Not another sermon!

This week you are spared from reading another one of my sermons, but there is something my sermon prep for Sunday morning brought up which is quite interesting relative to last week's posting of my "Nicaea" sermon.

Comments to that sermon challenged the notion that everything about Trinitarian development in theology are good; and one comment highlighted the ground the church is yet to take up in becoming a truly "eco-church" or the church which connects with a forefront of younger generations' minds and hearts: saving our planet while we can. Thank you!

This afternoon as I write, President Trump has announced the US B-2 bombers have bombed targets in Iran, including the Fordow or "main" site re uraniuam enrichment. People seeking food in Gaza are still being killed. Iranian rockets fall on Israel, Israeli missiles fall on Iran. Ukraine remains a drone killing field. As we in Aotearoa New Zealand celebrate Matariki this weekend, we are painfully reminded that celebrating the return of Matariki - the return of some forms of light to lead us forward after the shortest day - is taking place in a world of darkness and pain.

The gospel reading for this morning, if celebrating Ordinary 12 rather than Te Pouhere [Constitution] Sunday, has been Luke 8:26-39, in its own particular way a story of darkness giving way to light, the man filled with demons becoming the man who is clothed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, in his right mind and eager to be with Jesus - a model disciple.

At the end of the story is this interesting anticipation of Trinitarian development, of the church wrestling with "who" Jesus is in relation to God and "who" God is in relation to Jesus ... and it is not from John's Gospel:

But Jesus sent him away, saying: "Go back home and tell what God has done for you."

The man went through the town, telling what Jesus had done for him.

Luke introduces us to the possibility of thinking that God is met in Jesus, in his teaching and in his powerful actions; and that when we meet Jesus, we encounter God.

A Sermon in Celebration of the Council of Nicaea

Over recent months a group of Christchurch church leaders (Te Raranga) have been working on an ecumenical service to celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. The service was held last night at 5 pm, 15 June and I had the honour of preaching. I had decided that this week's blogpost would be the sermon's text ... and then a flurry of comments to last week's post came in. My sermon may or may not settle any disputes therein!

Sermon Trinity Sunday 15 June 2025 1700 Anniversary of the Council of Nicaea

Ecumenical Service in the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch

Recording of service here

Readings: John 17:20-23 (read in Te Reo), Ephesians 4:1-6

Greetings to all! Thank you to Te Raranga for organising the service. Thank you to the cathedral staff, volunteers, musicians and choir for hosting the service.

We have come together for Kotahitanga (our unity), Whakapono (our formation in the faith) and Taonga (celebration of a precious gift).

Who is this person or being – Jesus Christ - who prays, according to our Gospel of John reading:

“so that they may be one, as we are one” (kia kotahi ai ratou, me taua nei hoki he Kotahi)

and also talks about God the Father

“so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (kia whakapono ai te ao, nau ahau I tono mai)?

John’s Gospel stands out within the New Testament writings for presenting the man Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus the Christ sent from God who is simultaneously the Son of God in a relationship of identity and union with God the Father.

What were the first Christians to make of this presentation, this revelation of who Jesus is, in relation to us, his colleagues in humanity, and in relation to God, his colleague (co-equal, co-participant) in divinity?

That question rumbled its way through the 2^nd and 3rd centuries of the Christian era.

Nick Page, writing in Premier Christianity, offers a slightly racy version of what happened at the beginning of the fourth century: [https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/an-idiots-guide-to-the-council-of-niceas-big-posh-creed-of-compromise/19332.article ]

“We start in Alexandria, Egypt in AD 318. … … a priest called Arius has had a thought: if Jesus is the Son of God then, logically, he has to be younger than the Father. That, after all, is the key thing about sons: they tend to be a lot younger than their dads. And didn’t Paul describe Jesus as “the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15)? If that is true, Arius reasoned, there must have been a time before Jesus was born. 

