Monday in Holy Week

Songs for Holy Week (2)
Song: How Deep the Father's Love For Us


Written by: Stuart Townsend
Words:

How deep the Father's love for us,

How vast beyond all measure

That He should give His only Son

To make a wretch His treasure



How great the pain of searing loss,

The Father turns His face away

As wounds which mar the chosen One,

Bring many sons to glory



Behold the Man upon the cross,

My sin upon His shoulders

Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,

Call out among the scoffers



It was my sin that held Him there

Until it was accomplished

His dying breath has brought me life

I know that it is finished



I will not boast in anything

No gifts, no power, no wisdom

But I will boast inJesus Christ

His death and resurrection



Why should I gain from His reward?

I cannot give an answer

But this I know with all my heart

His wounds have paid my ransom

(REPEAT)

Palm Sunday

Songs for Holy Week (1)



Verse 1:


I see the king of glory

Coming on the clouds with fire

The whole earth shakes

The whole earth shakes



Yeah



Verse 2:

I see his love and mercy

Washing over all our sin

The people sing

The people sing



Chorus:

Hosanna

Hosanna

Hosanna in the highest

Hosanna

Hosanna

Hosanna in the highest





Verse 3:

I see a generation

Rising up to take their place

With selfless faith

With selfless faith



Verse 4:

I see a near revival

Stirring as we pray and seek

We're on our knees

We're on our knees



(chorus)

Bridge:

Heal my heart and make it clean

Open up my eyes to the things unseen

Show me how to love like you have loved me



Break my heart from what breaks yours

Everything I am for your kingdoms cause

As I go from Earth* to

Eternity

(chorus x2)

Hosanna in the highest

*Corrected from "nothing" in original posting.

Is this false teaching?

It is less than a week out from Maundy Thursday. Check. That's quite close to Easter. Check. Must be a new billboard up at St Matthew's-in-the-City. Check.

It is a bit hard to read, so here it is in words: Jesus hanging on the cross, a picture on a Facebook page with a "Judas Iscariot likes this" tag.

News reports and St Matt's own page here, here and here.

Actually as St Matt's billboards go, this is probably the least provocative of them all. If there is any poor taste here it is the disrespect shown to Judas, who clearly had other things on his mind than checking out Facebook just before he committed suicide.

But what is a genuine worry in these days of upholding Anglican identity and all of us saying how fine a theological statement the first three sections of the Covenant make and all, is what Glynn Cardy, Vicar of St Matthew's says to justify the message they want to promote through the billboard.

In Anglican Taonga we read this,

"In explaining the billboard, Mr Cardy says Jesus’ death caused his followers to blame each other and themselves, and Judas was particularly vilified across the ages – symptomatic of the human desire to hold someone responsible for tragic events.

“Jesus did not die for our sins. He died because he peeved a bunch of powerful people off,” he says.

“He lived and preached a message of radical inclusion that threatened the status quo [and] the authorities killed him for it.

“The ‘dying for sins’ business was a spin the church applied at a later date.” "

Where does one begin in disappointment if not anger that one of our leading clerics believes and teaches these things about our Lord and Saviour and the meaning of his death on the cross?

The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus did die for our sins. That Bible which Glynn is required to read Sunday by Sunday (and to have his congregation say "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church" or "This is the Gospel of Christ") includes these verses Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 24:45-47; John 1:29; Acts 5:30-31; Romans 3:22-26; 5:8-11; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; Galatians 2:17-21; Ephesians 1:7; Philippians 3:7-11; Colossians 2:6-15; 1 Thessalonians 2:10; 5:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 2:14-18; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; Revelation 1:5.

So, problem #1, How does Glynn know that Jesus didn't die for our sins? The New Testament which tells him about Jesus (including, yes, that he peeved a bunch of people in authority) also tells him that Jesus died for our sins.

Glynn gives an explanation, but really this is problem #2, "The ‘dying for sins’ business was a spin the church applied at a later date." A spin? This is a licensed cleric of our church and he calls the gospel message preached  by the apostles "a spin".

