I know what I like

In 1985, by happy coincidence, the annual Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship conference was held in Auckland, as was the Monet Exhibition, a bringing together of Monet paintings from around the world so us little old Kiwis could have a taste of "great" art without needing to take a plane ride to London, Paris, New York, etc. (I was living in Dunedin in those days.) I recall the excitement of the exhibition coming to NZ, of wanting to go, of going, and don't recall much about what I actually saw or felt when I saw the paintings - though I have, ever since, had a very high liking for Impressionist paintings, including Monet's.

Since then, occasionally rather than regularly, I have viewed art - paintings more my thing than sculptures - and perhaps have done so with the awe that comes when one is not an artist and thus admiring of artistic skill, vision and endeavour that is not a gift embedded in my life. I have also come to admire those art historians and critics who explain paintings with about 99 more insights than my one thought :).

Recently I have had opportunity to view some of the great paintings of our world - where and what particular paintings I have viewed don't matter for the purposes of this post. My reflections flow from the initially personal to the role of art in religious experience. However there may be nothing peculiar to Anglicanism in this post. Indulge me as a budding art critic!

One criterion, obviously very personal, for appreciation of paintings is whether I would like to have the painting adorn the walls of my own home. Would I like it to be constantly available to view? Could I imagine myself growing tired of it and thus, after a few months or even a few years, growing tired and regretful of making the purchase? (Let's set aside for the moment my generally impoverished financial state relative to the actual cost of great paintings, and the lack of much wall space suitable for great works which sometimes are of great size!)

On this criterion I could see myself not wanting to buy every conceivable Impressionist painting: some move me with deep emotion and some, well, do not. But also on this criterion, I find myself asking why I would love to have a Pollock (he of splashing paint against the canvas fame) and a Mondrian (he of straight lines, squares and rectangles fame). Neither tell an obvious story (to this non-art historian), but both kinds of paintings move me to wish I could have (at least) one of each.

Recent viewings have led me to another criterion - again, possibly quite personal. We are all aware that in the past, portrait painting was a "thing", no doubt because, without photography, it was a way not only of honouring a person but also of enabling their memory to endure. But I find a lot of portraits leave me quite cold as a potential purchaser (even when the portrait is of a famous person and painted by a renowned artist). But the criterion which has come to my mind, as at least being an important marker for me, is that the portrait draws me to want to meet the person portrayed, to enter their world and to find out more about them. An outstanding example of such a painter is Rembrandt. His faces are amazing, not only because of the way he captures light on faces, but because the faces are painted in a way that, at least for me, makes me want to enter the world of the one who has been portrayed. An NZ equivalent, in my view is C.F. Goldie.

I have thought of a third quality a painting might have, which is still about "drawing me into its world" though not necessarily directly into the world as portrayed by the artist (so this is different to the second criterion above). Recent viewings of religious art have reminded me that some of the great Christian art works (of the "Mary with the child Jesus", "Jesus and the disciples", "St Francis and the animals" kind) have been painted as though these biblical scenes occurred in the contemporary world of the artist (per buildings depicted in the background, style of clothes worn, even style of painting of the bodies of people/animals/angels involved in the depiction, etc). 

Into that contemporary world, I have not found myself drawn, but nevertheless I have been moved by the devotion portrayed. Somehow the artist has captured the vibe of the biblical story/event-in-Christian-history being illustrated and the vibe - utter devotion to God encountered in the moment (if Jesus not depicted) or devotion to Jesus - connects with me (mostly to trouble me about my lack of devotion!). This third criterion, then, is that the painting draws me out of myself towards something I see (or "see") which is greater than me - likely God and the world of the Bible or major moments/people in church history - and that greater thing is inherent in the painting rather than directly portrayed. It is inspirational because, somehow, between intent to depict the past and doing so in a manner contemporary to the artist's own time, nevertheless a timeless engagement of human(s) with the divine is represented and I, the viewer, am drawn to enter also into that engagement. (Obviously a related reflection is involved when pondering what it is about iconography which moves our spirits, though in that case, artists make their depictions in a certain format which continues across generations and eras).