A highly effective communicator, Arius began to spread his ideas, not only through preaching but simple songs. According to his opponents, he even coined a slogan:

“there was, when he was not” (ie there was a time before Jesus).”

“Arius was not suggesting Jesus wasn’t God; just, perhaps, that he wasn’t quite as ‘goddy’ as God was. And while many welcomed his ideas, many more found them alarming.

If Arius was right, then would it not imply that the Son was inferior – or subordinate – to the Father? What does that do to the Trinity?

John’s Gospel said that Jesus was the Word, eternally present with the Father, through whom all things were created (1:1-3), but Arius’ theories struck at the very heart of Jesus’ divinity.”

“The argument flared into a bitter, factional dispute. Arius was condemned and dismissed from his post. But other parts of the Eastern Church supported him. The anger grew so bad that, eventually, emperor Constantine I intervened.

In AD 325, he announced that he would call the first-ever ecumenical – ie ‘worldwide’ – Council of Bishops.

It would meet towards the end of May, in the city of Nicaea (modern Iznik in Turkey). Together, the bishops would come up with a logical, clear, universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.”

So, between 250 and 300 bishops attended, most from the east; only a few from the west. And the emperor, Constantine, presided over the council or synod – the first ecumenical or worldwide council of the church of God. Kotahitanga at Nicaea!

Incidentally, the Council of Nicaea did make some decisions other than creedal ones, especially in regard to canons governing our life as church, some of which are still observed today.

But, tonight, 1700 years later, I will concentrate our attention on the creedal character of the council.

Now most, if not all of us here have been to synods, conferences and councils of the church where we have done our human best to keep all present in the same tent of roughly common conviction, crafting amendments to motions so some kind of healthy compromise is reached.

A bit of that happened but a full compromise between Arians and others was not the work of this council. Nicaea was decisive.

The creed at that council said:

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible; and continued for a few paragraphs in words we are familiar with …

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both things in heaven and things on earth,

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead,

And in the Holy Spirit.

So far so good to those of us familiar with the later version of this creed which is known as The Nicene Creed. But then we hit this, which is both decisive and exclusive:

“The catholic and apostolic Church anathematises [ie condemns] those who say, “There was when he was not,” and, “He was not before he was begotten,” and that he came to be from nothing, or those who claim that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance, (or created,) or alterable, or mutable.”

Here then is the key innovation at Nicaea. A stake in the ground for the Whakapono of the church.

God the Son, according to the creed, is “of one substance” (the Greek is the famous word, homoousion) with the Father. Here substance could be “being” or “nature.”

Nick Page again: “Jesus is both distinct from the Father, but also the same. He is equal in the Trinity, true God from true God. … Begotten, yes, but not made. Not created.” 

Thus, a specific line in what we call orthodox Christianity – the orthodoxy of both eastern and western Christianity was established.

Theological disputes would rumble on through more centuries and further ecumenical councils, especially around precision of language about Jesus as both human & divine.

What we now call the Nicene Creed developed through expanding river, then future councils shaped and smoothed from it the distinctive Taonga which is the Nicene Creed.

So, tonight we neither recite the original Nicene Creed, nor do we curse any Arians present in our midst. 

What are we celebrating after 1700 years? What role could and should the Nicene Creed as we know it play in the life of the church of God in 2025?

Ephesians 4:1-6, after all, speaks challengingly to us as we celebrate an ecumenical council of the church, because Paul talks to us as church and urges that we are

“making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Our three themes tonight are: Kotahitanga. Whakapono. Taonga.

[i.e. we reflect on the Creed as a unifying confession, a tool for spiritual formation, and a precious gift from the church of the past to the church of the future.]

Kotahitanga: we may or may not ever resolve the differences between church denominations; but we can and must live into and develop what we have in common, what binds us together as followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. Nicaea highlights what we do believe together. Let’s bind ourselves afresh to the Nicene Creed (understanding unresolved differences between east and west) and at least in this way, make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Whakapono: it is easy to recite the creed as a matter of rote, words we say with out lips while our minds dwell on what we are going to have for lunch or for supper. But the content of the creed is the content of our faith. It is the most concise window we have into who the God is whom we adore, pray to, follow and listen to. Let what we believe form us as followers of Christ. Let’s live faithfully in the faith the creed summarises for us.

