Evil in the World Today

I have been following the situations in Gaza (and the West Bank) and in Ukraine pretty closely, and have tried to keep awareness of the much less reported perturbations in Sudan. There is much commentary on the two wars at the forefront of Western media headlines and I acknowledge that one more comment (or set of comments) here won't make any difference to the appalling situations fellow human beings face hour by hour and day by day, not knowing whether they will be alive or dead at the end of any given day.

My reflections in recent weeks have been focused on the power of evil in these situations. For instance, there is the evil of deceit in respect of claims that "this territory is ours because of ...[history]", the deceit not only being that such claims involves controversion of historical facts, but also that such a claim entails justification for war, for killing people, for maiming people, for displacing people, for destroying homes, for taking away livelihoods, for starving people ... there is a long list of the evil of deceit justifying the evil of destruction. Evil multiplies evil.

There is also the evil of leadership viewing human life as expendable. Hamas could surrender, its leadership safe in safe havens outside of Gaza could stop using this war to gain some kind of moral and public relations advantage over Israel. Israel could have a different approach to democracy which would give extreme parties less leverage in government, a leverage which views human life in Gaza and the West Bank as expendable. Russia seems intentionally careless with the lives of its soldiers - each of whom is a human being, not an expendable unit of military prowess - in favour of what, by any count of Russia's great land mass, is a tiny gain to national esteem as a great nation. One could go on.

A further evil of deceit emerges with each attempt at either a ceasefire or an actual peace between foes. No side seems serious about ending the evil multiplying evil. Meetings are held, things are said, proposals are proposed. Shooting and bombing continues.

For Christians, tempted to despair, this is a call to prayer ... Your kingdom come ... Deliver us from evil ... For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against, rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

A note about authority

Some comments to last week's post about a shattered (?) Communion raised questions about how Anglicans understand "authority" (i.e. authority in relation to what we believe and to what we should not be believing, if we wish to continue to claim to be truly, genuinely Anglican).

This post is not any kind of attempt at a definitive answer to such questions but I offer a few thoughts or three.

1. I am not hugely interested in whether we have a notion of authority which deals to outliers among the bishops and eccentrics among the theologians. Embarrassing and difficult though these Anglican brothers and sisters have been and are, they have never represented some kind of highway to the future and trying to impose an authority-and-discipline structure on them sometimes was, or would have been debilitating. I would rather put my energies into teaching and training and forming spiritual and theological leaders among us who joyfully adhere to the creeds and the proclamation of Scripture.

2. I am hugely interested in what Christians believe "en masse" and what shifts in those beliefs we can discern as time marches on. Put in slightly different words, what use is an authority structure for belief if God's people do not subscribe to it? The "consensus fidelium" matters - what is it that we commonly sense matters or does not matter, should believe and act on or quietly refuse to believe and thus not act on? (I am also less than convinced that if only we in positions to teach the faith did a better job we would arrest all shifts in the consensus fidelium.)

3. I suggest one outstanding modern example of a belief with an authority structure behind it but not much influence on the actual lives of the people of God (i.e. the people of God who identify as Catholic) is Humanae Vitae in respect of use of artificial contraception.

4. I suggest the outstanding, all-time example for Christians of a shift in belief, without the authority of the church driving that shift forward is our attitude to slavery. Once accepted. Then debated. Then abolished. And not to be restored.

5. Anglicans may or may not have enough authority (and, sure, definitely do not, compared with the Roman Catholic church) but we are managing some changes in belief (best example, I think, is ordination of women) which have been and are a lead to other churches (as, indeed, other churches got there first before the first Anglicans did).

6. Where we go with the common sense of the people of God does need to match in some way or another with Scripture (which is a continuing authority in the life of God's people, on any account of authority). Abolishing slavery may not have been driven forward by reading the Bible on slavery, but it is not against the Bible to have done so - it is "with" the Bible on questions of human dignity, justice and mercy.* The ordination of women to be deacons, priests/presbyters and bishops may not square with one particular text, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, but it does square with Jesus' attitude to women, especially in John's Gospel.

7. On the question of women in the church, might we all, across all denominations, acknowledge that the tradition of the church includes the most appalling things the Church Fathers said about women, and if we are not ever again going to subscribe to those deprecations of women, might it be fair to ask whether we need to continue to subscribe to the traditions they fostered about male-only ordination?

