Some Anglican Oddities

There is quite a lot of Anglican news these past days and weeks. Hard to keep up!

My continuing interest in "global" Anglican affairs leads me to focus this week mostly on "Anglican Communion" news, which, naturally, at the moment is "the" Anglican Communion news and the "Global Anglican Communion" news.

Three articles are of great interest in giving insight into how GAFCON's leadership came to announce the formation of the Global Anglican Communion, and what significant response to that announcement is:

The Inside Story on GAFCON’s Communiqué

Living Church | Mark Michael and John Sandeman

GSFA Leader Questions GAFCON Communique

Living Church | Mark Michael 

In the room deciding to form the Global Anglican Communion

The Other Cheek | John Sandeman

Gerry Lynch, English cleric, makes this comment - summary - on X/Twitter:

""Global Anglican Communion" founded after 55 minute meeting in Sydney; only 2 serving Anglican Communion Primates were in attendance (Rwanda & Nigeria); 7 of 12 attendees were US or Australian. 5 of the Primates they claim support them didn't attend the subsequent Zoom call & 4 still haven't replied to emails."

The Living Church itself, in a tweet promoting its article says this:

"Latest #News: "Global Anglican Communion" drafters all hail from dioceses and churches that have never been part of the #AnglicanCommunion or have been largely disengaged from it for the last two decades. #Anglican #GAFCON #ACNA "

These observations neatly capture an oddity (if not absurdity) in the situation: a group of men [no sign of women involved!], not actively involved in any meetings, gatherings of the actual Anglican Communion, determine that the actual Anglican Communion henceforth will be the Global Anglican Communion under their leadership (control?).

A further oddity is this: a claim to be "global" in the Anglican world can reasonably be presumed to involve "all Africa" but this does not seem to be achievable:

- I am intrigued that Uganda was not at the meeting (but am not reading much into that - schedules etc), since Uganda is one of the key African provinces for GAFCON.

- Significantly, Kenya is remaining coy, and one of their bishops has poured cold water on the idea:

"The Anglican Church of Kenya is likely a crucial bellwether for the project’s success. The Global South’s third-largest church and the host of important institutions like the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, Kenya has long been an active participant both in GAFCON and the Instruments of Communion. 

 The church’s primate, Archbishop Jackson Ole Sapit, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the Global Anglican Communion announcement (one of his staffers told our reporter that getting a response would be “a Hail Mary pass”).

But the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya’s Diocese of Garissa, Francis Omondi, said to TLC that breaking ties with Canterbury would be a major cultural shift for his church, which retains deep respect for its historical ties to the church that brought it the gospel and has a robust culture of internal consultation.

“Kenya will need a fundamental reworking to break with Canterbury. No archbishop can take Kenya away without changing the church’s law. This will be hard to achieve. Breaking with Canterbury may result in breaking the church locally, creating two provinces,” Omondi said.

“The position I take and which I advance is that we cannot and should not server links with Canterbury. We are so culturally intertwined that these breakaway talks cannot work. I think the challenge is desire for power and control. In Kenya, we represent reasoning from both sides but have chosen to reconcile them in a united church.”"

I do not see Tanzania as likely to join GAC, and certainly the Church of Southern Africa won't.

To me the biggest oddity here is the notion that a meeting held in and dominated by Sydney could imagine - some very intelligent men were there, I have met some of them - that it could be persuasive of provinces not currently in GAFCON to leave the Anglican Communion behind and become fully fledged members of GAC. 

Back to Sydney in a moment, but also in recent news, King Charles [Governor, Church of England] prayed witn Pope Leo. Ian Paul has a post titled King Charles and Pope Leo: a step towards 'full visible unity'? Not unexpectedly the usual formalities which stand in the way of "full visible unity" are brought out for our remembrance - and they do remain formal difficulties in the way of ultimate unity - but there is much to rejoice in when Catholics and Anglicans find all the ways we possibly can to work in unity together aside from those formalities.

I suggest that Jesus and the angels in heaven rejoice when they see and hear of our creative ecumenical endeavours.