Taonga: it has been a fashion in some recent decades to diminish the importance of the Nicene Creed. Theologians question whether we can still believe such things about God. Liturgists planning worship may see the Apostles’ Creed – it has fewer words - as a route to a shorter service. In some forms of free form worship, saying the creed is a funny old thing to do in contemporary culture, so it is quietly dropped.

Might we have a new appreciation, for the creed as a taonga, a gift from the past to hold us to the true faith, to focus our minds on the true meaning of the revelation of God the Trinity in Scripture?

Might we see the creed not as words we have to say but a window into the truth of who God is?

Might we say or sing the creed as words of worship to the true and living God?

Might the creed be a celebration of who we are in Christ?

Pentecost and the Needs of the ... next ABC

On the one hand, it is Pentecost, and  [according to some Tweets] the 2000th birthday of the church ... I thoughy that would be 2030 or 2033, but who is counting :).

On the other hand, Pentecost is the beginning of a new era with Eleven apostles restored to Twelve apostle, with the election of Mathias. A remind that we have a new Pope and not yet a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

But we do have - courtesy of a link in Thinking Anglicans - a Statement of Needs for the next ABC. This looks good - comprehensive, careful, considerate, to the needs of the Anglican church there and around our globe.

From the Venerable Dr Will Adam's introduction (with apologies for format as I copy froma PDF):

"The Diocese of Canterbury is looking forward to welcoming its 106th Archbishop. This Statement of Needs, prepared by the Vacancy in See Committee, sets out a little of what the diocese needs and expects in an Archbishop and describes something of the rich life and ministry of the Church of England in the eastern half of Kent as we seek, together, to be disciples of Jesus Christ and to proclaim in word and action the Good News of Jesus."

"Locally we realise that responsibilities in the diocese will form but a small part of the Archbishop’s total ministry. We have a long established, valued and well understood system of delegation of day to day responsibility for episcopal ministry in the diocese to the Bishop of Dover and expect this to continue. That said, there is a real and tangible sense of connection and affection for the Archbishop of Canterbury in the parishes and communities of the diocese. The Archbishop is ‘our’ Archbishop alongside their responsibilities in the Church of England, the nation, the Anglican Communion and on the world stage. We offer in the Diocese of Canterbury and in the Cathedral Precincts a home, where the Archbishop will feel they belong. Canterbury Cathedral is location of the Archbishop’s cathedra, the metropolitical seat and the mother church of the Anglican Communion and the natural location of the Archbishop’s ministry in prayer, liturgy and teaching. The Diocese of Canterbury is not without its challenges. We hope that as we seek to live out a Christ-like life that our next Archbishop would be a supporter and an advocate for us alongside their other weighty tasks. We are praying for the calling out of a faithful pastor to be our Archbishop. If you are a candidate considering whether to express an interest in the post please be assured that we are praying for you in this time of discernment. "

The document then proceeds to a "The Archbishop we are seeking ..." section, which is excellent.

But I note in the last bullet point an interesting implied (or not, let's discuss) note:

"has worked and will continue to work constructively with the Living in Love and Faith process and will fully welcome those from the LGBTQIA+ community. They will recognise with honesty the complexity of the current situation and the strongly held, but different, convictions present in the diocese as in the Church of England more widely. They will affirm that we are all created and loved into being whilst all also having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. They will embrace those who pray for change to enable same-sex partners to marry in the Church of England. They will also embrace those who hold the current Church of England teaching on marriage. "

On the one hand, the implication of "has worked and will  continue to work constructively with the Living in Love and Faith process ..." literally rules out potential contenders from outside of the Church of England, on the grounds that potential candidates in churches as close as Scottish, Welsh and Irish Anglican churches have not so worked with the LLF process.