Tertullian offers a mild example: "“Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”"

That is enough for now. Somehow Tertullian escaped censure and so, I hope, will I!

*In the end, if there is change across the church on a wider scale than at present about same sex partnerships, it will involve squaring with Scripture that such change squares with what Scripture says about human dignity, justice and mercy.

Shattered Communion? Repaired with new ecclesial superglue?

On the one hand [this week's news] ... the shattered Anglican Communion is once again shattered, this time by news that the new Archbishop of Wales is a woman in a partnership with a woman. Thinking Anglicans report here. The Other Cheek has comment here, including these thoughts:

"The Christians who believe that partnered gay and lesbian people should be treated equally with all others in the church will see a glass archiepiscopal ceiling being shattered – Vann is the first openly gay woman to head a province (national church) in the Anglican communion. They will sympathise with Vann’s three decades of secret keeping.

Evangelicals and others will also have seen a shattering – a further shattering of the Anglican Communion itself. For example, Sydney’s Archbishop Kanishka Raffel describes Vann’s election as “a grievous departure from the teaching of the Bible, inconsistent with the understanding of marriage as expressed in the formularies of the Anglican Church, and a tragic rejection of the words of Jesus.” Some theological conservatives will see the secret relationship as concealment."

On the other hand [not this week's news, but I did notice a mention of it] ... a new way to be the Communion - via a new leadership model for the Communion ... if the Communion is again "shattered", might we ask, "Is this the ecclesial superglue to hold us together albeit as a patched up, fracture lines showing where the glue re-joins us Communion?"

The key proposal here has been made by IASCUFO (Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order), see, e.g. report here, and the most recent guide to a recitation of its strengths/weaknesses that I can find on the internet is this round up of articles, published 2 June 2025, by The Living Church (i.e. listing articles published by this journal earlier in the year). From the IASCUFO report itself, when all the fine and necessary words are said about the theology of our life together as global Anglicans, we get this proposal:

"The second proposal suggests broadening how the meetings of the Instruments of Communion are called, convened, chaired, and presided over, in order to diversify the face of the Instruments of Communion. We propose (a) a rotating presidency of the Anglican Consultative Council between the five regions of the Communion, elected from the membership of the Primates’ Meeting by the same; and (b) an enhanced role for the Primates’ Standing Committee in the calling and convening of both Primates’ Meetings and the Lambeth Conference. Ceding the expectation that the Archbishop of Canterbury convenes and presides at all meetings of the Communion will enable the personal and pastoral aspects of the archbishop’s ministry to be given and received, and fits with the identity and ideals of the Anglican Communion in a post-colonial era. The leadership of the Communion should look like the Communion." 

This paragraph boils down to six words about possible change to Communion leadership: diminished role for Archbishop of Canterbury.

Is this a way forward to "mend the nets", to superglue shattered pieces of previously united pottery together? This is a genuine question since the intent is to find a new way forward for the life of the Communion but I have seen (e.g. GAFCON) criticism of the proposal; and - speaking for myself - I am not keen on a diminishment of the ABC's role in the Communion.

Back to the first part of the post, and this week's Welsh news. 

One thought has struck me: if such an appointment is "unconstitutional" for the Communion (against Scripture etc), is it time to look more creatively-theologically (than, e.g., ++Sydney has done) at how we treat those who (so to speak) are not constituted in their humanity to enter into heterosexual marriage?

Another thought is this: the issue of being shattered or repaired continues to be our capacity to accept there might be two reasonable, plausible, Christ-based-compassionate views on the matters homosexuality as a human phenomenon raises for Christians, held within a Communion which previously has demonstrated extraordinary capacity to hold two differing views in the one fellowship.

Addendum: As it happens, not long after composing the above paragraph, The Other Cheek reports on and discusses a couple of non-Anglican situations in Australia where some kind of "two integrities" challenge is being worked on - I post the link here without further comment on whether or not any other church Down Under is going about things in a helpful way.

John Henry Newman - Doctor of the Church

John Newman (1801-1890) - St. John Newman - is an interesting figure for Anglicans to reflect on, and this week he prompts a bit of reflection because a few days ago Pope Leo XIV has announced that John Newman - made a Cardinal by Leo XIII - is to be deemed a "doctor of the church" - a teacher of the highest rank, in other words.