But not all would agree with my suggestion (which, I further suggest, many, many Anglicans and Catholics around the globe would readily agree with). Within Ian Paul's post is this reaction from ... Sydney (I said we would be back to Sydney!):

But others saw it rather differently! Dominic Steele, on his channel The Pastor’s Heart, was unequivocal:

I feel betrayed by my king. On the most important issue, I feel like King Charles has betrayed me and Protestant Christians around the world. But even more significantly, he has grieved the Lord Jesus.

He explains his own upbringing as a Catholic (as I was!), and his coming to personal faith in an evangelical Anglican church (as I did!) and so how he personally feels about this event.

So for me it has been a punch in the heart this week to see the Pope and the King and the Archbishop of York praying together—something that the office holders of Pope and King have not done since at least the 12th century. And I feel so sad.

Okay. I didn't see that coming. Jesus grieved by two Christians praying together. Jesus grieved by a modest step along the journey to re-unity in the church of God.

In the context of surveying the "Anglican-scape" of our globe, I suggest this reaction by Dominic Steele is representative of the leadership of the Sydney Diocese (who readily and frequently appear on his Pastor's Heart channel). Such reaction is completely normal for the Sydney Diocese, no matter what the rest of us think about it around the global Anglican world. (Note, incidentally, within Ian Paul's post the way former Archbishop Peter Jensen responded to an invitation to pray with the Pope ...).

Now, we can understand - whatever we think of it - the logic behind such a "Protestant" approach to the Church of Rome, given starting points, with obvious Anglican roots into the 39A, that essentially say, Rome was wrong then, is still wrong now; and what counts in Christian action is doctrinal agreement, so, lacking that, we cannot act together, not even to pray. (And, any of us, from a Protestant or Catholic perspective can note that it is precisely lack of doctrinal agreement with Rome re the eucharist which is the sticking point in Anglicans and other Protestants being unable to share in the Roman Mass.)

There is another way (which King Charles and Pope Leo have exemplified) but that is not my concern at this point. 

My concern is that this particular Sydney-Protestant-Anglican view is not a widely shared view among Western hemisphere Anglicans. Why would "the" Anglican Communion want to follow a Sydney lead and evolve itself into the "Global Anglican Communion"?

There are a few presuppositions not shared between the two Communions! If the Global Anglican Communion wants to be "Anglican", it needs to look at its presuppositions.

So, here is a closing thought: when two people pray together and Jesus is grieved, there is the basis for one Anglican Communion; and when the same two people pray together and Jesus rejoices, there is the basis for another Anglican Communion.

Caught my Eye

Why blog my (naturally, obviously, of course, indeed) profound thoughts when others are writing much, much more profoundly? :)

Four articles have caught my eye in the past week, and while they all have something to say to the enduring quest of this blog, what it means to be Anglican in the world today, none directly speak to that quest, so, a little holiday from the "purity" of usual focus here :).

In no particular order of priority ...

(1) What does the Bible say about a question du jour such as immigration? RNS has an insightful and challenging article, comparing The Books of Ruth and of Ezra, by Erin Galgay Walsh and Marshall Cunningham, titled "In the Bible's Immigrant Story, a Model for Humanizing the Vulnerable".

(2) Speaking of the Bible, RNS also has an article about Pope Leo XIV's notable use of Scripture in his (and Pope Francis') recently published apostolic exhortation, "Delexi te" ("I have loved you"), "Pope Leo Stresses Scripture as Foundation of Christian Concern for the Poor." makes the point:

"In the past, Catholic social teaching was based on papal documents and appeals to the natural law. Scriptural passages would be sprinkled in like seasoning on a well-prepared meal, but Scripture was never at the heart of the argument.

As Protestants embraced “sola scriptura” (by Scripture alone), Catholics prided themselves on teachings that were based on both faith and reason. The church’s teachings were heavily dependent on Aristotelian philosophy as interpreted by scholastic philosophers and theologians. Scripture served as “proof texts” to foregone conclusions.

Catholics were expected to accept this teaching on papal authority. Others were expected to be convinced by the clarity of the argument.

The advantage of appealing to reason, not faith, was that it allowed the church to engage in dialogue with secular thinkers. The disadvantage was that it was dry and uninspiring. It also made it difficult for Protestants to appreciate Catholic social teaching.