Spin? It was the preaching of the gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins which began the parting of the ways of Christianity from Judaism, for the former no longer believed that the key to the forgiveness of sins lay in the sacrificial system centred on the Temple. It was the preaching of the gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins which spread Christianity throughout the Mediterranean and over to the British Islands. It was the preaching of the gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins which impelled Samuel Marsden to first preach the gospel in Aotearoa New Zealand on Christmas Day in 1814, which led the Williams brothers and other missionaries to these islands and which drew Selwyn to become our first bishop.

If that is 'spin' then Christianity is one gigantic mistake. Worse, it is one gigantic mistake which was perpetrated by 'the church'. Which brings us to problem #3.

'The church' here is made to sound like a cancer on the body of Christianity. There was Jesus, pure, simple, innocent man with a clear message about power and authority which got up people's noses. Along came the church and misinterpreted Jesus right from the beginning by teaching the wrong things about Jesus. If we know the truth about Jesus, the real truth, not the spin by the nasty church, why would we want to have anything to do with the church?

But Glynn is an ordained, licensed clergyperson sworn to uphold the teaching of the church, to further its aims and goals, and to contribute to it bringing glory to God. He belongs to the church which was founded on the preaching of Christ as Lord and Saviour. It stretches credibility that one can be part of 'the church' in such an integral way and call the foundational message of the church 'spin.'

Does this approach to Jesus dying for our sins constitute 'false teaching'? The width of Anglican tolerance means we explain 'died for our sins' in a variety of ways. But it does not mean we are free to describe it as 'spin'!

Deepening the bonds of affection

 The Archbishop of Capetown has written to the Archbishop of York (the two dioceses are in a companion relationship). From quite a long letter engaging with all that is good about Communion life and all the greater good which the Covenant offers to that life, I excerpt one paragraph which is particularly in tune with some themes in recent posts here:

"Allowing secular legal norms to define us in our separate identities, without counterbalancing commitments of mutual interdependence, and the drifting apart that has followed, are, it seems to me, what have particularly allowed such sharp bitterness in handling our differences. The disunity over sexuality merely reflects this deeper malaise within our common life. As I have said elsewhere, I feel we have failed to take seriously the commitments to ‘Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ’ made at the 1963 Toronto Congress. We said then ‘our unity in Christ, expressed in our full communion, is the most profound bond among us, in all our political and racial and cultural diversity’ and in consequence, ‘our need is … to understand how God has led us, through the sometimes painful history of our time, to see the gifts of freedom and communion in their great terms, and to live up to them.’ The Congress warned ‘if we are not responsible stewards of what Christ has given us, we will lose even what we have.’ But it appears we have not been responsible, taking one another for granted, being content to do our own thing, allowing ourselves to be preoccupied with our own concerns, so that when differences arose we had lost our ability to connect and work through them in love together."

Excellent!

The whole letter is here.

More and more I feel I am in a Western bloc of the Communion which loves the thought of "living together" and fights like anything not to take the next step of entering into marriage. An odd position to be in for those who claim to be Christian!

The only game in town

"Bishop Michael Nazir Ali said that "I am disappointed that the Anglican Communion Covenant, even in its watered down version,has failed to gain the support of the Church of England. This now means that the Jerusalem Statement (2008) is now 'The only game in town.'" "

With H/T to Thinking Anglicans, this comment by +Nazir-Ali on Anglican Mainstream goes too far (there are other games being played) but that should not obscure the point that if the opposition to the Covenant in the C of E is interpreted as complete defeat for the Covenant around the globe then it is a pyrrhic victory in respect of the organisation of Anglicans around the globe. It may not be the 'only game' but GAFCON/FCA with the Jerusalem Declaration as its binding scrum will be the main game in Anglican town if it proves that the Covenant is globally dead in the water.

Think about it for a few moments. Anglican 'nature' abhors an organisational 'vacuum': we love our vestries, synods, General Synods, local, diocesan, provincial and international meetings. Something binds us together at those meetings. Partly its our history and our relationships but substantially it is, in fact, what we believe, what makes us distinctively Anglican rather than, say, Presbyterian ('cause we believe in bishops) or Baptists ('cause we believe in infant baptism) or Roman Catholics ('cause we don't believe in bending knee to the papacy).

