... If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it."
(T S Eliot, ‘Notes Towards the Definition of Culture’, 1948, in Christianity and Culture, p200)
Matthew Parris, As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
... Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing. ...
Parris ends his column in this striking set of paragraphs:
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.
And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.
John Richardson, The Ugley Vicar:
Why now would be a very bad time for disestablishment
The disestablishment of the Church of England makes very good theological sense. At the same time, I firmly believe that now would be a very bad time for it, since those who advocate it the loudest do so, I suspect, not for the effect it would have on the Church of England but for the effect it would have on our society. And what they intend, I'm sure, would would be very bad:
"It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe have —until recently — been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Christian culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche [both unbelievers]. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith. ... If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it."
(T S Eliot, ‘Notes Towards the Definition of Culture’, 1948, in Christianity and Culture, p200)
Matthew Parris, As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
... Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing. ...
Parris ends his column in this striking set of paragraphs:
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.
And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
It is not about the Covenant
Tobias Haller might have a claim to be the most learned anti-Covenanter in TEC (if he is not, then I haven't come across the writings of the better claimant)! He has published a major talk (lecture?) given in the Diocese of Albany, entitled. Savi Hensman, writing at Ekklesia, as far as I can tell not a member of TEC, so this is not about her claims v. Tobias', tackles the Covenant from a different angle, pointing to the possibility of a different Covenant which would be 'clearer' and 'less divisive.'
I commend both their offerings for consideration. I find each unpersuasive.
Savi Hensman does make a good point that in the middle of a situation of division, diversity and difference, a new form of the Covenant which is more agreeable would be good. But she does not persuade me that what she cites is that new form. It would be most agreeable to those who do not want the Covenant to have any teeth. Some of us do want a Covenant with teeth, though not to devour people with, but to engage with one another in a manner of life which effects change when change is required.
Tobias' Haller offers various excurses which are tempting to digress upon. I shall resist that temptation, not least because if I do not, Tobias will undoubtedly come to comment and to point out that I have not focused on his main fare. Catholicity and Covenant succumbs. Tobias comments! (For what it is worth, my sympathies are with the former, and if the latter reads this, Yes, I have started reviewing your book and the project is currently in abeyance).
I think Tobias' core idea in developing his thesis that the Covenant is not necessary is this sentence (H/T Titus One Nine),
"In short, the process of organic development is afoot, it is not going to stop, and reception is or isn’t happening as I speak."
Anglicanism, in other words, is this Christian phenomenon which evolves ("organic development"). Nothing can stop the evolution, nothing ought to constrain the evolution. Some receive the gradual changes as they happen, some do not. But eventually all fall in line with the developmental line the Communion takes. In Covenantal terms, this development neither requires the Covenant nor needs constraint by the Covenant.
But right at the heart of the sentence, as Ad Orientem notes in comment at T19, is a sleight of theological hand: 'organic development' can mean two things. For Tobias it means the development of the Anglican Communion in any and every possible way, even in contradictory ways. For others, perhaps especially those with a keen eye on catholicity within our Anglican tradition, it means development of the Anglican Communion in a manner which is coherent and contiguous with what has gone before. If the former view of organic development is accepted then no Covenant is needed and none ought to be applied to Anglican life. If the latter view is held to, then a Covenant is needed and ought to be applied to our life, precisely to guide us as to what is organic development and what is not.
In the end much as I am tempted by Tobias' excurses (which are connected to his overall theme of Anglican Disunion), and by the steps in his exposition that I disagree with, I suggest the most important thing is not to deconstruct his argument and adjunct arguments, but to ask what kind of Anglicanism do we Anglicans want? What Tobias wants is incompatible with the Covenant. What I want is compatible with the Covenant. For Tobias the Covenant is quite scary but not, I suggest, because it might punish this church or discipline that, but because it represents a quite different vision for global Anglicanism. For me it is quite scary not having a Covenant! Not, I hasten to add, because this church might go unpunished or that one might escape discipline. No. Scary because it would mean a different vision for global Anglicanism was prevailing, a vision in which bit by bit 'global Anglicanism' loses its significance. And with each bit, for catholic Anglicans the temptation must grow to belong to Rome or Constantinople. Or the torture must increase for those who believe in Anglicanism as an alternative to the misconceptions of those other branches.
It is not about the Covenant, in the end. The great issue beyond all issues for Anglicans with a world vision is what kind of Anglican world do we want.
I commend both their offerings for consideration. I find each unpersuasive.
Savi Hensman does make a good point that in the middle of a situation of division, diversity and difference, a new form of the Covenant which is more agreeable would be good. But she does not persuade me that what she cites is that new form. It would be most agreeable to those who do not want the Covenant to have any teeth. Some of us do want a Covenant with teeth, though not to devour people with, but to engage with one another in a manner of life which effects change when change is required.