Naturally it is not for an Anglican to comment on whether John Newman should or should not have received this accolade, but from afar there are a few observations to be made.

First, there is an Anglican kind of question which - with tongue slightly but not completely in cheek - asks whether John Newman was a doctor of the church when he was an Anglican priest, leading the then charge within the CofE to develop the catholic nature of the CofE, with vigorous writing of Tracts which sought to challenge some of the prevailing thinking of the CofE which, in summary, the Tractarians (Newman was not alone) saw as too much "Reformed" and not nearly enough "and Catholic."

Secondly, once Newman became a Catholic and then Catholic priest (1845), he undoubtedly contributed to Roman Catholic theology, and in doing so became one of a relatively small group of English Catholic theologians of note through the past 2000 years. His canonization and now naming as a doctor of the church will be of great encouragement to English Catholics.

Thirdly, we who lean to the evangelical side of being Anglican might take note of this paragraph in John Newman's Wikipedia entry:

"Although to the end of his life, Newman looked back on his conversion to Evangelical Christianity in 1816 as the saving of his soul, he began to shift away from his early Calvinism. As Eamon Duffy puts it, "He came to see Evangelicalism, with its emphasis on religious feeling and on the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, as a Trojan horse for an undogmatic religious individualism that ignored the Church's role in the transmission of revealed truth, and that must lead inexorably to subjectivism and skepticism."^[37]"

Fourthly, if you can make head or tale of these paragraphs about Newman, from First Things, then let us know in the comments:

"Rather than single out any particular contribution, I would point out that key ideas such as conscience, development, education, and the rival claims of faith and reason weave in and out of all Newman’s writings. It is as if he views reality in myriad ways in seeking to piece together the jigsaw of creation (and its Creator). He views reality in a highly intuitive manner and excels at holding disparate truths together in creative tension. It could be said that his approach to discerning truth is both East and West, and that it draws on both the Anglo-Saxon empirical tradition as well as the continental. 

This amounts to a new way of viewing the world. It brings in the religious imagination, sacramental vision, the personal, subjective, relational, and existential, in contradistinction to approaches that privilege the objective, systematic, and the scholastic—and which thereby complement the thinking of, inter alia, the Angelic Doctor."

There is nothing distinctively Catholic about Newman - if this is indeed his mode of thinking and arguing - and it seems like some kind of confusing approach to theology!

Fifthly, and finally, Newman is a most intriguing Catholic theologian because of a notion associated with him and often commented on, "the development of doctrine," defined in the Wikipedia article at that link in this way:

"Development of doctrine is a term used by John Henry Newman and other theologians influenced by him to describe the way Catholic teaching has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, while later statements of doctrine remain consistent with earlier statements."

Now, there is a lot going on in this conception of (shall we say) progress and change (which may not be actual change) of doctrine. Clearly some mischief could be made from it ("No, we haven't changed the doctrine, we have just developed it") and that mischief could be at the hands of Catholic and Protestant theologians. Clearly also, there is not time in my life to (er) develop a detailed response to this concept. Suffice to say, here, that making John Newman a doctor of the church, is fascinating and may be especially so some 200 years hence - should the Lord tarry, and I pray that He will not - when we find there is something going on in development [change???] of doctrine and Newman is invoked ... 

The Widening of God's Mercy

Yes, time for another book review, its only been a week or so since the last one here. Warning: I have a third review in this series coming up for the next blogpost.

My own attempts to do a bit of study leave work on "A Hermeneutic of Mercy" mean I must read and reflect on an important recent book, Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2024.

First big, personal question: does this book make my own project, to consider the Bible with a lens of mercy, redundant? Answer, No!

Second question, where does the title come from? The late Ron Smith, frequent commenter on this blog before his death, would have known the answer in an instant, for he often quoted here from Frederick William Faber's hymn in which these lines occur,

"There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea. // There's a kindness in God's justice which is more than liberty."

Third question - it might be your question - why did I use the word "important" to describe this book?

