When in doubt or difficulty, Pray! If possible, Pray Common Prayers :)

I am a great believer in maximising common ground between otherwise disparate people. We may not reach unity but we can give it a very good try at getting as close as possible. 

For Anglicans, a significant common ground we share (or could or should share) is our prayers: our founding document for the Post Reformation period of our life is the Book of Common Prayer - the prayers which the English Anglicans prayed across England in common, from parish to parish, from Holy Communion to Holy Communion, Mattins to Mattins, and Evensong to Evensong, and later across the world until language push came to local shove and we diversified (another story for another time, including the story of how "common" prayer continues to permeate more recent liturgies). And, even the diversification in services in the 20th and 21st centuries, involve general synods and general conventions determining that we (in Province A or Province Z of the Anglican Communion) we would pray the prayers we have agreed to pray together.

But, wait, there is more to explore by way of common ground among praying Christians: what if we found the written prayers we have in common across our different denominations. Potentially a very big exercise - true. But one narrower slice of work could be to find the prayers which Anglicans and Catholics pray in common - for instance, their collects.

Bosco Peters - a priest in the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch, owner of the globally popular Liturgy website (a compendium of wide ranging resources and host of Bosco's regular Liturgy blog) - has been working on common collects for some time and this month has published Book of Prayers in Common (2025 February Edition). This book, in PDF format, is freely available to download from his website.

I commend it to you.

On my "other" blog, Resourcing Preaching and Worship Down Under, I have begun using these collects for my posts about Sunday readings.

Both on the webpage linked above and in the introduction to the book, Bosco clearly sets out the role collects play in our worship and the benefits of praying them in common. 

It is worth exploring the authorised collects of Anglican churches in the Communion which also happen to be prayed by the Roman Catholic church (at least somewhere in their globally wide communion): this post is not intended to make any claim that the collects Bosco has published in one handy volume are "better" than the collects provided for in our 2020 NZPB (themselves something of a work in progress through this decade); but they may be "useful" to us as we plan our services; and they have the particular charism of being "common".

We live in convulsing times. Chinese warships are practising warfare in ... the Tasman Sea. Lies are being told by USA leaders - dangerous lies which could lead to untold damage to other nations. Hamas is finally being more clearly than ever revealed for the evil organisation is it. Christians have been beheaded in Congo. What are we to do?

At the least, pray!

Let's, if possible, also pray together our common prayers.

What an interesting week

Looking back through the past 9 days, I can only say, What an interesting week!

Melbourne

Last weekend Archbishop Philip Freier, Archbishop of Melbourne and former Primate of Australia, retired from his role as Bishop of Melbourne, after 18 years in the role, six of which included being Primate of Australia. It was a privilege and a pleasure to be in Melbourne for a farewell dinner for bsihops and spouses on the Saturday evening and a participant in the Farewell Evensong on the Sunday afternoon. A bonus was that our plane from Christchurch to Melbourne arrived early enough on the Saturday morning for us to be present at ++Philip's last ordination service - perhaps uniquely, an ordination of eight deacons and one bishop! Read more about the final service for ++Philip and Joy Freier here, here and here.

Is nothing secure and permanent?

In an English-speaking world of many translations of the Bible, the ESV has a certain claim to fame, both for what it claims (to be a particularly faithful translation of the original languages of the Bible, in the KJV/RSV tradition, conservatively staunch against the alleged deficiencies of the NRSV/NRSVUE stream and the wobbliness of another claimant to be "the" translation for conservative evangelicals, the NIV) and for its popularity (increasingly among Catholics as well as conservative evangelicals, even being adopted as the text of Catholic liturgical reading, by some bishops' conferences.

Now I was once a fan of the ESV and used it a lot. I liked its rigour as a close, word for word translation, and its being in the KJV/RSV tradition but with some updates to the RSV's sometimes old-fashioned English. My increasing concerns over time were (a) its exclusive language (something the NRSV gets right, on the presumption that the people of God are addressed, male and female, even though original languages use male pronouns) and (b) it didn't sound right when read aloud (obviously so in respect of inclusive language; but also a certain clunkiness in phrasing). (My current preferences are NRSV and GNB (1994 or later editions/printings).)

But, my preferences and concerns with the ESV do not detract from respecting ESV as a solid translation of the Bible, with known slants and the possibility of using it when a Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text are not handy, knowing it will give one of the best word for word translations in the English language.

Except.

This week past Crossway, publisher of ESV, have announced changes to the text in forthcoming printings.

Whatever you or I think about these changes, have we reached a point of genuine stability to this text claiming to be "best" (most faithful ever)? The last changes were 10 years or so ago. Are we good now for the next century?

Now, to attempt to be clear: it is a good thing to update translations in the interest of revised estimation of the most accurate rendering in today's language; but perhaps there could be an accompanying sprinkling of humility about the wonderfulness of any given translation (and/or deprecation of allegedly lesser value translations). If any translation, even the ESV, can do some self-correcting over time, then no one translation is yet perfect!

