Best church, True church, NT church?

Introduction

Kind of continuing in the vein (vain?) of the past few posts, I offer further reflection this week on what it means to be the church (or, should we better say, "to be church"?), including being "Anglican church", in a world where an amazing and admirable run of public witness form by Pope Leo XIV is exemplifying the Catholic church in a wonderful way. Frankly, more wonderful because potential "rivals" (if we so may speak in ecclesiastical reflections) are contemporaneously attesting to forms of Christianity that at best are deeply unattractive and at worst base heresies relative to the Gospel of Christ the Prince of Peace: American Protestant evangelicalism (which gave rise through the middle of the 20th century onwards to Billy Graham, a dominant and much admired figure, capable of significant media interest) and Russian Orthodoxy (which through much of the 20th century was to be admired for its faithful witness to Christ in the face of continual persecution by the Soviet government).*

True church?

Present debates about church, whether we look at Anglican debates about the NCPs, the respective roles and aspirations of Gafcon and Global South or we look at Catholic debates, especially the allegations by some Catholics that Roman Catholicism has lost its way since Vatican 2 and there hasn't been a "real" Pope since ... [name your last real Pope] or look at Protestant debates in the USA where people seem to be ecclesiastically "cancelled" because ... [name your issue: support women in leadership ... do not unquestionally support President Trump ... etc], or dive into the claims and counter-claims of Eastren Orthodoxy generally (the true church continuous with the apostles) or between versions thereof in particularity, all amount to debates over the "true" church - the church as God has and presently intends it to be, as absolutely and clearly revealed through ... [again, name your preferred measure of "true church"].

It is noble to propose that one's church is the true church. It is impressive in certain cases to make such claim (e.g. it would be an odd God who only got around to revealing the true church in the 16th century (Protestantism) or in the 20th century (Pentecostalism), so, impressive indeed are the claims of churches that they date backwards to Jesus and the apostles with continuity of teaching and of practice.

It is not my present purpose to debate those claims save for observing that "true church" claims are proposed by more than one church, so merely making the claim does not void the need to examine such claims.

But, in principle, it is possible that the true church may yet be agreed on, and when and if so, we should all join up, merge into and gather under its ecclesial umbrella.

Best church?

Given potential to get stuck on "true church" claims, we might opt for "best church" claims. I suggest (at least) two levels of "best church" claims.

One is "best church for me or for my family." I see this working out in many Christians' lives these days which could be described as a "post-denominational" era. John and Mary have grown up Presbyterian, married in the Presbyterian church one of them belonged to, but worshipped in the other Presbyterian church until a shift of jobs takes them to another town. They have two children by now and a thriving children's ministry is sought, which is best found in this town's central Baptist church. Some years later, the children now teenagers, there is a move to another town, and this time it seems natural to join the church where their children's peers are involved in an excellent youth ministry, a relatively new church belonging to a network of independent Pentecostal churches established a few decades ago. Later, when the children are grown up and left home, a move to the leafy suburbs of the town seems a natural progression in life, and, for various reasons, the local Anglican church beckons. In each case John and Mary have belonged to the best church for them and their family, and they have enjoyed the advantageous features of each church, untroubled by any formal ecclesiological assessment of whether the church they were attending was the "true church."

A second way in which "best church" might work (as it does for me!) is a little bit of ecclesiological assessment, either choosing a church de novo or choosing to continue in a church for ecclesiological reasons - this church represents the best church of all possible churches. Pretty much, for example, this is why (having been brought up Anglican and in a vicarage) I choose continually to be Anglican. It is a church in which the best of being Catholic and the best of being Reformed can be and is expressed through judiciously balanced liturgies which themselves ensure that what we pray is what "we" believe and not what "I" as worship leader/priest/minister determine to be our belief. There are other "best" aspects but my point here is not so much to argue that the Anglican church is "the" best church but to make the point that whether or not the Anglican church is the "true church" it is (to my and many adherents' satisfaction) the "best church".

