I had heard a rumour that Justin Duckworth was going to be a candidate in the election for the Bishop of Wellington. When I spoke with him at the Society of Salt and Light Festival at Gore Bay in February about his 'plans for this year' he was diplomatically coy. His appearance at that Festival was in keeping with his ministry: at the cutting edge of change and connection to people in changing cultures and challenging communities. Nek minute he is the next Bishop of Wellington, as announced formally and officially here. Let no one say our church is incapable of adroit decision-making in response to the pace of change and the size of the chaqllenges we face. ADU congratulates +-elect Justin and prayerfully wishes him the best for this new role.
PS Off to clergy conference this week, which will be in retreat format, appropriately in the electronic wilderness, i.e. patchy mobile signals, so no posts and (probably) no chance to post comments after noon Monday for a few days.
CAMPBELL LIVE Tonight at 7 pm, according to a commenter @Liturgy, will feature an interview with +-elect Justin (Aotearoa NZ viewers only).
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thinking Anglicans Stand Firm On Virtue Of Communion With Canterbury (Updated)
Some unthinking Anglicans around the Communion will be surprised to find that the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is not planning schism anytime soon. But thinking Anglicans have always sought to peer beyond the headlines about GAFCON/FCA and to discern what is going on beneath the surface of things. Beneath the surface has always been a genuine commitment to a global Anglican movement which works from its heritage towards a new future. That heritage is both the BCP/39 Articles axis and relationship to the Church of England and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sure, from time to time strong criticism of the present incumbent in the See of Canterbury has been made, one or two churches have removed specific reference to Canterbury from their constitutions. But, when we think about it, we have never heard the GAFCON/FCA leaders talk about leaving the Communion (even as they exercise a right to temporarily withdraw fellowship), nor about starting a completely different, independent global institution (even as they exercise the right to form a movement within the Communion).
Thus this morning, reading my fellow Kiwi David Virtue's report on the FCA meeting in London, I find this opening paragraph:
In fact far from being schismatic, the FCA is likely to push for an enlargement of the Communion. At the appropriate time we will find a push being made for the inclusion of another member church of the Communion, namely the Anglican Church of North America. Their Archbishop Bob Duncan and other leaders (including another Kiwi domiciled in North America, +Julian Dobbs) are at FCA because in the eyes of the rest of the FCA they are true and genuine Anglicans with whom they are in fellowship.
In my view GAFCON/FCA is stealing a march on the creaking structures of the formal Communion institution by proposing GAFCONs (i.e. global conferences of leaders) every five years rather than the every ten years for Lambeth), and taking an initiative in proposing changes of direction in leadership commensurate with the shifting of the centre of world Anglicanism to Africa: electing a Chair of the Primates Meeting would not ensure an African chairs that body (as previously noted by me in a post below), but would open that possibility up for the future. Such changes are needed (in my view) if the formal Communion institution is to keep up with the pace of change in Anglicanism (indeed in Christianity itself in the 21st century). New wineskins for new wine is one of the oldest of all Christian mottos!!
What about TEC and its role in the new shaping of the Communion? I have no particular insight into what the GAFCON/FCA leaders might be thinking on that. But I note that TEC is in significant trouble right now in respect of ordering its own life in accordance with a new triennial budget it is having great trouble in setting. This trouble is not being revealed to us by the usual suspects (such as David Virtue) who have run sniping campaigns against TEC for years. No, this is being played out on the blogs and news services of those most keenly committed to TEC and the direction it has been pursuing since 1979 (e.g. here, here and here). My sense is that TEC is at a crossroads in its presentation to the Communion of the virtues of progressive Christianity. Can it show progressive Christianity as a fruitful pathway for global Anglicanism to follow? If it can, others will follow the lead, and look to the leadership of its Presiding Bishop on the councils of the Communion. If not, the influence of TEC on the Communion will be on the wane, ignored not only by GAFCON/FCA, but by others in the Communion who will increasingly recognise that the dominant bloc in the Communion is GAFCON/FCA.
As for the Covenant, if it does not become the adopted means of restating our Anglican perspective on orthodox Christianity in the 21st century, then I am afraid the Jerusalem Declaration, for all tis inadequacies, will simply become by virtue of lack of competition, the guiding light for future discussions about the content of orthodoxy in Anglican perspective.