Finally, a point made during an X exchange with my colleague Bosco Peters is worth reflecting: should the ESV re-describe its own name? If I say "the ESV says this" and you respond "which ESV version?" then might ESV help us by offering a new name such as "ESVUE [ESV Update Edition]"? Bosco notes that in the "other" KJV/RSV tradition, we have the NRSV and now the NRSVUE to distinguish updates on the RSV.

Independence of safeguarding?

The continuing discombobulation in the Church of England over safeguarding, well, continues. At its recent session of General Synod a decision was made about the "next step" in (better) safeguarding of ministry (in respect of overall structure for the whole church - it can be overlooked that many people, including many volunteers, "on the ground", are doing a great job, properly). A casual glance at some comments on X could lead to a conclusion such as "the bishops have got it wrong AGAIN" or "Synod has failed survivors of abuse." Now, it is not for me, from far off, to make a determination on what the Synod (including bishops) got right or wrong, but I can point you to a(n arguably) helpful post by Ian Paul on the nuances within the decision made and the process/debate towards that decision, here. I suggest the comments are worth reading as readers chime in with thier assessment of Ian's assessment of the situation. Other responses to the decisions are listed here.

175 years old

It was a joy this weekend to participate in events and a service to celebrate 175 years of existence for Christ's College, one of our Anglican  schools in the Diocese of Christchurch. The Anglican settlement of Christchurch began in 1850 and Christ's College began that same year, with classes held in Lyttelton (Christchurch's port town). 175 years later it is going strong and its Warden [me] can remember one and only one thing from its 125th anniversary in 1975 (when I was a student there): Charles Upham (VC and Bar - WW2 hero, perhaps most famous of our Old Boys) planted a tree in the quad within the school known as the Upham Quad. There must have been an anniversary service but, to be honest, I do not remember attending it. Yesterday's service was wonderful and moving - a tribute to the quality of the choristers - and a reminder of the wonders of worship when music lifts our hearts to God.

Wider world

No comment required from me as the whole world is commenting but this past week has also been interesting (meaning, very alarming) in respect of the further machinations of a certain global leader.

Ordo Trumpis?

So, last week, a commentary on a very direct theological issue which arose up through the Trumpian world. This week perhaps less directly: is there a theological issue around Trump and team's approach to Israel (and thus to Palestine and thus to the extraordinary announcement made by Trump that he sees the USA taking over Gaza and Gazan Palestinians should move to Egypt and Jordan (or beyond))?

I was intrigued towards theological rumination by a Tweet I saw which alleged that Calvinism is responsible for thinking that God's "old covenant" (i.e. with Israel = nation/people) is still in force alongside the "new covenant" (i.e. that God now covenants through Jesus Christ with the whole world), and thus such an idea influences thinking which favours Israel in many Christian communities, including many influential communities in the USA. The point of this post is not to attack or defend Calvinism on this allegation.

Before ruminating, let me be quite clear: unless Trump is very cunningly leveraging this moment and his announcement to get (presumably) the wealthier Arab nations to fund the reconstruction of Gaza instaed of the USA doing it, what he has announced is appalling: it amounts to precisely the imperialism of a former age which (at least) the West has been moving away from, ever repentant for the errors of past eras, including that expansion of interest which ethnically cleansed peoples from various regions, as would happen if Palestinians are forced to leave Gaza.

If Ordo Amoris raises the question whether love has limits and gradations depending on factors such as kith and kin (or not) and geographical distance from lover to potential beloved (a question being answered in a very particular way this past few days as USAID is dismantled), then Ordo Trumpis (the Trump approach to ordering the world) raises the question - on the particular matter at hand of Gaza - whether a muddled approach by Christians to the nature of God's covenantal promises is influencing the otherwise well-known Trumpian predilection for a great property development deal.

At great risk of being labelled a supersessionist (the church replaces Israel), I cannot see how we read the Bible from cover to cover and get past the fact that all God's promises find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ, with the consequence that focus on land/promised land for the Israel of the Old Testament/old covenant becomes a non-geographical focus on Jesus Christ and the fulfilment of life found in him. More succinctly, the kingdom of God as taught by Jesus is not a bounded area of land on the surface of the earth.

Note, of course, that in the christocentric kingdom of God, justice and mercy matter for all, and that includes for all Jews ... and for all Palestinians. The new covenant of God through Jesus Christ does not shift the commitment of God to the well-being of the Jews; it extends that commitment to all. They way forward for Gaza, in Christian perspective, is a way forward for justice, mercy and peace; ditto for Israel; ditto for the West Bank; Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon.

