This blog is on holiday, from 17 December 2019 to around 21 January 2020.
UPDATE 3: Are you, like me, a bit frustrated with some “Christmas” comments floating around social media (e.g., along “God became one of us to share our pain” lines)? In 2019, some 2000+ years on from the historical moment of the Incarnation, do we not need a theology of the Body of Christ conjoined with proclamation of the Incarnation as beneficial for humankind? That is, does God share our pain through the humanity of Christ via the local presence of the body of Christ, that is, via you and me as “the Body of Christ”? In turn, does not this mean that we are offering mere sentiment when we focus on “God became one of us to share our pain” without ourselves sharing and bearing the pain of those we share the message of the Incarnation with?
UPDATE 2: Thanks Christchurch Press for publishing https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/118410316/a-way-of-living-marked-by-peace-justice-joy-and-generous-love on Christmas Eve.
UPDATE 1: This YouTube Video has not gone viral! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bct9G6CPwbc&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1qqp8v498YAnvXYNO9tF9WaueM7wxoTQXxBjS3XUe25b4t5pgD8gFgcKQ
TOWARDS CHRISTMAS 2019 ...An Incarnation Reflection
Over the past few months I have found myself reflecting on the nature of God - on, if you like, God's Godness.
Such reflection is prompted by a whole bunch of things we say (or sing) as Christians which seems to anthropomorphize God - to make God somewhat in our image - a bigger and better version of ourselves, albeit with a bit more mystery ... I mean, we would answer everyone's prayers, right? But God doesn't always do that, but being much wiser than we are, no doubt has a good reason for not doing so.
So, I have been thinking about how we really need a shift in our "theology" - our understanding of God - so that we stop boxing God into dimensions we can grasp, cease over-personalizing God (e.g. making him out to be a kind of Celestial Bestie), and put an end to a breezy familiarity with the God who is not only bigger than the universe but beyond it.
But.
(A lot of theology starts with that word, doesn't it?! The Old Testament ... but ... the New Testament. You deserve to die for your sins ... but Jesus saves ...).
But Christmas. But the Incarnation. But the Word became flesh. But Emmanuel: God with us.
With.
Also a great theological word!
Dangerous though it is to anthropomorphize God, isn't it more dangerous to understand God apart from Jesus Christ?
If we meet God in Jesus Christ, then we meet one who was intimate in friendship, who personally and directly responded to requests for healing and deliverance, who was an anthropomorphism of the Divine.
The joy of Christmas is that the Impersonal God is revealed as, in fact, the Personal God.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Monday, December 9, 2019
Again, Romans 14-15
Two Mondays back I posted again re Romans 14-15 and the comments thereupon have been brilliant, profound, and, frankly, sometimes above my pay grade.
To continue the conversation I pick up just one part of one response (from Bryden Black):
"From all of which, I myself discern the issues being addressed by Paul in Rom 14-15 cannot be near the causes of our present, severe divisions among the Anglican Communion. Nice try, Peter—but pass ... The dynamics at play behind Rom 14-15, whatever they were, would seem to be such that Paul envisaged the real possibility of the different groups being reconciled - even as they held onto their respective positions, in some way. This is NOT what is at stake among the world-wide AC and also locally in provinces and dioceses and parishes. And how any bishop functions in this context I’m really not sure ... For what are the implications re “unity” when the theological foundations are just so incompatible, and the surface symptoms reflecting these foundations mutually exclusive?"
And one from just one part of one other response (from Bowman Walton):
"In the refreshing world of facts, there is a big one that elicits little comment here but adequately explains both sides of That overheated Topic-- since postindustrial people enjoying mass prosperity are less interested in continuing families, they do not use sex mainly for procreation, and their birthrates are quite low. Natives of this economy face a choice, not between being good Israelites or bad Romans, but between rival contemporary secular ways of repurposing the biology and culture of reproduction. (Max Weber's prediction about secularization was wrong, but his other one about sex was obviously right.) So on one hand, the Body has some who are trying to hammer nails into this fluidity because a hammer is the tool that they have, and others who are trying to decide-- given that they must decide-- how to swim in it.
Neither is stupid or faithless. But each is avoiding some elephant in their respective rooms, and they quarrel more to reassure themselves and to fortify their respective avoidances than to persuade anyone. Can the theologically inclined speak more directly to the social texture in which Christians live now? Can theologiphobes discover that the Bible they distrust shows a good way, even the best way, of living with realities exposed by Charles Darwin whom they do trust? Those would be ways forward."
Onwards:
Putting these two comments together - if I am understanding them rightly - we would have compatible theological foundations in the Anglican Communion (indeed in the whole global Christian community) if we talked to each other about those foundations in a spirit of openness to the full implications of living in the context of "a postindustrial people enjoying mass prosperity [who] are less interested in continuing families, [who] do not use sex mainly for procreation, and [for whom] their birthrates are quite low."
That is, we have not yet begun to do the work which integrity requires of us - the integrity of being people who live in this age and not the age of Moses, or Jesus, or Paul and urgently ask what it means to be holy people today (which will always mean a people informed by the Scriptures of Moses, Jesus and Paul).
In frank terms: yes, Bryden, there are - effectively - theologically incompatible foundations and thus some have made the choice which logically flows from that incompatibility, to separate ecclesiologically while others have made the choice to live with incompatibility. But, no, Bryden, following Bowman, there remains a work to be done, if we are willing to do it, in which we ask how there can be such theologically incompatible foundations amidst a people - Anglicans - otherwise either theologically agreed on so much OR ecclesiologically willing to live with so much difference - and so, could it be that this is because we have not yet begun to reflect on "the full implications etc"?
To which and to whit, with time still short, some observations:
(a) That theological genius, Mike Tyson, once said something like this, Everyone has a plan until I hit them in the mouth. The great difficulty with a theology of marriage is that the "plan" is easy to state (marriage is ... sexual sin is a dereliction of what marriage is ...) but responding to the punch in the mouth not so (... divorce ... a single mother bringing her child to baptism* ... a same sex married couple involving themselves in the ministry of the parish ... disciplining the "nature" of sexual drive within a marriage with the "contra-nature" of (artificial or "natural method") contraception, driven by a mix of concerns, including health of wife/mother and sheer economic sense and sensibility ...). Should the church divide because its response to the mouth punch of actual human conditions is various rather than uniform?
*It may be a sign of how far we have come - in the real conditions of modern life - that readers might puzzle over what the issue here is, but a conversation at the weekend reminded me that it was not so long ago that such single mothers were turned away from having their children baptised by some Anglican vicars.
(b) Dare we engage not only in a theology of marriage but also in a theology of justice, mercy and people on the margins of society? Without the latter, I suggest we are in danger of losing perspective on how important some issues are. Alternative question: how has the church come to be seen as an oppressive organisation for homosexuals? Ditto, dare we engage in a theology of theology? We seem to be in grave danger with That Topic of presenting a God to the world who has a soft spot for heterosexuals, even though we have many foibles, and a harsh judgement for homosexuals, unmodified by any intention to commit to a lifelong partnership. What kind of God is that? How on earth can it seem even slightly reasonable that the world thinks of God as homophobic? Surely we Christians couldn't have said anything to prompt such thoughts?
(c) Romans 14-15 envisages one simple common foundation for mutual welcome and acceptance - notwithstanding our arguments here over whether Romans 14-15 does or does not apply to present issues:
"Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God."
Christ - the church's one (ONE!) foundation :)
To continue the conversation I pick up just one part of one response (from Bryden Black):
"From all of which, I myself discern the issues being addressed by Paul in Rom 14-15 cannot be near the causes of our present, severe divisions among the Anglican Communion. Nice try, Peter—but pass ... The dynamics at play behind Rom 14-15, whatever they were, would seem to be such that Paul envisaged the real possibility of the different groups being reconciled - even as they held onto their respective positions, in some way. This is NOT what is at stake among the world-wide AC and also locally in provinces and dioceses and parishes. And how any bishop functions in this context I’m really not sure ... For what are the implications re “unity” when the theological foundations are just so incompatible, and the surface symptoms reflecting these foundations mutually exclusive?"
And one from just one part of one other response (from Bowman Walton):
"In the refreshing world of facts, there is a big one that elicits little comment here but adequately explains both sides of That overheated Topic-- since postindustrial people enjoying mass prosperity are less interested in continuing families, they do not use sex mainly for procreation, and their birthrates are quite low. Natives of this economy face a choice, not between being good Israelites or bad Romans, but between rival contemporary secular ways of repurposing the biology and culture of reproduction. (Max Weber's prediction about secularization was wrong, but his other one about sex was obviously right.) So on one hand, the Body has some who are trying to hammer nails into this fluidity because a hammer is the tool that they have, and others who are trying to decide-- given that they must decide-- how to swim in it.
Neither is stupid or faithless. But each is avoiding some elephant in their respective rooms, and they quarrel more to reassure themselves and to fortify their respective avoidances than to persuade anyone. Can the theologically inclined speak more directly to the social texture in which Christians live now? Can theologiphobes discover that the Bible they distrust shows a good way, even the best way, of living with realities exposed by Charles Darwin whom they do trust? Those would be ways forward."
