How Not To Comment On This Site

To another post I have rejected the following comment:

"But it is open season on the TEC Presiding Bishop, the Most Revd Katharine Jefferts-Schori because you have no admiration for her.


How about those prince bishop clowns from Africa? They live in Africa, but do not have the balls to confront what is happening in Zimbabwe, in their own backyard, but they can let wealthy Statesonian schismatics foot the bill for a luxurious trip taking them half way around the world to meddle, suck up to a ruthless regime and criticize other provinces, but hey, you likely admire them."

Let me give my reasons:

(1) A judgement is being made on whether or not I have any admiration for ++KJS without supporting evidence being given so that the effect of the judgement is to presumptuously offer insight into the state of my soul. As a matter of fact I admire some things I see ++KJS doing and saying and do not admire other things. As occasion arises here critical comment will be made on the statements or actions of leaders within the Communion who catch my eye, the critical comment matching the degree to which I assess that leader having influence over the future unity of the Communion.

(2) "clowns" is not an acceptable term to describe any fellow Anglicans in a general statement about them.

(3) "schismatics" is a publishable term but controvertible as it is a moot point on this site as to whether the "schismatics" are those who left or those who have driven their former church to the point where those who have left have felt they had no other choice but to leave.

(4) "to meddle, suck up to a ruthless regime" is an accusatory statement about the leadership of bishops which is so vague and general as to warrant not publishing. Yes, bishops have  criticized other provinces. 

(5) "but, hey, you likely admire them" again a judgement is being made without evidence as to what is going on in my soul. As a matter of fact I admire some things I see some African bishops doing and saying and do not admire other things.

I request commenters here to raise the standard of comments and to refrain from terms of abuse and presumptuous judgement about the attitudes and motives of myself and other commenters here. Let's stick to discussing issues, questions, known facts, and published opinions.

Aftershock aftershock

Taonga this afternoon carries this bombshell re major church insurer in NZ refusing to insure for earthquakes in the future:

Church insurer stops quake cover

The impact of the Christchurch quakes on churches throughout New Zealand became more stark today – with the announcement that Ansvar New Zealand, the company which insures most churches here, will no longer provide them with earthquake cover.

Since last September, Ansvar New Zealand has had to handle $700million of earthquake-related claims – while over the same period it received just $35million in premiums.

As a consequence, the international credit-rating agency AM Best has downgraded its assessment of the niche insurer's financial strength from A- to B++.

On the back of this downgrade, Ansvar New Zealand has announced that it will write no new earthquake cover – with immediate effect – and will only renew earthquake insurance until December 1 this year.

In effect, says Don Baskerville, the Chair of the Anglican Insurance Board, this means Anglican churches throughout the country have been given six month’s notice, because their policies are renegotiated and renewed, en masse, by the AIB in April next year.

He describes Ansvar’s decision to pull out of the earthquake cover market as “disappointing – but not surprising.”

While Anglicans won’t have to deal immediately with insurance convulsions, other denominations will.

The Baptist churches, for example, must renew the insurance on their churches this December.

The impacts of the quake – and of Ansvar’s exposure to it – won’t just be felt by all Anglican churches in New Zealand. In some ways, the ripples are being felt throughout the Communion.

Because The Ecclesiastical Group, which brought the Ansvar business in New Zealand and Australia in 1998, was set up by the Church of England in 1896, and is the main insurer to this day of British churches.

According to Michael Tripp, the CEO of The Ecclesiastical Group, the Canterbury quakes “have produced the Group’s biggest ever series of losses.

“Although we are well protected by our reinsurance programmes, we have nevertheless experienced gross claims… of over 250 million pounds sterling.”

“We have therefore taken the decision to cease writing any new business from our Ansvar subsidiary in New Zealand…”

According to one observer, Ansvar’s decision to pull out of offering earthquake cover to the churches may set up “an arm wrestle” for the churches' insurance business.

Anglican churches are required by canon law to have cover not only for earthquake and fire damage, but also for “material damage” (anything from theft to being hit by a runaway truck) as well as personal indemnity.

Ansvar won’t want to lose its church material damage and indemnity business – and it has announced that it will set up a special team by January 1 to explore placing earthquake cover for clients in other markets, such as Lloyd’s of London.

On the other hand, the various denominational insurance boards may not want to fragment their business between two or more insurers.

According to our observer, the crippling losses suffered by Ansvar New Zealand are an illustration of the risks that face a small niche insurer. Ansvar specialised in providing insurance to churches, and to heritage buildings – both of which suffered disproportionate damage in the quakes.

The Ansvar decision is sure to be the focus of discussions at a seminar being hosted on Monday in Wellington by the Anglican Insurance Board.

Both the senior managers of Ansvar New Zealand and Ansvar Australia will be at that meeting.

The silver lining to this dark cloud may be lower premiums than expected (measured against some information about horrendous increases to premiums). The dark cloud will concern churches in other cities which experience an earthquake.

