After Saturday's news of how badly damaged our Anglican cathedral is (by the way, the Roman catholic cathedral is basically as badly damaged), the 'liturgy of cathedral rebuilding' has begun to be written on the letter pages of the Press. By 'liturgy' I mean familiar, expected things said as part of a corporate expression of feeling about important things, wheeled out as the occasion suits as though the script was set down ages ago.
Yesterday there were letters about the rebuilt cathedral being an interdenominational ecumenical cathedral.
"Let there be a cathedral for all people to use as they see fit" chants half the congregation.
Today there is a letter urging - reminiscent of something said in the gospels - that the insurance money for both cathedrals be used for the poor. Graciously the writer allows that a small 'chapel' might be built once housing has been supplied for the poor and a rest-home built for the indigent elderly.
"Let not there be a cathedral built by anyone for everyone, but bless the poor with the largesse of insurance" chants the other half in antiphonal response :).
I expect the next letters will counter-tack:
"Let the Lord be glorified by rebuilding the cathedrals, for God is great and we can both worship God and assist the needy."
And so the foreordained script for a secular, liberal, democratic society built on Anglican foundations with strong Roman Catholic presence shall unfold, according to type!
On a very serious note, let nothing be rebuilt in Christchurch and its environs for a while. This report tells us what has been whispered around, but unaccountably not made the news till now: there is a high chance for a year or two of another major quake.
PS Offline for a bit. See you soon.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Is orthodoxy as elusive as a solution to the world's economic crisis?
Last night at Antioch, a model (familiar liturgy, contemporary songs, edgy feel) youth service in a local parish, one song featured the line 'in the waves of his mercy.' Yesterday had a number of merciful waves for me. A 9am Roman Mass which was full to overflowing - to answer the inevitable question as to what a good Anglican priest was doing there: I was supporting my wife whose school class was there as part of the cycle of school liturgies through the year. I love the fact that in our secular country there are full churches.
Then a drive in the country on a sunlit day without a cloud in the sky. Once I found St. Andrew's church at Little River, a village at the end of a lake in a valley which God may have copied from the English Lake District, I had terrible temptation to resist. Due to the earthquake disrupting some piles beneath its floor, this church is unusable, so we met in a foyer-come-hall at the end of the church which has a wall of windows looking out over a graveyard and a green valley-and-hills pastoral scene of spectacular beauty. Everytime I allowed my eyes to wander to gaze upon it I had to force them back to attend to the service itself. It was a scene worthy of Constable and Wordsworth. Another wave of mercy. Then there was a hospitable lunch to follow the service - for all God's mercies we give thanks.
Incidentally an odd thing featured that morning. I spent a large amount of the driving time to Little River listening to Chris Laidlaw interviewing Christopher Ward, author of And the Band Played On, a moving story of the death of his grandfather, a violinist on the Titanic, and its consequences for his family - a truth is stranger than fiction story if ever there was one. You may imagine my surprise when the sermon began (and continued) with the Titanic as the key illustration for the message!
On return home the day was too entrancing to remain indoors and a family walk ensued, with a merciful rest-stop at my parents' place. Sometimes God's mercy is 'a severe mercy' and one wave in the day was to return home from the evening service to find that the Crusaders (local rugby) team had lost 16-17 to the Reds (playing at their home in Brisbane). Is God preparing us Kiwis for catastrophe in October's World Cup?
Meanwhile the splendour of the day changed nothing about the world economic crisis which, arguably, has Titanicesque qualities to it: there is an iceberg just ahead of us, but few see it, and even less want to do anything serious about it, least of all the officers on the bridge. In defence of the officers, they might respond by saying that the iceberg is so big it doesn't matter which way they steer. But, my mind possibly working in strange ways, I am provoked by this Catholicity and Covenant post, to wonder if Christianity is in an analogous 'world orthodoxy crisis' in which the solution is as elusive as the solution to the global recession. Apparently a sure and certain orthodoxy cannot yet be found anywhere in the West since Aidan Nichols (as important a licensed Catholic theologian as there is in the world today) has recently noted the potential of the Anglican Ordinariate to save Roman Catholicism from its Vatican II self:
'They know of course that all is not well in the Roman communion they may be entering, that in some places they may need a special environment not just to preserve an Anglican Catholic ethos but to preserve orthodoxy and orthopraxis until the crisis of postconciliar Catholicism in the West has passed - an eventuality considerably aided and abetted, it can be said, by the election of Pope Benedict XVI.'