Tobias' Haller offers various excurses which are tempting to digress upon. I shall resist that temptation, not least because if I do not, Tobias will undoubtedly come to comment and to point out that I have not focused on his main fare. Catholicity and Covenant succumbs. Tobias comments! (For what it is worth, my sympathies are with the former, and if the latter reads this, Yes, I have started reviewing your book and the project is currently in abeyance).
I think Tobias' core idea in developing his thesis that the Covenant is not necessary is this sentence (H/T Titus One Nine),
"In short, the process of organic development is afoot, it is not going to stop, and reception is or isn’t happening as I speak."
Anglicanism, in other words, is this Christian phenomenon which evolves ("organic development"). Nothing can stop the evolution, nothing ought to constrain the evolution. Some receive the gradual changes as they happen, some do not. But eventually all fall in line with the developmental line the Communion takes. In Covenantal terms, this development neither requires the Covenant nor needs constraint by the Covenant.
But right at the heart of the sentence, as Ad Orientem notes in comment at T19, is a sleight of theological hand: 'organic development' can mean two things. For Tobias it means the development of the Anglican Communion in any and every possible way, even in contradictory ways. For others, perhaps especially those with a keen eye on catholicity within our Anglican tradition, it means development of the Anglican Communion in a manner which is coherent and contiguous with what has gone before. If the former view of organic development is accepted then no Covenant is needed and none ought to be applied to Anglican life. If the latter view is held to, then a Covenant is needed and ought to be applied to our life, precisely to guide us as to what is organic development and what is not.
In the end much as I am tempted by Tobias' excurses (which are connected to his overall theme of Anglican Disunion), and by the steps in his exposition that I disagree with, I suggest the most important thing is not to deconstruct his argument and adjunct arguments, but to ask what kind of Anglicanism do we Anglicans want? What Tobias wants is incompatible with the Covenant. What I want is compatible with the Covenant. For Tobias the Covenant is quite scary but not, I suggest, because it might punish this church or discipline that, but because it represents a quite different vision for global Anglicanism. For me it is quite scary not having a Covenant! Not, I hasten to add, because this church might go unpunished or that one might escape discipline. No. Scary because it would mean a different vision for global Anglicanism was prevailing, a vision in which bit by bit 'global Anglicanism' loses its significance. And with each bit, for catholic Anglicans the temptation must grow to belong to Rome or Constantinople. Or the torture must increase for those who believe in Anglicanism as an alternative to the misconceptions of those other branches.
It is not about the Covenant, in the end. The great issue beyond all issues for Anglicans with a world vision is what kind of Anglican world do we want.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
A Father's Heart and God's Heart
UPDATE FROM TEC GC: South Carolina has left the building. There is only so much of Machievalli even the most patient of Christians can endure!
TODAY's POST
Having congratulated GS yesterday on how it responded to Glynn Cardy's motion on the theology of marriage, there still remained to see what would come of Waiapu's two motions re same sex partnerships. In the end one was set aside and the other was also amended. The amended motion had started with the intention of confirming the autonomy of a bishop to ordained whom they chose. The stated explanation for the motion made it clear that this motion if resolved as it stood would lead to the Bishop of Waiapu (at least) ordaining whom he chose. Sanity prevailed, as you can read in Lloyd Ashton's report in Taonga. I suggest that conservatives in ACANZP, in particular, should reflect carefully and prayerfully on this part of the report of the debate:
"And then one of the best-known, best-loved veterans of the Anglican evangelical scene – we won’t be naming him – got to his feet to speak.
I simply say, again, re the challenge for conservatives, we must engage, as this brother in Christ is doing, with the pastoral challenge of the situation of same sex couples seeking to live their lives in faithful partnerships. One way to imagine ourselves into this challenge is to constantly ask ourselves what, if anything, would be different about what we say, do, think and pray about these matters if it were our own flesh-and-blood who come to us and say their lives are not 'straight'forward in the way we might wish them to be so.
What, in the end, is our heavenly Father's heart attitude to those who love another person with a love which is as great as the love of a husband for a wife or a wife for a husband?*
The amended motion which was approved, reads thus (and changes nothing about the current situation of our church:
"This General Synod / Te Hinota Whanui affirms the long tradition and practice of Episcopal autonomy, within canonical limits, in the discernment of a person’s call to ordination."
In other news from GS, a motion which Bosco Peters and others in the Diocese of Christchurch worked hard to formulate was passed, undergirding a resolve to be a Trinitarian liturgical church. Taonga report here.
However our normal warmth towards Bishop Kelvin Wright's blogging from GS is chilled slightly by his lack of enthusiasm for proper collects for our church!