I fully expect there are happy Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and, of course, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who see similar satisfaction in their "best church".

Back to the Anglican considerations of the past couple of posts: what the NCPs miss is this sense of what makes the Anglican Communion the "best" global communion of churches, because "best" includes communion with the See of Canterbury (continuing communion with an historical see, a strong and admirable feature of the Roman Catholic Church, of various Eastern Orthodox churches), visible, locatable leadership in the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than in a "duty primate" (I note that "as I write" it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who is being welcomed ecumenically in Rome, even to the consternation of some Catholics on X who are aghast that the Pope should recognise the ABC/a female ABC by praying with her), and "communion" being a drawing together in fellowship of those in common Anglican heritage even when there are differences and disagreements (rather than communion being a means of asserting who belongs to the 'true" Anglican communion/conference and who does not).

New Testament church?

Is there an even better way than "true church" or "best church"? One of my reflections through these weeks of some pretty intense ecclesiological debate - think not only about intra-global-Anglican debates, but also intra-Catholic-debates as (e.g.) the Pope speaking about peace, capital punishment, homosexuality etc occasions carping comments from some and laudatory reTweeting from others, and then, as the ABC visits Rome, all kinds of, frankly, uncharitable and (in my experience of majority Catholicism) unrepresentative criticisms of both the ABC (the usual "not a real bishop" stuff) and of the Pope and other Roman prelates who are welcoming her to Rome - is that the New Testament charts another way ...

The New Testament is not, frankly, much help when it comes to settling "true church" or even "best church" debates. It just doesn't say enough to (say) nail down that the Bishop of Rome is to be the Prime Bishop of All Bishops. It doesn't even say enough to make crystal clear that the church is to be ordered by bishops, priests/presbyters and deacons. On the eucharist, it does set out Jesus' command to 'do this', but, intriguingly, for something we make much of and debate heaps and even divide one from the other over, only one epistle, 1 Corinthians, actually says something about the eucharist as common church practice. (Perhaps most intriguingly, the Pastoral Epistles, which do say a number of things about the ordering of church life, say nothing about the eucharist, and Hebrews, which has a lot to say about the inadequacy of the worship life of Israel (sacrifices, tabernacle, etc) says zilch about the eucharist as a replacement for that particular form of worshipping life.)

But what the New Testament does have a lot to say about is what constitutes authentic Christian life aka being church. That authentic life, whether we focus on, say, Jesus washing the disciples' feet, or Paul talking about the Philippian Christians having the same mind as the Christ who gives up all divine privilege in order to save us, or James' urging congregations to live justly and mercifully, or Matthew charting the way of following Jesus through the Sermon on the Mount, beginning with the Beatitudes, is all about quality of life - quality of the inner person (Be-attitudes), quality of relationships with one another (Love one another), quality of relationship with God through allowing the Spirit of God to fill our lives, gifting us and making us fruitful. 

The church of such people is not best defined in terms of "order" or "office" or "conciliar decision" (though these are part of the NT church). If we think in terms of "judgement", does the NT invite us to think we will be judged by whether we have belonged to the "true church" or the "best church", whether we have approved of women being ordained or resisted the possibility, and the like? No. Not at all. But the NT does provoke us to think that we will be judged on the quality of the lives we have sought to live in response to Jesus calling us to follow him in the light of what has been revealed to us through Scripture.

Turning this around a little, to current debates, what matters is not, say, whether the ABC has "valid orders", is a man rather than a woman, acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and so forth, but whether Sarah, baptised child of God, is a true follower of Jesus Christ, the best disciple she can be.

When I engage with you, and you with me, when we engage with another Christian - be they Methodist or Baptist or Coptic Orthodox etc - do we find in each other a true Christian?

Thankfully, on that count, in my experience, there are wonderful people of God spread throughout the world, belonging to many different denominations, carrying all kinds of labels. The truest, bestest church of God in the world today is the church of authentic believers.