Well, what got a lot of people intrigued as the notice of the book's publication began to circulate, via their social media "facial/body language" (i.e. grunts and grimaces as expressed on social media), was that this son-and-father duo included a very well-known New Testament scholar, Richard B. Hays, and Richard Hays wrote a very famous, widely read and cited book, some thirty years back, on the New Testament and Christian morality: Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). The importance of this book was that it cogently set out a "compassionate conservative" discussion on various issues of the day, faithful to Scipture, acceptable to a large part of the evangelical world. It was and is the kind of book one could mention in support of this or that position on an issue and not have your church colleagues or academic common room sisters and brothers think you had taken a turn for some kind of narrow fundamentalist dead end. On the particular question of same-sex partnerships, Richard Hays, in his 1996 book, opined that (to cite from the 2024 book's epilogue, p. 223) he rejected the possibility of a positive acceptance of same-sex partnerships, e.g. via analogy with the changes of heart and mind narrated in Acts 10-11 and Acts 15,

"in the light of the New Testament's few but emphatic statements - especially Romans 1:24-27 - that portray same-sex intercourse as a tragic distortion of the created order."

Thus, the present 2024 book would be important, whether it doubled down on Hay's 1996 view or proposed a change of view. The news flashes before the book was actually published indicated the book's importance would lie with the latter.

Before I go any further I want to acknowledge that Richard Hays has been a luminous New Testament scholar for many reasons - books and articles and conference addresses - and sadly he died at the beginning of this year, on 3 January 2025, after a long illness. What we are discussing here is his last book, and one he worked on through a period when his health was not good. (I am not familar with Christopher Hays' work but he is also a scholar of note, in Old Testament studies.)

So, Richard Hays changed his mind between 1996 and 2024, and some of the book sets out clearly and movingly why he changed his mind, and includes his apology for getting things wrong in 1996. Part of what he offers in these parts of the book is his surprise that what he wrote in 1996 in the hope it would generate wide and healthy discussion among his book's audience, as a starting point for reflection and, potentially, change, in the reality of its reception became a last word rather than a first word. The tendency among readers of the 1996 book became, "I believe the NT says this about same-sex partnerships and, look, none other than Richard B. Hays agrees with me" rather than "Hays has really dug deep into the matter of same-sex partnerships and because of what he has to say, there is a lot to open up for further discussion."

Obviously the consequential question about the 2024 book, The Widening of God's Mercy, is, "Does its conclusion about favourability towards same-sex partnerships have a sound basis?" A change of mind is one thing, but given the solidity of Richard Hays' scholarship in his 1996, it is reasonable to approach this 2024 book with high expectations of a very sound basis for the now changed conclusion reached.

Below in a postscript I note a number of reviews I have read on the internet - some of them highlight significant possibilities that the basis is not as sound as one might expect. In fact, I have my own concerns, even if I am inclined to head more towards where Hays and Hays end up than those reviewers.

First up, there is quite an emphasis on God changing God's mind as a significant feature in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and one which should prise open our minds to the possibility of God changing God's mind (and thus we changing our minds) on the matter of same-sex partnerships.

I find this a curious line within the arguments of the book. Yes, God is reported as changing his mind in story after story in the Old Testament but there is a lot to unpack theologically (which I don't see Hays and Hays doing) as well as exegetically (as they do). "Changing one's mind" is a very human thing to do, and reporting God as changing God's mind makes God all too human, which is fine as far as story telling goes - a little anthropomorphism never underplayed dramatic moments in the divine drama - but prompts big theological questions given that one fine way to describe God in all God's Godness is "the Absolute", "the Uncaused Cause", "the Rock" - "the Immoveable Mover" and so forth. What kind of god is the "God Whom We Make Much of Changing God's Mind" (per the Hayses' book)? Quite possibly that God is not the God of Jesus Christ - the God, that is, who works through history on a determined and unchanging plan (see Ephesians 1). Further, God changing God's mind could work more than one way: Hays and Hays think God has changed his mind on same-sex partnerships, in a merciful, accepting of those partnerships direction. But what if the same God changes his mind back again?

Secondly, there is a strong emphasis on the widening of God's mercy to include ever more groups of people, aptly summarised towards the end of the book, p. 214, in this way:

"Third, and most decisively, the vision that informs this book rhymes  with the Bible’s pervasive portrayals of God’s ever-expanding mercy. To put this in more technical theological language: The acceptance of sexual minorities in the church re-enacts a narrative pattern that is pervasive in the Bible. There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances."