Onwards:
Putting these two comments together - if I am understanding them rightly - we would have compatible theological foundations in the Anglican Communion (indeed in the whole global Christian community) if we talked to each other about those foundations in a spirit of openness to the full implications of living in the context of "a postindustrial people enjoying mass prosperity [who] are less interested in continuing families, [who] do not use sex mainly for procreation, and [for whom] their birthrates are quite low."
That is, we have not yet begun to do the work which integrity requires of us - the integrity of being people who live in this age and not the age of Moses, or Jesus, or Paul and urgently ask what it means to be holy people today (which will always mean a people informed by the Scriptures of Moses, Jesus and Paul).
In frank terms: yes, Bryden, there are - effectively - theologically incompatible foundations and thus some have made the choice which logically flows from that incompatibility, to separate ecclesiologically while others have made the choice to live with incompatibility. But, no, Bryden, following Bowman, there remains a work to be done, if we are willing to do it, in which we ask how there can be such theologically incompatible foundations amidst a people - Anglicans - otherwise either theologically agreed on so much OR ecclesiologically willing to live with so much difference - and so, could it be that this is because we have not yet begun to reflect on "the full implications etc"?
To which and to whit, with time still short, some observations:
(a) That theological genius, Mike Tyson, once said something like this, Everyone has a plan until I hit them in the mouth. The great difficulty with a theology of marriage is that the "plan" is easy to state (marriage is ... sexual sin is a dereliction of what marriage is ...) but responding to the punch in the mouth not so (... divorce ... a single mother bringing her child to baptism* ... a same sex married couple involving themselves in the ministry of the parish ... disciplining the "nature" of sexual drive within a marriage with the "contra-nature" of (artificial or "natural method") contraception, driven by a mix of concerns, including health of wife/mother and sheer economic sense and sensibility ...). Should the church divide because its response to the mouth punch of actual human conditions is various rather than uniform?
*It may be a sign of how far we have come - in the real conditions of modern life - that readers might puzzle over what the issue here is, but a conversation at the weekend reminded me that it was not so long ago that such single mothers were turned away from having their children baptised by some Anglican vicars.
(b) Dare we engage not only in a theology of marriage but also in a theology of justice, mercy and people on the margins of society? Without the latter, I suggest we are in danger of losing perspective on how important some issues are. Alternative question: how has the church come to be seen as an oppressive organisation for homosexuals? Ditto, dare we engage in a theology of theology? We seem to be in grave danger with That Topic of presenting a God to the world who has a soft spot for heterosexuals, even though we have many foibles, and a harsh judgement for homosexuals, unmodified by any intention to commit to a lifelong partnership. What kind of God is that? How on earth can it seem even slightly reasonable that the world thinks of God as homophobic? Surely we Christians couldn't have said anything to prompt such thoughts?
(c) Romans 14-15 envisages one simple common foundation for mutual welcome and acceptance - notwithstanding our arguments here over whether Romans 14-15 does or does not apply to present issues:
"Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God."
Christ - the church's one (ONE!) foundation :)
Monday, December 2, 2019
Ending 2019 well
2019 has been a challenging year for our Diocese - a new bishop to get used to, the tragedy for Christchurch city on 15 March, ongoing effects of disaffiliations after GS 2018, our huge Cathedral Reinstatement project getting off the ground - but by 8.30 pm yesterday [first Sunday in Advent], I could reflect joyfully on some splendid end of year events and news.
Over the last ten days we have had three inductions: the Parishes of Ellesmere, Rangiora, Riccarton-Spreydon. Each filled with well-received ministers.
Yesterday morning, we were able to announce a new Vicar for the Parish of Papanui. Later in the day, at two different services I was at, parishioners from that parish expressed their excitement at the news of this announcement.
On Saturday, St Andrew's Day, I ordained three new deacons, each of whom will make a much valued contribution to ministry and mission in different parts of our Diocese.
But, wait, there is more ...
Yesterday morning I visited a Diocesan youth camp - a lively sequence of fun and sporting activities rounded off with teaching and worship - enthusiastic campers and keen young adult leaders.
And that teaching was given superbly by one of our youngest priests - a privilege of being bishop is to see our deacons and priests delivering ministry with verve, passion and excellence.
It was lovely to have Amy Page-Whiting, Senior Pastor, Cashmere New Life Church, as our preacher at yesterday's induction. Amy's presence reminded us of the work God is doing in all the churches of our city.
(Aside: all three inductions had female preachers. Whatever 1 Timothy 2:12 meant and means, I continue to be unable to see that it is meant to prohibit godly, trained female preachers from expounding God's Word in God's church.)
Then, a further observation: some conversations recently, including after the ordinations on Saturday, reminded me that even in a secular country such as NZ, where the church and its ministries are public, done well, and connecting with people, we remain a force of influence and impact in our society.
So, I feel, all in all, that 2019 is ending well for us as a Diocese. Thanks be to God.
2020 will have its own challenges ... one of which is that the lovely anecdotes above do not by themselves shift the "data" of decline in Christianity in this country. There is work to be done!
Over the last ten days we have had three inductions: the Parishes of Ellesmere, Rangiora, Riccarton-Spreydon. Each filled with well-received ministers.
Yesterday morning, we were able to announce a new Vicar for the Parish of Papanui. Later in the day, at two different services I was at, parishioners from that parish expressed their excitement at the news of this announcement.
On Saturday, St Andrew's Day, I ordained three new deacons, each of whom will make a much valued contribution to ministry and mission in different parts of our Diocese.
But, wait, there is more ...
Yesterday morning I visited a Diocesan youth camp - a lively sequence of fun and sporting activities rounded off with teaching and worship - enthusiastic campers and keen young adult leaders.
And that teaching was given superbly by one of our youngest priests - a privilege of being bishop is to see our deacons and priests delivering ministry with verve, passion and excellence.
It was lovely to have Amy Page-Whiting, Senior Pastor, Cashmere New Life Church, as our preacher at yesterday's induction. Amy's presence reminded us of the work God is doing in all the churches of our city.
(Aside: all three inductions had female preachers. Whatever 1 Timothy 2:12 meant and means, I continue to be unable to see that it is meant to prohibit godly, trained female preachers from expounding God's Word in God's church.)
Then, a further observation: some conversations recently, including after the ordinations on Saturday, reminded me that even in a secular country such as NZ, where the church and its ministries are public, done well, and connecting with people, we remain a force of influence and impact in our society.
So, I feel, all in all, that 2019 is ending well for us as a Diocese. Thanks be to God.
2020 will have its own challenges ... one of which is that the lovely anecdotes above do not by themselves shift the "data" of decline in Christianity in this country. There is work to be done!
Monday, November 25, 2019
Romans 14-15 and the unity of the church(es)
Does Romans 14-15 help us much when we have a dispute in the church?
We all agree that Romans 14-15 is primarily concerned with a question of eating which is dividing the Roman church. (Secondarily, there seems to have been an issue about observing festival days (14:5-6) and drinking wine may also have been a problem (14.21)
In my experience, perhaps in yours also, we do not seem much agreed about applying R 14-15 by analogy to other issues troubling us these days.
Perhaps we can, perhaps we should not. You may have thoughts on that in comments below.
We might usefully observe, however, verse 3, which reminds us that our unity is in the God who welcomes us: "... for God has welcomed them" where "them" equals "that lot over there with whom you disagree so strongly."
Yet it would be odd, would it not, if we read Romans today for its universal theology of salvation (i.e. its timeless, applies everywhere and to everyone message of the gospel of the saving power of Jesus Christ) yet not for its applicability to the church of today in respect of our disputations?
Having said that, I wonder how you find Romans 14-15 as a "dispute settling" method? Even in respect of eating in Rome, is it clear by 15:6 how that dispute was settled? (And, if it looks like Paul was pushing for the dispute to be settled in favour of "the weak", in the long run, as Christianity parted ways from Judaism, "the strong" won and not "the weak.")
Sure, Paul generally sets out an excellent case for "going along to get along" in Christian fellowship (e.g. 14:19: "Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding."). Also, sure, Paul is very clear about not causing a brother or sister to stumble (14:20-21). And, very surely, Paul clearly warns against being "the ruin of one for whom Christ died" (14:15).
But much less surely can we say that Paul is simply saying that the "weak" on an issue always have things work out their way because the "strong" on the issue should always make life easy for them. For example, Paul challenges "the weak": "and those who abstain must not pass judgement on those who eat" (14:3; see also verse 10) and generally urges all sides of issues to recognise the other side as they honour the Lord (14:5-6).
Further, Paul is focused on these matters at a simple level: two groups, one should give way to the other (even as both groups should love, accept and honour the other). He does not get into the complexity of (say) one group holding the other group to emotional ransom; or of one group playing cute political games with the other.