“Dilexi te” (“I have loved you”), the new apostolic exhortation issued Oct. 4 by Pope Leo XIV, is different. This is a document addressed to Christians and it is steeped in Scripture."

My own wondering is whether Pope Leo, being an Augustinian, is a "steeped in Scripture" theologian because, well, that was how St. Augustine wrote his theology!

(3) First Things carries a fascinating essay by noted theologian Hans Boersma, "Modernity and God-talk" which digs deep into how we understand God in God's essence and attributes, finds shortcomings in the standard Western theological way of discussing this matter (i.e. Aquinas not up to scratch!!) and heads into Eastern Orthodoxy with its "essence and energies" distinction, and sees that as, well, more helpful ...

(4) Back to RNS, this time to the important subject of both humanizing Palestinians and remembering them, especially our Palestinian brothers and sisters (that is, in the context of proposals to rebuild Gaza without much actual reference to Gazan Palestinians, continuing violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and in the context of the Knesset making actual legal moves to annex the West Bank, even when Vice President Vance was in Israel and visiting the Knesset). 

"They couldn't help Gazans. So they wrote a book they hope might offer comfort and wisdom" features two Palestinian Christian brothers from Jerusalem, John and Samual Munayer, who have written a The Cross and the Olive Tree: Cultivating Palestinian Theology amid Gaza, published last month by Orbis Books. This book is a collection of essays by young Palestinian Christians in Israel and abroad which offers reflections "on how liberation theology can offer hope in the midst of destruction."

Anglican Communion(s) both with strong convictions

Hello for this week. If you would prefer not to read, once again (and again and again ...) about Anglican Communion machinations, then here is a lovely post about heaven and the late Diane Keaton. 

PS: as a bonus article, thinking about feature films, then, courtesy of breaking news, do we have a plot line for you who are script writers! 

PPS: And, finally, in non Anglican Communion news, but true to this blog's Down Under interests, as a loyal Kiwi, I feel a need to post reason #995 for not moving to Australia, possibly not even going there for a holiday :).

ANGLICAN COMMUNION OR GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION?

As already noticed by commenters here to my previous post, during the past few days there has been a stirring and bold announcement re the Anglican Communion.

The essence of the announcement is that the already existing GAFCON - network of like-minded Anglican provinces, dioceses, and individuals, coming together periodically for conferences as a whole network, and Primates of some provinces and other episcopal leaders meeting regularly - having met in (note) Sydney, has announced the formation of the Global Anglican Communion as the "real McCoy" Anglican Communion. Thinking Anglicans has "all" the links here, including responses to the GAFCON announcement.

From the GAFCON communique we read these key steps:

"We resolved to reorder the Anglican Communion as follows:

1. We declare that the Anglican Communion will be reordered, with only one foundation of communion, namely the Holy Bible, “translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading” (Jerusalem Declaration, Article II), which reflects Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion.

2. We reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.

3. We cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate the revisionist agenda, which has abandoned the inerrant word of God as the final authority and overturned Resolution I.10, of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

4. Therefore, Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, and we are now the Global Anglican Communion.

5. Provinces of the Global Anglican Communion shall not participate in meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, including the ACC, and shall not make any monetary contribution to the ACC, nor receive any monetary contribution from the ACC or its networks.

6. Provinces, which have yet to do so, are encouraged to amend their constitution to remove any reference to being in communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England.

7. To be a member of the Global Anglican Communion, a province or a diocese must assent to the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, the contemporary standard for Anglican identity.

8. We shall form a Council of Primates of all member provinces to elect a Chairman, as primus inter pares (‘first amongst equals’), to preside over the Council as it continues “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)."

What is new here is the claim to re-ordering the Communion as a whole, which, by implication means, since no one is naive about this, that those who so align with the above paragraphs will deem themselves to be "the" Anglican Communion and those who don't will call themselves what they will, but they will not be the (adjectives hard to work out, but here goes) real/true/actual/genuine Anglican Communion. Of course, there will be, in reality, two similarly named bodies, the Global Anglican Communion [ex GAFCON; hereon, GAC] and the Anglican Communion [AC].