Incidentally, the NZ artist I most admire in terms of this third criterion is Colin McCahon - whose paintings are not well known outside of NZ, but - in my very humble and I am not an art historian view - would grace any of the best known galleries around the world.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just because by next Monday the moment may have passed, because ... well lots could happen in the next seven days ... I think it worth acknowledging President Trump's achievement [to date] re peace in the Middle East. Perhaps 99/100 Trumpian things are debateable if not objectionable (see all kinds of things happening in the USA re migration, ICE, National Guard callouts, activist attorneys appointed with one arrest specifically in mind, defunding of all manner of things useful to USA society and to humankind generally (e.g. scientific research), whatever is or is not going on re US/Qatar relationship, etc, and, indeed, many et ceteras). But here, on this one matter at least, Trump has achieved what his predecessor could not and which, arguably, no other national leader currently in power could do - not even if they all got together to exert their collective influence. It is unimaginable that either Xi or Putin would have exerted themselves one iota to solve the problem of achieving a ceasefire.

A challenge for for those who lean "pro Palestinian" or even are "all in, pro Palestinian" - I suggest - is whether we can appropriately acknowledge Trump's influence on this matter! I raise this challenge because some internet surveying in the past day or so suggests an unwillingness to so acknowledge ... which is coupled, in my view, with a lack of "real politik" about what might have achieved the ceasefire ... certainly it was not going to have been achieved by protest marches in cities far from the Holy Land, nor by flotillas sailing closer the the Holy shores, nor by declarations of recognition of Palestine as a state. (To be clear, all such actions have their own value in generating a climate of expectation that the war must stop. My point here is simply that none of them alone or in accumulation was going to stop the war).

Our prayer, summed up, as always, in the words of our Lord, "Your kingdom come", must continue to be that this present ceasefire leads to a lasting just peace.

Postscript: I could be wrong. Maybe Trump was just a pawn here, subject to forces with more power than meets the eye? Or, is this a fantasy?

Archbishop-designate Sarah: let's pray for her!

I am very pleased that the Church of England, with the assistance of five voting Communion members, including the Reverend Isaac Beach of our church, has come to a decision, agreed to by the British PM and the King himself, that the Right Reverend Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

The role is important in the C of E itself and [in my view, argued elsewhere on this blog] for the Anglican Communion also. At this time, Bishop Sarah is well-positioned to be the (dare I say, "our"?) new archiepiscopal leader: a leader in the secular world, former Chief Nurse of the UK, prior to ordination, then Bishop of London, these past seven years - a complex and challenging role in a major world city. 

Challenges facing the C of E have been fairly well canvassed in media articles and even on this blog - declining numbers and influence, divisions over sexuality and over missional strategy ("Save the Parish" v new initiatives in church planting etc), hurt and pain over sexual and spiritual abuse and experiences of survivors that the institutional response of the CofE has been far from adequate - I write such things not in judgement/evaluation but in reflection of what any reader of secular and ecclesiastical media in recent years would have been reading. Initial responses to Bishop Sarah's appointment are, thankfully, mostly positive, about her ability to contribute good, and kind leadership into this complex set of challenges.

Of course, there are other responses to Bishop Sarah's appointment, so that from the wider Communion, sadly, even tragically, the GAFCON and related responses are of the "this hastens the end of things" type. All very predictable. You can read the good, bad and ugly responses via links Thinking Anglicans, as always, helpfully supplies, here.

One not so predictable is that of Ian Paul at Psephizo. Potentially he could have marked her harder. He finds a lot of good in her appointment. His post is also useful for the citations he makes within it - helping readers to get a fuller sense of response to +Sarah's appointment. (Of course I don't care for what he has to say about our church in the course of his reflections (and I don't see that whatever state our church may or may not be in has anything to do with the presence of our church in the discernment and voting process - the five Communion members were chosen according to a Communion determination of how it would be best represented!).)

On a personal note, I met +Sarah at the Lambeth Conference 2022 and had a lovely conversation with her. And also with Eamonn her husband. They are are very straightforward couple to engage with and it would be lovely to think they might visit our blessed isle one day ... perhaps to re-open a cathedral????