*By "Russian Orthodoxy" I mean the Russian Orthodox church in Russia itself, which with a few notable and often defrocked exceptions, is led by warmongering, Putin-supporting prelates and priests. Outside of Russia, Russian Orthodoxy often is, and thankfully so (as locally here in NZ) less bellicose.

POSSIBLE BONUS READ

God is back in fashion – and topping the bestsellers list https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/christianity-back-books-publishing-return/

I say "possible" because the article is behind a paywall though I was able to read it via a "gift article" from a Tweeter on X.

Avis v Goddard

The article by Paul Avis I drew attention to last week has had a reply by Andrew Goddard, in The Living Church, which you can read here. In my assessment of this response I acknowledge some very helpful thinking from a correspondent who wishes to remain anonymous.

Paul Avis makes this critical observation about the so-called Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (as I cited last week):

"THE core proposal is to demote the see of Canterbury and to promote the Primates instead. One goes down, and the other comes up. The NCPs want to delete “in communion with the See of Canterbury” in the benchmark Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and insert in its place “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury”, thus removing the reference to “communion” and to the unity of episcopal sees.

This follows from the claim that baptism, not holy communion, should be a sufficient future basis for the Communion, and that “Communion” in the term “Anglican Communion” should be understood as at least baptismal communion. Baptism is the ground of communion, but it comes to fulfilment in holy communion, and that is how “communion” in the Anglican context has been understood hitherto."

The tin says "Anglican Communion". The contents of that Anglican Communion tin should be identifiable as "Anglican" (connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury) and Communion (in communion with the Archbishop and with each other). 

What is not in the tin called "Anglican Communion" is a bunch of commestibles such as "a historic connection with the See of Canterbury" (Methodists could claim that! Roman Catholics too!! Tourists visiting the Cathedral in Canterbury could claim that, especially if they made a donation to its upkeep as the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury!!!) or some link via baptism (which could include all Christians).

Andrew Goddard has responded to Paul Avis' concern with, in my view, this key statement:

"He [Avis] opens with an account of IASCUFO’s mandate and here he fails to acknowledge a key element of the mandate that sheds light on his fundamental disagreements. The ACC resolution which he quotes not only referred to the need to “address our differences in the Anglican Communion” (3(a)). It also affirmed “the importance of seeking to walk together to the highest degree possible, and learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully.”

This recognition of the need to acknowledge degrees of communion among the churches of the Communion and to accept we now have to consider some form of “good differentiation” (the resolution’s title), learning from ecumenical conversations, is part of the mandate. It seems Avis is unwilling to countenance these steps as regrettable necessities even as he recognizes that the Communion is “currently fractured and dysfunctional.”

It could be argued that these steps have for some time been necessary, but they became even more pressing once a growing number of provinces in the Communion felt unable to continue in full communion with the see of Canterbury (a core feature of the historic 1930 description of the Communion) amid Prayers of Love and Faith as made clear in, for example, the 2023 Ash Wednesday Statement by Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA)."

On the face of it, this is all entirely reasonable: the family union of Anglican provinces has become frayed and faulty, we are now in a relationship marked by "separation", in varying degrees, from all but "divorced" (Gafcon) through to "separated" but in complicated ways if one measures things such as who will turn up to which meetings with whom and so forth, and, consequently, the terms of reference for get togethers, who sits at the head of the table for family meals and so forth, need adjusting towards the reality of being an unhappy and divided family.

But, when was ecclesiology "reasonable"?  Church as the body of Christ is unreasonable. Disparate individuals form one entity, by virtue of sharing bread and cup together in which Christ is actually present, with bonding via the unseen glue of the Holy Spirit, flowing with unendingly patient love (1 Corinthians 10-13). That's irrational. 

More simply, the church is called to mimic and to witness to God who is Trinity who is a Communion-of-Love.