Here, in italics is my commentary on the paragraphs cited above:

"We resolved to reorder the Anglican Communion as follows:

1. We declare that the Anglican Communion will be reordered, with only one foundation of communion, namely the Holy Bible, “translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading” (Jerusalem Declaration, Article II), which reflects Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion. 

This is a new dimension to GAFCON's general beef with the Communion as a body in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The key words are "declare" and "reordered" and "one foundation". The Bible has never been the one foundation of the reformed Church of England and its subsequent growth and development into the Anglican Communion. The lack of reference to liturgy is striking. Can one be Anglican in any meaningful sense of that word if there is no reference to the role of authorised liturgies in the life of the Anglican church? 

More concerning, I suggest, is that an announcement about a re-ordering of the Anglican Communion should, at least as a matter of genuine interest in such re-ordering, offer a warm, broad invitation to all Anglicans to align with the re-ordered Communion. Focusing on the Bible alone in this way is precisely the opposite of that warm, broad invitation. It appeals to the like-minded who are already aligned with GAFCON. It may appeal to the other major grouping, the Global South, or may not, but I see no particular olive branch being offered to the Global South here. (Of course I may be missing other, less public communications between GAFCON and Global South). I would be most surprised if this Bible alone focus, you must sign up to the Jerusalem Declaration approach will appeal to many in the Church of England, or to any female Anglican clergy anywhere and of whatever theological persuasion.

2. We reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.

This is not new, at least for the reason that key GAFCON players have not turned up to these meetings for some time.

3. We cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate the revisionist agenda, which has abandoned the inerrant word of God as the final authority and overturned Resolution I.10, of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

A continuing point of debate as 1.10 has two parts to it, and it is not clear that any province has faithfully followed both parts of it. Further, resolutions of the Lambeth Conference only have force in each province if adopted by said provinces. Thirdly, "the revisionist agenda" is not defined here (which is an important observation as many things about being Anglican have been revised through the years, including the years since 1998), and it has never been a formal part of Anglican identity that the Bible is "inerrant."

4. Therefore, Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, and we are now the Global Anglican Communion.

I have no idea what the "Formularies of the Reformation" are (though I assume that something about the role of the 39A is in mind). A reference back to the 1867 Lambeth Conference is plausible: that conference was called, at least in part, to deal with perceived error in the expanding set of Anglican churches around the world. 

5. Provinces of the Global Anglican Communion shall not participate in meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, including the ACC, and shall not make any monetary contribution to the ACC, nor receive any monetary contribution from the ACC or its networks.

Nothing much is new here. See comment above. 

6. Provinces, which have yet to do so, are encouraged to amend their constitution to remove any reference to being in communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England.

Without developing the point, commented on from time to time here, to be "Anglican" and to not be in communion with the See of Canterbury (or the Church of England) raises many, many questions. Am I a member of my family if I disown my mother and formally commit to never seeing her again? 

7. To be a member of the Global Anglican Communion, a province or a diocese must assent to the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, the contemporary standard for Anglican identity.

Effectively this is the criterion for membership of GAFCON. 

8. We shall form a Council of Primates of all member provinces to elect a Chairman, as primus inter pares (‘first amongst equals’), to preside over the Council as it continues “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)."

GAFCON already has a primatial council and a chair of that council.

[End of commentary on individual sections of the announcement.]

With appreciation for comments made already in response to this announcement, and with sanguinity about whether much changes or will change "on the ground", following this announcement, I offer this observation:

The strength of conviction lying behind the formation of the Global Anglican Communion will be matched by the strength of conviction lying behind the continuation of the Anglican Communion.

While there are many Anglicans around the world who enjoy the freedom of thought that being Anglican offers, and no doubt a number of Anglicans who live with doubts about this and that, and may, when push comes to shove, admit openly to some uncertainty about synod motion X or Nicene Creed clause Y or whether eucharistic service alternative Z really is a good option, I suggest that in any kind of showdown between GAC and AC, all such Anglicans, along with many other Anglicans self-identifying as Anglicans-with-strong-and-clear-theological-convictions (but not wholly aligned with the "Jerusalem Declaration"), will have a very strong conviction that GAC is not the way forward for "being Anglican". Rather, there will be a strong and certain conviction that the AC is the way forward, both because within that form of Communion are some ways and means to think differently, and pluralistically, and because, if we are going to be historical ("Reformation", "Lambeth 1867") then history indeed matters and that includes communion with the See of Canterbury and with the Church of England.

