GENERAL RE ACANZP's GENERAL SYNOD in FIJI
Perhaps the best way to keep in touch with Fiji is TweetChat here. The second best way is through the Facebook group Hinota Whanui. (As I understand it, you can look at the Tweetchat without being a signed up Twit, but you need Facebook membership to see what is on Hinota Whanui. Incidentally, lots of photos at the latter).
For main articles go to Taonga.
Indianapolis, head to Titus One Nine. England, head to Thinking Anglicans.
MONDAY a.m. 9 JULY
Not much happening, anywhere, save for a slight frisson of excitement that, maybe, perhaps, the vote in England on women bishops will be postponed to, yet again, consider the legislation.
In reflecting on our own General Synod proceedings, one of the more interesting proposals to be considered is for Tikanga Maori to have more say in the utilization of the funds in trust with the St John's College Trust Board. This is interesting on at least two counts.
First, were some kind of unilateral access to these funds be agreed, then, effectively, our three tikanga structre would be broken. Not least because one implication of Maori control over, say, 50% of the funds, would mean Pakeha and Polynesia having access to the remaining 50%, at which point, effectively, Pakeha and Polynesia would be combined into one "tikanga". Further, in that arrangement, Polynesia would lose its current status as an equal partner. Such considerations could well be the Synodical brake on any such proposal being agreed to.
Secondly, were some new arrangement entered into, it would deepen Maori dependency on those funds for the economy of its mission and ministry. There is no doubt that greater funding would assist in various ways. My question (previously raised here on ADU) is whether the very process of engaging with these funds would steer Tikanga Maori away from what I see as the primary strategic question about their mission: what weight will be placed on developing Sunday congregational life, around Word and Sacrament, with the aim of extending the range of rohe (parishes) in which stipended ministers of the gospel work out their apostolic role?
SUNDAY a.m. 8 JULY
Fiji: members of GS will be rising to temperatures warmer than my undisclosed location in NZ! Essentially today is the day when GS gets going through a pleasant haze of welcomes and services.
My reflection as I arise is whether our church is drifting towards a left-wing sectarianism. The strength of our church in these islands through its brief history has been its theological and ecclesiological comprehensiveness. But reading the haze of Tweets and picking up some of the straws in the wind about this and that in our life, I wonder if some of those pushing various issues are considering the full effect of their pushing. There is a difference between being an "inclusive" church and being a "comprehensive" church. Here I do not want to argue for the latter against the former, but to ask the question whether we can aspire to be both inclusive and comprehensive?
Indianopolis: TEC GC gives communion without baptism short shrift.
England: please tell me if there is something to look out for, apart from WATCHing for the progress on legislation re women bishops. Generally Thinking Anglicans is the place to go to for updates on GS business there.
Response to request from Bosco Peters re TPMC policy/proposals re educational priorities. Go here.
SATUDAY 7 JULY
Appropriate this morning to have Matthew 9:9-17 as the Daily Eucharist Gospel reading. These words are what Jesus is saying to the church whenever we meet about our polity and policy:
"No one puts a piece of unshrunken cloth onto an old cloak, because the patch pulls away from the cloak ad the tear gets worse. Nor do people put new wine into old windeskins; otherwise, the skins burst, the wine runs out, and the skins are lost. No, they put new wine in fresh skins and both are preserved."Of course, mostly our experience of synods and conventions is putting unshrunken cloth onto an old cloak. Amending and adjusting our rules and regulations, policies and budget pennies, is about incremental change. And sometimes we wake up years later, debating same old, same old issues and wonder where the increments went to!
Anyway, onwards and upwards, to Fiji, to Indianapolis and to England. This post will be an updating one through the days ahead (as best as I can keep up on limited internet connection).
Fiji: Taonga will keep us up to date re the official news service of our church. I note it has at least one report from the pre-GS meeting of the pakeha dioceses (= Inter Diocesan Conference (IDC)). Watch for Bishop Kelvin "the only blogging bishop in our church" Wright. He already has one post up.
Indianapolis: Catching my eye this morning are two items, one re the ongoing move to discipline or punish or at least corral errant bishops, and another re the possibility of selling HQ in wealthy downtown New York. Interesting to think about how both relate to the theme of 'new wineskins.'