What Andrew Goddard proposes - taking account of differences between provinces, varying degrees of willingness to meet together or even to not meet together at all, fracturing of the whole body of the Communion into sub-body networks and conferences such as Gafcon and Global South - makes reasonable allowance for the reality of our frayed and faulty Communion. But it pays a price in doing so. The price it pays is the giving up of a wonderful theology of communion underpinning the meaning of "Anglican Communion" (pace 1930 Lambeth Conference etc) for a barebones, "what is the minimum we can agree on in order to keep some semblance of connection with each other as provinces of an entity called the Anglican Communion?"

I would also make the point that talk of "degrees of communion" is unfortunate. Communion is something you are either in, or not in. If you are not in full communion - completely and unreservedly willing and able to share in the bread and wine of communion - then you are not in communion.

Now, let's be clear, Goddard's support for the NCPs is support for the Communion failing as a communion and Avis's support for the Communion being a communion is potentially support for a very slimmed down communion with (in my view) some danger that it is a very "white Anglican" dominated Communion.

Neither outcome is inspiring.

But the advantage is to Avis: he advances the theology of being "Anglican-in-Communion", and that theology is historically coherent with the Church of England - the one church for the whole nation, in all its diversity and difference, the church in which Evangelicals, Broad Church and Anglo-Catholics found themselves at home - a Protestant church with Catholic vision for its indivisibility and for its universal reach to the whole of society.

Goddard is, to be sure, wholly realistic and fulsomely pragmatic. Things are in a sorry state and we just have to make the best of it. But "the best of it" is neither Anglican (IMHO) nor Communion, yet there is no proposal to change the name on the tin.

What might be different?

I would like to see from both the modern apostles of Anglicanliness, Paul and Andrew, that there is a call back to Anglican first principles, an appeal to the better hearts of Anglicans around the globe, that is, a cry to re-find our unity in our differences, sharp though they are, to renew commitment to communion as Christ's inclusive fellowship with those whom he has called to follow him (remember, Judas took part in the last supper, as did denying Peter, and doubting Thomas), and to refresh our love for one another a la 1 Corinthians 13 with its strenuous code which spares no effort to truly, deeply, lastingly love the other. Or, again, more simply, might we call ourselves back to what God calls us to as church, to be on earth what the God who is Communion-of-Love is in heaven. This call is not made by the NCPs.

In sum, an appeal to be Christian in a Trinitarian manner coherent with the English form of being Christian - a form of being Christian which has borne many challenges and found ways to adjust to and live with change but seemingly in the late 20th and early 21st century hit a rock and founded.

I would also like to see a re-think, on all sides, on the question of how and why, of all possible issues to found the good ship Anglicana upon, it is the issue of humans unable to marry in the usual way seeking nevertheless a pathway to permanent, loving, faithful partnership. 

Why has this issue, and no other issue, become the rock on which the ship Anglicana has crashed? Should we not be re-addressing this issue and possible ways to live with our varied responses to it rather than completely re-configuring what we think being Anglicans-in-communion means? As best I understand the NCPs, if followed through and agreed to, we would be revising what the Anglican Communion means to the point where we would be an association of Anglicans, but without the courage to re-name ourselves accurately and honestly.

So, in the battle of proposals, in the field of Anglican dreams, Avis is the winner.

Postscript: an observation from a correspondent, "The ACCs haste to push the NCPs at this juncture sets it against the more authentic See of Canterbury. Why should we not view the Nairobi-Cairo Report as an assault of one ambitious "instrument of communion," the ACC, on another one. the ABC? ".

Why we need the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead Anglican Communion (and bonus Easter reflections)

Why We Need the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead the Anglican Communion

Pope Leo has been in terrific form as a global Christian leader in recent weeks, unashamedly, un-backing-downed-ly, consistently speaking for and praying for peace in respect of current wars. For a sample article on this pacific leadership see here.