The future of the Communion's character is there for GAFCON/FCA's shaping if it stands firm on a number of matters, including Communion with Canterbury.
UPDATE: the event being over various statements, reports etc can be read. Thinking Anglicans offers a series of links here and here. The final statement in PDF form is here. At first glance I am not seeing anything new emerging apart from a strong confidence in the futue of the movement. The underlying motive of the movement, to provide fellowship where none can be found, comes strongly through.
FURTHER COMMENT: I wonder if GAFCON/FCA has some umbrella aspects to it which we should take account of before labelling it 'extreme conservative' or some other epithet which might give comfort to those who want to dismiss the movement. It is an umbrella, for instance, to developments in the Church of England, especially in the Southwark Diocese, whereby parishes are seeking to develop ministry and mission with as much separation from the established power structures into which strongly liberal leadership has been placed and from which conservatives seem to have been excluded. Yes, for some evangelicals in the C of E, this aspect of GAFCON/FCA seems to be extremely conservative. But GAFCON/FCA is also an umbrella to Anglicans in North America who represent a range of conservative (a better descriptor might simply be 'traditional') perspectives but are disenchanted by the extreme liberal/progressive tendencies of the leadership of TEC and ACCan. Ditto, dare I say it, for some Anglicans in my church who are concerned at the direction their dioceses are heading in. Plus GAFCON/FCA seems to be a natural place to gravitate to for many Anglican leaders from Africa and South America (but not, I notice, looking at the photos on the PDF linked to above, from Asia) who would not describe themselves as conservative or liberal but simply 'Anglican' as they have grown in their Christian walk with Anglicanism as handed down to them. In sum: a movement drawing from 30 member churches of the Communion is going to be complex rather than simple, diverse to an extent rather than monochrome.
Thus this morning, reading my fellow Kiwi David Virtue's report on the FCA meeting in London, I find this opening paragraph:
"Fellowship of Confessing Anglican leaders meeting at St. Mark's Battersea heard Bishop Michael Nazir Ali say that the intention of the FCA is not to break with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Anglican Communion but they will continue to support orthodox dioceses and parishes in liberal and revisionist provinces like the US and Canada."You see, these are thinking Anglicans meeting who are willing to stand firm on the virtue of continuing Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. From a Kiwi perspective I am not surprised because the bishops and clergy I know who have gone are not anti-Communion. Rather they are pro fellowship and want to find, build and strengthen fellowship around the globe with Anglicans who share that common heritage in orthodox faith as handed down to us through the specific Anglican history of a catholic-and-reformed church.
In fact far from being schismatic, the FCA is likely to push for an enlargement of the Communion. At the appropriate time we will find a push being made for the inclusion of another member church of the Communion, namely the Anglican Church of North America. Their Archbishop Bob Duncan and other leaders (including another Kiwi domiciled in North America, +Julian Dobbs) are at FCA because in the eyes of the rest of the FCA they are true and genuine Anglicans with whom they are in fellowship.
In my view GAFCON/FCA is stealing a march on the creaking structures of the formal Communion institution by proposing GAFCONs (i.e. global conferences of leaders) every five years rather than the every ten years for Lambeth), and taking an initiative in proposing changes of direction in leadership commensurate with the shifting of the centre of world Anglicanism to Africa: electing a Chair of the Primates Meeting would not ensure an African chairs that body (as previously noted by me in a post below), but would open that possibility up for the future. Such changes are needed (in my view) if the formal Communion institution is to keep up with the pace of change in Anglicanism (indeed in Christianity itself in the 21st century). New wineskins for new wine is one of the oldest of all Christian mottos!!