Keeping watch on America

Faster than speeding neutrinos, news flashes out from the USA at a rate which is hard to keep up with. In the last day or so has come the announcement of Rob "Love Wins" Bell leaving his pastoral position at Mars Hill church, Michigan in order to circulate the world as a speaker and writer sharing God's love everywhere. But this is an Anglican blog so we pass reasonably quickly over a story involving a church of 7000 people and pause not to wonder if any Western Anglican church is or could be that large and what it would take for Anglicans to be so popular in the Western world. We do not, however, need to pass out of the USA to remain in Anglicanland.

This blog has kept an eye on the Diocese of South Carolina and its journey as a conservative-but-we-are-not-leaving-TEC diocese. For some time the official, canonical forces of TEC have been marshalling for a pre-emptive strike on the diocese and the progress of that opposition can be caught up with here.

The Diocese of South Carolina, should things get worse for it, should be prepared for anything to happen to it, including the bizarre and the unpredictable. Careful readers here will have noticed that I have often been taken to task for my support for Anglican churches in North America which have dared to leave TEC or ACCan, it being argued that these churches have been stealing the family silver as they have sought to retain the properties in which they are used to worship. Aside from the ugliness of the phrase, 'stealing the family silver', there is the modest question of how much those churches may have contributed to the purchase of the silver and its cleaning and polishing. But, be such arguments as they may, some churches have left TEC without any fuss, leaving their properties and taking nothing with them, not even the paper clips in the office.

On the 'stealing the family silver' argumentation you might think that such churches, that is, such congregations of people leaving their buildings and their association with TEC, have moved themselves freely and decisively beyond the grasp of TEC. But you would be WRONG.

Read here about the extraordinary attempt of one diocese to request departing Anglican people, having left all property and claims to the property behind them, to nevertheless pay up their former obligations to the diocese.  Nuts!

Anyway, I am looking forward to TEC-supporting commenters here explaining the logic behind this diocese's letter to departing Anglicans.

Finally today, and still in the world of Anglicans who are not Episcopalians, my former colleague in the Diocese of Nelson, Julian Dobbs, has been consecrated a bishop to serve in North America. He has moved a long way in ministry experience since starting as a lay youth worker in Westport having graduated from our St John's College too young to be ordained! Now I wonder what will happen if he returns to minister in NZ and seeks a licence?

Not the slightest bit of sympathy

We live in a world on the verge of economic collapse, in which people continue to starve in countries far away while nearby citizens of Christchurch live in despair of their personal futures. Yet other citizens of our fair city are bemoaning the loss of heritage buildings, gaining publicity from our irresponsible local newspaper for their views on saving stones and restoring crumbling buildings. Thus we have a headline in this morning's Press "Church's hasty demolition 'absolute sacrilege'" promoting the views of a critic of the demolition of Holy Trinity Avonside. +Victoria Matthews has defended the moves,

"Bishop Matthews, however, said the church had been a "very, very perilous building".

"It was a beautiful building, but my priority has to be humans and the safety of the community. It wasn't a time to take chances." "

+Victoria is absolutely right. So why not a headline such as "Bishop saves lives with courageous wisdom" or "Life more important than art, says bishop"?

The Press is working a bit of theme today as the front page lead article is headed, "Historic Places Trust is 'gutless' in the face of Cera [Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority]"

Again, because some people feel buildings should be saved and because an overseas expert flew in and out of the city saying they could be saved, a local politician joins in with a refrain about gutlessness. The issues have nothing to do with courage and a lot to do with safety and with money. Of course any damaged building can be repaired (especially if internal walls are made of steel girders, and then stones are rebuilt with steel rods) but who is going to pay for it, and who is going to risk life and limb in deconstruction stone by stone? It is not courage to stand beneath a stone wall in a shaky city, it's foolishness.

Driving around Christchurch, seeing these damaged heritage buildings, one can see the complex nature of old stone construction. There is nothing simple and therefore nothing inexpensive about deconstruction, and any reconstruction is not going to be via the old techniques such as internal and external walls made of stone and filled with rubble. At best we will have rebuilt buildings that look like the old ones but in reality are modern buildings filled with steel.

Taxes and rates are going to be high enough contributing to the transitioning of people from red zoned land and rebuilding infrastructure and facilities, to say nothing of paying new high insurance premiums on government and council buildings, without paying for restoring hundreds of heritage buildings. It is reasonable to save a select few buildings with public money such as our Arts Centre and the Provincial Chambers, partly as a snapshot of our past and partly as tourist attractions, but beyond that I see no reason to save old hotels and shops on the taxpayers compulsory donations.

As for the likes of Holy Trinity Avonside, if we are fortunate as a diocese we may be able to save one or two of our lovely stone churches, but they will be the least damaged ones not the most damaged. The gospel does not demand the preservation of old buildings no matter how beautiful and historic they are. Our funds (such as we have) are best invested in the future of the kingdom, not in the past.

So, not the slightest bit of sympathy from me re our heritage as bemoaned in these articles. I am with +Victoria 100%.

Could 'catholic' mean accessible?

Tomorrow the first meeting of the Diocese of Christchurch's Strategic Working Group will take place. Our role, in broad terms, is to think about the 'big picture' for the Diocese in this new 'post quake era.' Concurrently the Diocese is holding three consultations concerning what the people of the Diocese want to say about important values in respect of the guidelines which will shape designs for new and restored buildings.