But this approach does not touch a pretty standard conservative objection to acceptance of same-sex partnerships, that they are sinful, and so, although God loves LGBTQ people and wishes to accept them into the household of faith, they must repent of sin, like expectations of all other people groups - eunuchs, gentiles, tax collectors (noting the repentance of Zacchaeus) and other sinners.

So, two pretty big objections to the ways the arguments in this book proceed. Is there something to like, to note as a strength or strengths? I think there is.

Let's start with an observation towards the end of the book, p. 220:

"Ultimately, the meaning of scripture is shaped by its reception in communities of faith."

Is it not the case that in many communities of faith - not all by any means - there is an understanding of LGBTQ people and of scripture (especially its themes of mercy and justice, of not judging and of reckoning with the speck in my own eye etc) which judges that the meaning of scripture is that there is a place for LGBTQ people in the household of faith, including those in same-sex partnerships. Whether or not arguments are good, bad or indifferent towards this conclusion about inclusion, communities of faith are shaping how they see scripture on this issue of our day. To be sure, Hays and Hays support this direction of travel, but might they have made more of the reception of scripture and less of (say) God changing God's mind? That is, might more have been made of how the reception of Scripture by communities of faith has led to change in the collective mind of such communities? The obvious example here is slavery. The Bible gives no indication that God has changed God's mind on slavery (as a tolerated institution in various societies) but since the mid nineteenth century and the abolition of slavery in the USA, no Christian community today thinks slavery is a good thing. To be sure, Hays and Hays do reflect on the change of disposition to slavery by churches. My question is whether more might have been made of this and less of God changing God's mind.

If so then they could also have made more of something they do say about the presence of LGBTQ Christians in the church today, p. 212:

"Second, in many cases where the church has changed its understanding of God’s will, the impetus for change has come from careful and compassionate attention to human experience. Why have we rejected slavery? Because we see the suffering it causes, its cruelty and contradiction  of human wholeness. Why have many churches rejected the subordination of women to me and supported their full inclusion in church leadership? Because we see in our experience the arbitrary way in which it denies and stifles the evident gifts and graces of half the human race. For many the evidence of experience outweighs the inertia of tradition and the force of a few biblical prooftexts on these questions. In the same way, we see LGBTQ Christians all around us who are already contributing their gifts and graces to the work of God in the world and in the church.

When we form moral judgments, we inevitably and rightly pay attention to the evidence of experience. With regard to human sexuality, we have seen over the past generation a cumulatively increasing body of evidence that sexual orientation is (in a way that remains mysterious) deeply ingrained in individuals and not susceptible to change. And for human beings in general, the wisdom of Genesis 2:18 applies, regardless of sexual orientation: It is not good that we should be alone. Some individuals may have a special vocation to celibacy, but that cannot be imposed as a blanket requirement on an entire class of humans."

Two things are important in these paragraphs. First, that for many communities of faith reshaping the meaning of scripture, an impetus is recognition of "the gifts and graces" given by God to the LGBTQ Christians in their midst. Secondly, if we conclude that sexual orientation is "not susceptible to change" does that make a difference to how we interpret scripture in relation to LGBTQ Christians in our communities of faith, because, to take up something else also mentioned, "It is not good that we should be alone" (Genesis 2:18)? In what way(s) do we who read scripture responsibly and with a view to acting mercifully and justly, offer a way forward for Genesis 2:18 to mean something for LGBTQ Christians? I suggest Hays and Hays could have made more of these considerations.

Finally (at least for now - there is, I think, more to say in the book I am writing), Hays and Hays are on the right track to talk about God's ever widening mercy. In the words of one of the most beautiful prayers of all time, the Prayer of Humble Access, God is the God "whose nature is always to have mercy." 

One of the great strengths of a truly great book, Reading Genesis by Marilynn Robinson, is the way it brings out God's consistent mercy: Adam and Eve sin, but do not die; Cain murders Abel, but he may not be killed; humanity is dire, but survives the Flood via Noah and his family; Abraham and Sarah lack faith in God, but God persists with them; Jacob supplants Esau but God can work with Jacob; Joseph's brothers are very badly behaved towards Joseph, but Joseph forgives them - anticipating Christ himself - because the brothers do not know what they are doing. Scripture just keeps going like that: God is merciful and true, compassionate and just all the way through the Old Testament. Christ comes into the world, full of grace and truth - of course, because God's mercy sends Jesus into the world, to make a way for we sinners to be made just. That mercy, strongly present in the OT, especially in Isaiah (as Hays and Hays repeatedly point out), is expressed in the NT, and in fulfilment of OT prophecies, with the extension of God's love from Israel outwards into the whole world and including all people, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women. God is more merciful that we can imagine; we have less imagination than the imagination which would fully understand how merciful God is.