There is also the complexity of determining who on issues outside of food, drink and festival days in ancient Rome are "the strong" and "the weak". Do these neatly map onto "conservatives" and "liberals" in 21st century Anglicanism? Probably not! Do these neatly map in synodical contexts onto "the majority" and "the minority"? Possibly so. (What if the majority in (say) the Synod of the Diocese of Christchurch is part of a minority within the General Synod?)
But complexity should not dissuade us from applying Romans 14-15. There is much in these chapters which steers us to Christ, which reminds us of Christ's teaching (e.g. not judging one another), and which challenges us to be like Christ:
"Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God." (15:7)
We all agree that Romans 14-15 is primarily concerned with a question of eating which is dividing the Roman church. (Secondarily, there seems to have been an issue about observing festival days (14:5-6) and drinking wine may also have been a problem (14.21)
In my experience, perhaps in yours also, we do not seem much agreed about applying R 14-15 by analogy to other issues troubling us these days.
Perhaps we can, perhaps we should not. You may have thoughts on that in comments below.
We might usefully observe, however, verse 3, which reminds us that our unity is in the God who welcomes us: "... for God has welcomed them" where "them" equals "that lot over there with whom you disagree so strongly."
Yet it would be odd, would it not, if we read Romans today for its universal theology of salvation (i.e. its timeless, applies everywhere and to everyone message of the gospel of the saving power of Jesus Christ) yet not for its applicability to the church of today in respect of our disputations?
Having said that, I wonder how you find Romans 14-15 as a "dispute settling" method? Even in respect of eating in Rome, is it clear by 15:6 how that dispute was settled? (And, if it looks like Paul was pushing for the dispute to be settled in favour of "the weak", in the long run, as Christianity parted ways from Judaism, "the strong" won and not "the weak.")
Sure, Paul generally sets out an excellent case for "going along to get along" in Christian fellowship (e.g. 14:19: "Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding."). Also, sure, Paul is very clear about not causing a brother or sister to stumble (14:20-21). And, very surely, Paul clearly warns against being "the ruin of one for whom Christ died" (14:15).
But much less surely can we say that Paul is simply saying that the "weak" on an issue always have things work out their way because the "strong" on the issue should always make life easy for them. For example, Paul challenges "the weak": "and those who abstain must not pass judgement on those who eat" (14:3; see also verse 10) and generally urges all sides of issues to recognise the other side as they honour the Lord (14:5-6).
Further, Paul is focused on these matters at a simple level: two groups, one should give way to the other (even as both groups should love, accept and honour the other). He does not get into the complexity of (say) one group holding the other group to emotional ransom; or of one group playing cute political games with the other.
There is also the complexity of determining who on issues outside of food, drink and festival days in ancient Rome are "the strong" and "the weak". Do these neatly map onto "conservatives" and "liberals" in 21st century Anglicanism? Probably not! Do these neatly map in synodical contexts onto "the majority" and "the minority"? Possibly so. (What if the majority in (say) the Synod of the Diocese of Christchurch is part of a minority within the General Synod?)
But complexity should not dissuade us from applying Romans 14-15. There is much in these chapters which steers us to Christ, which reminds us of Christ's teaching (e.g. not judging one another), and which challenges us to be like Christ:
"Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God." (15:7)
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Romans and the unity of the church (and churches)
A recent lectionary reading was Romans 13:8-10 (cited below). Roman 13 lies very close to, surprise, Romans 14 and 15. In those latter two chapters Paul, in the “application” part of his great letter, works on a very thorny issue for the Roman church (which means, by extension, both within and across the house churches of Romans 16).
The whole letter, of course, is a letter deeply concerned for Christian unity, because Paul is (theologically if not emotionally) desperate for unity between Rome’s Christian communities and himself, as well as between Christians in Rome at loggerheads with each other over theology and practice, veering confusingly between poles of law and grace, familiar Judaism and fledgling Christianity, Abraham’s true and false heritage and so forth.
Many readers here will be familiar with the trajectory of Romans through Christian history as a book which continues to be invoked in order to nudge (or blast) Christians towards true theological appreciation of the gospel - the Reformation and the Barthian revolt against German liberalism being the most notable examples (which I can think of).
But such nudges or blasts are not typically welcomed with complete collapse of the critiqued as they recognise the clarity of opposition towards them. Stout defences have been mounted (even named as in "the Counter Reformation") and so Romans is subject to debates, theological storms, and general rumblings of an ongoing nature, the most widely engaged present one working with the word “perspective”, as scholars propose and counter-propose “the New Perspective on Paul.”
Out of such debates scholars have had (if we may call it this) fun working out the “centre” or “message” or “target” of Romans. Is what matters in Romans found in chapters 3 and 4? If so, what do we make of Romans 9-11 - a footnote, an appendix or an aside? What if the point of Romans in in chapters 9-11? Or, is it Romans 14-15 - an issue over vegetables/meat eating has driven Paul’s greatest theological essay?
Recently I ordered Scot McKnight’s latest book Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire. Its focus is, according to its Amazon page,
"To read Romans from beginning to end, from letter opening to final doxology, is to retrace the steps of Paul. To read Romans front to back was what Paul certainly intended. But to read Romans forward may have kept the full message of Romans from being perceived. Reading forward has led readers to classify Romans as abstract and systematic theology, as a letter unstained by real pastoral concerns.
We will see as this monograph is digested whether it contributes to settling current Pauline debates or fuels their fire!
So, with such thoughts, and anticipation in the background, Romans 13:8-10. I found myself reading this with the radicalness of the passage jumping up and exegetically smacking me in the hermeneutical face!
Here is Paul, citing different laws - well known "ten commandments" but also "any other commandment" - and declaring, completely in keeping with the Lord Jesus, that every commandment is summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself." Then, Paul says, what this summary, overriding commandment means is, "Love does no wrong to a neighbour, therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
And the exegetical smack in the hermeneutical face? This: I wonder in our Anglican and other controversies (e.g. virulent if not vitriolic debate in the States over Beth Moore and women preaching to men) if we are exhibiting any reckoning with this passage when we argue over the rules of Christian living.
Is, for example, a woman preaching to a mixed gender congregation doing any "wrong to a neighbour"?
What harm to our neighbours or to the body of Christ is done if a congregation moves forward to receive the eucharist with diverse understandings of the eucharist shared across the congregation?
I could go on.
Comments please on the matter of Christian ethics being driven and shaped by Romans 13:8-10?
Here is the passage, via the NRSV:
"
If we could agree on Romans 13:8-10, might we find ourselves with a new and solid ground for Christian unity?
The whole letter, of course, is a letter deeply concerned for Christian unity, because Paul is (theologically if not emotionally) desperate for unity between Rome’s Christian communities and himself, as well as between Christians in Rome at loggerheads with each other over theology and practice, veering confusingly between poles of law and grace, familiar Judaism and fledgling Christianity, Abraham’s true and false heritage and so forth.
Many readers here will be familiar with the trajectory of Romans through Christian history as a book which continues to be invoked in order to nudge (or blast) Christians towards true theological appreciation of the gospel - the Reformation and the Barthian revolt against German liberalism being the most notable examples (which I can think of).
But such nudges or blasts are not typically welcomed with complete collapse of the critiqued as they recognise the clarity of opposition towards them. Stout defences have been mounted (even named as in "the Counter Reformation") and so Romans is subject to debates, theological storms, and general rumblings of an ongoing nature, the most widely engaged present one working with the word “perspective”, as scholars propose and counter-propose “the New Perspective on Paul.”
Out of such debates scholars have had (if we may call it this) fun working out the “centre” or “message” or “target” of Romans. Is what matters in Romans found in chapters 3 and 4? If so, what do we make of Romans 9-11 - a footnote, an appendix or an aside? What if the point of Romans in in chapters 9-11? Or, is it Romans 14-15 - an issue over vegetables/meat eating has driven Paul’s greatest theological essay?
Recently I ordered Scot McKnight’s latest book Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire. Its focus is, according to its Amazon page,
"To read Romans from beginning to end, from letter opening to final doxology, is to retrace the steps of Paul. To read Romans front to back was what Paul certainly intended. But to read Romans forward may have kept the full message of Romans from being perceived. Reading forward has led readers to classify Romans as abstract and systematic theology, as a letter unstained by real pastoral concerns.
But what if a different strategy were adopted? Could it be that the secret to understanding the relationship between theology and life, the key to unlocking Romans, is to begin at the letter’s end? Scot McKnight does exactly this in Reading Romans Backwards.
McKnight begins with Romans 12–16, foregrounding the problems that beleaguered the house churches in Rome. Beginning with the end places readers right in the middle of a community deeply divided between the strong and the weak, each side dug in on their position. The strong assert social power and privilege, while the weak claim an elected advantage in Israel’s history. Continuing to work in reverse, McKnight unpacks the big themes of Romans 9–11―God’s unfailing, but always surprising, purposes and the future of Israel―to reveal Paul’s specific and pastoral message for both the weak and the strong in Rome. Finally, McKnight shows how the widely regarded "universal" sinfulness of Romans 1–4, which is so often read as simply an abstract soteriological scheme, applies to a particular rhetorical character’s sinfulness and has a polemical challenge. Romans 5–8 equally levels the ground with the assertion that both groups, once trapped in a world controlled by sin, flesh, and systemic evil, can now live a life in the Spirit. In Paul’s letter, no one gets off the hook but everyone is offered God’s grace.
