Now this is a very true word from the Bishop of Durham, and not only caught my eye but tugged at my heart, for once I lived in the Diocese of Durham (and ministered a little, but my main role there was to study):
"I would love to see the diocese turn the corner. The north-east of England, apart from some spots of regeneration, is still pretty depressed economically. Yes, there are some bright spots and some good things happening but there’s lots of the old post-industrial depression. I say to my people again and again, “If the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, it is just as true in the back streets of South Shields as in the leafy lanes of Salisbury.” Why is it that when you advertise a parish job in rural Wiltshire you have 30 applicants and a shortlist of five people who would all be super, but when we advertise the identical-looking job in County Durham we get either only one or two applicants? I’m passionate about the north-east, I want to see the churches flourish. They’re great people, it’s a great place. God is doing things, we need people to come and join in."
From an interview with Bishop Tom Wright published here. (H/T Fulcrum Forum).
Monday, May 4, 2009
ACC has the power to draw the circle of unity tighter or to unleash the dogs of division
Mark Harris of Preludium offers an interesting, possibly even strange post on the ACC (meeting as we speak in Jamaica) and the Covenant.
He is concerned that the Covenant in its Ridley Cambridge form (i.e. the most recent draft) will be offered to the Communion on the basis of 'if you wish, sign up to it; if you do not, do not; but we are not going to have (some kind of) meeting in which the Communion agrees in a majority vote to accept or reject the Covenant.' One paragraph of the post reads thus:
"The real problem - and it is devastating - is that by making this a matter for individual church "sign-up" rather than a substantive agreement among the churches of the Anglican Communion, the several circles of pan-Anglican engagement are confirmed. And that being so eventually those of us not part of the Anglican Covenant Communion will be in a separate ecclesial community from those who are."
I think this is an interesting, if not indeed strange post because in reckoning with the potentially divisive consequences of this particular means of offering the Covenant to the individual member churches of the Communion, Mark Harris seems not to reckon with either the division already among us, or the potentially greater division should nothing further be done about the Covenant.
Nor, indeed, does he seem to take account of the consequence if the Communion were to find a way to meet so that a vote could be taken. Anything short of a unanimous vote for the Covenant would be a disaster. (There is, of course, no satisfactory manner of the Communion meeting in all houses of bishops, clergy, and laity, and puh-lease do not tell me it is the ACC which constitutes this meeting. If you go here you will see the membership of the ACC. Note that some member churches have more members attending than others, and that lil' ol' ACANZP has as many members present as any other Anglican church!!).
I am confident that the ACC, especially because His Eminence the Wise One of Canterbury is present, will proceed with due gravity in its awareness of all consequences lying before it. I have precisely the same confidence that the ACC in the face of most difficult quandaries re 'the best of all possible outcomes' and the 'least worst of all possible futures' will decide to proceed in this way: it will draw the circle of unity around the Communion a little bit tighter.
Just how tight will be revealed when member churches make their response to ... whatever it is we will be asked to respond to.
He is concerned that the Covenant in its Ridley Cambridge form (i.e. the most recent draft) will be offered to the Communion on the basis of 'if you wish, sign up to it; if you do not, do not; but we are not going to have (some kind of) meeting in which the Communion agrees in a majority vote to accept or reject the Covenant.' One paragraph of the post reads thus:
"The real problem - and it is devastating - is that by making this a matter for individual church "sign-up" rather than a substantive agreement among the churches of the Anglican Communion, the several circles of pan-Anglican engagement are confirmed. And that being so eventually those of us not part of the Anglican Covenant Communion will be in a separate ecclesial community from those who are."
I think this is an interesting, if not indeed strange post because in reckoning with the potentially divisive consequences of this particular means of offering the Covenant to the individual member churches of the Communion, Mark Harris seems not to reckon with either the division already among us, or the potentially greater division should nothing further be done about the Covenant.
Nor, indeed, does he seem to take account of the consequence if the Communion were to find a way to meet so that a vote could be taken. Anything short of a unanimous vote for the Covenant would be a disaster. (There is, of course, no satisfactory manner of the Communion meeting in all houses of bishops, clergy, and laity, and puh-lease do not tell me it is the ACC which constitutes this meeting. If you go here you will see the membership of the ACC. Note that some member churches have more members attending than others, and that lil' ol' ACANZP has as many members present as any other Anglican church!!).