What about TEC and its role in the new shaping of the Communion? I have no particular insight into what the GAFCON/FCA leaders might be thinking on that. But I note that TEC is in significant trouble right now in respect of ordering its own life in accordance with a new triennial budget it is having great trouble in setting. This trouble is not being revealed to us by the usual suspects (such as David Virtue) who have run sniping campaigns against TEC for years. No, this is being played out on the blogs and news services of those most keenly committed to TEC and the direction it has been pursuing since 1979 (e.g. here, here and here). My sense is that TEC is at a crossroads in its presentation to the Communion of the virtues of progressive Christianity. Can it show progressive Christianity as a fruitful pathway for global Anglicanism to follow? If it can, others will follow the lead, and look to the leadership of its Presiding Bishop on the councils of the Communion. If not, the influence of TEC on the Communion will be on the wane, ignored not only by GAFCON/FCA, but by others in the Communion who will increasingly recognise that the dominant bloc in the Communion is GAFCON/FCA.
As for the Covenant, if it does not become the adopted means of restating our Anglican perspective on orthodox Christianity in the 21st century, then I am afraid the Jerusalem Declaration, for all tis inadequacies, will simply become by virtue of lack of competition, the guiding light for future discussions about the content of orthodoxy in Anglican perspective.
The future of the Communion's character is there for GAFCON/FCA's shaping if it stands firm on a number of matters, including Communion with Canterbury.
UPDATE: the event being over various statements, reports etc can be read. Thinking Anglicans offers a series of links here and here. The final statement in PDF form is here. At first glance I am not seeing anything new emerging apart from a strong confidence in the futue of the movement. The underlying motive of the movement, to provide fellowship where none can be found, comes strongly through.
FURTHER COMMENT: I wonder if GAFCON/FCA has some umbrella aspects to it which we should take account of before labelling it 'extreme conservative' or some other epithet which might give comfort to those who want to dismiss the movement. It is an umbrella, for instance, to developments in the Church of England, especially in the Southwark Diocese, whereby parishes are seeking to develop ministry and mission with as much separation from the established power structures into which strongly liberal leadership has been placed and from which conservatives seem to have been excluded. Yes, for some evangelicals in the C of E, this aspect of GAFCON/FCA seems to be extremely conservative. But GAFCON/FCA is also an umbrella to Anglicans in North America who represent a range of conservative (a better descriptor might simply be 'traditional') perspectives but are disenchanted by the extreme liberal/progressive tendencies of the leadership of TEC and ACCan. Ditto, dare I say it, for some Anglicans in my church who are concerned at the direction their dioceses are heading in. Plus GAFCON/FCA seems to be a natural place to gravitate to for many Anglican leaders from Africa and South America (but not, I notice, looking at the photos on the PDF linked to above, from Asia) who would not describe themselves as conservative or liberal but simply 'Anglican' as they have grown in their Christian walk with Anglicanism as handed down to them. In sum: a movement drawing from 30 member churches of the Communion is going to be complex rather than simple, diverse to an extent rather than monochrome.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Breaking News: Cathedral asked to release reports
For ages now (well, it seems like ages), the Christchurch Cathedral and Diocese have borne the brunt of a significant amount of popular disquiet over the deconstruction of the cathedral. It is not just that there have been many newspaper headlines and letters to the editors, it has also been a phenomenon in which every citizen has a view about the cathedral, as many of us find when we talk to our friends, family and neighbours. Some are very accepting of the need to deconstruct the building and are already looking forward to a new cathedral fit for purpose and iconic for a new age. Others much less so, with many not believing what they have been told, and arguing that the cathedral can and should be saved.
Through this unfolding situation the relevant diocesan and cathedral authorities, centred on a Cathedral Project Group drawn from the Church Property Trustees and the Cathedral Chapter, have steadfastly maintained both that they have excellent supporting engineering advice, peer reviewed, as well as supporting advice from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA)'s engineers, and that they are not obligated to release that advice. For what it is worth, I trust the soundness of this decision.
Today however, in breaking news for the cathedral and diocese, a new development has occurred. The Right Hon Gerry Brownlee, Government Minister for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has announced that CERA will release over a thousand pages of its files on the cathedral and called on the cathedral to do likewise with its files.
I am going to be praying for our leadership as they respond through Bishop Victoria to Gerry's challenge. May they know the right thing to do.
UPDATE: Go here for the documents being released by CERA. Read here for latest Stuff.co.nz report
Below that report are comments. I cite one here:
Through this unfolding situation the relevant diocesan and cathedral authorities, centred on a Cathedral Project Group drawn from the Church Property Trustees and the Cathedral Chapter, have steadfastly maintained both that they have excellent supporting engineering advice, peer reviewed, as well as supporting advice from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA)'s engineers, and that they are not obligated to release that advice. For what it is worth, I trust the soundness of this decision.