Not all bishops in TEC are happy, as this statement of dissent makes clear. Perhaps critics here of my criticism of TEC could take note that TEC's own internal critics make pretty much the same criticism I make.
For something completely different, nothing to do with synodising or conventioning, J. Louis Martyn has something incisive to say about Galatians.
*PS: the question is about 'love', not about 'sex'. Framed in that way, we can scarcely dismiss it with appeals to the Bible's teaching on sex. Please refrain from doing so in comments on this post and, if you wish to comment, comment on the question!
PPS: Maybe I am being too strict with my strictures in the PS above! I find it hard to say what I think I want to say, but I am concerned that we can pastor those who are in dispute with what our doctrine is ... including pastoring those who consciously (and conscientiously) disagree with our doctrine. I think of a partnered gay friend who knows "all the arguments" and is unlikely to be persuaded by anything further I have to say, but would prefer me not to push for that which might lead to expulsion from the church and, vice versa, would not want to push for that which might lead to my expulsion from the church. If I were his vicar, what would my pastoral engagement with him involve (and not involve)? I can quickly state what the doctrine of marriage is (and why it should remain what it is). I find myself less able to state what the pastoral engagement of the pastor is to those who by word or deed or word-and-deed live out a different understanding of the doctrine of marriage. Is the question answered by saying, tout simple, that they must repent?
TODAY's POST
Having congratulated GS yesterday on how it responded to Glynn Cardy's motion on the theology of marriage, there still remained to see what would come of Waiapu's two motions re same sex partnerships. In the end one was set aside and the other was also amended. The amended motion had started with the intention of confirming the autonomy of a bishop to ordained whom they chose. The stated explanation for the motion made it clear that this motion if resolved as it stood would lead to the Bishop of Waiapu (at least) ordaining whom he chose. Sanity prevailed, as you can read in Lloyd Ashton's report in Taonga. I suggest that conservatives in ACANZP, in particular, should reflect carefully and prayerfully on this part of the report of the debate:
"And then one of the best-known, best-loved veterans of the Anglican evangelical scene – we won’t be naming him – got to his feet to speak.
This man has always believed, and still does, that the Scriptures teach that marriage is, and can only ever be, the faithful union of a man and woman before God.
And here he was, telling synod that his beloved daughter has come out.
What’s more, she has entered a civil union with her partner.
But there’s a twist. Because here’s the plea that his daughter, and her partner, insisted he make to synod:
“Please Dad”, he shouted to the synod. “Don’t let them do anything that would hurt the church!”
Coming out, he said, had cost his daughter and her partner.
They’d been worship leaders in their local church, and they had voluntarily resigned before they came out, and before their civil union.
If their union was going to hurt that much-loved church – well, they’d rather carry the pain themselves and resign.
But still, they were begging this man to keep his integrity.
“Please don’t change, Dad,” they told him, “unless you’re personally convinced that this is what the Scriptures say.”
Dad still doesn’t agree with his daughter and her partner’s lifestyle.
But there’s no question about the steadfastness of his love for his daughter and her partner.
“I love them passionately ,” he said.
He’d been to his daughter’s civil union ceremony.
He’d spoken there, too – just as the father of the bride usually does at a wedding.
“There is nothing that you can do,” he told her that day, “that will make me love you more.
“And nothing you can do that will make me love you less.”"I simply say, again, re the challenge for conservatives, we must engage, as this brother in Christ is doing, with the pastoral challenge of the situation of same sex couples seeking to live their lives in faithful partnerships. One way to imagine ourselves into this challenge is to constantly ask ourselves what, if anything, would be different about what we say, do, think and pray about these matters if it were our own flesh-and-blood who come to us and say their lives are not 'straight'forward in the way we might wish them to be so.
What, in the end, is our heavenly Father's heart attitude to those who love another person with a love which is as great as the love of a husband for a wife or a wife for a husband?*
The amended motion which was approved, reads thus (and changes nothing about the current situation of our church:
"This General Synod / Te Hinota Whanui affirms the long tradition and practice of Episcopal autonomy, within canonical limits, in the discernment of a person’s call to ordination."
In other news from GS, a motion which Bosco Peters and others in the Diocese of Christchurch worked hard to formulate was passed, undergirding a resolve to be a Trinitarian liturgical church. Taonga report here.
However our normal warmth towards Bishop Kelvin Wright's blogging from GS is chilled slightly by his lack of enthusiasm for proper collects for our church!
Not all bishops in TEC are happy, as this statement of dissent makes clear. Perhaps critics here of my criticism of TEC could take note that TEC's own internal critics make pretty much the same criticism I make.
