Tuesday, February 15, 2011

I like these

Several posts have caught my eye.

At catholicity and covenant there is report with comment on an ordinariate for Roman Catholic priests coming over the Thames to the Anglican church (in this case of Peru). In the course of commenting the writer gives this definition of being Anglican:

'a way of being catholic apart from the juridicial form of Canon Law practised in the Roman Communion.'

It is a pleasure again on this blog to be able to cite Ruth Gledhill's work, now freed from behind a dictatorial paywall. Here she reports the Primate of Burundi (who did go the Primates' Meeting) chiding (in love) his fellow African primates:

"Archbishop of Burundi Bernard Ntahoturi, whose troubled country is one of the poorest in the world and where violence and human rights violations are a constant threat but where the UN presence is being downgraded, said: 'The Anglican Communion is our communion. We have a share, we have a place in that communion.... The Anglican Church of Burundi recognises there are problems in the Communion. The Communion is a family. When children disagree on certain issues, you do not separate. You meet and discuss those issues together.' "

In case recent readers here misunderstand a line I have been following: my first preference re the Primates' Meeting is that all showed up and talked; but when they didn't all show up, my second preference was that the shower uppers addressed the situation highlighted by the absentees.

Then, tackling some problems infiltrating at least a corner of the mind of the Communion, my colleague here in NZ, Tim Harris, Dean of Bishopdale Theological College, has continued his series of posts on headship and eternal subordinationism at Hikanos. The two most recent posts make some important points about how we understand 'obedience' within the Trinity.

1 comment:

Father Ron Smith said...

"Ideas have consequences, and the preoccupation with reducing every gender relationship to some form of hierarchy in terms of ‘who is the boss?’ and exercise authority reflects more of our culture than the gospel." - Tim Harris, Nelson -

This observation by your Nelson colleague, Tim Harris, says a lot about the reality of this issue now being debated by some Evangelicals within the New Zealand Church.

Those who support male headship - as against modern ideas of co-equality of both male and female leadership roles in the Church - are still pereptuating the Old Testament understanding of male leadership; whereas the New Testament, especially in the Gospel testimony of Jesus, would seem to indicate other-wise.
After all, Jesus did send (apostello) his female disciple Mary Magdalene to 'tell' the Good News of his resurrection to the male disciples. And they did not believe her - why? because the word of a woman at that time was considered untrustworthy!
The old arguments about the first apostles needing to be being male, have to be seen in the light of the current climate of patriarchy. Would women leaders have been accepted even by the early Christians?

Paul, himself, thought to have been tainted by a tinge of misogyny, had eventually to proclaim that: "In Christ, there is neither male nor female..." - a tremendous leap of faith that enabled him to better understand the complementarity of servant/leadership roles in ministry.

It would seem that the Diocese of Nelson is getting a bit more used to the idea of women as leaders in the Church. Bravo! this is Good News! Maybe the next Bishop of Nelson could be female?