Today however, in breaking news for the cathedral and diocese, a new development has occurred. The Right Hon Gerry Brownlee, Government Minister for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has announced that CERA will release over a thousand pages of its files on the cathedral and called on the cathedral to do likewise with its files.
"Brownlee, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister, said the cathedral should release its advice as there was huge public interest in the fate of the building.Another report is here, now with response by our Media Officer, Fiona Summerfield.
"There is a range of views on the very difficult decision the Anglican Church has made about the future of its cathedral, and given the significance of the building, this issue is of huge concern to many people in the community,'' he said.
"I believe that if the public is able to see the advice the church has been working from there is likely to be more understanding about the extent of the damage to the cathedral and the rationale behind the decision to partially deconstruct it.
"At this stage, a demolition permit has been issued to deal with the dangerously unstable tower, and further permits will be issued to partially deconstruct the building as carefully as possible to no lower than two metres." "
I am going to be praying for our leadership as they respond through Bishop Victoria to Gerry's challenge. May they know the right thing to do.
UPDATE: Go here for the documents being released by CERA. Read here for latest Stuff.co.nz report
Below that report are comments. I cite one here:
"Having scan-read the full document, from my point of view the correct decision has been made. The photos are very helpful The damage is not only to the west end of the cathedral but throughout the building and even in the apse, east end. Let's hope these documents are helpful to those who hold onto the dream of things past. It is gone! Focus on rebuild."FURTHER UPDATE: What is going to happen, precisely? In this report a leader of the group determined to see the cathedral saved has met with Bishop Victoria and she has promised a response within a week.
Could ++Katharine Jefferts Schori be next Chair of the Primates Meeting?
Be careful what you wish for! The GAFCON Primates have called for an elected Chair to head the Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting, rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury as is the ex officio tradition to date. Now I do not think it involves any expertise in rocket science to draw a conclusion that the GAFCON Primates would expect the first such elected chair to be a man. But, in fact, it could be a woman, that is, the one and only woman primate, ++Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Consider: there are 38 primates who can go to that meeting (if they all turn up, which hasn't happened recently).* Would there be 20 possible votes for ++Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Let's see: England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Canada, TEC, Australia, ACANZP, Melanesia, Southern Africa, Japan, Brazil, Central America, Mexico, Korea, Papua-New Guinea, Philippines, Myanmar, South India, North India. That would be, in my view, twenty possible votes.
OK, sure there would be those who might not be so agreeable to ++KJS on, say, theology. And, almost certainly, there is the problem that her tenure as primate is time limited and this would rule her out of consideration. But then if those twenty did not vote for her, whom might they vote for? ++Nigeria? Possibly. ++England? Ah, now there is a thought, there could be a majority for electing the one who formerly held the role ex officio!
*Technical aside: while the ABC has been Chair as an ex officio matter, the Archbishop of York has turned up as alternate Primate of the C of E, a theoretical maximum of 39; but under a new regime, surely things would revert to one primate per member church attending.
Consider: there are 38 primates who can go to that meeting (if they all turn up, which hasn't happened recently).* Would there be 20 possible votes for ++Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Let's see: England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Canada, TEC, Australia, ACANZP, Melanesia, Southern Africa, Japan, Brazil, Central America, Mexico, Korea, Papua-New Guinea, Philippines, Myanmar, South India, North India. That would be, in my view, twenty possible votes.
OK, sure there would be those who might not be so agreeable to ++KJS on, say, theology. And, almost certainly, there is the problem that her tenure as primate is time limited and this would rule her out of consideration. But then if those twenty did not vote for her, whom might they vote for? ++Nigeria? Possibly. ++England? Ah, now there is a thought, there could be a majority for electing the one who formerly held the role ex officio!
