Two Gospels in the Communion?

I think talk about 'two gospels' in the Communion is something which bears some careful scrutiny.

First, we need to take into account that 'the gospel' (as told and taught in the New Testament) is a gospel told in different versions (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul ... the writer to the Hebrews, James, John the seer as well?). These variations are not insignificant. It has been observed (though I cannot recall by whom) that the Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel rests more on Matthew than on Paul with much argument and conflict ensuing through the centuries. With respect to the Communion, a claim that there are 'two gospels' needs to check carefully that we are not talking about two versions of the one gospel rather than two gospels.

Secondly, we need to ask when differences in the understanding of the gospel affect fellowship and when they do not. Over the years I have had concerns about what fellow Christians believe to be the content of the gospel - sometimes in Anglican contexts, sometimes in ecumenical evangelical contexts (we use to have lots of vigorous discussion in the Christian Unions when I was a student at uni), sometimes in ministers' fellowships - but I haven't broken fellowship. In hindsight I think this was a very good thing not to do because with patience and listening I have come to new realisations about what the gospel is, including the realisation that my understanding can be improved and that others' understanding can be interpreted differently from my first reactive response. In other words, some differences which at first sight might look like "fellowship breakers" may at second sight not be so, so much care is needed.

Thirdly, we need to keep a sense of proportion. Over in England at the moment the Church of England via its flagship St Paul's Cathedral is taking a huge hit because the authorities in the cathedral (as best I can make out) lost a sense of proportion. In upholding the rules of health and safety they have allowed themselves to look to all the world like the moneychangers in the Temple rather than like Jesus. If our greatest concern about 'two gospels' is (i.e. boils down to) a concern about homosexuals, and if that concern is going to divide a church or the Communion, have we lost our sense of proportion? I think I share most concerns conservatives have about +Gene Robinson's consecration, the blessing of same sex partnerships, and the ordination of people in those relationships, but I (seem to) differ from some (many?) conservative Anglicans in my unwillingness to leave the Anglican church over these matters. For the life of me, I cannot see a good sense of proportion being worked out if I find myself in a new church which is largely defined in its distinctiveness because of what it does not approve about homosexuals.

Now I am pretty sure that some readers here will read all the above and say, Nevertheless, there are two gospels in the Communion today and unless something is done about this, the Communion will divide formally and (eventually) completely.

Yet there is still something to think about in respect of claims about two gospels ... to be continued.

As big a Communion tent as can be?

In the end, as I re-read some comments posted this past week when I posted about the Communion and the risks some groups are posing to it, I am unconvinced that these matters rending the Communion are sharply binary: what has Sydney to do with TEC? The Communion must become liberal or conservative, not a mixture. Opposing views on (e.g.) homosexuality or the ordination of women are impossible to contain within the the one Communion tent. Our problems are about two gospels defining the Communion when Communion can only be based on one gospel.

Here are the facts of Anglican life, experienced previously and currently: we have great differences contained in our tent, partly because they are contained in smaller tents within the larger tent (so Sydney lives first within the diverse Anglican Church of Australia, and then in the Communion which also includes TEC); opposing views are possible among Anglican groups (there are those who ordain women and those who do not in Global South; people who think divorce equates to adultery (and thus remarriage is blessing sin) and people who think oppositely live within the same churches, even in the same NZ dioceses!); the Communion and many of its member churches have always had two or more camps within  and lived to tell the tale - they just haven't always been called 'liberals' and 'conservatives'; and the problem of perceptions of two gospels at work in Anglican life is something which has also been lived with for a long time.

The last issue, two gospels, is, in the end, the sharpest and most important matter before us. But here, I suggest, are several issues which need to be worked through before I, you, or both of us make a definitive pronouncement that there are two gospels and thus there must be two Communions.

... to be continued (I accidentally published this in incomplete form, but not to worry, it can be completed another day!)

Choices

This morning's Press continues the unfolding now public story of the future possibilities for our Anglican cathedral here in Christchurch (i.e. another story of unfolding future possibilities re our Roman Catholic cathedral is yet to come).

In today's chapter (told here) of what I can assure you will be a long-running saga,we find this 'technical' section re figures,

"Once the cathedral has been stabilised, cathedral leaders will consider four options for the future of the building. One involves the complete demolition and rebuilding, which is not favoured by Matthews and Dean Peter Beck.


The other three options retain between 20 and 70 per cent of the building.

The funding shortfall for the options range from $30m to $50m on top of any insurance claim.

Matthews declined to reveal the value of the insurance coverage, but the building is insured for only 70 per cent of the rebuild cost. "

Put like that, the rebuild sounds like going to the supermarket and standing in front of the bread section contemplating whether to buy a loaf at $1.67, or $2.10, or $3.50.

In reality it will not be like that at all. $30m - $50m is money our diocese does not have. The choices before us include another set of choices about how the funds for the option chosen are raised, and logically the decision-making process must include the possibility that eventually we may need to choose to build a building within the insurance funds available to us. That is we face a large and complex range of inter-related choices which are nothing like wondering how much to spend on a loaf of bread! Of course the choices could be reduced quickly if donors stepped forward and offered (say) $40m without any fund-raising strategy needing to be considered. That could happen: there are wealthy people and businesses in Canterbury committed to making Christchurch great again.But we need to plan as though that isn't going to happen.