Reading Romans Backwards places lived theology in the front room of every Roman house church. It focuses all of Romans―Paul’s apostleship, God’s faithfulness, and Christ’s transformation of humanity―on achieving grace and peace among all people, both strong and weak. McKnight shows that Paul’s letter to the Romans offers a sustained lesson on peace, teaching applicable to all divided churches, ancient or modern."We will see as this monograph is digested whether it contributes to settling current Pauline debates or fuels their fire!
So, with such thoughts, and anticipation in the background, Romans 13:8-10. I found myself reading this with the radicalness of the passage jumping up and exegetically smacking me in the hermeneutical face!
Here is Paul, citing different laws - well known "ten commandments" but also "any other commandment" - and declaring, completely in keeping with the Lord Jesus, that every commandment is summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself." Then, Paul says, what this summary, overriding commandment means is, "Love does no wrong to a neighbour, therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
And the exegetical smack in the hermeneutical face? This: I wonder in our Anglican and other controversies (e.g. virulent if not vitriolic debate in the States over Beth Moore and women preaching to men) if we are exhibiting any reckoning with this passage when we argue over the rules of Christian living.
Is, for example, a woman preaching to a mixed gender congregation doing any "wrong to a neighbour"?
What harm to our neighbours or to the body of Christ is done if a congregation moves forward to receive the eucharist with diverse understandings of the eucharist shared across the congregation?
I could go on.
Comments please on the matter of Christian ethics being driven and shaped by Romans 13:8-10?
Here is the passage, via the NRSV:
"
Romans 13:8-10 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Love for One Another
8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."If we could agree on Romans 13:8-10, might we find ourselves with a new and solid ground for Christian unity?
Monday, November 11, 2019
Bleak or blessed? A rejoinder to and extension of previous post, by Bryden Black
The following guest post, by the Rev. Dr. Bryden Black, Christchurch, picks up on matters brought forward in the previous post (last Monday) and thread of comments below it ... It begins with an address to one of the commenters on the thread, the Rev. Ron Smith, Christchurch.
I have waited until now, Ron, to respond to you—often the first cab off the rank—as I’ve been enjoying the various lines of conversation developing here, raising not just intriguing ideas, but perhaps even rather vital ones. And trying now to maintain the good faith I’ve been at some pains recently to cultivate between us, it’s time to address your take on matters ’Strain, with which you kicked things off.
Since you have necessarily given us some of the
details of your own life experience in your comments, it might help you (and
others) similarly to know some of my own autobiographical details. For in this
way, we may all evaluate better our respective understandings of our own
various experiences. And yes; those with sharp eyes and ears will pick up key echoes
of Bernard Lonergan at work: evaluate our
understandings of our experiences. What I
am deliberately attempting also here is a cross reference to another thread,
where Bowman threw down the hermeneutical gauntlet. See please “So, you be the
judge ... of many links and what they say (UPDATED)”, especially comments dated
Nov 3, 2019 at 4:10 PM through to Nov 4, 2019 at 2:20 PM. We’ll come back to
this thread at the end.
With apologies now for the subjectivity, on which I
have tried to be necessarily selective to the task. But if we in the AC, at all
its various levels, from the grandly global down to the humbly parochial and
back up again, are ever, ever to emerge from this “slow moving train wreck”
(Tom Wright, of our dear Church) with anything like a scrap of dignity (humanly
speaking), we really need to learn engagement “face-to-face” (Emmanuel
Levinas)—with humility and openness, mirroring the very Being of the Triune God
in whose Image Christians claim humanity is made, and are now graciously being
redeemed in Christ Jesus. [Sorry; H/T my own The Lion, the Dove, &
the Lamb.] And no; I am not trying to reinvent the Indaba Process. I
am merely facing facts, as per Oliver O’Donovan’s seminal judgment that the real,
true conversation has barely begun. [My own take on the reasons why is not the
point of the thread here.]
My father was born in Melbourne of Kiwi parents. He
finished his secondary schooling back in Christchurch. He fought with the
ANZACs in North Africa, and was captured by the Italians just ahead of El
Alamein, finishing the war a POW both in Italy and Germany. He was a personal
friend of Charlie Upham, their being ‘in the bag’ together. My parents were
married after WW2 in Opawa. Her story is even more fun and varied; but because
she was a very private person and an only child, I will respect that privacy.
My first encounter with Australasia was in
utero, but I was then born in London coz me mum happened to be there
at the time. Between the ages of 0-41⁄2 we’d gone around the world twice,
mostly of course in ships! Australasia featured twice, and I recall that second
return from Southampton to Auckland like it were y’day. (There are of course
earlier distilled ‘pictures’ too.) The “Crossing of The Line” antics mid
Pacific were a sight to behold for one just four; the Captain had only just
vacated his Table for all the children on board to have a massive High Tea,
with moi in his chair. It were my fourth birthday, see!
Fast forward. After leaving school in UK, I took an
extended ‘gap year’ back in Australasia, mostly but not exclusively
as jackaroo and useless shepherd. Thereafter of course, UCR (University College
of Rhodesia) featured, and I took a BA Gen in what was then Salisbury. I was
also massively ‘educated’ beyond the academic ... Let the
reader understand, and not just uni life, but Rhodesia, 1965-80.
During that uni period, there are three vital things
to note. Having kicked ‘the religious habit’ a few months after the Bp of
Winchester laid hands on me at Confirmation - it was after all the 1960s - I
became a believing, practising Christian during a university mission led by
Peter Hall, who later ministered in Birmingham and SE London. Secondly, UCR was
supposedly a multiracial oasis surrounded by ... well, what? Given the
history of Southern Rhodesia/Rhodesia, it was never quite RSA with
its Apartheid. Even if there were some grotesque parallels, there were also
many significant differences. And those very differences granted for a start
that very campus, a University College of London. Lastly, I met there my
wife-to-be, who became a doctor and remains a faithful member of RCC.
My diocese of origin is Mashonaland/Harare, my being
ordained there in 1977 by a wonderful man, Paul Burrough. For you history
buffs, Southern Rhodesia was once part of the Church of the Province of South
Africa. This meant that the flavour of Anglicanism in that part of the world
was distinctly ‘spiky’, by and large. I well remember once seeing with bewilderment
the celebrant at the end of HC wander off into the corner and start reciting
the Fourth Gospel’s Prologue! For you see I was (still am, among many other
dimensions) supposedly an Evangelical! In fact, only a wise ecclesial decision
had established an explicitly Evangelical parish in Harare, Avondale, who were
allowed to use the 1662 BCP as opposed to the South African Prayer Book, thus
averting the importation into Southern Rhodesia (for a while) The Church of
England in South Africa. We’ve been here before folks! Well, sort of ... After
8 years of ministry in Harare (none of which was with St Mary’s, Avondale,
BTW), my wife and I with then 2 children went back to England, where I embarked
upon an intense two year period of doctoral study at Wycliffe Hall, my old
training college. What a blast! We then returned to Melbourne.
David Penman, a Kiwi, was the Archbishop in 1987, whom
I’d already met in 1985 while our longer term plans were developing. Again,
long story short, I became, first, the Field Worker in the Dept of Evangelism
& Church Growth, and then its Director, 1988-94. The Dept had been duly
established by Abp DP under a truly great man, Peter Corney, then vicar of Kew
and Archdeacon of Evangelism, and all this ahead of the so-called Decade of
Evangelism around the AC (ala Lambeth 1988). Remember that folks ...?!
Of course it was an impossible task, with an over
ambitious job description. Yet both DP and PC were/are missionaries at heart -
thank you Lord for their tutelage. Rapidly, I was forced to crawl with the
worms and fly with the eagles (yes; those with sharp eyes and ears will pick up
key echoes of Deut Isa). From engagements with small parish groups—and that
meant inevitably encounters one-on-one so often—to inter-church bodies (VCC, NSW
Uniting Church Mission and Evangelism group), with even the odd national jaunt,
it was a real ride! I am ever convinced they got less than I received!
Phase Two of my ministry was a curate’s egg. Anchored in the rapidly changing Inner City Parish of Port Melbourne, we, a small team,
tried a Comunity Development model of local mission. Two
‘programmes’ stood out. There was this ‘Youth Group’ of kids, 9-15, from the
High Rises, which we co-shared with the UCA next door. Its suburb, South
Melbourne, had the reputed highest youth suicide rate nationally. And what a
fantastic joy—and tragedy ... And then there was the Asylum Seeker Centre
venture. Federal Govt funds MRCs, Migrant Resource Centres. And despite the
often bad rap the governments across the Ditch themselves might get, here is a
one-stop shop, well oiled with cash, of which we were JEALOUS. We turned such a
vice into a virtue; we befriended members of the local MRC, and our ASC
‘traded’ with them. Gloriously, the ministry is still going, having morphed for
the fifty-first time; see David Spitteler on FaceBook.
