My understanding of TEC in relationship to the wider Communion is that it includes a significant movement who want TEC to do its best in this relationship to demonstrate that it is a fine upstanding Anglican church. That movement led to resolution BO33 (see a post below re an update on another movement's push re BO33). I also understand that there are those in TEC who are willing to say, If the Communion will not walk with us - sad - but we will walk where we are walking, even if that means walking apart.
Then there seem to be some in TEC who may not care one whit either way, since their walk is so ... out there ... in a weird direction.
Like this story of the retired TEC bishop (but actively in charge of a San Francisco church) working on his memoirs, including personal reflections on the contributions entheogens have made to his mystical experiences.
Like me you may not have known what 'entheogens' are. (The word literally refers to generating the divine within). Here is the handy Wikipedia on Entheogens.
Well, ACANZP has its critics too - that we are liberal etc. But I cannot think of one Anglican down under I know who would take entheogens or feed them to their cats!
I wonder if Otis Charles has an idea at all how difficult he makes the task of the movement in TEC who are really, really trying to assist TEC to do its best in its relationship with the Communion?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Theological studies too focused on Christianity
Tommy Wasserman, textual critic and contributor to one of the premiere theological blogs (IMHO), Evangelical Textual Criticism, has posted on a report of the National Board of Higher Education in Sweden. He is fearful of what the report will mean for the academic study of theology in Sweden if its recommendations are followed:
"Many institutions (including the three free standing seminaries, and even some of the large faculties like Lund university) were severely criticized for being too focused on Christianity, etc, etc. The board threatens to recommend the government to withdraw the rights to grant degrees, if the institutions do not change a lot of things (our seminary will loose even the right to grant a basic degree in theology, although most of our teachers are PhD's)."
The report in full, in Swedish, is here.
Thankfully our Swedenophile government here in NZ is no longer in power!
"Many institutions (including the three free standing seminaries, and even some of the large faculties like Lund university) were severely criticized for being too focused on Christianity, etc, etc. The board threatens to recommend the government to withdraw the rights to grant degrees, if the institutions do not change a lot of things (our seminary will loose even the right to grant a basic degree in theology, although most of our teachers are PhD's)."
The report in full, in Swedish, is here.
Thankfully our Swedenophile government here in NZ is no longer in power!
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Order in the Trinity (1)
At last I return to something I said I would do, offer further comment on the question of order in the Trinity, sparked by some previous postings re the notion of 'eternal subordination' in the Trinity (e.g. here), and with an eye on questions of 'order in creation' (whether or not this is linked to order in the Trinity). In this post I will say nothing about the Trinity per se, but attempt to say something about 'order' in our experience of everyday life!
Does order in a group imply subordination of one member of an ordered group to another according to that ordering?
Not in every instance. A cricket team publishes its batting order at the beginning of an innings. The no 1 batsman is not necessarily either the best batsman in the team nor the captain. (Though it is normally the case in a cricket team that the no 11 batsman is the worst batsman - NZ cricket over the years producing some particularly egregious examples!!) We might also note that the best batsman is not necessarily made the captain, nor the most valuable player (on average) to the team, who might be the all rounder or the spinner.
Sometimes in parliaments the member who has been a member for longest is accorded great respect as the 'most senior' member, but that person may have no role of power as, e.g., speaker, prime minister, leader of the house, leader of the opposition. Similarly in some church governments: in ACANZP, for example, the most senior bishop by date of ordination is not automatically elected Archbishop/Primate, yet should a vacancy occur in that role, the senior bishop fills that automatically until a new election is carried out.
Is a role definitive of order?
It can be, but roles are not everything in a relationship, especially when they change according to context. Suppose my doctor were my opening bowler when I am the captain of the cricket team. I would expect him to bowl as I direct (albeit with consultation) and when setting a field to accept, ultimately, my judgement. But if I twisted my ankle chasing a ball and he said I should go off the field to put ice on it, I should do what he says! Or, as a father of teenage children I expect them to do what I say (albeit in vain at times); but one day, should I reach old age, I expect I shall need to do what they say ("OK, I give in - I will go into the rest home!")
Does order change through achievement of success in a role?
It often does. A coach of a sports team is normally in charge of the team and its strategies and tactics. But ultimately the most successful players at the highest level become equal to the coach in certain respects, for they not only acquire as much, if not more learning of the technicalities of the sport and its rules, but they also accrue mana through hard-won experience, as well as knowledge of something the coach may know nothing of, experience of playing the sport in the most demanding of conditions, against the toughest of opponents, at this present time (acknowledging that many coaches have themselves played the sport, but by definition, in a previous era).
Does order tell us who is in charge and who is not?