I am confident that the ACC, especially because His Eminence the Wise One of Canterbury is present, will proceed with due gravity in its awareness of all consequences lying before it. I have precisely the same confidence that the ACC in the face of most difficult quandaries re 'the best of all possible outcomes' and the 'least worst of all possible futures' will decide to proceed in this way: it will draw the circle of unity around the Communion a little bit tighter.
Just how tight will be revealed when member churches make their response to ... whatever it is we will be asked to respond to.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Lord is Good
Out to Mapua today. There are few more pleasant places to live than Mapua - sunny, seaside village in easy distance of the bigger smoke of Richmond and Nelson (themselves perfectly wonderful places to live). A few years back the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists and Pentecostals got together to form Hills Community Church. They sold one church, kept two others (on opposite sides of the road in Mapua), and had a vision for a 'new church'. Fast forward past the sale of the Anglican church, and on that side of the road, today, a brand new church was dedicated with due ecumenical ceremony, packed with people including plenty of families. The church building itself is nearly as fabulous as the people - beautifully designed, light, airy, with a magnificent wooden cross in the centre of the wall facing the congregation.
The Lord is good!
The Lord is good!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Eviscerated Church
With H/T to Graham Kings (Fulcrum), I alert readers to this sobering analysis by Greg Griffiths (Stand Firm) of the future of Anglican/Episcopal Christianity in the USA. Excerpt below. One reason I post these kind of things relating to TEC is this: I maintain a set of conservative Anglican convictions because I am convinced they are correct - Scriptural based and theologically sound. But, speaking pragmatically, I feel immune to some attractions of liberal convictions (e.g. if only we tolerated more we would have less battles among ourselves) because I see weak and dying congregations across Anglican land where these are espoused. There is a combination of such convictions which - from a distance - I sense many leaders in TEC espouse, and which in a post modern liberal democracy looks attractive, but which has the feel of one of the longer suicide notes a church could write. I am determined that ACANZP, which at times seems much influenced by TEC, does not make the same mistake.
Anyway, back to Greg Griffith's article. He is bold, honest, and fearless. Read on:
"As TEC drifts further and further from the Christian faith, it will find that fewer and fewer of those standing with it now will be willing - or even able - to stand with it in the future. Never mind the theological disagreements; dioceses in obvious financial strain now - of which there are many - will soon simply begin to collapse. We’re all aware that Kevin Forrester, for example, has predicted that Northern Michigan will be bankrupt in five to seven years. Granted, Northern Michigan is a tiny diocese, with only about 700 people in church on an average Sunday across the entire diocese, but who’s noticed that the Diocese of Michigan - the big one - is in the red to the tune of $1,000,000? Newark, ground zero for the revisionist plan, is on life support and the long-term prognosis is dismal.
They’re not the only ones, obviously, and what we’re likely talking about in the next several years are entire dioceses declaring bankruptcy, and/or merging with other nearby diocese, some failing themselves, some perhaps in better financial shape, but rarely in ideal circumstances. As this collapse continues, diocesan assessments will necessarily fall; 815’s operating budget will continue to shrink; its ability to litigate will suffer, and thus the threat it is able to dangle above the heads of dissident dioceses and parishes will diminish. I for one don’t believe that it will be able to continue this litigious terrorism much longer.
Left to implode with no action or preparation on the part of the orthodox, this will result in a huge mess that will make the current mess positively neat and tidy by comparison. I am under no illusions that TEC is reformable in the sense that what we now know as “The Episcopal Church” can be salvaged. I never have been. I have believed for years, and seen nothing to suggest that I might be wrong, that the Episcopal Church as we knew it in the 1970's is no longer, and that TEC as we know it today will be gone in 20 years. My prediction is that between ACNA, CP, and other bodies both existing and yet-to-exist, as well as the unorganized orthodox remnant of TEC, there will perhaps coalesce a unified Anglican church in the West. Whether it will be organized along the current geographic model, or along lines of theology and affinity, is impossible to predict at this point, and perhaps it won’t happen at all; perhaps Anglicanism as a coherent Christian witness in the West is terminally ill and has no hope of recovering, and we just don’t see it yet. But if it’s going to happen, it will happen because the orthodox have made sufficient preparations, early enough, to deal with the coming collapse of TEC."
The whole is here.