Where is orthodoxy to be found if Rome itself is hesitant about the direction to guide us in? It is early days to be confident that heading backwards to the Latin Mass, whether in Latin or in a strict English translation, is the best way to navigate the shoals of the 21st century. Is it not a bit of a worry that Anglicans fleeing the SS Communion may be the pilots to guide the SS Rome on the right path? Is Eastern Orthodoxy the solution? Possibly. On analogy to the world economic crisis, perhaps this question is like the question of returning to the gold standard. Underpinning currency with gold has some good supporting arguments, but it has yet to persuade us that it is 'the solution.' In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicans, Romans and Protestants might at least be united in wondering about the extent to which Orthodoxy is in cultural captivities (Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc), structurally prone to conflict with leadership, and weak on theological engagement with contemporary life.
As an Anglican I can find common accord with Aidan Nichols in one respect. Orthodoxy is found among the Anglicans. It might be more helpful to world Christianity if we Anglicans could agree on what orthodoxy is and where it is found among us! Meantime we must appear to many non-Anglicans as though our greatest skills are as deck-chair rearrangers on a sinking ship. Kyrie Eleison.
Then a drive in the country on a sunlit day without a cloud in the sky. Once I found St. Andrew's church at Little River, a village at the end of a lake in a valley which God may have copied from the English Lake District, I had terrible temptation to resist. Due to the earthquake disrupting some piles beneath its floor, this church is unusable, so we met in a foyer-come-hall at the end of the church which has a wall of windows looking out over a graveyard and a green valley-and-hills pastoral scene of spectacular beauty. Everytime I allowed my eyes to wander to gaze upon it I had to force them back to attend to the service itself. It was a scene worthy of Constable and Wordsworth. Another wave of mercy. Then there was a hospitable lunch to follow the service - for all God's mercies we give thanks.
Incidentally an odd thing featured that morning. I spent a large amount of the driving time to Little River listening to Chris Laidlaw interviewing Christopher Ward, author of And the Band Played On, a moving story of the death of his grandfather, a violinist on the Titanic, and its consequences for his family - a truth is stranger than fiction story if ever there was one. You may imagine my surprise when the sermon began (and continued) with the Titanic as the key illustration for the message!
On return home the day was too entrancing to remain indoors and a family walk ensued, with a merciful rest-stop at my parents' place. Sometimes God's mercy is 'a severe mercy' and one wave in the day was to return home from the evening service to find that the Crusaders (local rugby) team had lost 16-17 to the Reds (playing at their home in Brisbane). Is God preparing us Kiwis for catastrophe in October's World Cup?
Meanwhile the splendour of the day changed nothing about the world economic crisis which, arguably, has Titanicesque qualities to it: there is an iceberg just ahead of us, but few see it, and even less want to do anything serious about it, least of all the officers on the bridge. In defence of the officers, they might respond by saying that the iceberg is so big it doesn't matter which way they steer. But, my mind possibly working in strange ways, I am provoked by this Catholicity and Covenant post, to wonder if Christianity is in an analogous 'world orthodoxy crisis' in which the solution is as elusive as the solution to the global recession. Apparently a sure and certain orthodoxy cannot yet be found anywhere in the West since Aidan Nichols (as important a licensed Catholic theologian as there is in the world today) has recently noted the potential of the Anglican Ordinariate to save Roman Catholicism from its Vatican II self:
'They know of course that all is not well in the Roman communion they may be entering, that in some places they may need a special environment not just to preserve an Anglican Catholic ethos but to preserve orthodoxy and orthopraxis until the crisis of postconciliar Catholicism in the West has passed - an eventuality considerably aided and abetted, it can be said, by the election of Pope Benedict XVI.'
Where is orthodoxy to be found if Rome itself is hesitant about the direction to guide us in? It is early days to be confident that heading backwards to the Latin Mass, whether in Latin or in a strict English translation, is the best way to navigate the shoals of the 21st century. Is it not a bit of a worry that Anglicans fleeing the SS Communion may be the pilots to guide the SS Rome on the right path? Is Eastern Orthodoxy the solution? Possibly. On analogy to the world economic crisis, perhaps this question is like the question of returning to the gold standard. Underpinning currency with gold has some good supporting arguments, but it has yet to persuade us that it is 'the solution.' In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicans, Romans and Protestants might at least be united in wondering about the extent to which Orthodoxy is in cultural captivities (Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc), structurally prone to conflict with leadership, and weak on theological engagement with contemporary life.