Sometimes. To continue with the sporting world. When a game is played involving coached team sports, who is in charge? Is it the captain, the coach, the owner and/or manager of the team, the umpire or the match officials? Actually modern sport is very complex around the question 'who is in charge?' for that also includes the shadowy world of negotiators of broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and marketing of the game, individual players and equipment they use in the game. Indeed, it might even be that we the "viewing public" may be deemed to be in charge, at least according to our perceived interests around what constitutes a "good game" and our preferred style of participating as spectators of the game. Ditto, in various respects, other aspects of life. At your local college or school, for example, who is in charge? Is it the principal, the board of management, the staff, the students, the accountants, the government and the various authorities it institutes to order education in the community? Sometimes it is clear, sometimes it is not, and sometimes a right royal conflict rumbles through a college or school until clarity is achieved.
All this is far from the Trinity, but raises interesting questions around the nuances and subtleties of the concept of 'order'!
Does order in a group imply subordination of one member of an ordered group to another according to that ordering?
Not in every instance. A cricket team publishes its batting order at the beginning of an innings. The no 1 batsman is not necessarily either the best batsman in the team nor the captain. (Though it is normally the case in a cricket team that the no 11 batsman is the worst batsman - NZ cricket over the years producing some particularly egregious examples!!) We might also note that the best batsman is not necessarily made the captain, nor the most valuable player (on average) to the team, who might be the all rounder or the spinner.
Sometimes in parliaments the member who has been a member for longest is accorded great respect as the 'most senior' member, but that person may have no role of power as, e.g., speaker, prime minister, leader of the house, leader of the opposition. Similarly in some church governments: in ACANZP, for example, the most senior bishop by date of ordination is not automatically elected Archbishop/Primate, yet should a vacancy occur in that role, the senior bishop fills that automatically until a new election is carried out.
Is a role definitive of order?
It can be, but roles are not everything in a relationship, especially when they change according to context. Suppose my doctor were my opening bowler when I am the captain of the cricket team. I would expect him to bowl as I direct (albeit with consultation) and when setting a field to accept, ultimately, my judgement. But if I twisted my ankle chasing a ball and he said I should go off the field to put ice on it, I should do what he says! Or, as a father of teenage children I expect them to do what I say (albeit in vain at times); but one day, should I reach old age, I expect I shall need to do what they say ("OK, I give in - I will go into the rest home!")
Does order change through achievement of success in a role?
It often does. A coach of a sports team is normally in charge of the team and its strategies and tactics. But ultimately the most successful players at the highest level become equal to the coach in certain respects, for they not only acquire as much, if not more learning of the technicalities of the sport and its rules, but they also accrue mana through hard-won experience, as well as knowledge of something the coach may know nothing of, experience of playing the sport in the most demanding of conditions, against the toughest of opponents, at this present time (acknowledging that many coaches have themselves played the sport, but by definition, in a previous era).
Does order tell us who is in charge and who is not?
Sometimes. To continue with the sporting world. When a game is played involving coached team sports, who is in charge? Is it the captain, the coach, the owner and/or manager of the team, the umpire or the match officials? Actually modern sport is very complex around the question 'who is in charge?' for that also includes the shadowy world of negotiators of broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and marketing of the game, individual players and equipment they use in the game. Indeed, it might even be that we the "viewing public" may be deemed to be in charge, at least according to our perceived interests around what constitutes a "good game" and our preferred style of participating as spectators of the game. Ditto, in various respects, other aspects of life. At your local college or school, for example, who is in charge? Is it the principal, the board of management, the staff, the students, the accountants, the government and the various authorities it institutes to order education in the community? Sometimes it is clear, sometimes it is not, and sometimes a right royal conflict rumbles through a college or school until clarity is achieved.
All this is far from the Trinity, but raises interesting questions around the nuances and subtleties of the concept of 'order'!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Is BO33 toast?
In a month or so TEC's 2009 General Convention will be held in Anaheim, CA. Pressure is mounting to move beyond the last minute resolution of the previous GC, BO33, which requested a moratorium on gay and lesbian bishops in TEC. With the pressure is coming a certain amount of useful funding, for, as you can see below, a top quality video has been produced promoting the case for moving beyond BO33. (H/t to Mark Harris, Preludium)
But is the argument top-quality?
I note this promotion says nothing which addresses the concern of the Anglican Communion, expressed through the Windsor Report, Lambeth 1.10, etc, that Christians should be married or single when living in accordance with the teaching of Scripture.
What do you think?
But is the argument top-quality?
I note this promotion says nothing which addresses the concern of the Anglican Communion, expressed through the Windsor Report, Lambeth 1.10, etc, that Christians should be married or single when living in accordance with the teaching of Scripture.
What do you think?
Unity through truth, not through structures
John Richardson has been posting on unity, truth, and overcoming fissiparous tendencies in Protestantism. Here is a brilliant list from his latest post:
"In this post I’m going to try to sum up my thoughts about the causes, and possible cure, of this disunity within Protestantism. Here are the key points so far:
1. The gospel demands unity. There is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.’
2. Christian unity is, however, ‘unity in the truth’, not in ‘structures’. It is possible to be baptized and enjoying fellowship in the Lord’s supper, yet outside the truth (1 Cor 10:1-6).