So, if, in the end, the C of E vote signifies the end of the Covenant (at least for a decade or so) what will speak to Anglicans around the globe about the means and method of our organising ourselves? Who and what is set up to draw Anglicans together in meaningful ways, including motivation to be missionally-engaged with the challenges of the 21st century? Well, it is already in place: organisationally (GAFCON/FCA) and doctrinally (Jerusalem Declaration). In a few weeks we will see reports of a gathering of 200 hundred Anglican leaders from 30 member churches. Could the liberal/progressive opponents of the Covenant organise a similar gathering from 30 member churches of the Communion?

In celebrating the English defeat of the Covenant as a centrist, moderate, and mild proposal for the future life of the 38 member church Communion, liberal/progressive Anglicans around the globe seem quite unaware of the fact that they are colluding with conservative opposition to the Covenant, opposition which paves the way for the strongest part of globally organised Anglicanism to be  strongly doctrinal and confessional in character, the very antithesis of what liberals/progressives are fighting for!

Thus the most fatuous remark about the English synodical voting against the Covenant has been made by Diarmaid MacCulloch when he writes, "Now Anglicans can start listening afresh". What will happen is the opposite of what he means: Anglicans will start listening afresh to a new and rising conservative leadership which is primely positioned to move into the vacuum created by the lack of global support for the Covenant as the key to a moderate, centrist Communion for the 21st century.

The second most fatuous remark is made by Pluralist (Adrian Worsfield) when he writes, "In terms of the Anglican Communion, the balkanisation that was taking place will now obviously continue". Er, no. The balkanisation will stop. GAFCON/FCA and the Jerusalem Declaration will sweep up those tempted to become Croatia and Serbia and draw them together into a united band. (There may be some balkanisation within the Church of England because the bishops there who do not want to lose their largest parishes and those largest parishes who do not want to see liberals/progressives triumph further have a mighty challenge before them which may lead to some separations).

I suggest that, if in the end, the defeat of the Covenant presages a global defeat for the Covenant, history will judge this to have been a pyrrhic victory for progressive/liberal Anglicans. They do not have the numbers in the Western Anglican churches to prop up for much longer the institutions they have sought to control. In particular they do not have the numbers to control the direction of global Anglicanism for much longer. .

NZ similar to England re voting on Covenant?

Alan Perry offers an analysis of voting for/against the Covenant in the C of E synods (to date) which is on Thinking Anglicans.

Interestingly, the "overall" voting works out like this:

"Overall: 48.1% for, 47.2% against, 4.7% abstentions


Overall (clergy and laity only): 47.3% for, 48.1% against, 4.7% abstentions"

The general overall voting includes an overwhelming "for" vote by bishops. Either way the voting is close, so the  Covenant has not been defeated there by a large margin when counting individual votes. (Yes, it has been defeated overwhelmingly on diocesan votes - I am not trying to pretend there is some hidden victory here). In other words, the Covenant has sufficient strength in its case to draw significant support in England, but also significant weakness in its case to draw significant opposition.

Interestingly, the diocesan vote in NZ's Pakeha dioceses (the ones closest to England in make up ... indeed we have many ex-English residents among our clergy and laity) is 3-3 to date (with Christchurch's vote to come on 21 April 2012). However  cannot I give the votes in NZ re individuals in each house in each Synod.

The Anglican Association and the Anglican Communion

POSTSCRIPT: if you want a slightly different alternative to what I have written below, read Andrew Goddard's 'post Covenant rejection by CofE' essay at Fulcrum.

Ideas have their time and some ideas find their time does not come according to their supporters timetable. The Anglican Covenant may prove to be such an idea as a proposal for the Anglican Communion. (It has clearly proved in the last few days to be an idea whose time has not yet come for the Church of England). As the Living Church editorial I pointed to yesterday says, we can look back to 1963 and the Toronto Congress to see that the notion of mutual responsibility and interdependence has charted the evolution of the Communion for nearly fifty years:

"The [No Anglican Covenant] coalition’s opposition to the Covenant has principally centered on a sustained disinterest in global Communion structures, funded by an unhappy amnesia (at best, ignorance at worst) regarding the modern evolution of the Anglican Communion. Among other things, prescribed reading for all members of the NACC, and those tempted to follow them, would include the report from the 1963 Anglican Congress in Toronto, Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ, which charted the course for inter-Anglican conversation of the last half century in a visionary, missionary mode."