From all of which I’d
have to say I have a certain series of
takes on the churches and the Church across that Ditch. I have had
friends (let alone contacts) from just about every brand of Anglicanism you
might muster amongst that ‘variegated creature’ that is the Anglican
Archdiocese of Melbourne! And please don’t forget the interchurch and
interstate stuff either. In addition, the actual individuals and/or parishes
(or whatever groupings) will all have their own respective ‘Rubicons’, as it
were, when they do or don’t or might ‘cross over’ and move - yet ...? [See “So
you be the judge ...” @ October 23, 2019 at 11:30 AM]
Sure; some of what I
once knew may be somewhat outdated, but we still have some key contemporary
links. Our oldest daughter and family live there still, and my wife and I of
course see them frequently enough, doing joyous grand-parenting duties!
Crucially, Peter Corney is still alive (running his active website too!), and
we’re in contact off and on, and meet up occasionally. We always call in on
fellow Port Melbourne types when over—always! And then there’s my most
long-standing acquaintance over there ecclesially (never quite became a
friendship due to geography), Peter Jensen and his wife Christine, whom I first
met when we were together in Oxford 1976-77; and we cross paths once in a while
still also. And last but certainly not least, how’s this for Providence?! On
the very first Sunday after 22nd February 2011 earthquake, who should come popping into St Christopher’s (where I was PiC at the time) but an old School friend I hadn’t met in years; we were in the same Boarding House together, for goodness’ sake! He’s ... got something to do with Sydney Dio
Synod etc. We’ve met a number of times since; our wives have met; and it’s all great fun. Yet when they are not present, while the range of subjects is vast, it always includes our respective global takes on the dear old AC and her ragged clothing ...
So; Bleak - or blessed?
Well; the slow moving
train wreck is surely upon us—always would be, if my assessment in that earlier thread is correct; see October 23, 2019 at 11:29 AM on “So; you be the judge ...”. For
Tom Wright has sadly nailed it: we are “a slow moving train wreck.” And lastly, crucially, do please also recall that Terry Fulham exegesis of Isa 40 I cited again under that earlier thread “So, you be the judge ...” @ October 30, 2019 at 8:59 PM. We will NEVER appreciate what’s going on until we
acknowledge that scorching Sirocco wind from the Sahara, Isa 40:6-8, sandwiched as it is between otherwise beautiful, hopeful oracles. One has to ponder deeply why it forms such a crucial part of the prophet’s call narrative as he stands in the Council of Yahweh, overhearing their deliberations, only to interject,
“What shall I cry?”
[MUCH of course turns on who’s saying what, on where all the inverted commas go - or don’t go.]
Yet if I may/must push
back in a most specific direction, dear Ron, to all you’ve said on this thread
alone above, even if via that inevitable medium so tested by time,
satire, I’d publish - which I will not - a
‘translation’ I’ve sighted of the “GSSC response to Sydney”,
Taonga 13 Nov 18. It would surely make a cat laugh, and a
script worthy of any Monty Python Sketch or Goons Show. Sure; it’s a bit
amateurish - perhaps. YET it helps to reveal so aptly where we are
truly at. “Lost in Translation” doesn’t begin to cut it (and its
author is not an Anglican, BTW, just a Christian ‘expert’, working in
journalism - and NOT an Aussie! These things are always fascinating). There are
many, many dynamics at work here ...
Including the Providence clearly witnessed throughout Isa 40-55. For Providence
is, as Mr Beaver, states:
‘Safe?’said Mr Beaver;
‘don’t you hear what Mrs Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe?
’Course he isn’t safe. But he is good. He’s the King, I tell you.’
So; as they say in
Shona, “Tatenda!”, Ron, Thank-you. For thanks to your customary kick-start,
there may just be a wee angelic crack opening up here on this blog: I DARE TO
BELIEVE - AND HOPE, AND TRULY LOVE. God being my Helper ... Amine!
PS. January 2000 saw
us return to Chch and begin another chapter. But that’s another story (perhaps)
for another time ...
My answer: blessed - or bleak?
And now for the
thorniest of questions, Peter’s title. Herewith my meagre stab at an answer:
neither and yet both, both and yet neither.
“Now, surely, you’re
merely playing word games, Bryden”, quickly comes the retort! Well; again, yes
and no; sic et non, as the medieval Latin theologians used
to say - with now a distinctly modern, or should that be postmodern, twist. How
so? Via a very careful examination of some key New Testament forms of
discourse. I shall be brief.
Let’s start with Paul.
In the likes of say Rom 5:1-5 and thereafter chapter 8, “suffering” and “glory”
are clearly opposites. They are opposites both by nature and chronologically.
The one state follows the other, it seems. Similarly, we have a pair of
opposites, driven by the Old Testament form of covenant, in Galatians, chs 3-4.
For you cannot get a greater pair of opposites than “blessing” and “cursing”.
Yet even here there might be hints of something else being at work as well. And
Paul, the Christian rabbi, plays a gloriously figurative game from Torah,
4:21ff. (Caveat lector; I have just played my own wee game.)
The greatest and most
succinct form of opposites in Paul might possibly be 2 Cor 4:17-18, set within
that remarkably dense passage starting at 2:14 and running right through to
6:13. Here the nature of each is additionally qualified by adjectives, as well
as by the stark, chronological nature of each.
But let’s turn now to
the Fourth Gospel, and ask an essential question, which, if we don’t even
realise is a question, we will never understand what John is up to. Cutting to
the chase, What is the nature of “divine glory”?
And when and how is it revealed? John’s
entire book gives us both question and answer. To be sure, I’m not now going to
go about exegeting 21 chapters of some of the most, yes, glorious literature in
the world.
The answers revolve
around these observations. The Son of Man’s Hour of Glory is when he is “lifted
up” from the Earth. This is the revelation of the divine glory, the Father’s
eternal glory, which is shared uniquely and singularly with the Son (say,
ch.17), who as Incarnate One reveals and embodies and enacts that very glory
here on Earth. Yet that revelation is far from straightforward. And this
revelation is far from easily or straightforwardly - at least in the first
instance, seemingly - received or acknowledged or realised (yes; that key word
I play with in God’s Address). For that very process of
being “lifted up”, that essential drama
whereby the Father is glorified in the Son and the Son glorifies his Father
(see esp 13:31-32, 12:20-36), is a classic piece of double
entendre, where the thing is explicitly double layered, and even more
so ...
For being “lifted up”
means two things in John: quite literally, it means being physically strung up
some metres above the ground upon a Roman gibbet; then, both physically and
spiritually it means being “lifted up” out of the grave. The Hour of Jesus’
glory is the impenetrable combination of both crucifixion and resurrection,
resurrection and crucifixion. Here is the divine glory
shown, declared-and-demonstrated amongst humanity—by means of
crucifixion-&-resurrection-&-resurrection-&-crucifixion. Nor are we
quite done.
That divine glory
precisely and intentionally spills over. For the Glory of
the Father is notably, when the full drama of the Fourth Gospel has run its
course and the Hour of Glory has come, the begetting of many additional sons
and daughters (Ï„Îκνα/ tekna = children) from among humanity,
through the Son (Ï…ióς/huios), Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. They are granted “eternal life”, which is nothing less than their dwelling in/with the Father and the Son in the Spirit, and this God’s dwelling in/among them (see especially 13:3- 17:26; 20:21-22; and see too therefore Rev 21:3,22-24). More formally, we may say that the destiny of human beings is nothing less than to participate in the life and light, the love and freedom of the triune Godhead, “sharing the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4), an idea beloved of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
So what has happened
to Paul’s more simple – or is it really so simple? - set of opposites with
which we began? The clue for him of course is the most famous opening set of
chapters to 1 Cor, chs 1-4. Here divine and human power, and divine and human
wisdom - both pairs of opposites - get smartly flipped on their heads. So even
within Paul and his theological patterns of thinking, and so exhortation to
forms of Christian living, we meet some profound forms of paradox.
So; back to Peter’s
question. Is the future bleak? Or is it to be blessed? Once again I answer as
above. But this time I hope with the Gospel’s rays of Jesus passing through the
prismatic effect of all that I have said, so that our language, and our forms
of thinking, let alone our very forms of living practice, are filtered by
Jesus’ Death and Resurrection. That is to say, in as much as we humans are “in
union with Christ Jesus”, so too will the Holy Spirit pass us through/shine us
through the prism of cross and resurrection, resurrection and crucifixion,
refashioning us (back) into the Image/Form of God. Just so, Phil 3:10-11, with
its compressed chiasmic form, set firmly within its remarkable
context.
