What is the gospel?

It is good to be back in Christchurch (city) and Christchurch (Diocese). People are being very kind, and the weather is being kind too, though in a frustrating way, with cloudy starts and some summer warmth finally emerging mid-afternoon. Slowly I am absorbing the differences (and similarities) between the Diocese of Nelson and the Diocese of Christchurch. One of those differences is the greater diversity in theology and churchmanship (is that the right term these days?). Sometimes, and perhaps without much care in reflection, we laud diversity when we should be critically appreciating it by asking the question, What is the gospel on which my/your theology is based?

Also starting a new role in this same week as me is John Day. His title names his role's key emphasis, 'Archdeacon for Mission'. Working with John is going to be great personally, as well as theologically, because I will always be confronted with the question, How does this, or that educational intenton forward the mission of God? And it's clear already from discussions that the Diocese of Christchurch, like the other dioceses of these islands, has no grounds for complacency about mission. But that also means that the question, What is the gospel at the root of your/my theology, is not only an interesting question, but a vital question. Unclear, contradictory, and incomprehensible answers are not helpful at such a time as this for the church.

Random thought

The rain has stopped in Christchurch and some semblance of order is being created in the Carrell household. The house we are living in is definitely the creeperest house we have ever lived in - 'creeperest' means 'lots of creepers growing around the house, property and even the odd tenderil sneaking into the house'; it is quite different to 'creepiest' meaning scary.

Yesterday in church for reasons which escape me twenty-four hours later I was thinking about Jesus and Paul, the charge made by some that Christianity really began with Paul, not with Jesus, and that what we call Christianity, even if it began with Jesus, is the result of a Pauline Hellenization of the original Jesus movement and teaching. The thought which came to my mind reflecting on this old chestnut of early theological development is that Paul was necessary to God's plan. The plan, after all, was to save the world. Jesus came to God's people Israel and began the implementation, but inevitably it was received by Jesus' followers with a mindset locked into Israel being saved, restored and resuming its Davidic glories. A break of the mindset was needed, and that was unlikely to occur within the minds of Palestinian Jews.

Now that break did occur in Peter's mind (Acts 10) but he was not going to be the best person to spearhead the international (Gentile) mission of the church. For that an international Jew would be better; thus, Paul of Tarsus was recruited. On this line of thinking Paul was not discontinuous with Jesus but continuous (and the New Perspective on Paul can be understood to undergird that continuity).

These thoughts occurred before the readings. You might imagine my amazement to find that the epistle was taken from Acts 9, the Conversion of Paul. (Yes, I realise that if I was in touch with the lectionary I would have no need to be amazed, but I plead feeling disconnected with such things during the move).

Christchurch

I am now in Christchurch about to unpack our worldly goods and settle into our new home prior to beginning my new role as Director of Education for the Diocese of Christchurch.

We have had an eventful few days packing up and cleaning our Nelson house. It is good to cleanse! No more dust, dirt, and accumulating detritus.

We are having a lousy summer in NZ and today is unexceptionally wet.I guess one problem with the case for global warming is that the conclusions of scientists become public convictions when the public experience the world of the senses with some kind of continuity with the work of science. Today is not a good day for deepening global
warming convictions.

As for things Anglican? The Brown win in Massachusetts is a reminder that in the long-term the centre tolerates no extremes. I remain convinced that the Covenant represents the centre of the Communion.

Creativity

Haiti is much in people's minds ... now that an awful devastation has occurred ... but emerging from the rubble is a realization that the devastation is the worse for the state the country was in before the earthquake struck, and hope for recovery and restoration - in some observers' minds - is lower than has proved the case with, say, Banda Aceh after the 2004 tsunami.

From the ever fertile mind of Ephraim Radner comes this plausible (albeit crazily plausible) scheme for assisting Haiti (the Diocese of Haiti, by the way, is a Diocese in TEC):

"In the face of the tragedy in Haiti, I want to make a proposal. It’s not a realistic proposal, I grant; but it is a serious one. My proposal is this: that all those Anglicans involved in litigation amongst one another in North America — both in the Episcopal Church and those outside of TEC; in the Anglican Church of Canada, and those outside — herewith cease all court battles over property. And, having done this, they do two further things:

a. devote the forecast amount they were planning to spend on such litigation to the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church and its people in Haiti; and

b. sit down with one another, prayerfully and for however long it takes, and with whatever mediating and facilitating presence they accept, and agree to a mutually agreed process for dealing with contested property."

It could work. Where there is will ... a way.

Radner points out that the litigation sums in view are millions, not small change.

From far away all schemes which unite the Communion are worth considering. Go Ephraim!

Disconnect: It's the theologies

Peggy Noonan, notable US reporter, writes in Disconnect: It's the Policies that there is a disconnection between President Obama and the American people at the moment which is not as some are making out - not due to his personality, his perceived lack of emotion when making certain pronouncements, his soaring rhetoric - but is due to his policies. The disconnect is actually about substance and not about style. Substance, for a politician, comes when laws are enacted. At that point 'the people' tend to 'get it' about what is really going on. We are not stupid! We understand that politicians get carried away when making speeches, especially when those speeches are made in pursuit of office. We make allowances for the disconnect between rhetoric and reality. But what disturbs the American people right now, Noonan argues, is the disconnect between proposed legislation and the will of the people. It is the President who does not 'get it', this difference between what the law may make real on healthcare, for instance, and what the people want to happen.

Meanwhile, also in the US, a court hearing is taking place about marriage in the State of California. Might 'marriage' be inclusive of all couples, straight and gay, or not? Despite the will of the people of California voting for marriage to be between a man and a woman, the hearing will consider the matter against the values of equality for all enshrined in the US constitution. Gung ho for the State of California judiciary ruling for inclusivity is Susan Russell, leading Episcopalian (and Californian) priest. Her latest blog reflection is here.