I also offer this observation: the communique has a very simplistic view of the Bible as "foundation" to the Anglican future. The Bible is a complex document. It actually houses within it a variety of views, Two approaches to Israel's history, for example, and four gospel presentations of Jesus. The Bible alone is not a guide to doctrinal clarity. The Reformation alone teaches us that (both because the Bible had not guided the then Catholic church of Europe beyond error, hence the Reformation, and because the Reformation then involved notorious, and ongoing disputes about the meaning of the Bible). On some modern issues, the Bible alone is not resolving those issues. Across those four presentations of Jesus there are differing views on divorce and remarriage (as there are within GAC). The question of woman being ordained presbyters/priests and bishops is a point of division within GAC: the Bible appears not to be sufficient foundation for resolving that question. (Responding that the ordination of women is a "second order" issue actually makes the point that the Bible is not, taken as a whole, an unambiguous document, since it only appears to be unambiguous on first order issues, and the Bible does not tell us what are first and second order issues!)

A more honest approach is for GAC to focus only on the Jerusalem Declaration as its foundation (and to make suitable statements about the role of the Bible in informing the development of this declaration).

Well, the future has arrived, and it comes with a divisive understanding of the role of the past in Anglican identity. Choose you this present day whom you shall Anglicanly be!

I know what I like

In 1985, by happy coincidence, the annual Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship conference was held in Auckland, as was the Monet Exhibition, a bringing together of Monet paintings from around the world so us little old Kiwis could have a taste of "great" art without needing to take a plane ride to London, Paris, New York, etc. (I was living in Dunedin in those days.) I recall the excitement of the exhibition coming to NZ, of wanting to go, of going, and don't recall much about what I actually saw or felt when I saw the paintings - though I have, ever since, had a very high liking for Impressionist paintings, including Monet's.

Since then, occasionally rather than regularly, I have viewed art - paintings more my thing than sculptures - and perhaps have done so with the awe that comes when one is not an artist and thus admiring of artistic skill, vision and endeavour that is not a gift embedded in my life. I have also come to admire those art historians and critics who explain paintings with about 99 more insights than my one thought :).

Recently I have had opportunity to view some of the great paintings of our world - where and what particular paintings I have viewed don't matter for the purposes of this post. My reflections flow from the initially personal to the role of art in religious experience. However there may be nothing peculiar to Anglicanism in this post. Indulge me as a budding art critic!

One criterion, obviously very personal, for appreciation of paintings is whether I would like to have the painting adorn the walls of my own home. Would I like it to be constantly available to view? Could I imagine myself growing tired of it and thus, after a few months or even a few years, growing tired and regretful of making the purchase? (Let's set aside for the moment my generally impoverished financial state relative to the actual cost of great paintings, and the lack of much wall space suitable for great works which sometimes are of great size!)

On this criterion I could see myself not wanting to buy every conceivable Impressionist painting: some move me with deep emotion and some, well, do not. But also on this criterion, I find myself asking why I would love to have a Pollock (he of splashing paint against the canvas fame) and a Mondrian (he of straight lines, squares and rectangles fame). Neither tell an obvious story (to this non-art historian), but both kinds of paintings move me to wish I could have (at least) one of each.

Recent viewings have led me to another criterion - again, possibly quite personal. We are all aware that in the past, portrait painting was a "thing", no doubt because, without photography, it was a way not only of honouring a person but also of enabling their memory to endure. But I find a lot of portraits leave me quite cold as a potential purchaser (even when the portrait is of a famous person and painted by a renowned artist). But the criterion which has come to my mind, as at least being an important marker for me, is that the portrait draws me to want to meet the person portrayed, to enter their world and to find out more about them. An outstanding example of such a painter is Rembrandt. His faces are amazing, not only because of the way he captures light on faces, but because the faces are painted in a way that, at least for me, makes me want to enter the world of the one who has been portrayed. An NZ equivalent, in my view is C.F. Goldie.