It has gotten me thinking a bit about some current analyses and prognoses for global Anglican leadership. You know, the ones that sum up as "We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury," with the Gafcon version being the hard one, "We really don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury and you shouldn't either if you want to be a Gafcon leader" and the Anglican Communion one itself (according to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals - still being discussed) being the soft version "We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury, do we? Well, okay, some kind of role, but let's share Communion leadership round the globe."

But, here's the thing which Pope Leo's leadership in recent weeks highlights: the world pays attention to the Christian leader who bears the title and holds the mana of church office which is both "high" and "historic". The Roman Catholic Church itself pays attention to its high, historic office holder: "the Pope says ..." has impact more than "the Bishop of Oxbridge says ...".

What would be the global impact of, say, "the duty Anglican primate for 2026 says ...".

You're correct: Zilch!

Let's stick with, let's support, let's settle on the high, historic leadership office for Anglicans which is ... the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Important Addendum: since drafting the above paragraphs, I have noticed an article by Paul Avis in Church Times, highly critical of the N-C Proposals. Key citations from that article are:

"Some emphases of the NCPs are welcome: the equality and autonomy of the Churches (“Provinces”) of the Anglican Communion, and the wider sharing of chairing positions. But the Commission’s key proposals are deeply troubling.

The NCPs contain factual errors, both historical and constitutional; and they exhibit an animus against the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury which is uncharitable. The Communion is currently fractured and dysfunctional, but, if the NCPs were accepted, the Communion would not be a “communion” at all, as ecclesial communion has been universally understood: namely, as a eucharistic communion with an interchangeable ordained ministry."

Then:

"THE core proposal is to demote the see of Canterbury and to promote the Primates instead. One goes down, and the other comes up. The NCPs want to delete “in communion with the See of Canterbury” in the benchmark Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and insert in its place “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury”, thus removing the reference to “communion” and to the unity of episcopal sees.

This follows from the claim that baptism, not holy communion, should be a sufficient future basis for the Communion, and that “Communion” in the term “Anglican Communion” should be understood as at least baptismal communion. Baptism is the ground of communion, but it comes to fulfilment in holy communion, and that is how “communion” in the Anglican context has been understood hitherto."

And (pretty much my point above):

"Any form of primacy needs to be recognisable and “findable”. Rome is the locus of the papacy, and Constantinople is the locus of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Anglican primacy is located at Canterbury, and so is recognisable and findable. A floating Primates’ Council, which exercises the functions of primacy but has no home, no base, does not do it."

Avis is particularly focused on the proposed change from "communion" to "baptism" as key to gloabl Anglican relationship and rightly points out that this is an ecumenical basis for any and all Christian, inter-church relationships:

"THE proposal that baptism should be sufficient for “communion” rests on a confused cross-over from Anglican relations with Churches with which Anglicans are not in ecclesial communion to Churches with which they are in ecclesial communion. The relationship between the Churches of the Anglican Communion would then be no different in kind from the relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain through the Anglican-Methodist Covenant (2003), or between the Church of England and the EKD (Protestant Churches of Germany) through the Meissen Agreement (1991)."

Bonus Easter Reflections

Preparing for yesterday's sermon, focusing on readings, Acts 2:41a, 22-32, 1 Peter 1:3-9, John 20:19-31, got me thinking a little more about Easter in this Easter season of 2026.