It is absolutely worth noting that it is a good, right and proper thing that we have our first female Archbishop of Canterbury in prospect. Some comments here and there (by which, of course, I include Facebook) are derogatory about having a woman in such a role. End of the church. I am leaving the church. Etc. But, here's the thing: God loves all humanity, male and female. God in Christ died for all humanity, male and female. God through the Spirit gifts all humanity, female and male, with the gifts and the vocations the church needs to do God's work. It is a strange view of God that if the church decides to choose a leader from 100% of its membership rather than 50% of its membership that God is going to have a sulk about it. Neither should we!

So, what can we do to support Bishop Sarah in the next months, while she remains Bishop of London, but, no doubt, has many Cantabrian thoughts to think, and so will be in transition, and as she and others prepare for her official start in late January 2026 and formal, ceremonial beginning in March 2026?

Let us pray for her. We can all do that.

Postscript: whereas some Catholic/Anglo-Catholic comments I have seen either bewail +Sarah's appointment, or offer the most guarded and hesitant of responses, from the Roman Catholic church leadership itself comes this lovely and warm support, by Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, who writes to +Sarah:

"Having learned of your nomination… I write to congratulate you on your appointment and to express the good wishes of the Catholic Church to you as you prepare to undertake this important service in your Church. I pray that the Lord will bless you with the gifts you need for the very demanding ministry to which you have now been called, equipping you to be an instrument of communion and unity for the faithful among whom you will serve,"

In my experience of Catholic-Anglican relationships, this kind of response is genuine, and betokens good relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as set in motion in the 1960s, continuing. 

A simple recipe to improve much of current Christianity (!?)

I assume that most if not all readers here love the Bible for its capacity to have a verse or part of a verse jump up and hit us between the eyes, often from the most familiar of passages, and provoke an instant reactive thought, "Wow, I never saw that before ... thank you, Lord."

The other day, happening upon Hebrews 12, I read verse 14 (a la the sentence above):

Pursue peace with everyone and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Now, admittedly, my reading of this verse on this day may be slightly peculiar (but it is how the verse struck me). I read it in this way;

When we are divided as Christians, and when our lives fall short of what people expect we will live like as Christians, then non-Christians will not find their way to encounter Jesus.

In our day, when (to cite but a few examples), we have very public division among Christians (e.g. over Trump, over Israel/Gaza/West Bank, over Ukraine/Russia, to say nothing of divisions over sexuality, women in leadership, and more generally, our denominational differences) and we have very public examples of unholy behaviour (most notably, sexual abuse by church leaders), we also have some - despite, wonderfully, signs of church growth in the West - clear determinations by people (e.g. among our friends, workmates, extended family) to avoid church like the plague.

I acknowledge that, on further reflection on Hebrews 12:14, that my "reading" on that day is not how the writer to the Hebrews intended his or her sentence to be read. In the context of the verses preceding and succeeding 12:14, the writer is saying this:

(As you follow Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith, of your discipleship), pursue peace (rather than division) in your relationships with people, especially with your brothers and sisters in Christ, and live holy lives (as you are called to do by God's prophet's and apostles, and by Jesus himself), because only holy people can "see the Lord", that is, be in eternal fellowship with the Lord. [Verses 15 and 16 spell out to specific aspects of living holy lives, as does the whole of chapter 13.]

More simply, my "peculiar" reading a few days ago was an evangelistic reading of the verse; closer to the intention of the writer is, in fact, a discipleship reading of the verse.

Nevertheless, it is, is it not, a salutary reflection - whatever the "correct" reading of the verse is - that we acknowledge barriers to people coming to Jesus Christ such as Christian division; Christian bad behaviour?

The two greatest developments in Christian thought?

One of my favourite gospel stories is told in Mark 2:1-12 and parallels, the healing of the paralyzed man which is simultaneously the releasing of the man paralyzed by sin through Jesus's word of forgiveness. But this word is given by Jesus who identifies himself as the Son of Man, a quite specific Jewish term for the long awaited Messiah sent by Israel's God (see, e.g., Daniel 7:9-13; Isaiah 42; Isaiah 61). At this point in time, we have Good News for Israel.