For something completely different, nothing to do with synodising or conventioning, J. Louis Martyn has something incisive to say about Galatians.
*PS: the question is about 'love', not about 'sex'. Framed in that way, we can scarcely dismiss it with appeals to the Bible's teaching on sex. Please refrain from doing so in comments on this post and, if you wish to comment, comment on the question!
PPS: Maybe I am being too strict with my strictures in the PS above! I find it hard to say what I think I want to say, but I am concerned that we can pastor those who are in dispute with what our doctrine is ... including pastoring those who consciously (and conscientiously) disagree with our doctrine. I think of a partnered gay friend who knows "all the arguments" and is unlikely to be persuaded by anything further I have to say, but would prefer me not to push for that which might lead to expulsion from the church and, vice versa, would not want to push for that which might lead to my expulsion from the church. If I were his vicar, what would my pastoral engagement with him involve (and not involve)? I can quickly state what the doctrine of marriage is (and why it should remain what it is). I find myself less able to state what the pastoral engagement of the pastor is to those who by word or deed or word-and-deed live out a different understanding of the doctrine of marriage. Is the question answered by saying, tout simple, that they must repent?
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Why God created women?
Amidst the comments to my previous post the following are particular challenges I would like to respond to within a post rather than another comment:
First, I do not think God created women to be sent out for coffee. One reason why I am prepared to bat for women being able to share in all the ministries of God's church is the suspicion I harbour that lurking beneath arguments which sound principled may be a basic denial that women are equal to men. Take this comment as an instance (which I linked to in the previous post):
It is not a beautiful way to put things to ascribe the apostolic Junia as "someone who was sent for coffee." It sounds belittling to me.
Nevertheless, I accept that there are principled arguments for denying women may share in all the offices of the church. In respect of the second comment above I do not want to (and apologise if I set things up in the previous post to look as though I do) set up an unwinnable argument about looking more deeply into the fullness of humanity of women. If I implied that I could not accept any look in depth that disagreed with my own conclusions then I went too far. The point I am trying to make I will now put this way: I think we (especially we men) owe it to women to check, re-check and double check that any argument we bring against women being ordained to roles such as presbyter and bishop does not hide within it a diminution of women's full humanity.
If, having checked, re-checked and double checked that no such diminiution is overt or covert then we may have an argument against women's ordination that is coherent with the full humanity of women. (Obviously I think Mr Wilson, cited above, fails my standard on the matter! And I wonder if the writer who commends him would write so approvingly if he checked, re-checked and double checked what he has written. Sent out for coffee? Yeah, right!).
So, back to the first comment: positively, what do I think God created women to be and to do?
First and foremost I think God created women and men to people the earth, to enjoy its goodness, to steward its resources, and to praise its Creator. To people the earth, men and women come together in marriage in order to create families, for without one another the peopling of the earth fails, and following this particular aspect of God's purpose for men and for women, men become husbands and fathers and women become wives and mothers.
Secondly, God created women and men for service: serving God and serving one another. At the heart of Jesus' own vision for humanity is a vision for serving one another: the least is the greatest, the last is first, love one another. The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many. I sense that from this perspective we should understand the word 'helper' in Genesis 2:18-25: a 'man' alone (whether a male or a female) has no equal counterpart to form human society, so 'man' alone became 'male and female he created them' (binding both Genesis 1 and 2 together). Neither beast nor bird creates human society: men and women do. But each is to be 'helper' (or, in the language of Jesus, 'servant') to the other. What Adam exclaims when he discovers Eve is not 'At last, a helper' but 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.'
Inevitably, in our service of God and of one another, specific directions are given. As people met Jesus on the way, some were called to literally follow him, others were sent back to their place of residency, but all were asked to live the lifestyle of the kingdom (cf. the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching). Within the kingdom there seems to be only one constant role for its citizens: service.
When New Testament talk moves to 'church' it seems to reckon both with the question of diversity-in-unity (so talk about the body of Christ, members of one body, diverse gifts, one Spirit) and practical arrangements for the daily and weekly life of churches (who hosts, leads, serves, teaches but, as noted here in the last few days, without mention of who presides at eucharist). Previously, I have argued that the early days of the church were days of pneumatological flexibility: the charismatic church rather than the institutional church. Within that flexibility offices were created as required (e.g. Acts 6), instructions were given to fit local conditions (e.g. 1 Timothy - and they were local conditions because in different conditions today we ignore most of 1 Timothy's instructions about practical arrangements for church life: men do not raise hands in prayer, widows are no longer organised according to Paul's instructions).