On the other hand, presumably there is no strict intention to rule out the wind of the Spirit blowing in the direction of, say, a candidate from Ghana or Guyana or Glasgow, and there would be a way of assessing such an extra-England candidate as having a track record of working on LGBTQIA+ matters coherent with the LLF process.

Still, there are 101 reasons, additional to the LLF process, for the CofE looking within itself for its preferred new ABC.

We keep praying ...

Closer to home, and in the spirit of Pentecost, and of Trinity Sunday itself, if you live in or near Christchurch, at 5 pm Sunday 15 June 2025, we are hosting an ecumenical service celebrating the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea at the Transitional Cathedral, Hereford Street. ALL welcome!

Ecumenical Endeavours

In order to explain why this week's post is (a) later than usual, and (b) shorter than usual, I may as well tell you about my weekend!

I have spent Saturday, Sunday and this [Monday] morning at the Uniting Churches of Aotearoa New Zealand [UCANZ] biennial forum. We discussed the present and future of that variety of parishes throughout Aotearoa New Zealand which are union/uniting parishes (almost all are Presbyterian/Methodist combinations/co-operations), or co-operating parishes (almost all involve Anglicans, whether Anglican-Presbyterian or Anglican-Presbyterian-Methodist co-operating parishes, sometimes called co-operating ventures) and come under UCANZ as an oversight/administrative body formed to support such parishes. The Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches are the "Partners" to this enterprise.

We had a very pleasant three days together, at the Onehunga Methodist church, with lovely food, superbly led worship, quality discussions and, I think, a well formed resolution to conclude our proceedings, that the three Partners undertake a root and branch review of UCANZ - meaning a root and branch review of how we Partner churches wish to "do" ecumenical partnerships at the parish level as we move through these changing times. Changing, not least, we were reminded, by Dr. Peter Lineham, because the union/co-operating parishes of NZ are under as much pressure from numerical decline and increase in average age of regular congregants as any other part of the churches of these islands.

It will be interesting to see where we "land" in the review because where we land is where we agree as Partners to the way forward. What will we agree to?!

Put another way, in the week when our Sunday gospel is John 17:20-26 (if Ascension has not been deferred to this Sunday just past), i.e. we focus on Jesus' prayer that we may be one, then our forum highlighted the immense challenge of becoming one, through a great potential means to working through differences to reach a new unity. If some forty to fifty years (and more) of the three Partner churches seeking to formally "co-operate" or "union[ise]" have taught us anything it is that (a) co-operation is definitely possible (b) actual "unity" is about as far away as ever. Spekaing as an Anglican, for instance, we are not likely to give away the importance we place on bishops any time soon! And differences about the eucharist, of course, remain robust theological differences.

Nevertheless, we have no choice in many districts and suburbs but to co-operatively work together in Christ's name and for Christ's gospel. How we best do that will be the great task of the next two years and I look forward to seeing what we discern and what we decide.

Of Deaths and an Election

Renowned theologian Alistair McIntyre has died at the age of 96. I confess to hearing a lot about him but to never having read him - he should be on my to be read task list, especially his most famous book, After Virtue. An obituary is here. A reflection on his impact as a philosopher-theologian is here.

McIntyre's great thesis (as I understand it) is that the Western world has followed Kant and his ethical emphasis on individualism/individual rights to choose one's own best life to its peril; instead, taking a cue from Aristotle, ethics is both a communal and an historical matter, which does not begin with the Enlightenment, and includes concern for all not just for myself.

As a small anecdote (about a large demographic crisis) which - again, as I best understand things - illustrates where Kant's influence is at a kind of communal self-destructive zenith - with birthrates in many countries (not only in the West, also in Asia ... but not in Africa) well below replacement rates (NZ at 1.6 births per woman is one of a number of countries in similar situation), I was listening to a radio talkback session host trying to drum up listener engagement on this matter, and he cited a US survey of why people didn't want children and 57% said (from memory) Just because I don't.