England: nothing catching my eye at the moment.
44 comments:
You can have KJS's NYC address when you pry it from her cold dead fingers. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that she would allow the national church to be displaced from a center of national secular power like NYC. The national church's imagine of itself revolves around access to national secular power. It imagines itself the conscience of the nation (or at least it would be if only someone would listen to it.) The national church can't fulfill that role from Kansas City. It can't be done from the middle of fly-over country.
This is a symbolic gesture from the HoD. It amounts to nothing more than a warning shot across the bow of the nation church. "Pay attention or else!" But it's a bluff. There is no "Or else" and KJS knows it. The Convention goes away in a few weeks. KJS goes back to 815. She has institutional permanence and therefore control. The Convention can't actually make her do anything.
No, the real fight is coming over restructuring - which bluntly put means sacrificing jobs in the dioceses to keep money flowing to the center. All that "new way of doing church" stuff is KJS-speak for merging functions of dioceses in order to reduce cost. That way the dioceses will still have surplus to send as tribute to the center.
carl
Thanks for this update, Peter. Very helpful.
I'm fascinated that the planned revision of our Prayer Book, which took from 1964 to 1989 to prepare is not regarded as "big"
http://anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/General-Synod/big-issues
in fact not even mentioned!
I'm certain that if TEC's 1979 BCP, or CofE's Common Worship was being revised (the other General Synod's you are keeping an eye on) both those provinces would regard deciding about our liturgical foundations as "big" and mention this.
Blessings
Bosco
www.liturgy.co.nz
The quote from Matthew in today's Gospel is certainly apt, Peter, for the proceedings of General Synod.
New wine can be a little bit heavy for the Old Guard - especially when their old wine goes sour on them.
Time for new wine-skins, I say.
Although, I'm quite keen on the scriptural reference to the Gospel as 'something old, some things new!
Happy Synod Watching!
" All that "new way of doing church" stuff is KJS-speak for merging functions of dioceses in order to reduce cost. That way the dioceses will still have surplus to send as tribute to the center." - carl -
Spoken like a marxist!
I should think that the Presiding Bishop and General Convention are more motivated towards extra help for the Church's mission outside of the Church. Good on them,say I.
Hi Bosco,
Just to let you know that I had a fantastic week on the liturgical theology intensive, and I think I may be in the process of doing a 360 degree turn on my view of liturgy and sacraments.
I had a few profound "aha!" moments, not the least being that my own critique of the modern world only holds together if I include an understanding of the loss of a sacramental worldview in the modern West, and in the Church.
I am currently reading Hans Boersma's 'Heavenly Participation: the weaving of a sacramental tapestry' and it would not be an overstatement to say that I am finding it a profoundly mind-blowing read!
Blessings.
Brilliant, Shawn!
& thanks for letting me/us know.
[my only fear is that a 360 degree turn, you see a lot of things, but end up facing in the original direction ;-) ]
Maybe you could write up some more detail about your studies and insights. & maybe Peter might have you as a guest blogger here? [Or on his worship site]
I am following the debates about formation in liturgy for those to be ordained at IDC12 & hope Peter can enlighten us about the 6 strategic points etc. that apparently Ministry Educators know about but the rest of us have never heard of... [if you are looking for a subject for a blog post Peter...]
Blessings
Bosco
Where is that IDC six point formational plan info, Bosco?
Oops, that should have been 90 degree turn.
An embarrassed smiley face icon would be useful about now!
Whether it’s a 360 degree turn or a 90 degree turn, it’s most welcome, Shawn! Bravo!
Kurt Hill
Sweltering in (98F/36.6C) Brooklyn, NY
Peter - that is the question I was told to ask you.
On the #IDC12 twitter feed you will find several references to "the 6 priorities for ministry formation in the TPMC report."
The IDC, of course, does not make public its discussions, reports, or decisions - this is ACANZP, remember.
So I asked where one could see these 6 priorities (the twitter feed indicated liturgical training is not one of the 6 priorities).
The response was you would know them.
Blessings
Bosco
It's more important to know the questions than the answers, Bosco, to journey through the haze than to arrive at clarity, and other cliches!
I am not sure what six those are, but they could be about raising up young leaders, adapting to changing contexts, etc.