What has God created men and women for in the church? To serve one another, to serve the cause of the gospel, to love one another through the power of the Spirit. The richness of talk of submitting to one another, of being fellow workers working together with God is a richness which comes from the profound foundational truth of the church that it is birthed through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on men and women, a baptism of the Spirit in which there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek because the church is the one body of Christ inclusive without distinction of all humanity who make its members.
God created men and women for freedom in Christ, constrained only by the law of Christ which is to love one another. This profound gospel truth, vehemently propounded by Paul in Galatians, is our guide to the roles of men and women in the church. What has God created us for? To love God, love our neighbour, love our enemy and love one another.
ADDENDUM: John Richardson at The Ugley Vicar has posted something which relates very closely to what I am trying to say here. My quick, and initial comment (also in a comment below) is this:
In that post I suggest John R is coming very close to what I am saying and veering away from it at precisely the point which worries me: by emphasising woman as image of the image-bearer, whether he wishes to or not, he sets up the conditions under which women may be treated as lesser than men.
In a slightly larger comment I suggest we need to consider whether his understanding of adam as 'collective singular' precisely fails to acknowledge that as a collective singular noun it includes the one collection Genesis 1:26 and 5:1b-2 refers to, 'male and female.' Crucial here is Genesis 5:1b-2 (noted by John, so fascinating that he understand its implication differently to me):
"When God created man (adam), he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (adam) when they were created." (ESV).
The adam is collective singular: they are male and female - it (adam-kind) is male and female.
Further, in setting out the relationship between 'Adam' and 'Christ' he drives this to settle an argument that Adam (the male) is the image-bearer of God and this Eve (the female) is the image of the image-bearer. But the Adam in whom we all sin and therefore die is the collective in action, the male and the female engaging together as humankind falls - each is culpable (as, perhaps ironically in this present discussion, is drawn attention to by 1 Timothy 2:13-14). It is 'humankind' which falls and Christ is the representative and first fruit of the new humanity in whom we live. Paul, I suggest, understands this in at least two places in his writings. In Galatians 3:28, the new humanity, those who are 'in Christ', are 'neither male nor female'. In 1 Corinthians 11:11, he writes, 'Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman'.
To ignore these texts when attempting to argue that men image God as image-bearers of God and that women are images of the image-bearers (a derivative relationship) is a problematical theological exercise because it does not seem to allow for what Genesis 5:1b-2, Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:11 are saying, men and women as one humanity image God, scar that image and in Christ are restored as that image.
"I'm asking YOU why God created women, what did/does He ask us to do/be? I presume you have already decided what He asks you as a male to do."
" I don't have any idea how to prove that I have 'looked more deeply' into whether my arguments 'take account of the fullness of humanity, in creation and in redemption, a fullness in which men and women share completely.' You have set up the answer in this way. "When you delve more deeply, you will end up agreeing with me." Disagreement thus becomes evidence of not having 'deeply delved.' It's an impossible burden that I can never meet. "
First, I do not think God created women to be sent out for coffee. One reason why I am prepared to bat for women being able to share in all the ministries of God's church is the suspicion I harbour that lurking beneath arguments which sound principled may be a basic denial that women are equal to men. Take this comment as an instance (which I linked to in the previous post):
"I love the way that Doug Wilson writes. I might not always agree with what he writes but he has a beautiful way of putting things that only enhances what he’s saying. So, in a series of recent posts on the Women Bishops nonsense in the Church of England, and particularly N.T.Wright’s contributions, he has come up with some corkers,
Wright also says that Junia is listed among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). He earlier was dismissive of the unusual words in 1 Tim. 2, but here is apparently unaware of the common uses of the noun and verb forms of apostello. An apostle is a “sent one,” and the verb means “to send.” Jesus was an apostle of God (Heb. 3:1), the twelve were apostles of Christ (Luke 6:13), and Paul and Barnabas were apostles of the church at Antioch (Acts 13:2-4). How much authority is involved is a pure function of the sending agency, and what the sent one is commissioned to do. Of course Junia was a sent one. But whose? To what purpose? The mere use of the word gives us no basis for promoting someone who was sent for coffee to the ranks of the Twelve."
It is not a beautiful way to put things to ascribe the apostolic Junia as "someone who was sent for coffee." It sounds belittling to me.
Nevertheless, I accept that there are principled arguments for denying women may share in all the offices of the church. In respect of the second comment above I do not want to (and apologise if I set things up in the previous post to look as though I do) set up an unwinnable argument about looking more deeply into the fullness of humanity of women. If I implied that I could not accept any look in depth that disagreed with my own conclusions then I went too far. The point I am trying to make I will now put this way: I think we (especially we men) owe it to women to check, re-check and double check that any argument we bring against women being ordained to roles such as presbyter and bishop does not hide within it a diminution of women's full humanity.