1. Simon Peter via Luke's reporting to us says "Nuts" to all those theologians/preachers who attempt to make the case that "It doesn't really matter whether Jesus' body remains in the tomb, Jesus still rose from the dead." In Acts 2, he cites Psalm 16 (Greek Old Testament version), not once but twice"

Verse 27 (=Psalm 16:10): "because you will not abandon me in the world of the dead; you will not allow your faithful servant to rot in the grave." [GNB]

Verse 31 (= Psalm 16:10): "[King] David [writer of Psalm 16] saw what God was going to do in the future, and so he spoke about the resurrection of the Messiah when he said, 'He was not abandoned in the world of the dead; his body did not rot in the grave'." [GNB]

Luke reports Simon Peter arguing that what happened to Jesus' body in the tomb was that it did not rot (that is, in the usual way a body rots when buried following death). By implication the tomb was emptied of Jesus' body when that body was raised to new life: "God has raised this very Jesus from death, and we are all witnesses to this fact." [GNB].

Importantly, Luke also reports Simon Peter strengthening this argument when he makes a plain distinction between David and Jesus in verse 29:

"My friends, I must speak to you plainly about our famous ancestor King David. He died and was buried, and his grave is here with us to this very day." [GNB]

By contrast, everything Peter is saying in this Pentecost sermon is that Jesus died, was buried and is no longer in the grave he was buried in. David's body, in David's tomb could be visited and venerated. Not so with Jesus: rephrasing the last part of 2:31 and 32, "God has raised this very Jesus from death, his body is not rotting in his grave."

2. The three readings for yesterday, from Acts, 1 Peter and John, provide three great themes for resurrection reflections:

- Acts: the resurrection as a question of historical fact, or, "the apologetics of the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead."

- 1 Peter: the appropriate response to the resurrection is Thanksgiving and Praise: "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (1 Peter 1:3).

- John/1 Peter: the resurrection of Jesus Christ is resurrection for us: John emphasises in 20:19-31 (in keeping with Matthew and Luke) that the resurrected Jesus appears to the disciples (and thus also to us his contemporary followers) to direct our discipleship so that we are assured of "Peace", commissioned "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" and gifted the Holy Spirit. All of which is so that "through your faith in him you may have life" (John 20:31 GNB). Peter makes a similar point in his epistle, "... he gave us new life by raising Jesus Christ from death" (1 Peter 1:3 GNB).

Time for another annual reflection on the Gospel Resurrection Narratives

Each Easter, especially with sermons to prepare, the gospel narrarives (along with 1 Corinthians 15) prod and provoke me about how they tell the narrative of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the provocation includes trying to put together the differences between the accounts as much as the common features. Last year's reflection is here. This year's takes a different course.

1. For the most part the gospel narratives are not doing the apologetics we might like them to do.

We can approach the narratives looking for proof that the resurreaction actually occurred as an event in history - an event we can, more or less, prove because X, Y, Z. But the narratives mostly do not answer our question "Did the resurrection of Jesus take place as an observable event (or set of events - empty tomb, consistent set of appearances, etc)?". 

Rather, they tell us about encounters between people and the risen Jesus: 

- some designed to inform us about how we might encounter the risen Jesus (e.g. in the breaking of the bread, per the Walk to Emmaus story in Luke 24, or through faith not sight, per Thomas meeting Jesus in John 20) and what our re-action to such encounter might be (e.g. undertaking the Great Commission, per the endings of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels; or being sent into the world as Jesus himself was sent, per John 20), and 

- at least two designed to inform us of significant commissioning or recommissioning of key apostles (per 1 Corinthians 15 for Paul, and John 21 for Simon Peter and for the Beloved Disciple).

2. Nevertheless, there is some apologetics going on

- Matthew 28:11-15 offers a refutation of any notion that the tomb was empty because the body was stolen (as does John 20:13ff);

- 1 Corinthians 15:4-8 offers the availability of an extensive set of witnesses (500+, although some have died) to the resurrection appearances, some two decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

3. Some choices are made as resurrections narratives are composed, which demonstrates that the gospel writers (and others, such as Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, or whomever laid down the tradition behind what he says there) were not mere reporters of the discovery of the empty tomb and of subsequent appearances of Jesus in the sense of sticking to the facts and the facts only. Editorial choices were made!