I have thought of a third quality a painting might have, which is still about "drawing me into its world" though not necessarily directly into the world as portrayed by the artist (so this is different to the second criterion above). Recent viewings of religious art have reminded me that some of the great Christian art works (of the "Mary with the child Jesus", "Jesus and the disciples", "St Francis and the animals" kind) have been painted as though these biblical scenes occurred in the contemporary world of the artist (per buildings depicted in the background, style of clothes worn, even style of painting of the bodies of people/animals/angels involved in the depiction, etc). 

Into that contemporary world, I have not found myself drawn, but nevertheless I have been moved by the devotion portrayed. Somehow the artist has captured the vibe of the biblical story/event-in-Christian-history being illustrated and the vibe - utter devotion to God encountered in the moment (if Jesus not depicted) or devotion to Jesus - connects with me (mostly to trouble me about my lack of devotion!). This third criterion, then, is that the painting draws me out of myself towards something I see (or "see") which is greater than me - likely God and the world of the Bible or major moments/people in church history - and that greater thing is inherent in the painting rather than directly portrayed. It is inspirational because, somehow, between intent to depict the past and doing so in a manner contemporary to the artist's own time, nevertheless a timeless engagement of human(s) with the divine is represented and I, the viewer, am drawn to enter also into that engagement. (Obviously a related reflection is involved when pondering what it is about iconography which moves our spirits, though in that case, artists make their depictions in a certain format which continues across generations and eras).

Incidentally, the NZ artist I most admire in terms of this third criterion is Colin McCahon - whose paintings are not well known outside of NZ, but - in my very humble and I am not an art historian view - would grace any of the best known galleries around the world.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just because by next Monday the moment may have passed, because ... well lots could happen in the next seven days ... I think it worth acknowledging President Trump's achievement [to date] re peace in the Middle East. Perhaps 99/100 Trumpian things are debateable if not objectionable (see all kinds of things happening in the USA re migration, ICE, National Guard callouts, activist attorneys appointed with one arrest specifically in mind, defunding of all manner of things useful to USA society and to humankind generally (e.g. scientific research), whatever is or is not going on re US/Qatar relationship, etc, and, indeed, many et ceteras). But here, on this one matter at least, Trump has achieved what his predecessor could not and which, arguably, no other national leader currently in power could do - not even if they all got together to exert their collective influence. It is unimaginable that either Xi or Putin would have exerted themselves one iota to solve the problem of achieving a ceasefire.

A challenge for for those who lean "pro Palestinian" or even are "all in, pro Palestinian" - I suggest - is whether we can appropriately acknowledge Trump's influence on this matter! I raise this challenge because some internet surveying in the past day or so suggests an unwillingness to so acknowledge ... which is coupled, in my view, with a lack of "real politik" about what might have achieved the ceasefire ... certainly it was not going to have been achieved by protest marches in cities far from the Holy Land, nor by flotillas sailing closer the the Holy shores, nor by declarations of recognition of Palestine as a state. (To be clear, all such actions have their own value in generating a climate of expectation that the war must stop. My point here is simply that none of them alone or in accumulation was going to stop the war).

Our prayer, summed up, as always, in the words of our Lord, "Your kingdom come", must continue to be that this present ceasefire leads to a lasting just peace.

Postscript: I could be wrong. Maybe Trump was just a pawn here, subject to forces with more power than meets the eye? Or, is this a fantasy?

Archbishop-designate Sarah: let's pray for her!

I am very pleased that the Church of England, with the assistance of five voting Communion members, including the Reverend Isaac Beach of our church, has come to a decision, agreed to by the British PM and the King himself, that the Right Reverend Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

The role is important in the C of E itself and [in my view, argued elsewhere on this blog] for the Anglican Communion also. At this time, Bishop Sarah is well-positioned to be the (dare I say, "our"?) new archiepiscopal leader: a leader in the secular world, former Chief Nurse of the UK, prior to ordination, then Bishop of London, these past seven years - a complex and challenging role in a major world city. 