As an Anglican I can find common accord with Aidan Nichols in one respect. Orthodoxy is found among the Anglicans. It might be more helpful to world Christianity if we Anglicans could agree on what orthodoxy is and where it is found among us! Meantime we must appear to many non-Anglicans as though our greatest skills are as deck-chair rearrangers on a sinking ship. Kyrie Eleison.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The odd calculus of ARCIC III's ecumenism
Don't you love the way 'official reports' say all the expected things in a pleasant way? Have you also found that even the expected things said in a pleasant way occasionally contain unexpected gems of English phrasing or nuanced barb's of subtle politicking or stuff which, if you ever served on a committee writing a report, you have to conclude were overlooked in the tiredness of the moment when yet another draft was being looked at while eyes anxiously hovered over watches, with planes to catch and loved ones to return home to?
ARCIC III has met and reported. Here is a paragraph of expected things said in a pleasant way:
'ARCIC III has decided that it will address the two principal topics together in a single document. It has drawn up a plan for its work that views the Church above all in the light of its rootedness in Christ through the Paschal Mystery. This focus on Jesus Christ, human and divine, gives the Commission a creative way to view the relationship between the local and universal in communion. The Commission will seek to develop a theological understanding of the human person, human society, and the new life of grace in Christ. This will provide a basis from which to explore how right ethical teaching is determined at universal and local levels. ARCIC will base this study firmly in scripture, tradition and reason, and draw on the previous work of the Commission. It will analyze some particular questions to elucidate how our two Communions approach moral decision making, and how areas of tension for Anglicans and Roman Catholics might be resolved by learning from the other. ARCIC III does this conscious of the fact that what unites us is greater than what divides us.'
Reserving the right to return to the matter, for now we will pass over the irony of ARCIC trying to work on how 'right ethical teaching is determined at universal and local levels' when the Anglican partners have no idea how we can do this among our own global family. No, here I am intrigued by this sentence:
'ARCIC III does this conscious of the fact that what unites us is greater than what divides us.'
What on earth does 'what unites us is greater than what divides us' mean? Let me hazard a guess. 'Greater than' means adding up things in common (say, baptism, Scripture, creeds, deacons and priests, sacraments, lectionary, episcopacy) and calculating they are more than things that differentiate us (say, pope, non-communion, ordained women, synodical governance).
But is such a calculation correct? From a Roman perspective, our orders are invalid as is one of our two sacraments (eucharist). Further, we are never officially welcome to share in full communion at a Roman mass. What kind of calculus is appropriate to estimate the value of these differences as we work out what 'unites' us? It is possible, I suggest, that the calculation actually works differently to the pleasant sentence in this report: what unites us is less than what divides us.
We have made zero progress, let us remember, through ARCIC I and II, on the basic question of recognition of orders and of sharing full communion together. Those are quite big divisions for two churches which otherwise have the appearance of many things held in common.
It is a good thing, which I wholeheartedly endorse, that Anglicans and Romans are talking together. It is in accordance with the will of Christ that we do so. But we must speak accurately of the reality of our relationship. Calculating the question of unity and division perhaps requires something more sophisticated than addition and subtraction.
ARCIC III has met and reported. Here is a paragraph of expected things said in a pleasant way:
'ARCIC III has decided that it will address the two principal topics together in a single document. It has drawn up a plan for its work that views the Church above all in the light of its rootedness in Christ through the Paschal Mystery. This focus on Jesus Christ, human and divine, gives the Commission a creative way to view the relationship between the local and universal in communion. The Commission will seek to develop a theological understanding of the human person, human society, and the new life of grace in Christ. This will provide a basis from which to explore how right ethical teaching is determined at universal and local levels. ARCIC will base this study firmly in scripture, tradition and reason, and draw on the previous work of the Commission. It will analyze some particular questions to elucidate how our two Communions approach moral decision making, and how areas of tension for Anglicans and Roman Catholics might be resolved by learning from the other. ARCIC III does this conscious of the fact that what unites us is greater than what divides us.'