Someone in my life who often mentioned Alistair McIntyre (along with other notable theologians such as Robert Jenson) was the Reverend Dr Bryden Black. Bryden, until a few years ago, was a regular commenter on Anglican Down Under. He was also a personal friend, a clerical colleague here in the Diocese, and a larger than life character with many luminous thoughts on a wide range of matters, not limited to theology and ecclesiology, because he owned a large sheep station in North Canterbury and thus had many things to say about the state of the economy, the weather and the quality of our political leaders.

Bryden died recently after a brief illness and his funeral will be at 1 pm Friday 6 June, 2025 at St. Christopher's church, Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch.

I will miss him!

This blog is Anglican Down Under which means a special interest in Anglican matters in the West Island. Having been earlier this year to the farewell for Philip Freier, the immediately past Archbishop of Melbourne, I have paid attention to the election of the next Archbishop. That election was held 22-23 May, this weekend past. On the slate were local candidates and one candidate from England. Since the latter was already a bishop - Ric Thorpe, Bishop of Islington in the Diocese of London, and bishop with responsibilty for supperoting church plants in the CofE - I wondered if he might do well in the election. My theory is that a bishop on an election slate has a head start since they already answer the question, Could this person be a bishop?, before getting to the question, Should this person be our bishop?

The result of the election is that Archbishop-elect Ric Thorpe will be the next Archbishop of Melbourne, with his installation being later this year.

I met Bishop Ric at Lambeth and enjoyed a brief conversation with him. Many  Down Under Anglicans, as well as members of other denominations, will have had much longer conversations with him, since he has been a frequent visitor to these parts, speaking at conferences on church planting and like subjects.

For some media statements/reactions, try here, here, here and here.

A Catholic Kind of Archbishop of Canterbury?

If last week I posted a few thoughts (with tongue in cheek) about Leo XIV being an Anglican kind of Pope, then this week let's have a go at the converse, A Catholic Kind of Archbishop of Canterbury? But no tongue in cheek.

First, I have noticed some Anglican concerns about how long it is taking to choose the next ABC, with unfavourable comparisons to the seped with which the new Pope was chosen. While there is much to learn from the Catholic church, and, yes, we could, arguably, be a bit quicker, let's acknowledge that it is very unlikely that Anglican (whether in the CofE itself or across the Communion) would ever agree to an electoral body for the next ABC which consisted of:

- only males

- only bishops

- about 80% membership picked by the previous ABC

I think not! We are not going to have A Catholic Kind of Process of Choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury Ever :)

Secondly, it may or may not be a bad thing that a bit of time has elapsed in the Anglican process.

Thirdly, since catholic means universal, we can observe that this time around (due to initiative by Archbishop Welby) there is greater representation of the Anglican Communion in the Crown Nomination Commission put together for the occasion (from 1 to 5 members). 

In the past week the process of choosing the five has been completed and it is a delight report that the Reverend Canon Isaac Beech, a New Zealander, a member of Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, has been chosen to represent Oceania (which, by the way, is not "the South Pacific" but South Pacific plus some of Asia plus North Pacific). See further here. 

For a complete overview of where the process is at, see what Andrew Goddard has to say here.

Fourthly, perhaps the bigger "catholic" question about the next ABC is whether the next ABC will have universal reach into and around the Communion, as well as into and around the CofE?

Consider the following issues:

- could we have a female ABC (as many in the CofE would like) v would that work well in wider Communion relationships (noting that some Anglican provinces do not ordain women as bishops)?

- if an English bishop is chosen, will that person connect with the CofE if not appropriately "moderate" v will that person connect with most of the Communion if not explicitly conservative, especially in connection with That Topic?

- what if a non-English (non-Welsh/Scottish/Irish) bishop were chosen, for example, an African bishop was chosen, who then would have greater acceptability to the wider Communion (the vast majority of which is African) v would any non-English bishops, from any part of the world, other than Great Britain and Ireland, be acceptable to the CofE as a whole?