*Technical aside: while the ABC has been Chair as an ex officio matter, the Archbishop of York has turned up as alternate Primate of the C of E, a theoretical maximum of 39; but under a new regime, surely things would revert to one primate per member church attending.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Anglicans abhor organisational vacuum
One of the points I tried to make at our Synod on Saturday is that if the Covenant does not pass and the life of the Communion does not improve as a global body with a degree of organisational unity then another Anglican global body will emerge and gather strength. Emerging for a while now has been the GAFCON/FCA (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) movement which is taking another step forward in being the leading global body of organised Anglicans by holding a conference in London as I write, with leaders drawn from 30 or so Anglican churches. Let me say again what I have said before here, and two bishops and some clergy from our church in these islands!
What opponents of the Covenant have lost sight of (in my view) is that the debate about the Covenant has not been about two equally worthy alternative future scenarios for the 38 member church Communion: more tightly knit together Covenanted Communion versus looser unCovenanted federation or association of independent churches. (If equally worthy and productive for future organisation of Anglicans around the world, who wouldn't go for the latter with its greater freedom and its perceived non-aggression against gay and lesbian Anglicans!) Not at all. The issue has been whether the presentation of the global Anglican community to the world as part of our mission would be 'the Anglican Communion' as a genuinely geographically wide world body, theologically broad but with limits defined by the Covenant, and some commitment to internal discipline to hold ourselves together around a reasonable centre within that breadth, or something else (or somethings else) which would be less satisfactory (from the perspective of broad Anglicanism).
Well, the following scenario could be emerging with this present meeting in the midst of the waves the refusal of the C of E to approve the Covenant have sent around the Communion: the largest global body of organised Anglicans being led and shaped by the leaders of the most conservative Anglican churches in alliance with the most conservative leaders of other churches (e.g. Archbishop Peter Jensen from Australia), with a theology set by the Jerusalem Declaration and a smaller body of organised Anglicans (but always a bit disorganised because of a refusal to be bound by any particular theological discipline) which turns out to be dominated by white Western more liberal/progressive than conservative Anglicans (TEC, Canada, Australia, Atlantic Isles, ACANZP churches).
Sadly, neither body will be representative of the historic breadth of Anglican theology and ecclesiology. There may be something of a 'turf war' as to who claims the right to be called 'the Anglican Communion' (that is, the FCA leaders may remain within the Communion and assert their dominance in meetings such as the Primates Meeting where there is a signal that a push will come for that body not to be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury). Either way, a lot is going to be lost by rejecting the Covenant. (That is not to say that some kind of guaranteed future for the Communion would emerge if the Covenant were to be signed: a lot would then depend on actual conduct of signing members).
In short, the new ABC could well be an ABC shorn of many Communion responsibilities. The shape of the Communion is going to be set, one way or another, by the sheer strength of numbers of global Anglicans intent on filling the organisational vacuum created by the debacle of the last decade and cemented by the refusal to support the Covenant by the previously dominating churches such as TEC and the C of E.
Yes, all this makes little difference to day to day life for Anglicans here in Christchurch (where the cathedral remains a daily issue, latest report, including an attempt by our Synod to improve communication and consultation here). But my prediction is that when we do find global Anglicanism mentioned in the newspapers of the future, the leading opinions are going to be shifting away from the old guard of slightly left of centre bishops and theologians (to say nothing of the airtime given to the far left Spongs) towards the right of centre leaders, mostly coming out of the new dominance of Africa and Asia.
For ages now the pundits have been saying that the centre of Christianity is shifting towards Africa. It is so and global Anglicanism is being drawn in the same direction.
What opponents of the Covenant have lost sight of (in my view) is that the debate about the Covenant has not been about two equally worthy alternative future scenarios for the 38 member church Communion: more tightly knit together Covenanted Communion versus looser unCovenanted federation or association of independent churches. (If equally worthy and productive for future organisation of Anglicans around the world, who wouldn't go for the latter with its greater freedom and its perceived non-aggression against gay and lesbian Anglicans!) Not at all. The issue has been whether the presentation of the global Anglican community to the world as part of our mission would be 'the Anglican Communion' as a genuinely geographically wide world body, theologically broad but with limits defined by the Covenant, and some commitment to internal discipline to hold ourselves together around a reasonable centre within that breadth, or something else (or somethings else) which would be less satisfactory (from the perspective of broad Anglicanism).