In this theology there seems no room for a US led property development; but there is opportunity for a US-led humanitarian effort in reconstruction, generously funded because ordo amoris trumps ordo Trumpis. Please don't tell me ordo amoris doesn't include Gaza for America because this week President Trump has clearly seen some kind of kith and kinship with Gaza!

Ordo amoris

The USA is the gift that keeps on giving this blog :)

Now, by "ordo amoris" is not meant anything to do with romance. If you're looking for advice on romance, this post is not going to help you.

It may or may not help you in respect of marriage and family ... because it is a notion, partly rooted way back into Aristotle, thence through Augustine and Aquinas, with more than a dose of common sense and natural affection at its core, that we care for family first, then neighbours, then [etc], and finally the most distant strangers and aliens - the last meaning, if there is any residual love left.

On the one hand, virtually no one, whether they have heard of ordo amoris or not wants to save the world at the expense of loving their most immediate family (cf. a character called Mrs Jellyby in Dickens' Bleak House).

On the other hand, it is also common sense that we can love more than one people group at a time (e.g. a loving family might choose to channel their love for each other at Christmas time by not buying each other presents but contributing gifts to support the poorest people furtherest away). Alternatively, I love my wife and my children and generally work on avoiding situations where I must choose one over the other; and if my neighbour rings with an urgent need for help in the midst of a family meal, I do not look up ordo amoris to see whether I am obligated to respond - I respond a la the Parable of the Good Samaritan etc: the need immediately in front of me is also compelling within the everyday hierarchies of my love for others.

So this past week JD Vance, Vice-President, offered a justification for some Trumpian changes (how illegal immigrants are dealt with; withdrawal of US aid from projects overseas) on the basis of ordo amoris: family first = American family first. Nevermind that "America First" with all the anxieties that phrase is inducing around the world, to say nothing of America First justifications for imposing tariffs on neighbours or should that be neighbours who are not far off countries (and, simultaneously, reneging on trade agreements), apparently its all good under the theological hood what Trump/Vance/Musk are doing (and dare we note other news over the weekend as USAID being dismantled (including projects being abruptly stopped right now), the FBI is purged, government workers are made redundant, etc).

Catherine Pepinster has an excellent summary of the situation here. As an aside, this article was sparked by a fascinating theological debate on X between JD Vance and Rory Stewart. We should also note a measured response from the US Catholic bishops to the specific challenge of what to do about illegal immigration.

Now, on the specific debate question "has Vance properly understood the teaching of ordo amoris?" I suggest you head to social media, X in particular and see the to-ing and fro-ing there. I do not propose to say more here. For what it is worth, I do not think he does, not least because it is inconceivable to me that nuanced thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas would be happy to be cited in endorsement of the unnuanced crash and burn policies of Trumpism!

But there are some other adjoining observations to make from afar, not least because theology is always global and, er, US policies have impacts even ... Down Under.

1. Noting that some pretty intense debates over ordo amoris this past week have been between Catholics (including notable names on X such as Edward Feser, Chad Pecknold, and Fr James Martin), we are reminded that, despite some claims sometimes that "the [Roman] Catholic faith is this unity of truth [postscript: note all Protestant divisions and fractionations]", in reality no one branch of Christianity has dibs on truth. (And let's keep reminding ourselves of divisions in Eastern Orthodoxy over Putinism ... what is it about Trump and Putin which have Christians in thrall to them????).

2. The work of theology is important and this past week highlights that. That work is to discern, debate, discover and delinate the truth about God and God's will for us. While it is unfortunate that we are not more united as Christians on matters of truth, we are fortunate that God has given us minds, voices and these days laptops and thus opportunity to pray and to ponder what is truth. Let the work of theology continue. Let theologians be encouraged rather than discouraged by this past week: theology has a role to play in public life.

3. (Noting that yesterday was The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple and part of the scriptural discourse therein is about the secrets of hearts being revealed, Luke 2:35) this does seem to be a time of revelation when some realities of leaders, both inside and outside the church, are being revealed. I remain shocked to find out who among church leaders and theological leaders are willing to give Trump a pass (or even their fervent support) - some of which has been revealed by those stepping up in this past week to support JD Vance's take on ordo amoris in the service of the Trumpian cause. But, even in comments on X supporting Vance, made by "ordinary" Christians, there is an "aha" moment of realising what an inadequate understanding of Jesus' teaching is informing many Christians.

4. To be honest, I don't think I had heard of ordo amoris before this past week. But learning about it reminded me of something often heard more locally, "charity begins at home." A pretty similar concept in my understanding because it has a similar blocking effect to JD Vance's invocation of ordo amoris: we can ignore concerns faraway and/or among people not of my own kind.

Whatever ordo amoris may mean in the abstract or in some general guide to how we dispense resources of time, energy and money, whether at a personal level or a governmental level, the Parable of the Good Samaritan trumps ordo amoris inasmuch as Jesus himself says, in my words, respond with love to what is immediately in front of you.