Consider: the 1 Corinthians 15 account, verses 3-12, mentions no women receiving appearances (other than the implication that a group as large as 500 people [even when described as "500 brothers"] would have included women and men, but each of the gospel accounts is definitive, women were among the key witnesses (to the empty tomb and an appearance of Jesus, Matthew 28; to the empty tomb, Mark 16 and Luke 24; and (albeit a single woman, Mary Magdalene) to the empty tomb and an appearance of Jesus, John 20.

Focusing on women in the resurrection narratives, consider also whom each gospel describes as being present at the discovery of the empty tomb:

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary [28:1]

Mark: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome [16:1]

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them [24:10]

John: Mary Magdalene [20:1]

Mark and Luke both have three or more women in the group which makes the discovery. Matthew reduces this to two women. John reduces this further to one woman. The woman common to all four narratives is Mary Magdalene. 

In a cultural milieu which features crowds and groups doing things, there is reason to suppose that Mark and Luke are correct, there was a group of women who went together to the tomb. 

Matthew simplifies things: the group becomes two. John, keen on telling us about individual encounters people have with Jesus (Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, the lame man at the pools of Bethsaida, the blind man) further reduces the group to one, Mary Magdalene.

Luke, incidentally, despite following Mark, consistent with his preface in Luke 1 (he will correct otther accounts), leaves Salome's name out of the group he describes, and adds another name in and proposes that there was quite a large group of women who went to the tomb.

That is, each of the gospel writers, on the simple matter of retailing the names of the women who discover the empty tomb, goes about things in their own way. 

Unexpectedly, then, we find Matthew offering a narrative in chapter 28 which is a little messy (Jesus is going to meet the disciples in Galilee, which he does, but he also meets the women, soon after, in Jerusalem), Mark may (if 16:1-8 be indeed the ending of his gospel) or may not (if there is a lost ending) be consistent with his whole narrative, that he tells us much about Jesus and leaves much out, Luke offers an entrancing, compelling, inspiring story, the Walk to Emmaus, which is wholly missing from any other account, and John is, well, John, very different to the other three gospels. 

And, as noted in earlier years, in their compositions, the four writers have varying attitudes to "Jerusalem (and surrounds)" and "Galilee" as the potential loci of the resurrections appearances (Matthew, both; Mark, Galilee; Luke, Jerusalem only; John, both).

Jesus rose from the dead but as with Jesus' birth, the gospel writers go about their renditions of the resurrection events in differing ways. Bethlehem is common to the birth narratives, and the empty tomb is common to the resurrection narratives in the gospels. Otherwise, recollections vary and/or narratival strategies in telling us the wondrous news of Jesus vary.

4. Finally, I am struck again, and going back to the theme of "apologetics," by Acts 10:40-41: God's own strategy with the manifestations of the risen Jesus was not to prove to the world at large that Jesus rose from the dead (apologetics), but to strengthen the faith of those who believed in Jesus and to embolden them to preach the Good News (Acts 10:42-43) (empowerment).

In Acts 10:44, the outcome of Peter's preaching is not that people stroked their chins and declared as one body of people, "Ah, I now see, Jesus did indeed rise from the dead." The outcome is that "the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word."

The ultimate proof, if we may so speak, of the resurrection of Jesus is that the Holy Spirit falls upon us, the living presence of Jesus Christ in the world today.

Yesterday's Sermon

Alternatively to the above, you might like to see/hear my sermon from Easter Day, 2026, at the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch, here, with sermon starting around 26:15.

Installation Wars?

We do live in such interesting times (by which I mean, terrible and terrifying times) that on the one hand Twitter this past week has had many pictures of young women (and young men) who face execution in Iran for protesting against a government that, among other things, imposes compulsory wearing of the hijab for women, along with many deprecatory comments about ++Sarah Mullaly, many, sadly, from Roman Catholics ("sadly" because, in fact, many Roman Catholics not on Twitter are not such "social warriors" but are kind and considerate to people in other churches ... as, indeed, Pope Leo has been in his public letter to ++Sarah).*

Of course not all Anglicans are being kind to ++Sarah, seeing the occasion as a useful opportunity to put the ecclesiastical boot into the Anglican Communion. Installation wars? Friendly fire from frenemies? 