Anyone out there with Enlightenment???
"Anyone out there with Enlightenment??? - Peter Carrell -
Well, Peter, perhaps you should listen to what the new young Bishops in ACANZP have to say at General synod in Fiji - especially +Waiapu.
The Lord be with you!
We are of course a people journeying in the wilderness, but that does not mean we only have questions and doubts. We also have the light of God's Holy Word in Scripture.
I suspect that much of the rhetoric of "living with questions" is little more than a cover for those who, far from living with questions, want to propose answers that are deeply unBiblical and contrary to orthodoxy.
I am often struck by the contradictions of those who accuse Conservatives and Evangelicals of the supposed sin of certainty, who then go on to advocate very certain stands on issues like marriage and sexuality.
OK, Peter, that fits in with the communication policy of our church. Brian Dawson told me to ask you: https://twitter.com/FrBrianD/status/221428497254596608
Blessings
Bosco
"Just to let you know that I had a fantastic week on the liturgical theology intensive, and I think I may be in the process of doing a 360 degree turn on my view of liturgy and sacraments."
Shawn, Reformed Christians have never been anti-liturgy or anti-sacraments - quite the reverse. Read Book IV of Calvin's Institutes and consider what Cranmer was trying to do with his BCP: to teach reformed doctrine through worship rooted in the historic church. Then compare that with the strange gallimaufrey that ACANZP came up with. The Diocese of Sydney has understood this very well for a long time.
If regular churchgoers don't know pretty much by heart the following: the Lord's Prayer; the Ten Commandments; the Beatitudes; the Fruit of the Spirit; the Aaronic Blessing; the Grace from 2 Cor 13; the 23rd Psalm; the Comfortable Words; the Apostles' Creed; the Gloria in Excelsis;
then their praying is deeply impoverished and their grasp of Christian basics is pretty shaky.
Cranmer's goals was to teach precisely these words through worship so that they would inform our own praying. Neither the PC smorgasbord of the left nor the wishy washy infomality (with its amorphous 'creation spirituality') of the right ('me and my mate Jesus') can do much to inform meaningful Christian prayer.
Martin
Martin,
I completeley agree with you. At least part of my previous antipathy towards liturgy was a reaction to the current NZ prayer book, which strikes me as, at least in part, vapid and more concerned with political correctness than with deep and solid theology and spirituality.
FRS
Spoken like a marxist!
Ya know. Sometimes it's hard to find any connection between your responses and the statements you are supposedly addressing. At all. A Marxist would agree with my assessment - saying the leadership of TEC was protecting its parasitical class interest in seeking rent. Of course, he would say the same thing about the bishops and the rest of the clergy.
I should think that the Presiding Bishop and General Convention are more motivated towards extra help for the Church's mission outside of the Church.
Then I guess you haven't seen TECs proposed new budget, huh? The one with $52,000,000 allocated for national staff salary. But by all means, examine the budget yourself, and compute how much money TEC is spending on "mission outside of the church." Here's a hint. It won't be $52,000,000.
Now, do you suppose that all those NYC national staffers - the ones who get paid that $52 million - are going to suddenly decide that it's just a great idea to move to Kansas City? They couldn't find Kansas City on a map. They probably think cows roam the streets unattended in Kansas City. For God's sake, people vote for Republicans in places like Kansas City! You can't even find a decent wine-and-cheese distributor! You might as well send them to the deserts of Northern Mali.
And once GC2012 goes away, who is going to make them do anything? TEC's Executive Committee? KJS? The AoC? Bonnie Anderson's replacement? The (throughly-castrated) HoB? The courts via a lawsuit? Who? They like their money. They want to live in NYC. They don't want to move. They don't want to lose their income. They will pull up bricks from the street and cry "¡No pasarán!" before they would agree to a diminution of 815. Church mission or no church mission.
carl
Now, Shawn, you understand the energy that Peter and I have, for example, to see that the vapid parts not become more normative as will be voted on for the revised Prayer Book this week.
Blessings
Bosco
The leadership of TEC defines mission as the political ideology of the Liberal Left. It has no relation to Christ centered Biblical mission.
Carl, we all need friends, right?
On your hatred of TEC, I can tell here from recent comments from a N.Z. part-time student you have at least one in Aotearoa/ New Zealand.