Anyway, back to Greg Griffith's article. He is bold, honest, and fearless. Read on:
"As TEC drifts further and further from the Christian faith, it will find that fewer and fewer of those standing with it now will be willing - or even able - to stand with it in the future. Never mind the theological disagreements; dioceses in obvious financial strain now - of which there are many - will soon simply begin to collapse. We’re all aware that Kevin Forrester, for example, has predicted that Northern Michigan will be bankrupt in five to seven years. Granted, Northern Michigan is a tiny diocese, with only about 700 people in church on an average Sunday across the entire diocese, but who’s noticed that the Diocese of Michigan - the big one - is in the red to the tune of $1,000,000? Newark, ground zero for the revisionist plan, is on life support and the long-term prognosis is dismal.
They’re not the only ones, obviously, and what we’re likely talking about in the next several years are entire dioceses declaring bankruptcy, and/or merging with other nearby diocese, some failing themselves, some perhaps in better financial shape, but rarely in ideal circumstances. As this collapse continues, diocesan assessments will necessarily fall; 815’s operating budget will continue to shrink; its ability to litigate will suffer, and thus the threat it is able to dangle above the heads of dissident dioceses and parishes will diminish. I for one don’t believe that it will be able to continue this litigious terrorism much longer.
Left to implode with no action or preparation on the part of the orthodox, this will result in a huge mess that will make the current mess positively neat and tidy by comparison. I am under no illusions that TEC is reformable in the sense that what we now know as “The Episcopal Church” can be salvaged. I never have been. I have believed for years, and seen nothing to suggest that I might be wrong, that the Episcopal Church as we knew it in the 1970's is no longer, and that TEC as we know it today will be gone in 20 years. My prediction is that between ACNA, CP, and other bodies both existing and yet-to-exist, as well as the unorganized orthodox remnant of TEC, there will perhaps coalesce a unified Anglican church in the West. Whether it will be organized along the current geographic model, or along lines of theology and affinity, is impossible to predict at this point, and perhaps it won’t happen at all; perhaps Anglicanism as a coherent Christian witness in the West is terminally ill and has no hope of recovering, and we just don’t see it yet. But if it’s going to happen, it will happen because the orthodox have made sufficient preparations, early enough, to deal with the coming collapse of TEC."
The whole is here.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Help! The Martians are coming to takeover the world
Trawling around, I have discovered that Seattle will be the new Rome; Mark Driscoll the next pope; simulcast preaching via satellite tomorrow's infallible teaching method. Yes, Mars Hill is going global, coming soon to neighbourhood near you.
Sydney thinks it is not the greatest of ideas that Mars Hill will church plant in Australia by the end of this year.
I agree.
It's a bad idea: God's plan is for the unity of human society. Yet Another Church does nothing for that plan.
It's a sad idea: the website says via its PDF (large 5 Mb download) that it's about establishing a legacy.
"Many Mars Hill leaders have committed to serve this church for life, and our God-sized mission is just beginning. But one Hundred years from now, when all of us are gone, what will become of Mars Hill Church? The elders are laboring to build a lasting legacy in four primary areas:"
I wonder how it feels to be a Christian leader sensing the need to establish a legacy. It must be sweet to be so "envisioned" that one has a "God-sized" mission. Though, what on earth (or Mars) does that mean? We are all by virtue of our discipleship involved in the missio dei - if that is not a God-sized mission then what is?
Sneaky thought: NZ is pretty small, perhaps they won't see us on the map.
PS Yes, I have read the line "whether we are your local church or an available supplement that serves other churches". Sounds nice and friendly. But read on: "Our hope is that thousands of people would partner with us in this effort, making Mars Hill Global a truly unified, worldwide movement of the Holy Spirit."
Er, would that be unity around the truth that the Song of Songs promotes Mark Driscoll's special teaching about the secret to a really, really happy marriage which is not something to mention in front of the children or your mother-in-law?
And why is Mars Hill Global hope centred on itself becoming a truly unified, worldwide movement of the Holy Spirit? I had read in Scripture of this thing called the church of God ...
Perhaps it has been superseded.
I am always the last to hear the really important stuff!
Sydney thinks it is not the greatest of ideas that Mars Hill will church plant in Australia by the end of this year.
I agree.
It's a bad idea: God's plan is for the unity of human society. Yet Another Church does nothing for that plan.
It's a sad idea: the website says via its PDF (large 5 Mb download) that it's about establishing a legacy.