Well, the following scenario could be emerging with this present meeting in the midst of the waves the refusal of the C of E to approve the Covenant have sent around the Communion: the largest global body of organised Anglicans being led and shaped by the leaders of the most conservative Anglican churches in alliance with the most conservative leaders of other churches (e.g. Archbishop Peter Jensen from Australia), with a theology set by the Jerusalem Declaration and a smaller body of organised Anglicans (but always a bit disorganised because of a refusal to be bound by any particular theological discipline) which turns out to be dominated by white Western more liberal/progressive than conservative Anglicans (TEC, Canada, Australia, Atlantic Isles, ACANZP churches).
Sadly, neither body will be representative of the historic breadth of Anglican theology and ecclesiology. There may be something of a 'turf war' as to who claims the right to be called 'the Anglican Communion' (that is, the FCA leaders may remain within the Communion and assert their dominance in meetings such as the Primates Meeting where there is a signal that a push will come for that body not to be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury). Either way, a lot is going to be lost by rejecting the Covenant. (That is not to say that some kind of guaranteed future for the Communion would emerge if the Covenant were to be signed: a lot would then depend on actual conduct of signing members).
In short, the new ABC could well be an ABC shorn of many Communion responsibilities. The shape of the Communion is going to be set, one way or another, by the sheer strength of numbers of global Anglicans intent on filling the organisational vacuum created by the debacle of the last decade and cemented by the refusal to support the Covenant by the previously dominating churches such as TEC and the C of E.
Yes, all this makes little difference to day to day life for Anglicans here in Christchurch (where the cathedral remains a daily issue, latest report, including an attempt by our Synod to improve communication and consultation here). But my prediction is that when we do find global Anglicanism mentioned in the newspapers of the future, the leading opinions are going to be shifting away from the old guard of slightly left of centre bishops and theologians (to say nothing of the airtime given to the far left Spongs) towards the right of centre leaders, mostly coming out of the new dominance of Africa and Asia.
For ages now the pundits have been saying that the centre of Christianity is shifting towards Africa. It is so and global Anglicanism is being drawn in the same direction.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
It's a long and winding road
If there is one thing just maybe every reader here might agree on it is that being a Christian in the 21st century seems to get more and more complicated. Whether one is a Christian in England feeling the tide of established Christianity is ebbing fast, or a Christian in the USA trying to negotiate a way through the 'culture wars' there, or a Christian in Iraq bewildered by the way in which life has become more dangerous in the years since the fall of Saddam Hussein, or even an Anglican in Christchurch unable to work out how a secular city with a cathedral has become a spiritual conflict zone over the prospect of not having a cathedral, the way of Christ seems more complicated than it was in the 20th century.
One sign of that complication is that when we think about the best form of Christian community to belong to, that is, which church to participate in, this too seems complicated. One way to think about current Anglican difficulties is that we are searching among ourselves for the things we agree together are characteristically Anglican, the things that is that distinguish us as one group of Christians from our brothers and sisters in Christ. Is it our common prayer, our continuity with English Christian tradition, our coherence in respect of certain theological markers (such as incarnational theology)? Is it somewhat more negative: we are quite catholic but do not think it good to have a hierarchy like Rome, or we are quite evangelical but value being an episcopal church (so long as no bishop tells us what to do!!), or even when all sorts of unsatisfactory things are at work among us, the Anglican church is still the best boat to fish from? The complexity of the situation is that it has become incredibly hard work to secure any kind of agreement among us (dare I mention what is a relatively simple proposal, the Covenant?)
Naturally in such a situation it is tempting, perhaps very tempting to find an alternate community of faith to belong to. Part of what is going on in global Anglicanism is the setting up of alternate communities under an Anglican umbrella (or, if you prefer a different image, within an Anglican framework). But also we are finding that the search for a workable community of faith has led to some unexpected proposals such as the Anglican Ordinariate within the fold of Rome proving attractive. For some this is an unworkable halfway house, and the step is taken to transfer straight through to Roman Catholicism without the Anglican flavours of the Ordinariate. The Telegraph offers a report on one parish's experience in London of losing its vicar and a sizeable chunk of its congregation. (It is worth persevering right to the end of the report to find that the ex-vicar will soon be ordained to be a Roman priest and will be given charge of the congregation which his fellow parishioners have joined, a congregation of no less than 2000 people. How many C of E congregations are that large?)