My sense of where the whole of TEC is at on this matter, which is, let us not beat about the bush, about a redefinition of marriage as commonly understand throughout history and across all cultures, is that it is not wholly with Susan Russell. But it is heading that way. And that has me thinking about TEC in relation to the Anglican Communion. Might it be fair to characterise the situation as one of 'disconnect'? And, pace Noonan, is it possible that the disconnect is not due to personalities (Akinola, Schori, Jensen, Williams, heaven forbid that they should ever be in a lifeboat together trying to work out how to be saved from peril on the seas!!) or to rhetoric, but to theologies?

The thing is, Americans as Americans when trying to work out social policy rightly reach for their Constitution, call in a lawyer or two, and seek through legislature or judiciary or executive office, or any combination thereof, to work out the best way forward for themselves. Mostly this has been extraordinarily successful and one of the reasons why millions of people not in the USA try to emigrate there. But Christians as Christians when trying to work out how we should live normally reach out for the Bible, call in a theologian or two, and seek through our synods, commissions, presbyteries, and councils to work out the way forward.

That reaching out for the Bible is common to all Christian traditions, not just the preference of 'fundamentalists' or 'literalists'. At the root, for example, of Roman Catholic theology and Eastern Orthodox theology is ... the Bible. How we use the Bible varies across traditions. Some will call in more theologians rather than less to interpret the Bible, some will draw in more resources from past interpretation of the Bible (i.e. tradition), and some will be more rational in the way they weigh up what the Bible says, but, at the end of the day, Christians work out decisions theologically and that theological work engages with the Bible. That's what Christians do, and it is what makes us distinctive from atheists, Muslims, Hindus and Star Wars fans!

So if one group of Christians heads in a policy direction which is doubtfully grounded in the Bible, there is likely to be a disconnect with those who remain (or believe they remain) firmly grounded in the Bible. On the specific matter of the definition of marriage, it is doubtful that anyone, even the most brilliant theologians among us, can ground into the Bible a redefinition of marriage which includes two men or two women. This is a different matter from whether or not one can ground into the Bible a theology of acceptance of the differences between people, or a theology of tolerance of the frailties of people as relational beings (the theology which acknowledges the need to permit remarriage after divorce being extended to acknowledge the value of faithful, stable same-sex partnerships). These theologies can be grounded into the Bible - though not all will agree, there is and will be much debate - and there are prospects that over time, with patience and grace, we might as a Communion find common accord on such theologies. (We might not; but we might). But redefining marriage? I cannot see the Communion ever agreeing to that. Not because the Communion is intrinsically homophobic, but because such redefinition is intrinsically difficult, if not impossible, to ground into the Bible.

Now I could be wrong on these matters! I could be "misoverestimating" the lead TEC clerics such as Susan Russell are giving. But what if the future of TEC as a whole is with rather than against Susan Russell, moving beyond a theology of tolerance of diverse relationships to a redefinition of marriage: would there then be a disconnect between TEC and the Communion which is substantive?

What would Jesus say

Reflections emerging from the horrifying news of the Haitian earthquake include an article by Craig Uffman on Covenant, also on Fulcrum, with a developing thread on Fulcrum Forum. Even after six posts that thread is nicely juxtaposing the main varieties of responses Christians have arrived at through 2000 years (prominent theologians cited include Calvin, Aquinas, and a contemporary of ours, David Bentley Hart who recently had a book published which is a response to the horrific tsunami-and-earthquake destruction wrought on Boxing Day 2004).

Coincidentally one poster draws attention to a passage that has come to my mind this morning, Luke 13:1-5, where Jesus speaks of man-led suffering (Pilate murdering some Galileans) and (possibly) man-made mixed with nature suffering,

"What about those eighteen people in Siloam who were killed when the tower fell on them?"

If we invoke - as some Christians do - the idea that "God is in the suffering" then the theological foundation is (normally) incarnational: God has already identified with us in suffering by being incarnate in human flesh through Jesus Christ so God understands fully what this particular instance of suffering means for the sufferers. That - for me - heightens the possibility that any such thinking should be extended to incorporate what the Word made flesh may have said when in the midst of humanity. Funnily enough, the Gospels do not give us many words from the lips of Jesus on the question of human suffering. Luke 13:1-5 is a rare passage if we seek what Jesus would say to the Haitian earthquake sufferers and to those around the world with questions about God's whereabouts when tragedy strikes.

But what to make of these words? What conclusions could we draw? Is the mystery of suffering much lessened by Luke 13:1-5?

A helpful prayer by Diana Macalintel can be found here (H/T Bosco Peters).

Here is a perhaps provocative thought for Kiwi readers of this post: we live in a land where earthquakes frequently occur, mostly coped with by virtue of having developed some of the most robust earthquake proofing measures in the world for our buildings, but always we live with the knowledge that 'the big one' could occur tomorrow. (If the big one were of magnitude 8+ as we are told has happened in Haiti even our well-constructed buildings would be under severe pressure and loss of life if likely). So, as far as it goes, we Kiwis have made a choice to make a life in our fair islands with a known risk built into that choice: tomorrow we may have cause to wish we had chosen differently. When the big one comes will we be questioning God about God's absence from the event or ourselves choosing to be present in these Shaky Isles?

Could Anglicans agree on at least this ...

... that Pat Robertson is wrong!

Sad, unhelpful, disturbing.

(LATER: placing Pat Robertson's remarks in a wider historical context is this interesting post from a non-Christian who blogs at Heresy Corner (H/T Cranmer).