"Many Mars Hill leaders have committed to serve this church for life, and our God-sized mission is just beginning. But one Hundred years from now, when all of us are gone, what will become of Mars Hill Church? The elders are laboring to build a lasting legacy in four primary areas:"
I wonder how it feels to be a Christian leader sensing the need to establish a legacy. It must be sweet to be so "envisioned" that one has a "God-sized" mission. Though, what on earth (or Mars) does that mean? We are all by virtue of our discipleship involved in the missio dei - if that is not a God-sized mission then what is?
Sneaky thought: NZ is pretty small, perhaps they won't see us on the map.
PS Yes, I have read the line "whether we are your local church or an available supplement that serves other churches". Sounds nice and friendly. But read on: "Our hope is that thousands of people would partner with us in this effort, making Mars Hill Global a truly unified, worldwide movement of the Holy Spirit."
Er, would that be unity around the truth that the Song of Songs promotes Mark Driscoll's special teaching about the secret to a really, really happy marriage which is not something to mention in front of the children or your mother-in-law?
And why is Mars Hill Global hope centred on itself becoming a truly unified, worldwide movement of the Holy Spirit? I had read in Scripture of this thing called the church of God ...
Perhaps it has been superseded.
I am always the last to hear the really important stuff!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Changing seasons, challenging times
Thanks to two correspondents I have been alerted to two fascinating pieces.
One is by John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore College, Sydney, openly, honestly, and courageously fronting challenges the College faces, including criticism about it's "formula" (e.g. constrained to: residential, four year, full-time study), it's (alleged) lack of connectivity with Sydney's multi-cultural population, and with changing values among younger generations of Christian leaders.
The other is by Mark Galli, writing in Christianity Today, making a telling point that the keys to numerical growth of churches do not lie in a simple explanations such as "conservative theology, narrowly defined = growth". I will not spoil other things he has to say which are thought-provoking.
Between them the two pieces represent conservative Christianity reflecting in a profound way on change in society, culture, and church.
Not a case of 'read and enjoy' but 'read and reflect and, as the case may be, act'!
One is by John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore College, Sydney, openly, honestly, and courageously fronting challenges the College faces, including criticism about it's "formula" (e.g. constrained to: residential, four year, full-time study), it's (alleged) lack of connectivity with Sydney's multi-cultural population, and with changing values among younger generations of Christian leaders.
The other is by Mark Galli, writing in Christianity Today, making a telling point that the keys to numerical growth of churches do not lie in a simple explanations such as "conservative theology, narrowly defined = growth". I will not spoil other things he has to say which are thought-provoking.
Between them the two pieces represent conservative Christianity reflecting in a profound way on change in society, culture, and church.
Not a case of 'read and enjoy' but 'read and reflect and, as the case may be, act'!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Episcopal Church or The Evasive Church??
Philip Turner (eminent American theologian) is one sharp thinker. He puts the screws on a few folk in TEC with a series of questions about the recent ignoble publication of emails concerning a Communion Partners statement (noted in a post here a few days ago). Here are two questions:
"8. Given the frequently repeated objection that a diocese is in fact not free to sign onto the covenant even if The Episcopal Church refuses to do so, and given the fact that The Episcopal Church is defined in its Constitution as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the claim being made that a diocese that wishes to remain in communion with Canterbury even in circumstances where The Episcopal Church status has been compromised must simply submit to seriously impaired or broken communion?
9. To put the question another way, if The Episcopal Church were to refuse to sign the covenant and its status in relation to Canterbury and the other Provinces of the Communion were compromised, is it being suggested that dioceses that believe their Catholic character to have become questionable should not seek an uncompromised relationship?"
What can I do while I wait for answers?
"8. Given the frequently repeated objection that a diocese is in fact not free to sign onto the covenant even if The Episcopal Church refuses to do so, and given the fact that The Episcopal Church is defined in its Constitution as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the claim being made that a diocese that wishes to remain in communion with Canterbury even in circumstances where The Episcopal Church status has been compromised must simply submit to seriously impaired or broken communion?
9. To put the question another way, if The Episcopal Church were to refuse to sign the covenant and its status in relation to Canterbury and the other Provinces of the Communion were compromised, is it being suggested that dioceses that believe their Catholic character to have become questionable should not seek an uncompromised relationship?"
What can I do while I wait for answers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)