I wonder what Jesus makes of it all? He was no stranger to disputes and disagreements within his own camp, but tended to subject the warring parties to some direct guidance, none of which disclosed which side was right, but all of which said, in today's language, pull your head in!

In Matthew 20:24-28, the twelve disciples are at odds with each other, 10 versus 2 upstarts (James and John) and Jesus tells all twelve to be servants and slaves to others, not to lord it over others.

John 13 is intriguing. It both honours Simon Peter and discloses how frail and fallible he was, while subtly revealing that another one of the disciples was actually "boss", but not through a role he plays, but through the intimacy of his relationship with Jesus. 

The honouring of Simon Peter is through a simple device: there are only three speaking parts in the chapter, which is effectively a dialogue between Jesus and Simon Peter apart from four words (in ET) spoken by another disciple. The disclosure of Simon Peter's flaws occurs when he questions whether his feet should be washed or not, and when he asserts that he will lay down his life for Jesus but Jesus dismisses this by predicting that he would deny him three times. By contrast, the third speaker is the disciple "whom Jesus loved" who reclines "next to Jesus". This disciple is boss! 

The (21st cerntury) point then is that important though Simon Peter and the Petrine church is, Jesus is closest to the disciple who says least and claims nothing for himself.

Which brings me back to our new Archbishop of Canterbury. I am confident that as Jesus looks upon her, he is not thinking "But she is not a real bishop, "Null and Void" and all that" nor is he thinking, "How could the CofE get Scripture so wrong that they agreed to ordain women as bishops and now, oh folly of follies, even appointed one to be the Archbishop?". No, he will be judging her as he judges you and me: is she serving God's people? What is the state of her heart? Does she love the church with the love with which Christ loves the church?

I have a feeling that when Leo meets Sarah at a forthcoming Vatican meeting - I have deliberately dropped both their titles from this sentence - they will get along just fine as followers of Christ.

Because they both love Jesus Christ and want nothing more than to serve the church Jesus loves.

As one astutue commentator has noted this week, all the dark clouds of negative comments re ++Sarah reveal one silver lining: the dear old CofE is not yet dead ... people care enough to slag it off!

*Archbishop Sarah's reply is here.

Installation of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Thinking Anglicans has links here to assist in viewing the service etc [albeit, for Kiwis, in the wee small hours of Thursday morning].

Short post this week because time is short. God willing next week will be time richer!

Dangers, toils and snares

Yesterday the gospel reading was the whole of John 9, the story of the man born blind who is given sight by Jesus. Appropriately Amazing Grace was one of the hymns we sung:

"I once was lost, but now am found,

  Was blind, but now I see".

But in my mind as we look at the world around us are these lines from this famous hymn:

"Through many dangers, toils and snares

I have already come:
'tis grace has brought me safe thus far,

and grace will lead me home"

Our world is in turmoil, with war faraway in the Middle East, affecting costs of life here in NZ as the price of petrol zooms above $3 a litre. I see many dangers, toils and snares ahead for us as a nation and for the church within our nation: this increase, if sustained because the war does not end, or, worse, goes much higher, affects not only whether we use our cars or not, it will flow through to every aspect of costs of life. For our parishes, already stretched with costs of ministry, there are significant challenges ahead.

We must double down on praying for peace - first and foremost for the sake of the lives of others: those in Iran, Gaza, the West Bank [some very worrying reports of Christians being massacred there by the IDF in recent days], Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan.

But John Newton also reminds us in the verse cited above, that "grace" - God's unlimited kindness, mercy and generosity - will lead us home.

We also must double down on being a people of faith, not of sight.