Challenges facing the C of E have been fairly well canvassed in media articles and even on this blog - declining numbers and influence, divisions over sexuality and over missional strategy ("Save the Parish" v new initiatives in church planting etc), hurt and pain over sexual and spiritual abuse and experiences of survivors that the institutional response of the CofE has been far from adequate - I write such things not in judgement/evaluation but in reflection of what any reader of secular and ecclesiastical media in recent years would have been reading. Initial responses to Bishop Sarah's appointment are, thankfully, mostly positive, about her ability to contribute good, and kind leadership into this complex set of challenges.

Of course, there are other responses to Bishop Sarah's appointment, so that from the wider Communion, sadly, even tragically, the GAFCON and related responses are of the "this hastens the end of things" type. All very predictable. You can read the good, bad and ugly responses via links Thinking Anglicans, as always, helpfully supplies, here.

One not so predictable is that of Ian Paul at Psephizo. Potentially he could have marked her harder. He finds a lot of good in her appointment. His post is also useful for the citations he makes within it - helping readers to get a fuller sense of response to +Sarah's appointment. (Of course I don't care for what he has to say about our church in the course of his reflections (and I don't see that whatever state our church may or may not be in has anything to do with the presence of our church in the discernment and voting process - the five Communion members were chosen according to a Communion determination of how it would be best represented!).)

On a personal note, I met +Sarah at the Lambeth Conference 2022 and had a lovely conversation with her. And also with Eamonn her husband. They are are very straightforward couple to engage with and it would be lovely to think they might visit our blessed isle one day ... perhaps to re-open a cathedral????

It is absolutely worth noting that it is a good, right and proper thing that we have our first female Archbishop of Canterbury in prospect. Some comments here and there (by which, of course, I include Facebook) are derogatory about having a woman in such a role. End of the church. I am leaving the church. Etc. But, here's the thing: God loves all humanity, male and female. God in Christ died for all humanity, male and female. God through the Spirit gifts all humanity, female and male, with the gifts and the vocations the church needs to do God's work. It is a strange view of God that if the church decides to choose a leader from 100% of its membership rather than 50% of its membership that God is going to have a sulk about it. Neither should we!

So, what can we do to support Bishop Sarah in the next months, while she remains Bishop of London, but, no doubt, has many Cantabrian thoughts to think, and so will be in transition, and as she and others prepare for her official start in late January 2026 and formal, ceremonial beginning in March 2026?

Let us pray for her. We can all do that.

Postscript: whereas some Catholic/Anglo-Catholic comments I have seen either bewail +Sarah's appointment, or offer the most guarded and hesitant of responses, from the Roman Catholic church leadership itself comes this lovely and warm support, by Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, who writes to +Sarah:

"Having learned of your nomination… I write to congratulate you on your appointment and to express the good wishes of the Catholic Church to you as you prepare to undertake this important service in your Church. I pray that the Lord will bless you with the gifts you need for the very demanding ministry to which you have now been called, equipping you to be an instrument of communion and unity for the faithful among whom you will serve,"

In my experience of Catholic-Anglican relationships, this kind of response is genuine, and betokens good relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as set in motion in the 1960s, continuing. 

A simple recipe to improve much of current Christianity (!?)

I assume that most if not all readers here love the Bible for its capacity to have a verse or part of a verse jump up and hit us between the eyes, often from the most familiar of passages, and provoke an instant reactive thought, "Wow, I never saw that before ... thank you, Lord."

The other day, happening upon Hebrews 12, I read verse 14 (a la the sentence above):

Pursue peace with everyone and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Now, admittedly, my reading of this verse on this day may be slightly peculiar (but it is how the verse struck me). I read it in this way;

When we are divided as Christians, and when our lives fall short of what people expect we will live like as Christians, then non-Christians will not find their way to encounter Jesus.

In our day, when (to cite but a few examples), we have very public division among Christians (e.g. over Trump, over Israel/Gaza/West Bank, over Ukraine/Russia, to say nothing of divisions over sexuality, women in leadership, and more generally, our denominational differences) and we have very public examples of unholy behaviour (most notably, sexual abuse by church leaders), we also have some - despite, wonderfully, signs of church growth in the West - clear determinations by people (e.g. among our friends, workmates, extended family) to avoid church like the plague.