Your combined distaste for your parent churches, though, does you no credit, and helps the mission of the Church in your various areas not one bit. Give up grumbling and get out if it is not to your very refined taste. No-one likes a grumbler in the camp - especially one who does his best to bring down the Church he belongs to.
Yes Bosco, I do understand this concern now.
Amazing what a difference one week with a truly outstanding teacher can make!
Have you read Hans Boersma?
Ron,
The mission of the Church is being damaged by the very leaders of TEC you insist on defending, not by people like Carl.
The mission of the Church in the land of my birth will not be helped by centralizing power and wealth in the hands of a liberal elite that seems solely concerned with promoting the worldview of urban secular liberals and cultural Marxists.
FRS
I am not a member of TEC. I am rather the person who would join an Anglican church except that there isn't one within 150 miles of my house. Well, other than TECs local Cult of Isis offering. Yes, attending that church was an interesting experience.
But once again you have displayed a stunning ability to address nothing but subjects ancillary to the thread. In the midst of offering me useless advise predicated upon a lack of knowledge, you (once again) failed to address anything I said. It's as if you think accusations of 'hate' can cover up your complete inability to respond. You made a claim about TECs motivations. I responded. Can you demonstrate that anything I said about TEC is false? Or are you content to simply tell me to leave a church of which I am not a member?
carl
Disagreeing with the current leadership and direction of TEC is not hatred.
Liberals see no problem with criticizing Evangelicals, ACNA, GAFCON, Sydney Diocese, Southern Baptists, and many other groups.
Yet make perfectly reasonable and fact based critiques of TEC and your labled a hater who has no right to even have an opinion.
Do liberals even understand the concept of hypocrisy?
With regard to Professor Winiata's claim for 50% of St.John's College endowments; this is in parallel with a move on the N.Z. domestic political front, where Maori are claiming special rights to the disposition of Water Rights - in the proposed sale of assets. These claims will surely impinge on more than just the Maori claimants. This is a justice issue for ALL, not just Maori.
I cannot.see any valid reason for the claim that fifty percent of St John's endowments should go to Maori students. Do they make up fifty percent of all students? Should the endowments even be given on an ethnic basis?
The Treaty is not and cannot be the basis of justice in New Zealand.
The entire process involves plundering people who themselves are not responsible for events that occured over a hundred years ago, when the people being plundered were not even alive, and therefore not morally responsible. The wealth stolen from those people is then given to others who were also not alive at the time, and therefore are not the victims.
Imagine if I went to my neighbor and told him that one of his ancestors stole some property from the ancestor of another man living living down the street, therefore I am going to forcibly take his property and give it to the other guy.
Would my neighbor consider that justice?
Of course not.
Now here is the real question. If he took me to court for taking his property by force, would he win?
Of course he would! Because our justice system recognizes that real justice can only apply to real people living here and now. The fact of the earlier theft by my neighbors ancestor would make no difference in a court of law.
That is why Treaty claims never go before real courts. The claims would never pass the evidencery requirements necessary in a real court, and they would not pass the test of justice.
So to bypass this inconvenience the State set up a kangaroo court in the form of the Waitangi Tribunal, thus allowing the State to plunder taxpayers at will for supposed crimes they themselves did not commit.
The entire Treaty process is fraud and theft on a massive scale, and about as far from real justice as it is possible to get.
Carl & Ron:
I have long since ceased to debate points with Mr Smith because he does not engage with the issues (historical, doctrinal, hermeneutical, philosophical) but simply asserts his higher gnosis and dismisses his opponents as lacking intelligence and/or charity. If you have the patience and time to respond, all and well; but I would rather hear a positive case than reactions to (tiresomely repetitive) ad hominem comments.
I say this positively because I believe you both have important things to say on this blog, and patiently explaining these points will encourage the orthodox in a collapsing church.
Martin
So TECs bishops have subverted their own rules (once again) in order to advance the progressive agenda. Words are made to mean exactly what they need to mean. In this case, a trial rite is mysteriously relabeled 'provisional' so as to get around a super-majority vote. Shocked I am. Shocked. Ah well. Rules are simply a means to an end. Just so long as justice triumphs.