The first of the two greatest developments in Christian thought is initiated through the Apostle Paul - Saul the persecutor of Christians who is dramatically converted and understands in a (fairly literal) flash that everything he is opposed to is in fact true, that Christ was crucified for the salvation of all humanity, non-Jew and Jew. That the fledgling movement of followers of Jesus within the Judaism(s) of his day, in the territory of Israel and beyond, became a universal faith, open to all humanity, flows from the revelation God gave to Paul. Christianity is a universal faith and not "another" Jewish movement because of Paul. The forgiveness of sins is universal, not national.

What is the second greatest development? Again, if we take Mark 2:1-12 as a starting point, we see in this story that Jesus makes a startling claim, to be able to forgive sins, as though he himself were God. That this was a startling claim is noted in the story itself which reports,

Some teachers of the Law who were stitting there thought to themselves, "How does he dare talk like this? This is blasphemy! God is the only one who can forgive sins!" (2:6-7 GNB).

In various ways, across texts in the gospels and the epistles, this kind of expression is made - the kind which tentatively raises the question of Jesus' relationship with and status before God, without quite making explicit anything which looks like the later Nicene confession of the church, that Jesus Christ is very God.

The second greatest development in Christian thought takes place through the writing of John the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel bearing his name. All the talk elsewhere in the New Testament - - such as in Mark 2:1-12 - about Jesus being - in some way or another, to some degree or another - divine, and rightly being deemed "the Son of God", does not cross the line, over which Jesus is not merely divine, but a participant in deity, not only named "the Son of God" (so, also, could be: Israel, high angels, and you and me, the children of God) but the Son who is in eternal union with the Father. John takes us across that line.

In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son ... No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:1; 14; 18).

There is, post John's Gospel, still work for the church to do. To settle the place  Holy Spirit in the Godhead. To work on the nature/s of Jesus Christ as human and divine. Hence the theological battles of the first centuries towards the creeds of the church being agreed to. But the cut through, the map of the path to those creeds, is opened up and sketched out by the Fourth Gospel. 

The two greatest theologians of the Christian movement are Paul and John - or John and Paul, I am not giving any order to their respective importance.

Of course, what this means for the Christian movement today is worth thinking about:

1. Any narrowing of the vision of God for the salvation of humanity, that it is the whole of humanity in God's sight, and not a select few, is contrary to the revelation God has given us through Paul.

2. Any diminution of understanding that God is Trinity; that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human, is a profound misunderstanding of God's revelation in and through Jesus Christ and his apostles.

Gaza action in NZ by NZ clergy

This week clergy (Anglican, Catholic, Baptist) have made headlines through two actions (Auckland and Wellington) seeking to press the NZ Government to extend sanctions [there are a few already against a few Israeli leaders] to press Israel to cease their war/genocide against Palestinians in Gaza (and the West Bank). Articles here, here and here.

There is a strong sense among many Christians in NZ that "enough is enough". Israel needs calling out on what it is doing, more than that, it needs pressuring against what it is doing. Hence these actions, hence our own recent diocesan synod calling for a letter to the PM and Cabinet endorsing a couple of recent statements including one which calls on sanctions: see here and here.

I am aware, of course, that such a sense of enough is enough, this must stop, is not shared by all Christians in NZ. Hamas could, for instance, surrender now - better, some months ago - in order to spare the Palestinians it professes to serve the agony, death, grief and destruction they are experiencing as Israel fulfils its intent to destroy Hamas.

Nevertheless, there is a question about what an aggressor - as Israel is in this situation - should do - ehtically - in order to pursue a particular policy goal. Are the cruel, genocidal, warring actions of the IDF the only way to destroy Hamas? That is not at all clear. Is what Israel doing, even if they do destroy Hamas, creating an environment in which present and future generations of Palestinians (to say nothing of Arab allies) will have no bitterness about their suffering, no grounds to spur future creations of new terror groups? A definite NO. Israel is sowing something which will reap future deathly consequences.