If, having checked, re-checked and double checked that no such diminiution is overt or covert then we may have an argument against women's ordination that is coherent with the full humanity of women. (Obviously I think Mr Wilson, cited above, fails my standard on the matter! And I wonder if the writer who commends him would write so approvingly if he checked, re-checked and double checked what he has written. Sent out for coffee? Yeah, right!).
So, back to the first comment: positively, what do I think God created women to be and to do?
First and foremost I think God created women and men to people the earth, to enjoy its goodness, to steward its resources, and to praise its Creator. To people the earth, men and women come together in marriage in order to create families, for without one another the peopling of the earth fails, and following this particular aspect of God's purpose for men and for women, men become husbands and fathers and women become wives and mothers.
Secondly, God created women and men for service: serving God and serving one another. At the heart of Jesus' own vision for humanity is a vision for serving one another: the least is the greatest, the last is first, love one another. The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many. I sense that from this perspective we should understand the word 'helper' in Genesis 2:18-25: a 'man' alone (whether a male or a female) has no equal counterpart to form human society, so 'man' alone became 'male and female he created them' (binding both Genesis 1 and 2 together). Neither beast nor bird creates human society: men and women do. But each is to be 'helper' (or, in the language of Jesus, 'servant') to the other. What Adam exclaims when he discovers Eve is not 'At last, a helper' but 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.'
Inevitably, in our service of God and of one another, specific directions are given. As people met Jesus on the way, some were called to literally follow him, others were sent back to their place of residency, but all were asked to live the lifestyle of the kingdom (cf. the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching). Within the kingdom there seems to be only one constant role for its citizens: service.
When New Testament talk moves to 'church' it seems to reckon both with the question of diversity-in-unity (so talk about the body of Christ, members of one body, diverse gifts, one Spirit) and practical arrangements for the daily and weekly life of churches (who hosts, leads, serves, teaches but, as noted here in the last few days, without mention of who presides at eucharist). Previously, I have argued that the early days of the church were days of pneumatological flexibility: the charismatic church rather than the institutional church. Within that flexibility offices were created as required (e.g. Acts 6), instructions were given to fit local conditions (e.g. 1 Timothy - and they were local conditions because in different conditions today we ignore most of 1 Timothy's instructions about practical arrangements for church life: men do not raise hands in prayer, widows are no longer organised according to Paul's instructions).
What has God created men and women for in the church? To serve one another, to serve the cause of the gospel, to love one another through the power of the Spirit. The richness of talk of submitting to one another, of being fellow workers working together with God is a richness which comes from the profound foundational truth of the church that it is birthed through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on men and women, a baptism of the Spirit in which there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek because the church is the one body of Christ inclusive without distinction of all humanity who make its members.
God created men and women for freedom in Christ, constrained only by the law of Christ which is to love one another. This profound gospel truth, vehemently propounded by Paul in Galatians, is our guide to the roles of men and women in the church. What has God created us for? To love God, love our neighbour, love our enemy and love one another.
ADDENDUM: John Richardson at The Ugley Vicar has posted something which relates very closely to what I am trying to say here. My quick, and initial comment (also in a comment below) is this:
In that post I suggest John R is coming very close to what I am saying and veering away from it at precisely the point which worries me: by emphasising woman as image of the image-bearer, whether he wishes to or not, he sets up the conditions under which women may be treated as lesser than men.
In a slightly larger comment I suggest we need to consider whether his understanding of adam as 'collective singular' precisely fails to acknowledge that as a collective singular noun it includes the one collection Genesis 1:26 and 5:1b-2 refers to, 'male and female.' Crucial here is Genesis 5:1b-2 (noted by John, so fascinating that he understand its implication differently to me):
"When God created man (adam), he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (adam) when they were created." (ESV).
The adam is collective singular: they are male and female - it (adam-kind) is male and female.
Further, in setting out the relationship between 'Adam' and 'Christ' he drives this to settle an argument that Adam (the male) is the image-bearer of God and this Eve (the female) is the image of the image-bearer. But the Adam in whom we all sin and therefore die is the collective in action, the male and the female engaging together as humankind falls - each is culpable (as, perhaps ironically in this present discussion, is drawn attention to by 1 Timothy 2:13-14). It is 'humankind' which falls and Christ is the representative and first fruit of the new humanity in whom we live. Paul, I suggest, understands this in at least two places in his writings. In Galatians 3:28, the new humanity, those who are 'in Christ', are 'neither male nor female'. In 1 Corinthians 11:11, he writes, 'Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman'.
To ignore these texts when attempting to argue that men image God as image-bearers of God and that women are images of the image-bearers (a derivative relationship) is a problematical theological exercise because it does not seem to allow for what Genesis 5:1b-2, Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:11 are saying, men and women as one humanity image God, scar that image and in Christ are restored as that image.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Ma Whea? Commission: A nightmare or a mare's nest?