Speaking again in broad terms, I sense a strong aspect of the voices speaking up at this time is engagement with the community around us: we want buildings that can serve our communities and ministries within those buildings which are outward looking. Another way to say this could be to talk about new futures for Anglican churches which enhance accessibility of our churches. Our gospel mission is not solely about how we can get people into our churches, but the fact is that once some kind of building exists as a church building there is always a question of whether people feel drawn past its doors or inhibited from approaching the doors - no matter how many signs are erected saying "All welcome."

In my own reflecting on these things I am wondering whether the term 'catholic' which lies at the heart of being Anglican is related to accessibility. If 'catholic' is about the universality of the church - what we believe and practice and whether it is the belief and practice of all, some or just a few - then 'catholic' intrinsically relates to accessibility. Can all, some or just a few access what the church offers in its gatherings?

But this - my musings continue - is more than a question of whether the doors to a church building are open or not or whether all people are welcome to come in to participate, it is also a question of whether what we do within the church building is accessible to whomever might enter. Our liturgies in the 21st century also need to be accessible.

Well, I will stop there, just before poking a stick in a hornet's nest!

Quite a good night really

Made it back from a lovely training session in Hokitika yesterday in time for NZ v France (39-17 [corrected: 37-17]) and learned later that the NZ Warriors beat the Melbourne Storm 20-12 to secure a place in the National Rugby League Grand Final - only the second time the Warriors have made it to the GF. The All Blacks were brilliant. Each of their five tries were spectacular. The whole game was exciting to watch. But pray that we do not have that referee again in any of our knock out games. And in breaking church news I am off soon to hear one of our trainees preach :)

On a more serious note re church news, George Conger reminds us of the ways in which all is not well in the Anglican Communion if we are thinking in terms of a bunch of happy campers with ++Rowan as the camp director.

We're all doomed, doomed I tell you

That Scottish guy on Dad's Army used to say something along the lines of this post's title. I think it's time for a round up today of eye-catching postings around the Anglinet, but right at the start let's acknowledge that some of the concerns of Anglicans pale into insignificance if the world is, indeed, on the verge of the second dip in a double dip recession. How many dips does a recession need before it becomes a depression?

Also no posting tomorrow so the links below will have to suffice for a day or two! I am off to Hokitika tomorrow - hoping there is no snow on Porter's Pass and Arthur's Pass when I cross early in the morning, nor on return late in the afternoon ... I would like to see the All Blacks play France at 8.30 pm. Priorities!

There has been a brouhaha in Ireland over the last week or so since news came out that a senior cleric has entered into a civil partnership with his male partner. Catholicity and Covenant offers a reflection on the Archbishop of Armagh's statement about this and the controversy stemming from it. Catching my eye here is an argument that the Covenant has influenced the statement of the Archbishop. There is also a very interesting point about the influence of 1.10 (1998).

There has been a little bit of discussion here at ADU re 'gay marriage.' I get the impression that quite a lot of discussion is going on in the UK these days, partly because, aside from intra-Anglican discussion, there are some political moves afoot to make changes to legislation. Cranmer's Curate offers a tale of his own role in the wider social and political discussion taking place there.

I am trying these days not to make critical comment from afar about TEC, especially if it is critical of things which are as much a problem for my own church as for that one. Nevertheless I keep an eye on developments in TEC, mainly through Preludium which I think is a blog to watch as it is written by Mark Harris who is not only an astute commentator in general but also has a particular Episcopalian insight being on TEC's Executive Council. Catching my eye this past week or so are some posts - the latest here - in which Mark gives us a window into rumblings within TEC which have nothing to do with Communion controversies, and everything to do with a church facing its present reality of lowering income and aging congregations. Potentially the rumblings could mean a large reconfiguration of the way TEC does its business.

Fr Jonathan at The Conciliar Anglican reflects on the question we might not ever think about, "What would Anglicanism look like without the Anglican Communion? Is it even possible?" That is one to think about. Would it be "Anglicanism" if it had no association with a global body?

Last night Andrew Reid challenged me to comment on a news item here in Kiwiland connected with the Rugby World Cup, namely an icon-like depiction of Jesus as an All Black which is on display at the Wellington Anglican Cathedral of St. Paul. Funnily enough, in the course of an evening spent at the Latimer Fellowship of NZ's AGM, during which the Rev. Wally Behan spoke on the Power of the Word, anchored to reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, the thought crossed my mind that the Jesus as an All Black illustration, and reporting of it, has been void of "Christ and him crucified." That is, the fun and games of wondering whether Jesus would be an All Black if he were incarnate in NZ right now, carries the considerable danger of bearing less than full witness to the Incarnate One as the Crucified One. Jesus did not come to be incarnate among us; he was incarnate among us in order to die as one of us for all of us.

Nevertheless I am reminded on occasions such as these that I once saw Jesus playing rugby ...

... it was at an inter-collegiate match at Oxford University!

And finally, in breaking news, disturbing to all conservatives, there are no absolutes. Why, you cannot even depend on the absolute truth that nothing goes faster than the speed of light! Einstein's Theory of Relativity is relative :)