Well, strictly speaking, the dates have been announced for the 2012 ACC meeting in Auckland, New Zealand. But I think one may presume that ++Rowan will come to the meeting, and thus come to NZ, and thus come for the first time as Archbishop of Canterbury to NZ. (His first visit here ever in any capacity?)
From ACNS's Day 4 Report of the AC Standing Committee:
"The Standing Committee agreed that ACC-15 will be held from the 27 October to 7 November 2012 in Auckland Cathedral."
Naturally, ++Rowan will want to come to the South Island ... the real New Zealand ... and give a lecture sponsored by Theology House :).
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Kwashi in Kiwiland
Archbishop Ben Kwashi is featured in Living Church this week. He is a bishop in the Anglican Church of Nigeria and an evangelist with theological substance. I have personally heard him speak and can vouch for his abilities as a dynamic, engaging speaker. Ability is one thing, what about content? Here is an excerpt from an address to the recent Lausanne Conference, as published at Living Church (H/T Titus One Nine):
"The gospel calls for a decision that each person must make, and such a decision will determine the eternal destination of that person. Such a decision, when made, must bring the believer’s life into conformity with the eternal truths of God, of his Son, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. God’s word is truth, and every one of his righteous ordinances endures forever (Ps. 119:160). Therefore anyone who receives and believes the gospel must speak the truth at all times, to all people, and must do so in love. To live in truth is also to insist on standing for justice for the oppressed and on giving justice to all people regardless of their race, religion, nationality or gender. It is significant that it is the gospel’s power which manifests God’s righteousness in us and also empowers us to live righteous lives in such a manner that even unbelievers will acknowledge that righteousness is being practiced by believers of the gospel. Those who do not believe the gospel understand very well when they see people practice righteousness and live in holiness."
But there is more to this gospel man. ++Ben Kwashi can testify to the amazing power of God in the face of deadly threats to his life.
"In February 2006 a band of people reportedly hired to kill me came to my house. Believing that I was there although I was in another country, they tortured my wife, Gloria, from 1:30 to 3:30 a.m. They left Gloria half-dead and blind. Our son Rinji was left unconscious and our little boy Nanminen had a broken mouth. Through the miracle of medical science, Gloria healed thoroughly and regained her sight in five months.
The next year the attackers were back: this time they met me. They took me downstairs to the field outside my house, where they were going to kill me. They changed their minds and decided they would rather kill me in my bedroom. They brought me back to my bedroom and I pleaded with them for an opportunity to pray. They agreed and I got on my knees to pray. A few minutes later my wife was holding my hands in prayer.
A few more minutes later my son Rinji walked in. I screamed at him, “What are you doing? Why are you here?” He said, “Daddy, they’ve gone.” We got up and brought the whole family together and we praised the Lord until the police and the soldiers came, and throughout the day it was a song of praise.
We have witnessed the massacre of Christians; the destruction of churches, Christian businesses, and property; and the disruption of normal life, time and again. But in all this we remain undaunted for the gospel.
I know that I will die someday — how I do not know — but until then I am fully persuaded beyond any doubt that I have a gospel to proclaim. I have a gospel worth living for and a gospel worth dying for."
Sometimes less than complimentary things are said about the Anglican Church of Nigeria. Yes, it's true, negative things have been said about this church and how it deports itself in its mission and gospel work. It may help to think of Ben Kwashi when you read or hear these things and ponder what we know of the context in which the gospel is preached in Nigeria. To do so is to face death.
Here in Kiwiland we can look forward to ++Kwashi coming to a major conference in the life of our church, the Common Life Mission Conference with the theme Shaping the Church for Mission, 19-22 July, 2011. It will be good to have a Nigerian Anglican episcopal leader encourage and inspire us.
"The gospel calls for a decision that each person must make, and such a decision will determine the eternal destination of that person. Such a decision, when made, must bring the believer’s life into conformity with the eternal truths of God, of his Son, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. God’s word is truth, and every one of his righteous ordinances endures forever (Ps. 119:160). Therefore anyone who receives and believes the gospel must speak the truth at all times, to all people, and must do so in love. To live in truth is also to insist on standing for justice for the oppressed and on giving justice to all people regardless of their race, religion, nationality or gender. It is significant that it is the gospel’s power which manifests God’s righteousness in us and also empowers us to live righteous lives in such a manner that even unbelievers will acknowledge that righteousness is being practiced by believers of the gospel. Those who do not believe the gospel understand very well when they see people practice righteousness and live in holiness."