Will future historians look back and see that the Anglican Covenant's rejection by sufficient member churches to prevent its effective implementation was just a hiccup on the way to fulfilment of the Toronto vision? Were that to be so then the next period of Communion life will likely show signs of the situation being a hiccup rather than a dead end. Here is how our global life might play out over the next few decades.

(1) Synods and General Synods/Conventions will continue to make their responses to the Covenant through the next year or so. In the end a majority of member churches will support the Covenant because it is a good idea to bind together our talk of 'mutual responsibility and interdependence in the body of Christ' into a plan for action (i.e. a willingness to accept that there are consequences to failing to live up to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the body of Christ). A sound communion ecclesiology is on the side of all those supporting the Covenant.

(2) Parts of the present Communion will engage with each other and with Covenant-minded members in an "association" manner: meeting, talking, tolerating, doing absolutely nothing about any disagreements. This will be pleasant for all concerned but within this association mode Anglican diversity will diversify further and "Anglican" will increasingly mean "AnythingGoes." Slowly but surely this "association" will fade away because it is largely supported by declining Western Anglican churches.

(3) A strong part of the present Communion, currently found across movements and meetings associated with GAFCON//the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and the Global South, will act as a "communion": a fellowship of Anglicans bound together in common cause, willing to hold each other accountable as those who are interdependent in the body of Christ. This version of the Anglican Communion will be supported by a good number of member churches with their full commitment, as well as by leaders from other member churches (and by ACNA). It will be the dominant expression of dynamic, growing Anglican Christianity for years to come.

(4) From within declining Western Anglican churches the dynamic, growing parishes and dioceses will send their leaders to join with the dominant expression of "Anglican Communion" in (3) above. When the GAFCON site tells us that some 200 leaders from 30 member churches are gathering in London in late April for a leadership conference (itself a preface to another GAFCON in 2013), we can be sure that the dominant expression of Anglican Christianity is stronger than the liberal/progessive expression which has fought against the Covenant. Even from within ACANZP, which is likely to reject the Covenant, we will have leaders, including bishops, at this April, 2012 event. Even more will go to GAFCON 2013.

(5) Effectively, that is, the present Anglican Communion of 38 member churches will work out its life as an Anglican Association of about 10-12 member churches and an Anglican Communion (or Fellowship) of about 26-28 member churches.

(6) Eventually the penny will drop, the idea of the Covenant will have its time: those within the Anglican Association who are tired of being part of an Anglicanism going nowhere and lacking common doctrinal accord will join with the (effective) Anglican Communion in a revised form of the (official) Anglican Communion which will have Instruments of Unity which work, a covenant which binds, and conferences which all member churches attend. However by that stage the 'covenant which binds' will have more in common doctrinally with the Jerusalem Declaration than with the Covenant doing the synodical rounds today.

(7) This means that the next ABC from a Communion perspective should be someone capable of seeing into the far future of the Communion, able to relate well to the leaders GAFCON/FCA while also connecting with the leaders of the Anglican Association, and, of course, competent to lead the C of E but not given to being anxious about the course of Communion life during the decade or so they will be in the ABC role.

Understandably ++Rowan has been anxious about the Communion, and that anxiety has served him well in pushing for the Covenant while not serving him well in respect of TEC: he was too anxious to please TEC!

The next ABC could be more relaxed about the Association and the Communion. My personal recommendation for "Lambeth 2018" would be to run twin events for the Association and for the Communion with a joint picnic on the lawns of the University of Kent for those from each who would like to break bread together (a la the 5000 rather than the Lord's Supper).

By 2028 we could see a Covenant-bonded Communion fully represented at the Lambeth Conference of that year. But 2038 would do.