On the face of it, in an Anglican world of shifting sands of what it is we believe about theology and ethics, the Roman option has definite attractions because of its definite doctrines and ethics. The departing vicar quips,
"In the Church of England, you don’t know what the Church believes from one synod to the next."
Except life is not quite that straightforward, even in Roman Christianity. Head across the Atlantic to find the mother of storms brewing within American Roman Catholicism. Nuns in conflict with Rome is scarcely a new story, but this particular story has an edge to it. In the context of the great culture wars being fought out in 21st century America, Roman Catholics (absolutely, by a huge margin, the largest community of Christian faith in the States) are speaking with a forked tongue, the bishops saying one thing, the nuns another, and many Catholics by their actions (e.g. using artificial contraception) another (albeit more closely aligned to the nuns than to the bishops). Can Roman speech in that context be united? Has the genie escaped from the uncorked bottle?
Time will tell, but right now, surveying the global landscape of Christianity, working out the simple questions of what we believe, how we should live and who we should associate with as church appear to have complicated answers. It's a long and winding road to finding the perfect church.
And, as the old joke goes, when you find it, do not join it, lest it cease to be perfect because of its latest member.
One sign of that complication is that when we think about the best form of Christian community to belong to, that is, which church to participate in, this too seems complicated. One way to think about current Anglican difficulties is that we are searching among ourselves for the things we agree together are characteristically Anglican, the things that is that distinguish us as one group of Christians from our brothers and sisters in Christ. Is it our common prayer, our continuity with English Christian tradition, our coherence in respect of certain theological markers (such as incarnational theology)? Is it somewhat more negative: we are quite catholic but do not think it good to have a hierarchy like Rome, or we are quite evangelical but value being an episcopal church (so long as no bishop tells us what to do!!), or even when all sorts of unsatisfactory things are at work among us, the Anglican church is still the best boat to fish from? The complexity of the situation is that it has become incredibly hard work to secure any kind of agreement among us (dare I mention what is a relatively simple proposal, the Covenant?)
Naturally in such a situation it is tempting, perhaps very tempting to find an alternate community of faith to belong to. Part of what is going on in global Anglicanism is the setting up of alternate communities under an Anglican umbrella (or, if you prefer a different image, within an Anglican framework). But also we are finding that the search for a workable community of faith has led to some unexpected proposals such as the Anglican Ordinariate within the fold of Rome proving attractive. For some this is an unworkable halfway house, and the step is taken to transfer straight through to Roman Catholicism without the Anglican flavours of the Ordinariate. The Telegraph offers a report on one parish's experience in London of losing its vicar and a sizeable chunk of its congregation. (It is worth persevering right to the end of the report to find that the ex-vicar will soon be ordained to be a Roman priest and will be given charge of the congregation which his fellow parishioners have joined, a congregation of no less than 2000 people. How many C of E congregations are that large?)
On the face of it, in an Anglican world of shifting sands of what it is we believe about theology and ethics, the Roman option has definite attractions because of its definite doctrines and ethics. The departing vicar quips,
"In the Church of England, you don’t know what the Church believes from one synod to the next."
Except life is not quite that straightforward, even in Roman Christianity. Head across the Atlantic to find the mother of storms brewing within American Roman Catholicism. Nuns in conflict with Rome is scarcely a new story, but this particular story has an edge to it. In the context of the great culture wars being fought out in 21st century America, Roman Catholics (absolutely, by a huge margin, the largest community of Christian faith in the States) are speaking with a forked tongue, the bishops saying one thing, the nuns another, and many Catholics by their actions (e.g. using artificial contraception) another (albeit more closely aligned to the nuns than to the bishops). Can Roman speech in that context be united? Has the genie escaped from the uncorked bottle?
Time will tell, but right now, surveying the global landscape of Christianity, working out the simple questions of what we believe, how we should live and who we should associate with as church appear to have complicated answers. It's a long and winding road to finding the perfect church.
And, as the old joke goes, when you find it, do not join it, lest it cease to be perfect because of its latest member.
Monday, April 23, 2012
No Julian No!