I'm not sure why TEC has rules - I mean besides to rid itself of troublesome conservatives, that is. And soon, troublesome liberals as well. Is there some purpose served when a lawless organization applies a thin veneer to cover its arbitrary exercise of power?
carl
Martin - Nice comment. You are officially now the anti-troll :)
Peter - I'm interested on your thoughts on today's covenent vote at General Synod. It appears that a motion to kill off the covenent in this provence as now been subly altered to the point where we are now 75% subscribed to it....and open to a greater commitment than that in the future (the 75% representing a "good starting point" for us)
It would suggest that a little firm, but gentle guidence from "the top" makes a whole lot of difference to the outcomes!
Ben
1. I’d quite like to pick up on Hans Boersma’s two key texts, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry and Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery, the second being the earlier ground-work for the first. For there is an additional and vital element he does not address: the debates surrounding the ‘means of grace’, predicated upon the so-called Augustinian synthesis, as well as the anti-Arian backlash, both of which effectively side-lined any true operational theology of the Trinity. I sense such a fuller treatment would indeed return us to an Ontology of Mystery that would situate the sacramental view correctly: as it is (historically), we have the (sacramental) cart before the (Trinitarian) horse.
2. There’s a vital GC matter now on T19:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/43852/
I raise this, not due to the subject matter itself, but rather due to the sheer shiftiness of the shift from “trial” to “provisional”. For might we in ACANZ&P not be subject to the same liturgical shenanigans as they?! Bosco? We’ve raised these similar matters together before; hey!
"I'm not sure why TEC has rules - I mean besides to rid itself of troublesome conservatives, that is. And soon, troublesome liberals as well. Is there some purpose served when a lawless organization applies a thin veneer to cover its arbitrary exercise of power? "
carl
Carl, is this what's meant by Ben as 'trolling' - a situation where one does not have to belong to an Anglican Communion Church - TEC - to take delight in libellously criticising it?
The covetousness (see: The Ten Commandments, #10) of some Maori has its origin in fallen human nature as well the painful recognition that Maori continue to fall behind in NZ society, both economically and demographically, despite many decades of official help and preference, while Asian newcomers rise to the top through education, a competitive spirit and family solidarity - the only factors that can assure a people economic success rather than the trap of dependency (compounded by educational failure, family breakdown, out of wedlock birth, and alcohol/substance abuse).
The Maori Anglican church had a fine heritage and did wonderful work. Now it resembles a PC Potemkin church. Funerals and cultural ceremonies are no substitute fro a living, life-changing Chrisitna community. Probably more Maori are actively involved in Destiny Church than in Anglicanism. As a servie to Maori Christians, maybe St John's could provide some scholarships for Destiny leaders to learn some sensible biblical theology?
Martin the Antitroll
Martin the Antitroll,
Excellent post. Sadly your suggestion about Destiny will never happen as Destiny is a focus of unmitigated hatred by liberal Anglicans, despite the fact that Destiny has done more in ten years for local Maori than the Maori wing of the Anglican Church has managed in twenty.
The state of "Tikanga Maori" is shocking. The level of Biblical illiteracy is appalling because the Bible takes second place to Maori culure. Systematic theology is non existent, because that is apparently "Euro-centric". I kid you not.
The three Tikanga system (thinly disguised apartheid) has been a monumental failure.
But it is part of the Liberal/Marxist agenda so nothing is done.
"Carl, is this what's meant by Ben as 'trolling' - a situation where one does not have to belong to an Anglican Communion Church - TEC - to take delight in libellously criticising it?"
Why is it "libelliously criticising" the Episcopal Church of the USA (TEC), to suggest that it doesn't follow its own rules, and is characterised by "the arbitrary exercise of power"?
You might disagree that that is what is happening, although these days even strong supporters of TEC seem to have difficulty in following the rationale of some of its decisions. The recent kerfuffle over the budget is a case in point.
There is also the big question looming over the resolution last week by the House of Deputies that TEC's corporate headquarters at 815 Second Avenue New York be sold, in order to free up funds for ministry. This resolution was passed overwhelmingly, but many suspect that the TEC leadership is simply going to ignore it and continue to soak up funds while other parts of TEC wither for lack of support. If they do ignore it, surely that would prove Carl's point, in spades?