Reserving the right to return to the matter, for now we will pass over the irony of ARCIC trying to work on how 'right ethical teaching is determined at universal and local levels' when the Anglican partners have no idea how we can do this among our own global family. No, here I am intrigued by this sentence:
'ARCIC III does this conscious of the fact that what unites us is greater than what divides us.'
What on earth does 'what unites us is greater than what divides us' mean? Let me hazard a guess. 'Greater than' means adding up things in common (say, baptism, Scripture, creeds, deacons and priests, sacraments, lectionary, episcopacy) and calculating they are more than things that differentiate us (say, pope, non-communion, ordained women, synodical governance).
But is such a calculation correct? From a Roman perspective, our orders are invalid as is one of our two sacraments (eucharist). Further, we are never officially welcome to share in full communion at a Roman mass. What kind of calculus is appropriate to estimate the value of these differences as we work out what 'unites' us? It is possible, I suggest, that the calculation actually works differently to the pleasant sentence in this report: what unites us is less than what divides us.
We have made zero progress, let us remember, through ARCIC I and II, on the basic question of recognition of orders and of sharing full communion together. Those are quite big divisions for two churches which otherwise have the appearance of many things held in common.
It is a good thing, which I wholeheartedly endorse, that Anglicans and Romans are talking together. It is in accordance with the will of Christ that we do so. But we must speak accurately of the reality of our relationship. Calculating the question of unity and division perhaps requires something more sophisticated than addition and subtraction.
No to General Synod in Fiji?
Tell me again why our church's 2012 General Synod should be held in Fiji ... I hope our Standing Committee meeting in July 2011 considers all the reasons for and against continuing with the plan to be in the land where all is not well.
Munted Christ Church Cathedral
Imagine my lack of surprise to open up this morning's Press to the headline, Damage to cathedral worse than first feared. Bit by bit since 22nd February the little I have been told about the cathedral has been of damage to all its major parts, and, crucially, to its stone pillars. I am very glad that this news is headlined today and the concerned citizens of Canterbury and members of the Diocese and all churches can engage with the questions which are now inevitable.* Do we want to rebuild it 'as it was' (albeit with new engineering to make it safe)? What to do if we want to rebuild it as it was but the engineers tell us something important will have to be different such as the tower not being as high, or the rebuilt walls being lower? Are funds from insurance and donations going to be enough to rebuild? What would it mean to go cap in hand to ratepayers and taxpayers for assistance (more letters in the paper today about public money meaning a multi-faith governance of the building)?
Or, big question, do we build a new building, according to funds available, with an eye on the needs of God's church for mission in the 21st century? Should we build such a building, even if a rebuild is possible?
O God, our help in ages past, guide us into the new age!
*Later clarification: informally we can now all talk about the cathedral as a badly damaged building for which no simple, speedy fix is going to take place. For formal processes of discussion about the future of the cathedral - to rebuild or to build a new cathedral - I presume we would need to wait for officially received engineering report(s) and insurance assessment(s).
Or, big question, do we build a new building, according to funds available, with an eye on the needs of God's church for mission in the 21st century? Should we build such a building, even if a rebuild is possible?
O God, our help in ages past, guide us into the new age!
*Later clarification: informally we can now all talk about the cathedral as a badly damaged building for which no simple, speedy fix is going to take place. For formal processes of discussion about the future of the cathedral - to rebuild or to build a new cathedral - I presume we would need to wait for officially received engineering report(s) and insurance assessment(s).
Friday, May 27, 2011
How to destroy the Church of England (with NZ postscript)
Behold, though dead yet he speaketh, the late Colin Slee, recently Dean of Southwark, is having one last slash of the knife tearing the fabric of the Church of England. Andrew Brown writing in the Guardian reports on a memo written by Colin Slee outlining some of the communications, including some shouting, which attended various appointments and non-appointments of C of E bishops. An unexpected (not) chorus of denouncing of the ABC and ABY is faithfully linked at The Lead.
It is easy to get wound up over the appalling behaviour narrated by Colin Slee. Harder, of course, to refrain from judgment until the respective archbishops have given their version of events. But let us suppose that the archbishops were 'men behaving badly,' might it be worth asking why they would be so wound up as to vent anger in conversations, formal and informal, about appointing people who would excite controversy, if not division in the church? Indeed, might the unwelcome prospect of controversy, worse, of division, be unsettling for leaders whose role is to hold the church together, not to preside over its destruction? Slee seems to have no appreciation of the consequences of the archbishops benignly presiding over an appointment process which (they obviously felt) would lead to Armageddon and not the Garden of Eden.