I am going to jot down responses to the Ma Whea? Commission's offering of ten options to General Synod, the report of the Doctrine Commission, with a day by day addition to this post for a week or so.
Key Links re what is being presented
Anglican Taonga Report
Ma Whea? Commission's full report in PDF
The Ten Options
Precis of Doctrine Commission's report
Doctrine Commission's full report in PDF
A blogpost or two worth looking at re response
Making Tracts (Bishop Jim White)
Monday 7 April
Reading around the traps (i.e. posts and comments to the posts) I suggest that one way to reflect on the situation before our church is that of two broad groupings talking past each other because the situation is seen in a completely different perspective by each broad grouping. (Thus the one bit of the reports presented on Taonga which connects with this reality is the news that the Doctrine Commission could not agree on a number of matters).
For one group the issue before us is small (and the group cannot understand why so much energy is expended about it), involving a modest extension of rights within our church, an additional rite for our church and, possibly, a tiny change to our doctrine of marriage by removal of gender differentiation as a sine qua non of marriage. In terms of the ten Options, C, D and I could come to the forefront of consideration with little or no ramifications, according to this line of thinking (as I detect it, reading around the traps ... I might be misreading).
For another group the issue before us is big (and thus a lot of energy is being expended because the future shape and even life itself of our church is at stake). On one point this group would agree with the other group, greater clarity re 'rights' within our church is important. Thus we read in the report on the Doctrine Commission,
'The Commission states clearly that the Church should stand for the inclusion of those who are marginalized, even while the shape of that inclusion is debated.'.
But for the remainder of matters, this group's thinking runs along these lines: there is nothing 'modest' about a change which decides we can bless in God's name what God has prohibited, nor about removing gender differentiation as core to our understanding of marriage. For that matter even adding a rite to our church's set of rites is not a neutral action for it would raise the question of whether clergy would be disciplined for refusing to offer the rite, to say nothing of the question of people being refused ordination or appointment to licensed positions because of such refusal. I note that under Option I there is a chilling remark to the effect that it is a serious option to refuse to permit clergy to not offer the rite:
'“An exception could be considered to permit clergy to elect not to perform blessings of persons in same sex relationships.”'
Only, 'could be considered'??
Within this group I detect an alertness to the possibility of naievity. The course of secular debate in Western societies has quickly moved from 'de-criminalization' of homosexual acts, to 'civil unions', to 'gay marriage.' Wouldn't it be foolish to presume that agreement now to Options C, D, or I would settle the matter once and for all? Surely the real agenda of those pushing for change is to secure Option E? Why not 'get it over and be done with it?'
For this group, seeing large rather than small changes before us, of the ten options, J seems the least we could agree to at this time - A would be satisfactory, B plausible but demanding. In ascending order of urgent priority for consideration F, G, and H must be reckoned with if change is going to happen.
But F, G and H are arguably 'nightmare' options. But the reality, whichever way we might go as we reflect on the options is that we have a 'mare's nest' because we have two quite different views at work as to how big or small the issues are.
The mare's nest also involves Option K which the Commission has not presented, and maybe not thought about ... more later.
Tuesday 8 April
Very interesting discussion on the Making Tracts post linked above - please read.
Reading there and elsewhere, and thinking further ... these scenarios/questions strike me:
X: We retain the status quo because we cannot agree on a way forward ... but perhaps also because we recognise that whatever we do, change or don't change, our church will suffer loss, and we cannot work out which is the greater loss if we pursue one option rather than another.
Y: We change (or signal 'change in principle, two years study, change in 2016 in practice') but will we be able to sustain Two Integrities? Will those pressing for change admit safeguards? Will they be permanent or for the time-being? What kind of Two Integrities would we have? Referring back to discussion on Making Tracts (link above) would the Two Integrities be akin to trying to promote both Baptism of Infants of Believers and Baptism of Adult Believers Only (something Anglicans have not done previously) or to living with Military Chaplains and Pacifists in our midst?
Z: We bite the bullet and press for Dismemberment: choose you this day whom you will bless. (At least we might allow ourselves a process through two years for orderly Dismemberment). But would the rump 'gay church' survive? If we pressed for Change Now, Dismemberment Now some very strong parishes (i.e. with many younger generation families) could depart. Almost certainly on such a draconian cleaving of the ways, the Diocese of Nelson (with a theological college in its midst) would walk apart. Perhaps one other NZ Diocese too, along with the Diocese of Polynesia. Many parishes remaining would consist of elderly parishioners incapable of embracing adaptation to the 21st century, unable to put forward candidates for ordained ministry in sufficient numbers to maintain ordained leadership going forward. Within ten years the rump church would be in severe crisis mode re person power in the ministry (though likely not financially as existing trust funds would spread better over fewer ministries). Hmm. Not an exciting scenario. Perhaps General Synod won't go there!