But there is more to this gospel man. ++Ben Kwashi can testify to the amazing power of God in the face of deadly threats to his life.
"In February 2006 a band of people reportedly hired to kill me came to my house. Believing that I was there although I was in another country, they tortured my wife, Gloria, from 1:30 to 3:30 a.m. They left Gloria half-dead and blind. Our son Rinji was left unconscious and our little boy Nanminen had a broken mouth. Through the miracle of medical science, Gloria healed thoroughly and regained her sight in five months.
The next year the attackers were back: this time they met me. They took me downstairs to the field outside my house, where they were going to kill me. They changed their minds and decided they would rather kill me in my bedroom. They brought me back to my bedroom and I pleaded with them for an opportunity to pray. They agreed and I got on my knees to pray. A few minutes later my wife was holding my hands in prayer.
A few more minutes later my son Rinji walked in. I screamed at him, “What are you doing? Why are you here?” He said, “Daddy, they’ve gone.” We got up and brought the whole family together and we praised the Lord until the police and the soldiers came, and throughout the day it was a song of praise.
We have witnessed the massacre of Christians; the destruction of churches, Christian businesses, and property; and the disruption of normal life, time and again. But in all this we remain undaunted for the gospel.
I know that I will die someday — how I do not know — but until then I am fully persuaded beyond any doubt that I have a gospel to proclaim. I have a gospel worth living for and a gospel worth dying for."
Sometimes less than complimentary things are said about the Anglican Church of Nigeria. Yes, it's true, negative things have been said about this church and how it deports itself in its mission and gospel work. It may help to think of Ben Kwashi when you read or hear these things and ponder what we know of the context in which the gospel is preached in Nigeria. To do so is to face death.
Here in Kiwiland we can look forward to ++Kwashi coming to a major conference in the life of our church, the Common Life Mission Conference with the theme Shaping the Church for Mission, 19-22 July, 2011. It will be good to have a Nigerian Anglican episcopal leader encourage and inspire us.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
In today's forum the panel is torn
between discussing the imminent end of the world on 21 May 2011 and the New Testament writers caught out as liars. Difficult choice for the panel. Although the panel was agreed on one thing, the current meeting of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion offered nothing of interest to discuss. In the end the panel decided that the imminent end of the world would resolve itself by 22 May 2011, by which time it noted that President Obama may have made up his mind whether he is or isn't going to expedite the end of Gadaffi's tyranny over Libya. So to the New Testament. Eminent and controversial textual critic Bart Ehrman helps the momentum of the new site Huff Religion by clearly but provocatively stating:
"And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."
You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."
And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity."
This is very provocative in a number of ways. First, it provokes all who believe otherwise. Secondly, it provokes those Christians who have settled for the 'antiseptic' term 'pseudepigrapha' to front up to the question whether or not Holy Scripture contains blatant lies or not. Thirdly, it provokes scholars who make a living from claiming something as reasonable as pseudepigraphal claims were 'acceptable practice in the ancient world.' Fourthly, it provokes those who believe otherwise than Ehrman while simultaneously believing they are not fundamentalists. Talk about a hornet's nest of claims!
We haven't space here to transcribe the comments of all the panelists. But two points are worth noting. Why doesn't Ehrman discuss the possibility that authorship of New Testament documents may include 'authorisation' so, for instance, Peter did not write 2 Peter, but authorised its writing? Why doesn't Ehrman acknowledge that fashions come and go in academic scholarship? The fashion of our era is to dispute the name on the tin, Paul didn't write X, Y, and Z. But can we be sure that fifty years from now the fashion will be different?
The present writer, however, is in agreement with Ehrman on one aspect of the matter. If (say) Paul did not write some of the letters bearing his name or authorise their being written, then they are forgeries to the extent that they do more than invoke his name at the beginning of the letter as stated author, they also go on to pretend to personally greet this one and to ask after than one. 2 Timothy and Titus are strong examples of this, Ephesians and 1 Timothy are weak examples of this (because hardly anyone else is mentioned).