If I were an English clergyperson I would be pleased to know that I belonged to a church whose archbishops cared so much for its unity. Whether I were also disappointed or pleased that I belonged to a church that blocked the appointment of gay men to the episcopacy, I think I would be pleased about the commitment to unity.
Clearly the Church of England has a lot of talking to do about how (and if) it can find a way forward so that (1) conservatives are happy, (2) liberals are happy, (3) the archbishops are not placed under so much strain. Whether the Slee memo will inspire that conversation to new levels of honesty and appreciation of the changes that need to take place for the 21st century diversity of the C of E to move forward harmoniously remains to be seen. Likely the memo will simply fire up new levels of anger all around the church.
NEW ZEALAND POSTSCRIPT
The Slee memo is interesting Down Under because of this paragraph:
"In churches with an electoral system (which I do not advocate), not only are the candidates sent all the papers of themselves and of the other candidate and their references (as I was for two dioceses in New Zealand), but the entire electoral synod receives the papers. That obviates unnecessary confidentiality."
This is intriguing. It is well-known in our church that Colin Slee was a candidate in two elections. In one case the names of candidates were never officially published to the wider world, and thus should have been confidential to the process of that election. However shortly after the election a report in the Times (as I recall) named Slee as a candidate who did not succeed and named the successful candidate. In the other case, the Diocese of Auckland, they chose to publish the names on their diocesan website and Colin Slee's name was there for all the world to see. None of this is intriguing. Here is what is: Slee's claim that the candidates are sent the papers and references of the other candidates. Now, for all I know, that may have happened in the Auckland election as a courtesy acted on by the diocesan office. But as far as I know, in the other election papers were not officially distributed to the other candidates, which raises the interesting question of how those confidential papers came to be sent to Colin Slee. It is not as though he had a vote in the election himself ... :)
It is easy to get wound up over the appalling behaviour narrated by Colin Slee. Harder, of course, to refrain from judgment until the respective archbishops have given their version of events. But let us suppose that the archbishops were 'men behaving badly,' might it be worth asking why they would be so wound up as to vent anger in conversations, formal and informal, about appointing people who would excite controversy, if not division in the church? Indeed, might the unwelcome prospect of controversy, worse, of division, be unsettling for leaders whose role is to hold the church together, not to preside over its destruction? Slee seems to have no appreciation of the consequences of the archbishops benignly presiding over an appointment process which (they obviously felt) would lead to Armageddon and not the Garden of Eden.
If I were an English clergyperson I would be pleased to know that I belonged to a church whose archbishops cared so much for its unity. Whether I were also disappointed or pleased that I belonged to a church that blocked the appointment of gay men to the episcopacy, I think I would be pleased about the commitment to unity.
Clearly the Church of England has a lot of talking to do about how (and if) it can find a way forward so that (1) conservatives are happy, (2) liberals are happy, (3) the archbishops are not placed under so much strain. Whether the Slee memo will inspire that conversation to new levels of honesty and appreciation of the changes that need to take place for the 21st century diversity of the C of E to move forward harmoniously remains to be seen. Likely the memo will simply fire up new levels of anger all around the church.
NEW ZEALAND POSTSCRIPT
The Slee memo is interesting Down Under because of this paragraph:
"In churches with an electoral system (which I do not advocate), not only are the candidates sent all the papers of themselves and of the other candidate and their references (as I was for two dioceses in New Zealand), but the entire electoral synod receives the papers. That obviates unnecessary confidentiality."
This is intriguing. It is well-known in our church that Colin Slee was a candidate in two elections. In one case the names of candidates were never officially published to the wider world, and thus should have been confidential to the process of that election. However shortly after the election a report in the Times (as I recall) named Slee as a candidate who did not succeed and named the successful candidate. In the other case, the Diocese of Auckland, they chose to publish the names on their diocesan website and Colin Slee's name was there for all the world to see. None of this is intriguing. Here is what is: Slee's claim that the candidates are sent the papers and references of the other candidates. Now, for all I know, that may have happened in the Auckland election as a courtesy acted on by the diocesan office. But as far as I know, in the other election papers were not officially distributed to the other candidates, which raises the interesting question of how those confidential papers came to be sent to Colin Slee. It is not as though he had a vote in the election himself ... :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)