And just so too, Rom
12:1-2, set within its context, marking it as the fulcrum of all else:
I have waited until now, Ron, to respond to you—often the first cab off the rank—as I’ve been enjoying the various lines of conversation developing here, raising not just intriguing ideas, but perhaps even rather vital ones. And trying now to maintain the good faith I’ve been at some pains recently to cultivate between us, it’s time to address your take on matters ’Strain, with which you kicked things off.
[MUCH of course turns on who’s saying what, on where all the inverted commas go - or don’t go.]
I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercies, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual/reasonable worship. Do not be conformed to this world/aeon, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Bleak or blessed?
A bit short of time this week.
This is "Anglican Down Under" so once again we take a look across the Ditch.
David Ould has written a diagnosis and prognosis of current controversies in the Anglican Church of Australia in the Anglican Church Record.
I suggest a critical observation within the article is this:
I infer that the paramount question before our sister church, in the light of recent events and synodical statements, is this:
Will ACA determine to work collaboratively on a solution to the sharp differences between bishops/dioceses?
I don't know about you (especially if you are an Australian reader) but between unilateral actions in or by some Dioceses and statements re revisionist leaders should leave, I am failing from across the Ditch to see public signs of collaborative intention.
Is the future of our sister church bleak or blessed?
This is "Anglican Down Under" so once again we take a look across the Ditch.
David Ould has written a diagnosis and prognosis of current controversies in the Anglican Church of Australia in the Anglican Church Record.
I suggest a critical observation within the article is this:
"The constitution and polity of the Anglican Church of Australia is more conservative than other Provinces. It declares the 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer to be our standard of doctrine and worship, not just historical documents to be acknowledged. Bishops promise to uphold the constitution in their consecration vows and can be held to account on that basis. Further, the federal-type nature of our national church means that doctrinal and liturgical changes can only be made with the approval of General Synod and the individual dioceses. This prevents more extreme decisions being taken and has, in the past, encouraged a more collaborative approach to making big decisions."
I infer that the paramount question before our sister church, in the light of recent events and synodical statements, is this:
Will ACA determine to work collaboratively on a solution to the sharp differences between bishops/dioceses?
I don't know about you (especially if you are an Australian reader) but between unilateral actions in or by some Dioceses and statements re revisionist leaders should leave, I am failing from across the Ditch to see public signs of collaborative intention.
Is the future of our sister church bleak or blessed?
Monday, October 28, 2019
Post Newman thoughts on shape of Down Under Anglicanism Part 2 of however many
While out and about on household chores on Saturday morning I flicked the radio on, to find myself in the middle of a fascinating interview by Kim Hill with Australian author Christos Tsiolkas about his fictionalised story of Paul in his novel Damascus (recording here): "The subject matter for his sixth and latest novel Damascus couldn't have got much more ambitious; it's an excursion into historical fiction tracing the formation of the Christian church using the writings of St. Paul as its source text." (Wellington literary festival details here.)
The intriguing gist of the interview was that Tsiolkas, having been something of a fundamentalist Christian as a teenager (and then a fundamentalist socialist) now see the importance of the Christian ethic and subscribes to it, but does not describe himself as a Christian.
The disturbing thing is that, having returned from the hardware store, my resumption of the radio was in time to hear Kim Hill read out some comments sent in by listeners, most of which were aggressively anti-Christian. There was a ruthlessness in these comments which anticipated the aggression of a certain rugby team against the ABs on Saturday night. A sign of the rapidly changing environment here in which the gospel is to be proclaimed.
Later that day, with my family, I was in the centre of our city, enjoying warm weather and the culinary delights of our new covered market, "Riverside Market." Loads of people. Happy. Content. Easy to reflect on the challenge of communicating the gospel to people happy with their lot. Also easy to wonder what these "people in the street" would make of ongoing talk since the ordination of the previous weekend (see post below).
What has been unfolding since a week or so ago is an intense, wide ranging discussion among and between Anglicans. But, essentially, this is a discussion within Anglicanism: internal to ourselves. Important, interesting but arguably offering little which forwards the gospel. Nevertheless I guess we have to have this discussion.
Certainly, for me, a critical question through the last week is: What does it mean to be Anglican viz a viz "Communion"/"communion"?
Helpful here is Bowman Walton's comments a while back, because it focuses us on what might be distinctive and valuable about being Anglican.
I think we could add a little to this, but first, I very much appreciate this exposition of the inner, historical genius of Anglicanism: a warm, personal, Spirit-led Scripture and best-of-tradition based approach to being Christian.
The bit I would add is this: why the "Church of England" and not a persistent effort to achieve all the above within the "Church of Rome"?
My answer is that (whatever we make of the presenting issue re H8) it is right and proper for churches to be formed which are organised according to local civil order (i.e. according to nations distinguished from one another by having their own forms of government). Churches continue to incarnate the presence of Christ in the world and the world is a varied, diverse, ever changing place. To respond efficiently to local conditions, culture and community aspirations, it is sensible, reasonable and (I suggest) consistent with Scripture to have national churches. (ADDITION: h/t Bowman Walton: Edward Feser, a Catholic writer, has an interesting post on John Paul II on the virtues and vices of nations here.)
And yet, everything which the New Testament teaches about fellowship, church, communion/eucharist demands that local churches are in fellowship with other local churches, that we express in those relationships our unity in Christ, our common belief and practice.
Hence, properly, the formation of the Anglican Communion as a communion of national churches with a common heritage in the genius of the English Reformation and its organic development, as set out by Bowman above.
Hence, also, properly, the work of the Anglican Communion on communion with other communions: with Rome, with Lutheran churches, with Methodists, with Easter Orthodox churches, etc.
Hence, improperly, the schism in the Anglican Communion which (I suggest, I know there are many arguments and counter arguments) has its origins in a failure to understand well the creative tension required to hold together a bunch of national churches responding to local conditions with the importance of those national churches committing to common belief and practice.
How does all this relate to what is going on Down Under?
I will attempt to get to that next week!
The intriguing gist of the interview was that Tsiolkas, having been something of a fundamentalist Christian as a teenager (and then a fundamentalist socialist) now see the importance of the Christian ethic and subscribes to it, but does not describe himself as a Christian.
The disturbing thing is that, having returned from the hardware store, my resumption of the radio was in time to hear Kim Hill read out some comments sent in by listeners, most of which were aggressively anti-Christian. There was a ruthlessness in these comments which anticipated the aggression of a certain rugby team against the ABs on Saturday night. A sign of the rapidly changing environment here in which the gospel is to be proclaimed.
Later that day, with my family, I was in the centre of our city, enjoying warm weather and the culinary delights of our new covered market, "Riverside Market." Loads of people. Happy. Content. Easy to reflect on the challenge of communicating the gospel to people happy with their lot. Also easy to wonder what these "people in the street" would make of ongoing talk since the ordination of the previous weekend (see post below).
What has been unfolding since a week or so ago is an intense, wide ranging discussion among and between Anglicans. But, essentially, this is a discussion within Anglicanism: internal to ourselves. Important, interesting but arguably offering little which forwards the gospel. Nevertheless I guess we have to have this discussion.
Certainly, for me, a critical question through the last week is: What does it mean to be Anglican viz a viz "Communion"/"communion"?
Helpful here is Bowman Walton's comments a while back, because it focuses us on what might be distinctive and valuable about being Anglican.
"From the very beginning, Peter, the reformation of the Body in England was blessed in three exceptional ways that still concretely matter to the lives in Christ of his disciples today.
The CoE has a Reformation doctrine that has freed the believer from the trap of trying to make justification etc happen from the human side. That is immediately and enormously helpful to souls, whether their practice owes more to medieval English contemplatives, Protestant missionary spirituality, or Tridentine forms of religious life. Also, perhaps because Cranmer got his justification doctrine (and his wife) from Osiander (cf Wurtemburg Confession), the 10A of the 39A do not ensnare Anglicans in the confessionalist trap of needing to assent to a diagram (eg Beza's) of the machinery behind that justification. Lutheran faith is trust, and Osiander's trust amounts to theosis.
Perhaps that explains why the CoE also has a BCP from Cranmer that orders the sacramental and devotional life of Christians around participation in Christ and incorporation into his mystical Body. Unlike most other Protestants, Anglicans have not had to adopt an arid individualism or an unreal intellectualism in order to trust God with their justification, sanctification, and vocation. Paradoxically, this richer ecclesiality has supported a warm personalism, a close acquaintance with Christ in the psalms, and a freedom to love God with the mind. Where other sorts of Protestants (eg William Ames) sometimes harbour paralysing doubts about the Spirit's indwelling of souls and congregations, the Anglican style (eg Richard Sibbes) normally and quite properly assumes it.