Now, if I do not think Hays and Hays have got the connection between "mercy" and "LGBTQ Christians" correct, I do think they are correct that there is a connection. It is part of the purpose of my beyond-blog writing to explore that connection. So, no more from me for now on that connection!

Postscript:

Incidentally, if you want some "proper" book reviews, there is no shortage of them on the internet, some by considerable names in the realm of scholarship on biblical sexuality, and these are them which I found in a recent search:

https://reformedjournal.com/2024/10/30/the-widening-of-gods-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays/ by Ryan Boes

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/widening-gods-mercy/ by Rebecca McLaughlin

https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/review-of-the-widening-of-god-s-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays by Preston Sprinkle

https://freethinkingministries.com/the-widening-of-gods-mercy-book-review/ by Josh Klein

https://cbmw.org/2024/08/28/a-review-of-the-widening-of-gods-mercy-sexuality-within-the-biblical-story-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays/ by Thomas Schreiner

https://theaquilareport.com/the-widening-of-gods-mercy-sexuality-within-the-biblical-story-fails-as-serious-study/ by Robert A.J. Gagnon

https://www.livingout.org/resources/posts/227/is-gods-mercy-wide-enough-for-me by Andrew Bunt

https://hermeneutrix.com/2024/10/10/on-gods-widening-mercy/ by Heather Anne Thiessen

https://outreach.faith/2024/10/book-on-bible-and-sexuality-long-on-mercy-but-short-on-scholarship/ by Fr Joseph R. Upton

Hint: every review above by a "conservative evangelical" is a negative review.

Primatial Statement of Solidarity on Gaza Church Strike [18 July 2025]

The Archbishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia 

18 July 2025 

Primatial Statement of Solidarity on Gaza Church Stike 

The Gospel reminds us that God's love is generous and without limit. Jesus showed us how to love deeply and sacrificially, and we are called to follow in his footsteps, caring for others and standing together in unity. 

This morning, that call feels more urgent than ever. In Gaza, the Holy Family Church and the only Catholic church in the region, was struck by a tank shell. Three lives were lost. Several others were wounded, including the parish priest, Father Gabriel Romanelli. 

This comes in the same week as the killing of Dr Ahmad Qandil, a dedicated surgeon at Al Ahli Anglican Hospital. This is the eighth time Al Ahli’s staA or facilities have been hit.  

So today, we stand in solidarity. We mourn with our Catholic brothers and sisters. We remember the more than 1,500 healthcare workers who have died since the conflict began, and the countless lives lost in both Palestine and Israel. 

In the midst of this devastation, Archbishop Hosam Naoum of the Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem reminds us that faith can endure, even through suffering. 

Speaking recently at the Church of England’s General Synod, he painted a sobering picture: “Medical supplies are in short supply. The food distribution system is horrifying, with three sites open one hour a day for two million people. It looks to me like the Hunger Games.” 

He was clear about what is needed: “Advocacy is urgently needed for Israel’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, as its current practices are unacceptable.” He called for “no bombing of hospitals, lifting of the siege, restoration of humanitarian supplies, including food and medicine, under UN supervision, no targeting of civilians, especially emergency workers and medical staA and the release of all hostages and captives.”  

We invite you to join us in prayer, in advocacy, in generosity. Speak to your local Member of Parliament. Support Anglican Missions appeals. And let us, together, be a people who choose compassion, justice and love in the face of suffering. 

May we all follow the path of God’s eternal love. 

Archbishop Don Tamihere Primate & Archbishop

Archbishop Sione Ulu’ilakepa Primate & Archbishop 

Archbishop Justin Duckworth Primate & Archbishop                    

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia  

Te Hāhi Mihinare ki Aotearoa, ki Niu Tīreni, ki Ngā Moutere o te Moana Nui a Kiwa

I post this statement, made Friday 18 July 2025, today, Saturday 19 July 2025 in lieu of a post on Monday 21 July 2025. Peter.