"And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."
You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."
And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity."
This is very provocative in a number of ways. First, it provokes all who believe otherwise. Secondly, it provokes those Christians who have settled for the 'antiseptic' term 'pseudepigrapha' to front up to the question whether or not Holy Scripture contains blatant lies or not. Thirdly, it provokes scholars who make a living from claiming something as reasonable as pseudepigraphal claims were 'acceptable practice in the ancient world.' Fourthly, it provokes those who believe otherwise than Ehrman while simultaneously believing they are not fundamentalists. Talk about a hornet's nest of claims!
We haven't space here to transcribe the comments of all the panelists. But two points are worth noting. Why doesn't Ehrman discuss the possibility that authorship of New Testament documents may include 'authorisation' so, for instance, Peter did not write 2 Peter, but authorised its writing? Why doesn't Ehrman acknowledge that fashions come and go in academic scholarship? The fashion of our era is to dispute the name on the tin, Paul didn't write X, Y, and Z. But can we be sure that fifty years from now the fashion will be different?
The present writer, however, is in agreement with Ehrman on one aspect of the matter. If (say) Paul did not write some of the letters bearing his name or authorise their being written, then they are forgeries to the extent that they do more than invoke his name at the beginning of the letter as stated author, they also go on to pretend to personally greet this one and to ask after than one. 2 Timothy and Titus are strong examples of this, Ephesians and 1 Timothy are weak examples of this (because hardly anyone else is mentioned).
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Huff Religion
A friend has alerted me to the existence of HuffPost Religion . Arianna Huffington has announced this new development here. Mysteriously my name does not appear on the list of featured bloggers. Perhaps I am too liberal for Arianna's cause?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Rearranging the deckchairs
You knew they were meeting, didn't you? And you didn't tell me. Noone tells me anything these days. But I have found out. Secret agent Titus One Nine is on the case. So, thanks to their tip off, now I know. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is meeting as we read these words. ACNS is reporting daily. SPOILER: Do not read these reports just before bedtime ...
Here for Day One.
Here's my journalistic hunch. If we may liken the Communion to the SS Titanic just after it has hit the iceberg, then we will find this meeting may be likened to the work party assigned to rearranging the deckchairs.
But I could be wrong.
Actually I would like to be wrong about the official, institutional work of the Communion's elite committees.
Here for Day One.
Here's my journalistic hunch. If we may liken the Communion to the SS Titanic just after it has hit the iceberg, then we will find this meeting may be likened to the work party assigned to rearranging the deckchairs.
But I could be wrong.
Actually I would like to be wrong about the official, institutional work of the Communion's elite committees.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
If Stale Expressions Were Doing So Well
There wouldn't be Fresh Expressions. Okay so its not fair to characterise the alternative to Fresh Expressions (of the church seeking to be missional in new, different ways to connect with changing cultures) as Stale Expressions. There are plenty of old, familiar ways of the church being missional which connects with changing cultures which are fresh and vital. Questions which can be asked, however, include whether as many cultures are being connected with by the church doing what it has always done as by Fresh Expressions. The point of Fresh Expressions is not so much that there are 'stale expressions' but that there are a lot of people untouched by the gospel as communicated by and through the church being the church in familiar modes of existence. Is it not worth having a go at reaching the unreached with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?
With H/T to Thinking Anglicans the above paragraph is provoked by an article by Australian theologian Bruce Kaye writing in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Religion and Ethics webpage, titled Does Fresh Expressions Misrepresent the Gospel? In turn his article is catalysed by a thoroughgoing theological critique of Fresh Expressions recently published in the UK by Andrew Davison and Alison Milbank called For the Parish: A Critique of Fresh Expressions. I encourage you to read the article (if not the book as well). I intend to read the book - it's on order for Theology House library - and then to review it.