Finally, that richer ecclesiality allowed Cranmer and the CoE after him to take a paleo-orthodox stance toward ancient tradition: the Vine need not be uprooted for its dead leaves to be pruned. That allowed Cranmer himself and others of successive generations-- Andrewes, Parker, Law, Wesley, Keble, Newman, Maurice, Temple, Williams, etc-- to listen to the fathers as well as the apostles. These voices have been silent to those who assume that a deep chasm yawns between the apostles and the fathers. Moreover this confidence in the continuity of the Spirit's witness to all generations has enabled Anglicans to rely on the holy scriptures in matters of salvation without needing to further believe that it must be a magic book or a perfect book to be God's book. The Spirit's witness graces the Communion with an organic order arising from word of the Lord and the ancient canons without need of modern machinery. And it has opened our eyes to the Spirit's presence among the faithful of other traditions, making the Anglican orthodoxy a generous one and ecumenical engagement a perennial mission."
I think we could add a little to this, but first, I very much appreciate this exposition of the inner, historical genius of Anglicanism: a warm, personal, Spirit-led Scripture and best-of-tradition based approach to being Christian.
The bit I would add is this: why the "Church of England" and not a persistent effort to achieve all the above within the "Church of Rome"?
My answer is that (whatever we make of the presenting issue re H8) it is right and proper for churches to be formed which are organised according to local civil order (i.e. according to nations distinguished from one another by having their own forms of government). Churches continue to incarnate the presence of Christ in the world and the world is a varied, diverse, ever changing place. To respond efficiently to local conditions, culture and community aspirations, it is sensible, reasonable and (I suggest) consistent with Scripture to have national churches. (ADDITION: h/t Bowman Walton: Edward Feser, a Catholic writer, has an interesting post on John Paul II on the virtues and vices of nations here.)
And yet, everything which the New Testament teaches about fellowship, church, communion/eucharist demands that local churches are in fellowship with other local churches, that we express in those relationships our unity in Christ, our common belief and practice.
Hence, properly, the formation of the Anglican Communion as a communion of national churches with a common heritage in the genius of the English Reformation and its organic development, as set out by Bowman above.
Hence, also, properly, the work of the Anglican Communion on communion with other communions: with Rome, with Lutheran churches, with Methodists, with Easter Orthodox churches, etc.
Hence, improperly, the schism in the Anglican Communion which (I suggest, I know there are many arguments and counter arguments) has its origins in a failure to understand well the creative tension required to hold together a bunch of national churches responding to local conditions with the importance of those national churches committing to common belief and practice.
How does all this relate to what is going on Down Under?
I will attempt to get to that next week!
Monday, October 21, 2019
So, you be the judge ... of many links and what they say (UPDATED)
UPDATE: Thinking Anglicans has superb set of links to many articles and reflections, including an especially pertinent one about "state of the play" in the Melbourne Diocese. HERE.
ALSO: Bosco Peters has a local analysis and reflection here.
ORIGINAL Within the last week we obsessives in Anglicanland who follow this or that news service, and may or may not scout about the obscure corners of that land, likely will have come across the following matters relating to recent synods and to an ordination which took place here in Christchurch on Saturday. The links to these matters are placed here with minimal comment.
If they serve no other purpose, they may help me at a future point in time to quickly re-find a link. Discussion is welcomed - on the issues, not ad hominem. One particular question I have is this: does the last week represent a turning point in the tide of Anglican Communion affairs? To change metaphors, is the parting of the Anglican ways beyond reversing?
(In no particular order of importance/significance)
The ordination on Saturday
The Archbishop of Sydney's recent Presidential Address (as reported)
The Archbishop of Sydney's Presidential Address (as defended)
The full text of the above address
A couple of supporting blogposts for the address, here and here.
Syndey also passed a motion re marriage, here, which places the Diocese in a state of impaired communion with ACANZP and with the Diocese of Christchurch ... and with me.
For an interesting take on the address in respect of what freedom of belief means, inside the church and inside the nation, see here.
But it is not all about Sydney. The Diocese of Melbourne had its Synod late last week. One report is here.
Archbishop Philip Freier, Archbishop of Melbourne, rightly says the church is in a crisis.
Unfortunately the Melbourne Synod joined the Sydney synod in sending greetings to the ordination service on Saturday (i.e. a recognition of the new Anglican church here). I do not have a link for that, but I can confirm it. I first saw mention of it in this tweet from Archbishop Davies:
Within some of the links above are signs of an Australian Anglican church in crisis.
I can see no way to avoid the crisis becoming a schism unless a spirit of Anglican compromise prevails over episcopal and synodical minds and hearts.
Our experience in our church, however, more than suggests that even when a great compromise is offered, there is a mode of Anglican theology which will reject it.
If Australia splits, I think the Communion as a formal body expressing a global intent to be a unified polity of and for Anglicans is #goneburger.
ALSO: Bosco Peters has a local analysis and reflection here.
ORIGINAL Within the last week we obsessives in Anglicanland who follow this or that news service, and may or may not scout about the obscure corners of that land, likely will have come across the following matters relating to recent synods and to an ordination which took place here in Christchurch on Saturday. The links to these matters are placed here with minimal comment.
If they serve no other purpose, they may help me at a future point in time to quickly re-find a link. Discussion is welcomed - on the issues, not ad hominem. One particular question I have is this: does the last week represent a turning point in the tide of Anglican Communion affairs? To change metaphors, is the parting of the Anglican ways beyond reversing?
(In no particular order of importance/significance)
The ordination on Saturday
The Archbishop of Sydney's recent Presidential Address (as reported)
The Archbishop of Sydney's Presidential Address (as defended)
The full text of the above address
A couple of supporting blogposts for the address, here and here.
Syndey also passed a motion re marriage, here, which places the Diocese in a state of impaired communion with ACANZP and with the Diocese of Christchurch ... and with me.
For an interesting take on the address in respect of what freedom of belief means, inside the church and inside the nation, see here.
But it is not all about Sydney. The Diocese of Melbourne had its Synod late last week. One report is here.
Archbishop Philip Freier, Archbishop of Melbourne, rightly says the church is in a crisis.
Unfortunately the Melbourne Synod joined the Sydney synod in sending greetings to the ordination service on Saturday (i.e. a recognition of the new Anglican church here). I do not have a link for that, but I can confirm it. I first saw mention of it in this tweet from Archbishop Davies:
Within that photo are serving bishops of the Anglican Communion.A great celebration in Christchurch! 3 Archbishops + 15 Bishops from 4 continents witness and affirm the Church of Confessing #Anglicans Aotearoa New Zealand and its first Bishop Jay Behan. Greetings from Sydney and Melbourne Synods and from across the world.— Archbp Glenn Davies (@abpdavies) October 19, 2019
Matt 28:19,20 pic.twitter.com/wV0I9cJ4PU
Within some of the links above are signs of an Australian Anglican church in crisis.
I can see no way to avoid the crisis becoming a schism unless a spirit of Anglican compromise prevails over episcopal and synodical minds and hearts.
Our experience in our church, however, more than suggests that even when a great compromise is offered, there is a mode of Anglican theology which will reject it.
If Australia splits, I think the Communion as a formal body expressing a global intent to be a unified polity of and for Anglicans is #goneburger.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Bonus post: who are Marsden’s true heirs?
Thoughts on ++Davies assessment of Marsden’s authentically Anglican heirs, as articulated here?
Monday, October 14, 2019
John Henry Newman and the shape of Down Under Anglicanism in the 21st century (Possibly part 1 of several)
We'll get to JH Newman in a paragraph or two but first a note on a few perambulations recently.
The weekend before the one just past we were in Hokitika for a prayer mission. It was very cool to arrive (a first day after the first events had taken place) to enter into All Saints church to find this:
Yes, pews removed to a corner of the building, fairy lights added, and worship band in the centre of the gathering. We had a lovely weekend, praying for Hokitika and South Westland, singing the Lord's songs, aided by a dynamic group of younger and older adults who had travelled from the other side of the Southern Alps. Very encouraging.
Then this weekend just past. A quick trip to Wellington on Saturday to join the last event in that Diocese's Ministry Conference, shared with NZCMS and the Anglican Mission Board: the ordination of Rosie Fyfe, new National Director of NZCMS, to the diaconate. Many young adult ministry leaders were present, representing the journey in renewal that Diocese is experiencing.
Yesterday, a service at St John's Woolston, celebrating their 162nd year as a parish with acknowledgement that it is nearly one year since a significant disaffiliation from that parish took place. A small group of dedicated lay leaders have worked hard with clergy leaders to continue the life of this parish. It was a joy yesterday to see new people in the congregation - signs of hope.
I enjoy very much these signs of hope, and they may or may not in the future be recognised as a turning point against the tide of secularization (per last week's post). But whatever they betoken against the larger narrative of declining allegiance to Christianity, they remind us that there are things of value within our parishes here Down Under.
Thus the shape of Anglicanism Down Under is developing, pressed by tectonic forces into new shapes and sizes. Always raising, I suggest, the question, What does it mean to be an Anglican Christian?
That question sits with other news from this weekend, news of the canonization of John Henry Newman.
I am not much of a man for canonizations and what have you - mark me down as Protestantly Protestant on that score. But whatever you or I think about such a canonization, it does reflect the simple fact that many people around the globe to this day admire, revere and respect the Catholic prelate and theologian who was once an Anglican priest, not least because his ideas about many theological matters through to "the idea of a university" remain extraordinarily influential.