Of course, fifthly, ultimately, the greatest "catholic" question re the new ABC is whether she or he will have ability to enhance unity in the CofE and in the Communion?

Incidentally, the title question to this post has a further aspect: customarily the ABC is successively evangelical ... catholic ... evangelical and it is now the catholic turn!

An Anglican Kind of Pope?

Okay, my tongue is somewhat planted in my cheek but let's see if there is a modicum of truth in my title.

Since last week's post, the smoke has burned white and Cardinal Robert Prevost, lately of Chicago, the Augustinians, Peru and recently domiciled in Rome with a red hat, is now Pope Leo XIV.

There seems much to like in Leo XIV, not least from a personal perspective, that he stands with Francis' critique of JD Vance on ordo amoris, which is also my position. Alternatively put, Leo may be an American but he is not a Trumpian American.

He also in statements since his election is affirming of the Francis way of modernising the church. Yet, liked by "traditional" Catholics, he is wearing all the papal vestments including the mozetta, and living in the papal apartments. 

What is in a name? Well, may be not that much if one's parents named one X or Y because "they liked" it. But there is quite a lot in a name chosen by popes because they set out to live up to and to live out that name. John Paul 1 and John Paul 2 wanted to capture the best of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI who straddled the (as it turned out) epochal decades of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, including Vatican II. Francis chose that name because of his "bias to the poor." Now we have Leo XIV, with specific resonance to Leo XIII, who wrote Rerum Novarum on the rights and duties of capital and labour, upholding the dignity of the labourer and challenging capitalists to live out obligations to their fellow humans. Sort of Marx without actual socialism (because not espousing collective ownership of the means of production). I haven't been to Peru but I can imagine that many years sent in Peru would point one to an encyclical such as Rerum Novarum.

There is more to the Leo XIII and (likely) Leo XIV connection than the Christianising of political economics. I leave that to other commentators. The point for now is that for those on the Catholic left, there is a lot to like in Leo XIII and for those on the Catholic right there is nothing to dislike in Leo XIII, and thus all (as I read across X and open up some of the articles tweets point to) have much to hope for in Leo XIV, including the chiefest critics of Francis.

Clearly, to this point in recitation of things said in the past few days, Leo XIV is very Catholic, so Catholic we might even say that it seems very unlikely that any Catholic will come up with the jibe (sometimes made about Francis) that the Pope was not Catholic!

We might also note - with much appreciation - that Leo XIV is a Christ-centred man of God, as Robert Imbelli draws out in this article.

Why bother then with a tongue in cheek remark about Leo being an Anglican kind of Pope?

Well, I have seen a number of commentators these few days past talk about Robert Prevost as a man not given to taking sides, but keen to walk a careful middle line. For instance, here is Dan Hitchens writing about "Leo XIV and the Best-Case Scenario" (meaning the best case for conservative Catholics to take heart even though Leo looks like "Continuity Francis" in certain respects):

"Trawling the Holy Father’s Twitter history, as one does, suggests a churchman who has made it to the age of sixty-nine without feeling any need to choose a side in the Catholic culture wars. Yes, he is outspoken on the rights of migrants; but he’s also seriously alarmed about the trans issue. Yes, he retweets the more progressive Catholic publications; but he also shares writings from the sturdily orthodox Cardinal George and Archbishop Chaput. Yes, he admires Pope Francis and likes the idea of “synodality”; but (unlike some people) he does not seem to regard either as a kind of inspired update on the gospel that calls into question what the Church has been doing for the last two thousand years."

How much more Anglican can you get than that? 

:)

(Update (after first comment below): Anglicans do not need to walk the middle line as individual members of the Anglican Communion. But Anglican bsihops do find themselves walking the middle line ...).

PS For a beautifully written account of aspects of the contemporary Catholic scene with respect to Pope Francis and now Pope Leo, see Colm Tobin's reflections-with-advice-at-the-end.