3. Historically, Protestantism is inherently divisive. This is clear evidence that something is wrong, since the gospel is inherently unifying.
4. This divisiveness is due not to the principle of sola scriptura, as some have suggested, but to an overestimation of ‘private judgement’.
5. The individual is not the author of doctrine.
6. The Christian is, first and foremost a learner.
7. Christ himself instituted the office of teachers in the Church, from whom Christians should learn the faith.
8. The task of the teacher is faithfully to hand on, and defend, the Apostolic tradition.
9. Teachers therefore need to be as fully aware as possible of the history of the Church and its established doctrines.
10. Theological history helps us discern ‘dead ends’ and ‘positive trends’ (the ‘Gamaliel’ principle). Theological history favours contemporary conservatism.
11. Creeds and confessions represent the past work of the Church in attempting to establish sound doctrine in accordance with the Apostolic tradition.
12. Churches may rightly expect their members to have due regard to their own formularies.
13. A Church (denomination) which does not have proper regard for its formularies will become authoritarian since, in the face of doctrinal division, it will use its disciplinary measures to enforce structural unity."
I urge you to read the whole post!
"In this post I’m going to try to sum up my thoughts about the causes, and possible cure, of this disunity within Protestantism. Here are the key points so far:
1. The gospel demands unity. There is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.’
2. Christian unity is, however, ‘unity in the truth’, not in ‘structures’. It is possible to be baptized and enjoying fellowship in the Lord’s supper, yet outside the truth (1 Cor 10:1-6).
3. Historically, Protestantism is inherently divisive. This is clear evidence that something is wrong, since the gospel is inherently unifying.
4. This divisiveness is due not to the principle of sola scriptura, as some have suggested, but to an overestimation of ‘private judgement’.
5. The individual is not the author of doctrine.
6. The Christian is, first and foremost a learner.
7. Christ himself instituted the office of teachers in the Church, from whom Christians should learn the faith.
8. The task of the teacher is faithfully to hand on, and defend, the Apostolic tradition.
9. Teachers therefore need to be as fully aware as possible of the history of the Church and its established doctrines.
10. Theological history helps us discern ‘dead ends’ and ‘positive trends’ (the ‘Gamaliel’ principle). Theological history favours contemporary conservatism.
11. Creeds and confessions represent the past work of the Church in attempting to establish sound doctrine in accordance with the Apostolic tradition.
12. Churches may rightly expect their members to have due regard to their own formularies.
13. A Church (denomination) which does not have proper regard for its formularies will become authoritarian since, in the face of doctrinal division, it will use its disciplinary measures to enforce structural unity."
I urge you to read the whole post!
How Odd, Hubristic, or Uninterested in Books is Christianity in 2009?
Just in my mailbox this morning, Amazon's list of top Christian bestsellers (or, should that be "Christian" bestsellers?):
The Shack by William P. Young
The Love Dare by Stephen Kendrick
The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University by Kevin Roose
The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith by Timothy Keller
The Noticer: Sometimes, all a person needs is a little perspective by Andy Andrews
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart D. Ehrman
The Hole in Our Gospel: What does God expect of Us? The Answer that Changed my Life and Might Just Change the World by Richard Stearns
It is difficult to know what to make of this list. Presumably some of these books are being bought by religiously minded people who are interested in Christianity being brought down (e.g. Ehrman's book), while some may be being bought by religiously inclined people on a journey towards faith (e.g. the wildly popular novel by Young. Will any of these books be read in 10 years time?
It is possible that few of these books are being bought by Christians at all: perhaps we are more interested in blogs than books these days?
The Shack by William P. Young
The Love Dare by Stephen Kendrick
The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University by Kevin Roose
The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith by Timothy Keller
The Noticer: Sometimes, all a person needs is a little perspective by Andy Andrews
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart D. Ehrman
The Hole in Our Gospel: What does God expect of Us? The Answer that Changed my Life and Might Just Change the World by Richard Stearns
It is difficult to know what to make of this list. Presumably some of these books are being bought by religiously minded people who are interested in Christianity being brought down (e.g. Ehrman's book), while some may be being bought by religiously inclined people on a journey towards faith (e.g. the wildly popular novel by Young. Will any of these books be read in 10 years time?
It is possible that few of these books are being bought by Christians at all: perhaps we are more interested in blogs than books these days?
Monday, June 1, 2009
Driving Lessons
Every clergy family with teenage children should sit down and watch the 2006 film Driving Lessons, starring Julie Walters and Rupert Grint.
We did last night.
It has the significant advantage of helping one's children realise how normal their parents are :)
We did last night.
It has the significant advantage of helping one's children realise how normal their parents are :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)