Monday, October 26, 2026

Really, all we need to say Anglicanly this week has been said ... by the ABC

Someone on X said that the ABC, Sarah Mullaly has made an excellent speech. I think so too. The context is a gathering of the so called Poorvoo Communion - 15 Anglican and Evangelical Lutheran churches in Europe.

The full text of the speech is here. It is entitled, "Being the Church in Turbulent Times."

Key paragraphs include:

"So the question is not simply: What should the Church say in turbulent times? Perhaps the more important question is: What does it mean to be the Church in such a time?

I want to suggest three things. (1) The Church must be a community that remembers; (2) a community that refuses fear; and (3) a community that makes visible the reconciliation it proclaims in Jesus Christ."

"To be the Church today means inhabiting that larger story of hope: creation and covenant, incarnation and cross, resurrection and Pentecost. The Church belongs to Christ before it belongs to any nation, political culture, ideology or age.

That memory gives us humility, because the Kingdom of God can never simply be identified with one political programme; and freedom, because Christians need not accept the terms of every political argument as though they were the only terms available. We possess another grammar, a Christological one, infused by grace and hope: repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, neighbour, stranger, communion."

"Fear is one of the most powerful forces in political and social life: fear of the stranger, decline, insecurity, cultural change – ultimately, fear of one another. It can turn communities inward and persuade us that security is possible only through exclusion.

The Church must resist that logic. Not because Christians are naïve about human nature, but because our deepest identity is not constructed against another person. In baptism we receive an identity that precedes nationality, class, ethnicity and political allegiance. We become members of one body – the body of Christ.

The Church should therefore be one of the places where people who would not otherwise choose one another learn to belong to one another. Communion is is the refusal to let disagreement destroy relationship."

"Beyond creating ecclesiastical complexity, more importantly Christian division compromises our witness. If we preach reconciliation while remaining content with separation, something is wrong.

The ecumenical movement therefore cannot be something we only engage with during easier times. Communion across national borders matters when nationalism grows stronger; friendship across political cultures matters when societies polarise; shared baptism matters when identities are increasingly defined against one another."

There is more ... and it is good! Happy reading.

Monday, October 19, 2026

A little further on politics and our general "AI" election

The other day I had an opportunity to hear from one of the leaders of our political parties contesting the imminent general election in our country (7 November 2026). For the purposes of this post it doesn't matter which leader or which political party.

The talk I heard reminded me of days of yore - the 1970s, before social media - when to get the real oil from politicians you needed to go to a town hall or community hall in person to hear them speak in person. No sound bites reproduced in a tweet or Facebook post - a good solid 30 minutes plus of high class oratory. In my memory both Bill Rowling and Rob Muldoon were excellent orators. (For overseas readers, these two were respectively leaders of the two main, and opposing parties of those days, Labour and National.)

What struck me, listening to a well delivered speech with interesting content, was how persuasive it all seemed. By the end of the speech I had just about convinced myself I could cast my vote accordingly ... which definitely reminded me of the 1970s when I would hear a great speech or read a book by a leading politician and it would all seem very convincing. Except that in the voting booth I needed to choose one convincing party programme over another! What to do, then and now?

In the end, on further reflection after the recent, persuasively delivered speech, I am not convinced that some policy proposals (and consequential promises of a better life for us Kiwis) stack up. Change proposed to make for less expensive household bills - maybe, maybe not - there are arguments for and against that are in the provenance of experts, not merely politicians harvesting votes. Spending money (which may be borrowed money) to save money, ditto. Looking back on my teenage less than well formed critical thinking, I didn't then have the capacity to assess content compared to rhetoric about what was being offered. If I have that capacity now it is enhanced by a much better grasp of the general principles of economics than I had in those days. (Disclaimer: I know more than I knew then, and I think better than I thought then, but that doesn't mean I have nothing more to learn or no further progress needing to be made on my thinking capabilities.)

Capacity to critically think about things is a refreshed issue for this election, not only because of the variety of policy proposals and promises of good times ahead "if you vote for us, because we will ..." but because this election is the first election in the era when AI is now itself a promise delivered and a harbinger ahead of ... good times? Bad times? World control? Mass unemployment?

Wherever we may go in this AI era, and whatever policies are on offer re AI (including our commitment to develop or restrain establishment of data centres), it would be good to have a policy on educational development of critical thinking!

The Anglican connection to these musings is that both our General Synod and our Diocesan Synod have recentl commissioned working groups to do some work on what AI means for and within the life of the church.

This post is all my own work :).

Monday, October 12, 2026

Thoughts on our election coming up

I have a natural-and-episcopal interest in the forthcoming NZ general election (7 November 2026). The "natural" bit is that I have always been interested in politics, the "episcopal" bit is because our Cathedral ReOpen Project is looking for $15m of further funding commitment in order for us to re-open our cathedral's nave, tower and west porch. With such commitment, we begin construction again, without it, well, we have some difficult conversations ahead of us. 

One possibility for a further commitment of required funds lies with Winston Peters and the New Zealand First party who have pledged to bring support for $15m of central government funding for the project to the coalition negotiating table if they are invited to that table. Pretty much every political set of tea leaves points to that invitation only occurring if the "centre right" gets to form the table of negotiation. If the "centre left" gets to form the table, they will not need to invite NZ First to discussions about the formation of a new government.