I'm also intrigued as to why Carl's non-membership of an Anglican Communion church means that he can't criticise TEC? After all, I have heard plenty of criticism of other churches (e.g. of the Roman Catholic church) emanating from supporters of TEC. Surely fair's fair?
FRS
It's not called 'libel.' It's called 'stating observable facts.' Did you watch the way TEC deposed its own bishops? Did you watch TEC create new dioceses out of whole cloth simply to provide a basis for a lawsuit? Did you watch how TEC managed to approve the SSB liturgy yesterday? Never mind. You don't have to answer. You never answer any question I pose to you. I'm still waiting for you to address the question of authority - a question I have asked you ... what ... six or seven times, now?
The conflict in TEC is not limited to TEC. It is a fight common to all Christians. It exists across denominations. If I go to the Lutherans, it is there. If I go to the Presbyterians, it is there. If I go to the Reformed churches, it is there. If I go to the Methodists or the Baptists, it is there. If I peer across the Tiber to the mass of doctrinal error that is Rome, it is there. The same fight against the same liberal religion that masquerades as Christianity. This is a fight for the definition of the Christian faith. TEC is just one of many battlefields. That is why I comment on TEC. Because the spiritual conflict contained therein is as much my conflict as that of any other Christian.
Which is why I will make no apologies for anything I have said. Nor will I apologize for having presumed to speak in the first place.
carl
Well said Carl. The bullying "you have no right to speak" crap is just a dishonest tactic to silence valid critique of the abusive use of power by Liberal/Marxist tyrants.
"You don't have to answer. You never answer any question I pose to you. I'm still waiting for you to address the question of authority - a question I have asked you ... what ... six or seven times, now?"
Carl, that's why I ceased trying to interact with Mr Smith. He isn't willing or able to have such a debate, so save your breath. "Noli cibum trollis dare."
In the end you can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't have the same epistemology about truth. Of course Mr Smith isn't a conventional liberal, but neither is he an orthodox catholic (as I think he was reared). Reminds me of 1 Kings 18.
You are right about the pervasive errors convulsing world Christianity; indeed Gresham Machen outlined this 90 years ago as a conflict between two religions, and soft-mannered orthodox like Ephraim Radner (and sometimes our gentle host) are loath to admit this. But now the fury of Tec's apostasy is evident to all, and happy are those who escaped its infidelity. The sad thing is that the infection has spread through a collapsing church into NZ, and liberal Anglicanism is now openly despised by the secular liberals it sought to appease.
Martin the Antitroll
Martin,
Well said.
The truth is that the current conflicts in the NZ Anglican Church are not between Christians with differing interpretations of Scripture, or different understandings of orthodoxy, but between flawed but faithful Christians, and those who have abandoned Christ and the faith for a totally different and false religion. And let us be clear, it is the false religion of the Anti-Christ.
That is why I have little faith in what comes put of the GS in Fiji.
I can smell the stench of sulphure.
Martin
I know that you are right. I have increasingly let his comments pass for just that reason. But sometimes I decide to respond for the sake of the silent reader. In this case, I thought it necessary to defend my right and authority to speak.
Thank you for your support, btw. I appreciate any supportive comments that I receive. That includes you, Shawn. Even if you are a Libertarian. ;)
carl
Thanks Carl.
And it's Paleo-Libertarian, big difference! :)
Lightly moderated from kiwianglo ...
""That is why I have little faith in what comes put of the GS in Fiji.
I can smell the stench of sulphure."
I presume, Shawn, that this revolutionary statement of yours securely puts you outside of any ambition to become a clergy-person in ACANZP?"
Peter, I'm really puzzled about you level of moderation on my last post. All I said was "Thank God for small mercies!" What is so reprehensible about that?
Especially when compared with "That is why I (sic) have little faith in what comes our of the G.S. in Fiji. I can smell the stench of sulphure (sic)" - which seems pretty outrageous about ACANZP's Synod.
Ron,
I do not have a calling to ordained ministry, and thus no ambition to be a clergy person.
Hi Ron
I distinguish between comment on groups (albeit composed of people) and comment on individual people. The excised words, it seemed to me as moderator, to strike a most unfortunate and uncharitable note about an individual person.
Post a Comment