I acknowledge that, on further reflection on Hebrews 12:14, that my "reading" on that day is not how the writer to the Hebrews intended his or her sentence to be read. In the context of the verses preceding and succeeding 12:14, the writer is saying this:

(As you follow Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith, of your discipleship), pursue peace (rather than division) in your relationships with people, especially with your brothers and sisters in Christ, and live holy lives (as you are called to do by God's prophet's and apostles, and by Jesus himself), because only holy people can "see the Lord", that is, be in eternal fellowship with the Lord. [Verses 15 and 16 spell out to specific aspects of living holy lives, as does the whole of chapter 13.]

More simply, my "peculiar" reading a few days ago was an evangelistic reading of the verse; closer to the intention of the writer is, in fact, a discipleship reading of the verse.

Nevertheless, it is, is it not, a salutary reflection - whatever the "correct" reading of the verse is - that we acknowledge barriers to people coming to Jesus Christ such as Christian division; Christian bad behaviour?

The two greatest developments in Christian thought?

One of my favourite gospel stories is told in Mark 2:1-12 and parallels, the healing of the paralyzed man which is simultaneously the releasing of the man paralyzed by sin through Jesus's word of forgiveness. But this word is given by Jesus who identifies himself as the Son of Man, a quite specific Jewish term for the long awaited Messiah sent by Israel's God (see, e.g., Daniel 7:9-13; Isaiah 42; Isaiah 61). At this point in time, we have Good News for Israel.

The first of the two greatest developments in Christian thought is initiated through the Apostle Paul - Saul the persecutor of Christians who is dramatically converted and understands in a (fairly literal) flash that everything he is opposed to is in fact true, that Christ was crucified for the salvation of all humanity, non-Jew and Jew. That the fledgling movement of followers of Jesus within the Judaism(s) of his day, in the territory of Israel and beyond, became a universal faith, open to all humanity, flows from the revelation God gave to Paul. Christianity is a universal faith and not "another" Jewish movement because of Paul. The forgiveness of sins is universal, not national.

What is the second greatest development? Again, if we take Mark 2:1-12 as a starting point, we see in this story that Jesus makes a startling claim, to be able to forgive sins, as though he himself were God. That this was a startling claim is noted in the story itself which reports,

Some teachers of the Law who were stitting there thought to themselves, "How does he dare talk like this? This is blasphemy! God is the only one who can forgive sins!" (2:6-7 GNB).

In various ways, across texts in the gospels and the epistles, this kind of expression is made - the kind which tentatively raises the question of Jesus' relationship with and status before God, without quite making explicit anything which looks like the later Nicene confession of the church, that Jesus Christ is very God.

The second greatest development in Christian thought takes place through the writing of John the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel bearing his name. All the talk elsewhere in the New Testament - - such as in Mark 2:1-12 - about Jesus being - in some way or another, to some degree or another - divine, and rightly being deemed "the Son of God", does not cross the line, over which Jesus is not merely divine, but a participant in deity, not only named "the Son of God" (so, also, could be: Israel, high angels, and you and me, the children of God) but the Son who is in eternal union with the Father. John takes us across that line.

In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son ... No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:1; 14; 18).

There is, post John's Gospel, still work for the church to do. To settle the place  Holy Spirit in the Godhead. To work on the nature/s of Jesus Christ as human and divine. Hence the theological battles of the first centuries towards the creeds of the church being agreed to. But the cut through, the map of the path to those creeds, is opened up and sketched out by the Fourth Gospel. 

The two greatest theologians of the Christian movement are Paul and John - or John and Paul, I am not giving any order to their respective importance.

Of course, what this means for the Christian movement today is worth thinking about:

1. Any narrowing of the vision of God for the salvation of humanity, that it is the whole of humanity in God's sight, and not a select few, is contrary to the revelation God has given us through Paul.

2. Any diminution of understanding that God is Trinity; that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human, is a profound misunderstanding of God's revelation in and through Jesus Christ and his apostles.