To date, the polls undertaken by different polling entities seem united in their refusal to offer a clear prediction of the winning left or right combo, so it looks like the only thing to do is to be patient, wait quietly (both Christians virtues!) and turn on the television and/or radio on the night of 7 November. Of course it is possible that by the end of that evening, the results might be still too close to call - special votes to be counted over the next couple of weeks etc. More patient waiting required! If NZ First does get to the table of negotiation it could be weeks (or weeks and weeks) until clarity emerges about what, from each party's policy wish list, has crossed the line into common policy for the new government. More patient waiting required.

For clarity, this post is not intended to persuade you to vote for any party in the election, not even for NZ First. But please vote. I do think not voting at all hands decision-making to others. In a democracy every citizen should weigh matters up and vote so the end result represents the influence of all citizens. I understand that there is no perfect party for everyone, and often that lack of perfection is keenly felt by Christians (How can I vote for the party with the best economic credentials when it also supports, say, a more liberal abortion law?). But politics is the art of compromise and just sometimes Christians ought to compromise - voting in a general election or a local body election is one of those "sometimes."

What is at stake in our coming election? Quite a lot, as it happens, though perhaps we would say that about every election. Here is a not-comprehensive list: 

- the economy (what can we afford by way of priorities in health, welfare, education, defence, social services (including police, corrections)? We currently borrow money to pay for things and tax ourselves to pay for things: could we borrow more? Should we borrow less? Ditto, tax more, tax less?); 

- the economy (how do we lift productivity, something many economic pundits (from all sides) observe is that NZ has scarcely lifted productivity in recent decades, and one explanation for our sliding descent down various rankings of OECD nations is due to this lack of decent productivity lift?); 

- the economy (what is the right level of commitment to the things government (assisted by the tax payer and borrowings) pays for? To take an extreme, presumably we could pay for the most advanced level of healthcare in the world, including the most expensive treatments for cancers if we canned all superannuation payments ... but no one is going to vote for that, but we (rightly) argue what level of healthcare should be provided and whether superannuation at current settings is affordable as we look ahead with precise predictions re population of seniors increasing etc!);

- the economy (what does the Treaty of Waitangi mean in respect of how we live in partnership, Maori and Pakeha, with observable economic disparities between Maori and Pakeha, one example of which is that if the age of superannuation was lifted, even fewer Maori would get to enjoy superannuated older age).

OK - a bit of bias here - I think politics is heavily inter-connected with economics! We look to the government to do things for us (as individuals, as communities, as Maori/Pakeha, men/women, seniors/youth/children, school leavers and graduates looking for work, city dwellers/rural dwellers, etc/etc) but nearly everything we seek costs $$$. More schools, $$$. More teachers in existing schools, $$$. School lunches, $$$. You get my drift.

In this election, each party (I notice) is offering to do things, things that cost $$$, and more (or less) giving some kind of plausible account of how the $$$ will be found to do these things. What is arguably fascinating about this election is the strong sensitivity by all parties as to the economic situation we are in: parlous (there are not many spare $$$) and perilous (uncertainty about the global economic situation is high, very high as fuel prices surge, wars are fought and peace is avoided by certain leaders of nations not called Aotearoa New Zealand). No party is promising the earth, yet no party is promising an austerity pathway to new economic prosperity.

Of course other things are interesting about the election: neither Labour nor National seems able to command support consistently above 30%, and their combined totals on recent polls is the lowest ever for our two major parties. Does this betoken an interest in minor parties seemingly in common with what is happening in (say) Australia, UK, France, Germany? Or are the minor parties here (none of which, thankfully, is extreme as the extreme minor parties of afore-mentioned countries) showing policy boldness the two main parties ought to be showing? 

All will be revealed ... on, or after, 7 November 2026!


Tuesday, October 6, 2026

What kind of substance is Substance?

 Bosco Peters has posted an "essential" reading explanation of the meaning of "substance" in relation to "Transubstantiation", here.

Comments on his post should be made at his blog, not here. But I am glad to link to his post as clarity of thought on "substance" as well as on "real presence" can be lacking in discussion and debate on these matters in Anglican circles (and, as Bosco points out, Catholic circles also). The tendency is to fall prey to simplicity of thought in the face of a great mystery.

A few thoughts of my own:

- any account of the significance of the bread and wine of communion must account well for the "is" in "This is my body ... this is my blood" and do so with reference to the Synoptic and 1 Corinthians 11 accounts of the last supper, John 6 and the participatory language in 1 Corinthians 10. Broadly speaking "real presence" does this in a way which "memorialism" (all we are doing is remembering that Jesus died for us) or "representationism" (the bread represents the body of Christ etc) does not.

- there are "both/ands" involved in this mystery: Jesus is really present and (as Bosco notes) the bread and the wine are symbols - powerful symbols - and "representations" (in the sense of re-presenting to us the body and blood of Christ" and our participation matters (as those present at communion (with our bodies; together being "the body of Christ"), as those giving thanks in our hearts for what Jesus has done for us, as those eating the bread of communion and drinking the wine of communion by faith receiving these elements as the body and blood of Jesus).