A couple of articles I have come across in the past 24 hours underscore the mana of the man: here and here.
Clearly, in the end, being an Anglican Christian was not a situation Newman valued. He disaffiliated from us!
By implication the many friends and colleagues who did not cross the Tiber with Newman thought he was wrong; as do we today who keep our swimming togs in our lockers.
But what is right about remaining Anglican? I think I might explore that for a bit in succeeding weeks.
The weekend before the one just past we were in Hokitika for a prayer mission. It was very cool to arrive (a first day after the first events had taken place) to enter into All Saints church to find this:
Yes, pews removed to a corner of the building, fairy lights added, and worship band in the centre of the gathering. We had a lovely weekend, praying for Hokitika and South Westland, singing the Lord's songs, aided by a dynamic group of younger and older adults who had travelled from the other side of the Southern Alps. Very encouraging.
Then this weekend just past. A quick trip to Wellington on Saturday to join the last event in that Diocese's Ministry Conference, shared with NZCMS and the Anglican Mission Board: the ordination of Rosie Fyfe, new National Director of NZCMS, to the diaconate. Many young adult ministry leaders were present, representing the journey in renewal that Diocese is experiencing.
Yesterday, a service at St John's Woolston, celebrating their 162nd year as a parish with acknowledgement that it is nearly one year since a significant disaffiliation from that parish took place. A small group of dedicated lay leaders have worked hard with clergy leaders to continue the life of this parish. It was a joy yesterday to see new people in the congregation - signs of hope.
I enjoy very much these signs of hope, and they may or may not in the future be recognised as a turning point against the tide of secularization (per last week's post). But whatever they betoken against the larger narrative of declining allegiance to Christianity, they remind us that there are things of value within our parishes here Down Under.
Thus the shape of Anglicanism Down Under is developing, pressed by tectonic forces into new shapes and sizes. Always raising, I suggest, the question, What does it mean to be an Anglican Christian?
That question sits with other news from this weekend, news of the canonization of John Henry Newman.
I am not much of a man for canonizations and what have you - mark me down as Protestantly Protestant on that score. But whatever you or I think about such a canonization, it does reflect the simple fact that many people around the globe to this day admire, revere and respect the Catholic prelate and theologian who was once an Anglican priest, not least because his ideas about many theological matters through to "the idea of a university" remain extraordinarily influential.
A couple of articles I have come across in the past 24 hours underscore the mana of the man: here and here.
Clearly, in the end, being an Anglican Christian was not a situation Newman valued. He disaffiliated from us!
By implication the many friends and colleagues who did not cross the Tiber with Newman thought he was wrong; as do we today who keep our swimming togs in our lockers.
But what is right about remaining Anglican? I think I might explore that for a bit in succeeding weeks.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
A turning point in Kiwi religious stats
A few weeks ago, in our local media, we read reports of how the 2018 NZ Census revealed that for the first time, respondents stating they affiliated with Christianity were fewer than respondents stating they did not affiliate with Christianity (e.g. here, here and here).
Around that time our local newspaper, The Press, offered a considered Editorial on this news, which is here.
I felt that it was a moment when it is reasonable for a church leader to also make public comment and I wrote and submitted an op-ed to The Press. So far it has not been published so I will publish it here.
This is what I submitted:
"“Has Godzone turned Godless?” is the right question for The Press Editorial (27 September 2019) to ask in response to recently released statistics about religious affiliation in New Zealand. The 2018 Census is the statistical point in our history ‘when “no religion” eclipsed Christianity as the leading religious affiliation’ in our nation.
Potential good news is that while affiliation to
Christianity measured by successive censuses has dropped dramatically,
churchgoing remains reasonably steady in New Zealand, at about 9% of the
population. Some churches are experiencing decline but others experience
increase, especially through migration which brings Christians from Asia and
Polynesia to New Zealand. In uncertain religious times ahead of us, we can be
sure that churchgoing Christians will continue to promote Christian values and to
resist their demise. Among the diverse voices which will seek to shape our
future society, a strong Christian voice will speak up for compassion, mercy
and grace."
Ron Hay, a Diocese of Christchurch cleric and writer has a probing, percipient blogpost here, also in response to the Press Editorial on the census figures.
Around that time our local newspaper, The Press, offered a considered Editorial on this news, which is here.
I felt that it was a moment when it is reasonable for a church leader to also make public comment and I wrote and submitted an op-ed to The Press. So far it has not been published so I will publish it here.
This is what I submitted:
"“Has Godzone turned Godless?” is the right question for The Press Editorial (27 September 2019) to ask in response to recently released statistics about religious affiliation in New Zealand. The 2018 Census is the statistical point in our history ‘when “no religion” eclipsed Christianity as the leading religious affiliation’ in our nation.
For most churchgoing Christians this news will not be new.
For decades now we have known that there is a huge gulf between the number of
citizens willing to declare themselves Christian in the census and actual
attendance in churches. Another way of understanding the figures the editorial discusses
could be to say that 2018 is the year when we decided to change our
conversation from talk of the decline of the number of Christians to talk of
the growth in the number of post-Christians. The editorial, after all, rightly
notes that we are a nation in which “A sense of being spiritual replaces the
idea of being religious,” and that “Philosophers such as John Gray have persuasively
argued that even as ‘secular liberals dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale,
their values and view of history remain essentially Christian’.”
I think we could develop the last observation. As we respond
to climate change, to tragedies such as the shootings on 15 March 2019, and to poverty,
to name but a few issues of our day, we see virtues such as compassion, mercy,
and grace motivating the vast majority of our nation to act selflessly, to love
our neighbours as ourselves. In other words the no longer Christian nation by
stated religious affiliation remains still a Christian nation in respect of
attitudes and actions.
We are not, however, united as a nation around these values.
If compassion and generosity, for instance, were to the forefront of responses
to 15 March 2019, we have also been painfully aware that racism continues to be
a feature and not a bug in our post-colonial society. That raises the question,
What will sustain Christian values in a post-Christian nation? Can a nation
with declining allegiance to Christianity be sure to remain admirably Christian
through a long post-Christian future? The 2018 census figures offer no guidance
as to what kind of nation we might become in the long term as an increasing
majority jettison affiliation to Christianity.
Ron Hay, a Diocese of Christchurch cleric and writer has a probing, percipient blogpost here, also in response to the Press Editorial on the census figures.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Provocations
(1) In many ways following up last week's post and comments thereon, I draw your attention to Issue 2 of Theology Magazine, which focuses on the nature of the church. Here is the Mag's own byline for the edition (my bold):
"Exploring ecclesiology doesn’t begin with church government, nor does it ponder church programs and music preferences. No, exploring ecclesiology takes on a much more sacred task, that is, the exploration of our union with the risen Christ. In our second issue of Theology Magazine we do just that, we explore what it means to be united to Christ."
(H/T Bryden Black)
(2) I was struck last week by an interesting parallel between Greta Thunberg's now famous UN summit speech and a DEL reading for Thursday, Haggai 1:1-8 (but stretched here to verse 11).
The parallel depends on making an imaginative equation between the house of the Lord and planet Earth ... which is plausible if we think of Genesis 1, according to some scholars, as setting out the creation of the world as though the world is God's temple.
Here is part of Greta's speech:
"My message is that we'll be watching you.
"Exploring ecclesiology doesn’t begin with church government, nor does it ponder church programs and music preferences. No, exploring ecclesiology takes on a much more sacred task, that is, the exploration of our union with the risen Christ. In our second issue of Theology Magazine we do just that, we explore what it means to be united to Christ."
(H/T Bryden Black)
(2) I was struck last week by an interesting parallel between Greta Thunberg's now famous UN summit speech and a DEL reading for Thursday, Haggai 1:1-8 (but stretched here to verse 11).
The parallel depends on making an imaginative equation between the house of the Lord and planet Earth ... which is plausible if we think of Genesis 1, according to some scholars, as setting out the creation of the world as though the world is God's temple.
Here is part of Greta's speech:
"My message is that we'll be watching you.
"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!
"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.""For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight."
Here is Haggai 1:1-11
"1 In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the Lord came through the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jozadak,[a] the high priest:
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “These people say, ‘The time has not yet come to rebuild the Lord’s house.’”
3 Then the word of the Lord came through the prophet Haggai: 4 “Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?”
5 Now this is what the Lord Almighty says: “Give careful thought to your ways. 6 You have planted much, but harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it.”
7 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Give careful thought to your ways. 8 Go up into the mountains and bring down timber and build my house, so that I may take pleasure in it and be honored,” says the Lord. 9 “You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?” declares the Lord Almighty. “Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with your own house. 10 Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. 11 I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the olive oil and everything else the ground produces, on people and livestock, and on all the labor of your hands.”"
In other words, while we may argue (or not) with the scientific underpinnings to Greta Thunberg's speech (not cited above) and for which I have seen debate which suggests science is on her side, there is a case for thinking of Greta as a prophet in Old Testament style!