In a word, what lies before the diocese in relation to the cathedral is 'huge'; and that 'huge' is in an equation with another 'huge', what to do re all the other broken buildings, and another 'huge', the impact of insurance premiums on our parishes (as on all NZ churches). Three x huge = huge to the power of huge?

Brothers and sisters, pray for wisdom for us!

PS I am working on a response to as yet unaddressed comments made earlier in the week re the Communion as a big tent. But Timaru and a seminar on 'Preaching Mark's and John's Gospels' beckons and I shall go there first ...

Partialization of Christchurch Cathedral

From a letter from Bishop Victoria Matthews, Diocese of Christchurch, New Zealand, to her clergy this morning:

"The Cathedral, as you are aware, suffered grave damage in the Christchurch earthquakes of 26 December 2010; 22 February, 2011; and 13 June 2011. It has now been determined that in order to make the Cathedral safe for an interim period of time, for the retrieval and retention of some of the heritage aspects of the Cathedral, we have to order a controlled demolition for parts of the building. I am very aware it has been a difficult time for us all and it saddens me that I have to make this announcement. On the other hand it does mean that there will be the saving of some of the precious heritage, and also that the future Cathedral will incorporate that which is both old and new.

One consequence of this decision is that I will de-consecrate the Cathedral and return it to secular use prior to the controlled demolition. That service of de-consecration will take place on Wednesday, 9 November at at 10.00 am at the Cathedral. As the Cathedral stands in the restricted red zone, with very limited entry, we hope to air the service of de-consecration on television for those who wish to witness the de-consecration.

In closing let me say that, in God's good time, we again will have a wonderful Cathedral that is the heart of both the city and the Diocese. Until then, let me again remind all Christians that we are the church, the Body of Christ, and the Gospel we carry on our lips and in our hearts is the only Gospel many folks will ever encounter. Let us never forget that we have Good News to share. May our lives and words proclaim Christ's love and redemption where ever we go."

This announcement was due to be made to the world via the media at 11 am today, Friday 28th October, 2011.

Please read here for a stimulating, and somewhat challenging report in the Press re future options, citizen opinion, etc.

POSTSCRIPT On the other side of the world another Cathedral has had a chequered week, with good comment from Lord Carey here.

TEC on path to isolation?

TEC's Executive Council will propose to GC 2012 that TEC does not adopt the Covenant. Read Mark Harris here at Preludium.

Dear Commenters

Sorry. Dodgy, intermittent internet connection tonight, maybe tomorrow too. Intermittency permits posting comments, not so good on writing replies. So won't attempt to reply to many, varied and challenging comments until more secure, consistent connection obtainable.

Do the people putting the Anglican Communion at risk ...

... know what they are doing?

Interesting to me that Michael Poon's article published at Fulcrum, noted two posts below, has generated less than heart-warming comments here. Could be a sign that no one from Fulcrum visits here!

My own thinking has been that Poon is putting his finger on something very important when viewed from the perspective of 'risk': who and what is putting the Communion at risk?

Let's start at the beginning with two simple propositions. (1) The Anglican way of being Christian is worth living and dying for - it is the way of catholic Christianity without a papal hierarchy, the way of protestant Christianity with bishops, a way of being orthodox that incorporates the voice of laity, a worshipping Christianity committed to the developing liturgical tradition of ancient Christianity. (2) The Anglican Communion is the attempt to hold all Anglicans in the largest (widest diversity, most global geographically) organisation possible - if you like, the Communion is the 'big tent' for global Anglicanism (and the Covenant is the door into the tent!).

This blog is about these propositions: Anglican Christianity is good, the Anglican Communion is worth fighting for as the means of both associating Anglican Christians in global fellowship and of maintaining the distinctive character of Anglican Christianity, steering it away from reabsorption into Roman Catholicism and from evolution into other forms of Protestantism.

Poon reminds me that various forces within global Anglicanism are putting this great vision for Anglican Christianity at risk. Here are the risk-takers (in no particular order of demerit):

(1) GAFCON and its local expressions in national churches

(2) TEC (and to a lesser extent, ACCan)

(3) Nigerian, Ugandan, Rwandan, and Kenyan Anglican churches These churches, in my view, have demonstrated capability be disruptive of Communion life apart from organisations such as GAFCON.

(4) Global South

Each of the above offers some argumentation in favour of their approach to pan Anglican life on this planet. But none of the above has demonstrated that it is reasonable to view their approach as having the full width of the Anglican Communion.

Does anyone really imagine that (for instance) the future of global Anglicanism is along the pathway of excluding women from ordination, or of the full inclusion of the GLBT community in ordination and blessings of relationships, or via an Anglicanism in which one national church takes it upon itself to remedy perceived deficiencies in another national church, or that a 'South' Communion can have true global reach without the 'North' as well?

I suggest we who love and value Anglican Christianity, yet have strong commitments to certain matters, might think about the possibility that a many splintered Anglican Christianity is not a future worth fighting for. Sure, within my 'splinter' I might feel good that I have a space to pursue what I think is right and true, to see the fulfilment of 'my vision'. But what if 'my vision' is just that, a vision limited by my own limitations as a theologian?

The point of 'big tent' Anglicanism is that it allows for many 'my visions' to jostle together, out of which emerges a larger vision for the present and future of Christianity.

A commenter here rightly noted the future of Christianity is heading in a Chinese direction and raised the question whether current Communion life is geared to welcome that new future. Probably it is not so geared. But it could be. If we can get over our ghettoes, mend the fractures, and reconstitute ourselves.

Too big an 'if'?