But I am wondering already, based on Kaye's thoughts, whether the book is mistitled (more accurate would be: For the Ideal Parish or For the Parish as Intended A Long Time Ago?) or even misleading: the real issue about Fresh Expressions is not whether or not it is for or against the parish system (and whether or not the parish system continues to be fit for 21st century purpose) but whether it is 'the church' at work in the world or some false apparition of it. Kaye, Davison and Milbank tells us that the gospel cannot be divorced from the church as the incarnational presence of Christ in the world. Fair enough. But is Fresh Expressions a movement of the church or apart from the church?
And what is the church? If it is the church of a particular liturgy or style of music or way of doing things decided upon in 1559 then that must be news to God!
With H/T to Thinking Anglicans the above paragraph is provoked by an article by Australian theologian Bruce Kaye writing in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Religion and Ethics webpage, titled Does Fresh Expressions Misrepresent the Gospel? In turn his article is catalysed by a thoroughgoing theological critique of Fresh Expressions recently published in the UK by Andrew Davison and Alison Milbank called For the Parish: A Critique of Fresh Expressions. I encourage you to read the article (if not the book as well). I intend to read the book - it's on order for Theology House library - and then to review it.
But I am wondering already, based on Kaye's thoughts, whether the book is mistitled (more accurate would be: For the Ideal Parish or For the Parish as Intended A Long Time Ago?) or even misleading: the real issue about Fresh Expressions is not whether or not it is for or against the parish system (and whether or not the parish system continues to be fit for 21st century purpose) but whether it is 'the church' at work in the world or some false apparition of it. Kaye, Davison and Milbank tells us that the gospel cannot be divorced from the church as the incarnational presence of Christ in the world. Fair enough. But is Fresh Expressions a movement of the church or apart from the church?
And what is the church? If it is the church of a particular liturgy or style of music or way of doing things decided upon in 1559 then that must be news to God!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Glynn Cardys' Covenant Caveat, Clayboy's Communion Charge
With H/T to Preludium I see the Church Times has a downloadable multi-page guide to the Anglican Covenant, for and against. Check it out here. I shall read it with detailed interest, but a quick read reveals our very own Glynn Cardy (Auckland) prognosticating on the future of the Covenant in our 2012 General Synod, unexpectedly taking a dim view of its prospects.
Meanwhile, over at Clayboy is a thoughtful post about the character of common life in both the C of E (Clayboy's home church) and the Communion ... actually, Clayboy points out that the situation in both contexts is too much non-common life.
A very quick comment from me: the history of our church in these islands may point towards not accepting the Covenant, but that begs the question, is our history pointing in the right direction? Lack of great common life is a feature of Anglican life in these islands. Our headlines about three tikanga wonderfulness obscure some real stories of disconnect, division, and disintegration. (Why has our General Synod suspended the Board of Oversight of St John's College and placed a commissioner in the College to run it? It is not because common life there has being going really, really well!) Glynn and I would agree that we have been to a lot of church synods and conferences where diversity in our church has been celebrated and affirmed ad nauseam; we probably disagree on whether it is timely to work on our common life and reigning in the extremities of diversity. Working on our common life would confront us with the question of what governs our common life and when that governance would constrain diversity. Confronting that question in the church of these islands might lead to greater receptiveness of the Covenant: if common life matters to member churches of the Communion, doesn't it matter to the Communion itself?
Meanwhile, over at Clayboy is a thoughtful post about the character of common life in both the C of E (Clayboy's home church) and the Communion ... actually, Clayboy points out that the situation in both contexts is too much non-common life.
A very quick comment from me: the history of our church in these islands may point towards not accepting the Covenant, but that begs the question, is our history pointing in the right direction? Lack of great common life is a feature of Anglican life in these islands. Our headlines about three tikanga wonderfulness obscure some real stories of disconnect, division, and disintegration. (Why has our General Synod suspended the Board of Oversight of St John's College and placed a commissioner in the College to run it? It is not because common life there has being going really, really well!) Glynn and I would agree that we have been to a lot of church synods and conferences where diversity in our church has been celebrated and affirmed ad nauseam; we probably disagree on whether it is timely to work on our common life and reigning in the extremities of diversity. Working on our common life would confront us with the question of what governs our common life and when that governance would constrain diversity. Confronting that question in the church of these islands might lead to greater receptiveness of the Covenant: if common life matters to member churches of the Communion, doesn't it matter to the Communion itself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)