PRAY FOR PEACE, FOR JUSTICE, FOR HEALING, FOR AN END TO VIOLENCE AS A WAY TO ATTEMPT TO SOLVE ANY SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

It doesn't get much better than this

Recently Teresa and I had an opportunity to travel in South Westland. We set off at the end of a week of wild weather and wondered whether we would strike snow or slips on the road or both. To our immense and very pleasant surprise, we woke up in Fox Glacier township to a perfect blue sky day with not a breathe of wind.

That meant we were able to visit nearby Lake Matheson with reasonable expectations of the picture postcard view that lake is famous for, as illustrated by a photo I was able to take:

For most of that morning, touring around the Fox Glacier district, we were constantly in view of snow capped mountains, in particular the two highest mountains in NZ, Tasman (on left in photo) and Aoraki/Cook (on right). The combination of snow capped mountains in the background and bush shrouded hill and grassed lowlands is unparalleled in beauty elsewhere in NZ (in my humble opinion). 

We were blessed!

And the day continued in that vein as we drove southwards towards the fabled land of Haast, with its mighty and outstandingly picturesque rivers (Haast, Waiatoto and Arawhata [photo above]) and reached the literal end of the West Coast road at Jacksons Bay. Perfect sunshine, zero cloud, no wind. It doesn't get much better than that.

We were blessed!

Life seems incredibly simple on such a day and in such an environment. God created the earth and the sun, life is glorious, enjoyable and straightforward.

Of course, that is not all there is to life. As we left the Haast, driving up to Haast Pass to reach our central Otago abode for the night, we headed into overcast weather and incredible cold the next morning just 3 degrees C, without any mitigating sunshine! Back in Jacksons Bay, we read how the first European settlers there, lured by the promise of land and a new life on it, found the going treacherous and so difficult, that within three or four years, all but four families had left the place to find an actually better life in other parts of NZ. Haast on a sunny day betrays no clues that it is one of the wettest places in NZ! Nor that over the Pass might be clouded coldness.

Also, of course, while we had a glorious day last weekend, the global mayhem of our day, with its continuing slaughter of innocent civilians, including children, was as persistent as the rain on most other days in South Westland.

Is there hope amidst the dark cloudy weather of our disputatious and dangerous day?

While travelling, I have been reading a fascinating book by Lamorna Ash, Don't Forget We're Here Forever: A New Generation's Search for Religion (Bloomsbury, 2025) - available, when I return it, later this week, from the Theology House Library, Christchurch.

Lamorna is a c. 30 young woman, exploring love and life (bisexually), as a journalist and writer, whose search for meaning and order to life prompts her to seek out a variety of Christians and Christian experiences (for instance: a Christianity Explained course, spiritual retreats, frequenting Quaker services, settling into a north London Cofe parish) - her journalistic endeavours being and becoming part of an intensely personal spiritual quest and, ultimately, transformative encounter with Christ.

"I know you don't need religion to keep awake [alert to what is happening - contrast the disciples falling asleep in Gethsemane], or to be a good person - often the opposite is true. But I think I might need it for that. I think I might need the ritual of Sunday worship to discover the courage to become the version of myself I would like to be.

I choose to hold my nerve. I choose to become a Christian with my scepticism about organised religion intact, ... I believe I come closest to knowing something of God in my interactions with other people, the people I love, the strangers I meet. It's not a thin place. It's my church, in my city and I want to stay here, where heaven is right in reach. ... I believe the God of the religion which is my heritage might have come down to Earth as a man 2000 years ago to walk alongside us and help us with our terrible pain because I cannot think of a more beautiful story for how a god might behave" (pp. 290-91).

In part the significance of Lamorna's book is not only about her own journey but the current - green shoots appearing - drift in the UK away from secularization of society towards God, even towards "organized religion":

"What I have noticed is that the people around me, my awkward generation, just now on our way out of youth, have started discussing faith more seriously than we once did" (p. 288).

Life is beautiful. Life is complex and frustrating. There is hope. We all need to find the most beautiful story of God coming to Earth to walk alongside us to help us become who we are meant to be.