In some ways our church is considering a 'zero sum' game: if we chose one scenario we keep so many and lose so many; if we choose another scenario we lose that much and keep that many. Put another way, our dilemma (arguably, when all is said and done) is whether we wish to include conservatives and marginalise gay couples and their supporters or marginalise conservatives and canonically include gay couples and bring peace to their supporters. We would like to (so to speak) keep both groups happy. We worry that we cannot do so. If there were a simple answer to the dilemma we would not be a church with ten options to consider!
There is also an eleventh Option K to consider which I will think about further while on the road today ... comments may not be posted till late tonight.
Wednesday 9 April
Reading the ten options I do not find any particular sense of reflection on the future of our church in terms of growth and development, in terms of, we might say, riffing off from Option H, 'Planned Memberment.'
The focus, understandably, through the ten options is, 'What will we decide?' and 'How will making a decision, one way or another, affect current membership of the church?'
But we live in a desperate situation for our church, one of widespread ageing and decline of congregations BUT NOT a situation beyond change, transformation and a new day dawning. A new day dawning, however, is about recruiting new members into the life of our church.
None of the ten options addresses the question of what kind of church in the future will new people want to join (whether as Christians transferring from other churches or as new Christians responding to the gospel preached from our ministry unit bases).
In the present context some, of course, are likely to say 'Well, no one will want to join a church out of touch with the times' and others might say, 'Not so. Who would join a church which looks so in touch with the times that all distinctiveness of message and lifestyle is lost?' Personally I would prefer to ask this question:
'What messages being preached in word and deed today are drawing new members into the life of the Anglican church in these islands?'
My Option K is then this: 'We should decide re marriage and the possibility of blessing relationships which are not marriage to make changes (or no changes) which support and foster the messages being preached in word and deed today which draw new members into our churches'.
Would doing anything else foster the continuing decline of our church?
Friday 11 April
Our dilemma as a church is neatly captured by a comment made on Making Tracts - link above - from which I cite a small portion:
"In the NZ society, unlike Australia, there is no official discrimination except in the church. Even the visiting future king attended a playgroup yesterday with a same sex couple and their child. It was harldy big news.Even in my age group of 60 plus I do not experience any discrimination day to day. Most of my friends however do not go near a church.I do not support church missionary activity because I would not recommend any young gay person become involved with the church. That way lies misery."
I suggest that no one on the conservative side of the argument wishes the church to be a place where it is viewed as the only community within society where there is 'official discrimination' against gay members; nor does anyone wish the church to be a place where gay members are 'miserable'.
Yet no one on the conservative side of the argument wishes the church to be a place where our understanding of the will of God is determined by sweeping social change or parliamentary law. Social change expressed in law may be God's will (or at least in accordance with God's will) but shouldn't the church discern whether that is the case or not? And shouldn't our discernment be undertaken in terms of our understanding of Scripture and tradition?
Solomon: what is your cellphone number?
Sunday 14 April
I like this comment by Gail Young on Anglican Taonga's report re the commission (but it needs to be read in tandem with the comment below by Rosemary Neave):
"
rosemary Neave
Then ...
Mollie Hemingway, in the context of the USA has a stirring column re marriage and debates (or suppression of debate) in her country. Here is the heart of her pro-marriage as it always has been argument:
"Well, I know that we’ve had years of criminally one-sided media coverage, cowardly political leaders and elite cultural views that have conveyed to you that the only reason anyone might think sexual complementarity is key to marriage is bigotry. ... There’s no question marriage has been treated dramatically differently than other relationships by governments and society. Why? Is it that it features a more vibrant or emotional connection? Or is there some feature that is a difference in kind – that marks it out as something that ought to be socially structured? We usually don’t want government in our other relationships, right? So why is marriage singled out throughout all time and human history as a different type of recognized relationship?
Well, what singled it out was that sex was involved. Sex. ... And why does that matter? Well, there’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this."
Tuesday 15 April
With H/T to a colleague for two of the three links below, I note the following:
A new crisis for the C of E re gay marriage, precisely because a clergyman has married his male partner and thus appears to have flouted C of E rules.
Andrew Brown comments on the delicacies of the situation, including that the clergyman is secularly employed as a chaplain while holding a bishop's licence as a canon. I am not sure that Andrew Brown has a particularly dramatic headline - creaking compromises are what the C of E is made up of!
Then a link to an interpretation of Leviticus. What do you think, brilliant or incorrect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Gail Young