Dear Bishop Julian,
It is great that you have grown from strength to strength in your ministry as an ordained person within global Anglicanism, to the point where you exercise ministry as a bishop within the CANA fold. You have journeyed a long way from a curacy in Westport, New Zealand!
However, within Anglican polity we hold that any one of us, even a bishop, is capable of fallible pronouncement. Thus it is worth pointing out that you have made a judgement call which is unfair and unfounded. According to a writing of yours, published on VirtueOnline (H/T Fr Ron Smith), you have written,
I suggest a bishop, as a theological and spiritual leader might be expected to show more human insight than you demonstrate here. Insight that press conferences are not church services so the number turning up has no direct relationship to spiritual health and vigour; insight that in a post quake stressed city there might be one hundred and one other things needing to be done rather than turning up to press conferences; insight that the project of building a cathedral for permanent service in the worship of God might be a long project, long enough to warrant a temporary, transitional structure such as a 'cardboard cathedral' to be built; insight that whatever the religious background of the architect, whatever the building materials and whatever the cost, to make progress on such a matter at such a time might have cost many people tears, sweat, sleepless nights, and much time in prayer. In short, I think a bishop could be expected to show some appreciation for his brothers and sisters in Christ and their labours in the Lord's Name and for the Lord's service.
Instead we have this cutting judgement (of which only a part is cited above). The moral and spiritual leadership of Anglicans in Christchurch is not wilting. It is not perfect, and like any flower it could do with some tender love and a pouring of the water of encouragement. But 'wilting' as a judgement on our leadership is neither fair nor founded on any evidence you bring forward.
If, however, we are judged in this way from afar we might just wilt from discouragement. But is a self-fulfilling judgement on us the lasting memory of your ministry which you wish to leave with us?
Yours in Christ, even in disagreement,
Peter
It is great that you have grown from strength to strength in your ministry as an ordained person within global Anglicanism, to the point where you exercise ministry as a bishop within the CANA fold. You have journeyed a long way from a curacy in Westport, New Zealand!
However, within Anglican polity we hold that any one of us, even a bishop, is capable of fallible pronouncement. Thus it is worth pointing out that you have made a judgement call which is unfair and unfounded. According to a writing of yours, published on VirtueOnline (H/T Fr Ron Smith), you have written,
"On 16 April, the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch held an international press conference and public celebration (in a stark, visual demonstration of the wilting moral and spiritual leadership of that body, only 40 'locals' showed up from that city's population of 384,000 according to The New Zealand Herald) to unveil avant garde Japanese architect Shigeru Ban's model for a NZD 5 million (USD 4.2 million) cardboard cathedral."It would be difficult for anyone in Christchurch, whatever you intended by this statement, not to feel that you have made a judgement call on the work of Anglicans in the Diocese of Christchurch: "the wilting moral and spiritual leadership of that body." What is the basis for saying this? According to you it is because "only 40 'locals' showed up from the city's population of 384,000".
I suggest a bishop, as a theological and spiritual leader might be expected to show more human insight than you demonstrate here. Insight that press conferences are not church services so the number turning up has no direct relationship to spiritual health and vigour; insight that in a post quake stressed city there might be one hundred and one other things needing to be done rather than turning up to press conferences; insight that the project of building a cathedral for permanent service in the worship of God might be a long project, long enough to warrant a temporary, transitional structure such as a 'cardboard cathedral' to be built; insight that whatever the religious background of the architect, whatever the building materials and whatever the cost, to make progress on such a matter at such a time might have cost many people tears, sweat, sleepless nights, and much time in prayer. In short, I think a bishop could be expected to show some appreciation for his brothers and sisters in Christ and their labours in the Lord's Name and for the Lord's service.
Instead we have this cutting judgement (of which only a part is cited above). The moral and spiritual leadership of Anglicans in Christchurch is not wilting. It is not perfect, and like any flower it could do with some tender love and a pouring of the water of encouragement. But 'wilting' as a judgement on our leadership is neither fair nor founded on any evidence you bring forward.
If, however, we are judged in this way from afar we might just wilt from discouragement. But is a self-fulfilling judgement on us the lasting memory of your ministry which you wish to leave with us?
Yours in Christ, even in disagreement,
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)