Sanctioning Israel into ending its annihiliation of Hamas, of Gaza and, in time, Palestinian life on the West Bank, could actually do Israel a favour!

Where to from here?

It will be interesting to see if the NZ Government does take some kind of new and even bold step in its response to the suffering. There are hints that a big announcement is coming when Winston Peters, our Foreign Minister, addresses the UN later this month. It may take future historians to determine whether church statements and protests have influenced the direction of our Government if there is change - other forces are at work on our Government, including other parties in our parliament, regular and sometimes massive protests on our streets, and - I suggest - a moral conscience for a Government that includes Christians.

Let's see what might happen in the next two weeks.

Living through history

Last week I mentioned that my Dad had died. Yesterday his funeral was held in the Transitional Cathedral here in Christchurch. All was lovely and wonderful about that and for that we his family are very appreciative of the many people who made it all possible - thank you!

Of course we had a hand in a number of things ourselves, including four tributes by one of his two surviving brothers, myself, a grandson and one of my brothers. Me focusing on Dad's contribution to church life and my brother focusing on what it meant to be a child of our father.

I thought I would share a few thoughts about Dad and his life, not all of them covered by those tributes.

Dad [Brian Carrell] was born in 1933 in Lincoln Road, Christchurch. The same year, incidentally, that the Carmelite nunnery was built further down Lincoln Road (you can see "1933" on its fence!)

In his household, along with his parents, were his widowed grandfather (who owned the house) and his great grandfather - William Rowe. William was born in 1839 (England) and died in 1936. He was a soldier in the Crimean War. He would have held Dad on his knee, and in the past couple of years Dad has held three of his great grandchildren on his knee ... the years back to 1840 (a significant date in NZ history) do not seem so far back when you put it like that in terms of generational cross over!

At the present time in NZ we bewail aspects of a changing society, and this includes loss of a sense of community, and anger at lack of access to decent housing. Some laments about this state of affairs include nostalgia for a past in NZ when things were better.

But were they?

I recall Dad telling me about two pastoral experiences when he was Vicar of St. Matthew's, Dunedin (1965-71).

One was the saddest funeral he ever took: the deceased, the undertaker, and himself. The deceased had been a "patient" of Cherry Farm (a psychiatric hospital near Dunedin), who had experienced some kind of (in the language of former times) nervous breakdown and his family had had him committed to hospital. He never left and, clearly, the family had not kept in touch. Not quite community values (or family values) to be nostalgic for! 

And, treatment of mentally ill people back in the days when he would have gone to hospital (1920s/30s), involved hospitalization as first resort rather than last, as it is these days. Perhaps these days are better than the "old days."

Another story was visiting someone in a house which was part of a very poor area in Dunedin, not far from where we lived (in the vicarage amidst middle class splendour). Recall that Dunedin is a city resplendent with wonderful, solid, prestigious buildings and splendid brick and mortar houses, due to the glory days of the gold rushes in central Otago. Not all shared in the wealth which gold generated!

On this visit, Dad went through the front door and his foot broke through the rotten floorboards of the hallway. Thankfully, in my recollection, later, this set of derelict houses was demolished and new and better housing built. But, as we (rightly) wish for better access to quality housing in NZ today, let's work on what we can do now and not waste time on nostalgia for what may never have been the case, that once upon a time, everyone had a chance to live in a decent house.

Final memory, also of Dunedin days. I mentioned in my tribute that Dad was chair of the organising committee for the 1969 Billy Graham Crusade, held at Carisbrook, Dunedin. What I didn't mention is that I can recall every word that Billy Graham spoke to me and my brothers when Dad introduced us to him.

"God bless you."

There you have it - this week's post!

A death

 Yesterday (Monday) the DEL epistle reading was this:

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. 

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words. 

This is the word of the Lord. 

1 Thessalonians 4.13–end

The previous night, Sunday evening, my Dad died - peacefully and with his family around him. How wonderful to have this reading the next morning!

Dad was a clergyman, being ordained at the youngest possible age, 23, and living until he was 92. His funeral will be on Monday 8 September 2025 at 10.30 am in the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch.