Is the Spirit of truth liberal or conservative? (1)

ADDENDUM: Wonderful Corpus Christi note here. I hope to publish Part 2 of below tomorrow (1 June), and Part 3 on Tuesday 4 June.

BEGINNING of original post:

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:12-14, NRSV)

One current theme in Anglican theology, at least in the august corridors of ADU, is that the Spirit is speaking new things into the life of the church. Intriguingly, even where these new things might disagree with what we thought the Spirit has spoken to us through Scripture, invocation is made of Scripture. Specifically, John 16 is invoked, "I still have many things to say to you ... the Spirit ... will guide you into all truth."

What do these words mean?

In one way it is a little bit ludicrous to think that, say, Jesus really wanted to give the disciples the low down on the iniquity of slavery, but that had to wait to a future time when they could 'bear' that truth.

In another way, we can see that Jesus is making no great claim for the future of general knowledge and his disciples. Jesus is not here a schoolmaster with pupils thirsty to learn facts and figure. He is the Only Son of God who has come from the Father's heart to make the Father known (1:18). 'All the truth', especially when it relates to what the Spirit hears from the Father and the Son, is the truth of God. To be guided by the Spirit into all truth is to be guided deeper into the heart of God. Intimate knowledge of God is unbearable and we need a gentle, understanding guide. The Spirit of truth who is also in Johannine terms the Paraclete/Helper/Counsellor/Advocate/Comforter is that guide.

But what does it mean for disciples to be drawn ever more deeply into the truth of God? In Johannine terms, thinking in terms of 1 John as well as the Fourth Gospel, the truth of God is that God is love (1 John 4:7).

At this point in our exegesis we need to take great care. Such great care that I am going to make this part one of a series and come back after further thought to the matter! The care needed is how we understand the love of God and the God who is Love.

We have a way of talking about the love of God which goes something like this: God loves you. You do not quite understand this, so let me say it again, God loves you. It is the love you need, the love you may never have received as fully as you would like from family and friends. It is - when truly understood - utterly irresistible, this divine love.

But is the love of God like that? If it is, then our churches, surely, would be full of people giving thanks for that love? More to a Johannine point, if that is the love of God, how does that square with the divisiveness of Jesus' ministry? In John's Gospel disciples keep falling away from Jesus because his teaching is too tough for them. In 1 John the Christian community of love is torn apart through sectarian division.

No. We need to think a little about the love of God, the truth of which we cannot bear now but the Holy Spirit can guide us into it gently. What is the Spirit of truth telling us about the love of God?

Back soon (ish - some non-blogging deadlines to meet this week)

The one rule liberal Anglicans always follow

Mention the Diocese of South Carolina or ACNA and a stock standard liberal response here at ADU if not elsewhere is that they are not Anglicans as they do not belong to the Anglican Communion. It strikes me that for all the noise liberals make about rules not defining and binding us as Christians there is one rule which liberal Anglicans always follow: to be an Anglican you must belong to a church which belongs to the Anglican Communion.

This is, of course, a very useful rule because it means that it doesn't matter what happens in The Episcopal Church, even the most egregious exegesis by its Presiding Bishop, everything is Anglican because it has taken place within or been uttered by the chief leader of an 'official' Anglican church, one that belongs to the Anglican Communion.

But the serious issue here is what makes an Anglican an Anglican. Is belonging to the Anglican Communion the sine qua non of being a proper Anglican? Is it allegiance to the prayer book as in the BCP (which one?) or its local successor? (Some discussion along these lines occurs at Liturgy) Then there is the important corporate dimension of Anglicanism. What makes a diocese and a province 'Anglican'? Three recent essays at Living Church tackle this question, with specific reference to the current and future status of the Diocese of South Carolina which, shall we say, has stepped aside from TEC for the time being.

Jesse Zink, "Why Provinces Matter?" astutely observes:

"Hierarchy in the church is a bedeviling issue. The Episcopal Church itself has not provided persuasive reasons why hierarchy is necessary on a provincial level but unnecessary on a Communion-wide level. Surely for a church that defines its existence in terms of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, hierarchy cannot stop at the water’s edge?"

He then strikes a challenging note on Anglican ecclesiology:

"As in Scripture, so also in ecclesiology: the pernicious hermeneutic of self-justification remains a constant temptation. This is regrettable. Ecclesiology is not a minor administrative matter that can be casually tossed aside. It is part of the core good news Christians have to proclaim. In a globalizing world that is dominated by discord and fracture, the Church makes the counter-cultural claim that in baptism we come to belong to the body of Christ. No other entity is shaped by a common willingness to die daily with Christ and be raised with him who is the author of true and abundant life. We believe we belong, and that this is good news. Anglicans work out the implications of this radical claim in the constellation of parishes, dioceses, provinces, networks, and institutions that comprise our global Communion.

The dispute in South Carolina could provide an opportunity — yet unrealized — to think seriously about the ecclesiological and theological convictions underlying Anglican churches."

William Witt weighs in with further angles on the subtle issues at stake in the ecclesiology evolving out of current disputes. His diplomatic language barely disguises a ruthless demolition - emboldened by me - of TEC's pretension to being one, holy, catholic and apostolic church:

"The issue that is little addressed in such discussions is the theological nature of episcopacy. What does it mean to be a bishop? Standard Church histories make clear that the office of bishop is about continuity, specifically continuity between the apostolic Church and the catholic Church of the second century. To be a bishop is to recognize and submit oneself to the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments as the faithful witness of prophets and apostles to the triune God revealed in the history of Israel, the saving work of Jesus Christ, and the Church as summarized in the Rule of Faith.

Whether bishops of the Episcopal Church have acted in continuity with this apostolic Church in proceeding to approve of same-sex unions is precisely the issue that is splitting the Anglican Communion. There are, of course, issues of universality involved as well. A bishop is a bishop not just for a local diocese but for the whole Church. In the long run, an extra-provincial diocese accountable only to itself is problematic. But then again, a national church that refuses to be accountable to an international communion has brought the Anglican Communion to its current crisis, even as a bishop who does not understand his chief role to keep intact the apostolic witness has rather missed the point of being a bishop."

Then Colin Podmore, "Beyond Provincialism," offers astute observations about recent Anglican history when the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao divided itself into four dioceses in order to become a province, precisely so as not to continue association with a larger but conservative province. A way forward for South Carolina? With this parting shot at TEC at the end of the essay,

"the most important question facing the Anglican Communion is not whether dioceses can exist other than temporarily without being subject to provincial or other metropolitical jurisdiction (in catholic and Anglican ecclesiology they cannot), but whether provinces should not in turn defer to the councils of the wider Church."

There is much to ponder here. I offer two further observations.

(1) I do not have to belong to an Anglican church to be an Anglican, provided I have commitment and intention to belong to an Anglican church. Let me explain. I would not challenge for a second a person who said to me, "I am an Anglican but I worship in a Methodist church. I was brought up Anglican, I remain Anglican in my heart and mind, but ever since I married I have belonged with my wife to her Methodist church. If I were widowed I know I would go back to worshiping in an Anglican church."*

Analogously, I suggest that the Diocese of South Carolina remains Anglican although it has stepped apart from TEC. It has the intention and commitment to belong to the Anglican Communion (that is, formally belong; I understand the Diocese to collectively believe that informally it does belong). That is, just as in the individual example above, the Anglican husband has a plausible reason for not currently belonging formally to an Anglican church, so the Diocese of South Carolina has a plausible reason for not currently belonging to TEC. That is the Diocese disputes the fact that TEC remains, pace Witt, "in continuity with [the] apostolic Church". It is noteworthy that in making such dispute South Carolina is not an idiosycratic diocese but is supported by many Anglican provinces to say nothing of many individual Anglicans, such as myself, in provinces which otherwise maintain goodwill relationship with TEC.

(2) We should take care to not place too much emphasis on the character of Anglicanism being determined by the rules of Anglicans. The true innermost character of Anglican churches is that we are Christian churches, faithful to Christ, in continuity with the one, holy, apostolic and catholic church which Christ founded. The BCP or any Anglican prayer book is nothing save for the fact that it gives expression to this character. Bishops, priests and deacons are nobodies save for the fact that we are faithful to the 'doctrine of Christ' as expressed in our prayer books, articles and constitutions. The Anglican Communion is a fantasy (or a lie!) if it is not a Communion with the Christ who founded the one, holy, apostolic and catholic church. If the rules of Anglicans define Anglicanism in such a way as to exclude Christians determined to be Anglican in the character of their mission and ministry then the rules need reform.

As Bryden Black lamented here recently, the Anglican Covenant is much missed at this point. Its precise contribution to present Anglican difficulties, if we would adopt it, is to renew our understanding of what being Anglican means in respect of common theology. By avoiding adoption we are left with Anglicanism defined by rules which are now out of date.

I am an exorcist but no demon needs to tremble in my presence

I was going to post about what makes an Anglican an Anglican but checking in to Stuff I see we have a priest here who has held the office of Diocesan Exorcist while not believing in demons.So let's hold what makes an Anglican until tomorrow (hint: South Carolina is Anglican) and consider this wonderful illustration of what may be wrong with our church: saying one thing and believing another.

The background to the local news item is the global item about the Pope performing an exorcism (or did he?) on a man in a wheelchair. Natch our local press goes to a go-to-guy to get comment and who better than a former diocesan exorcist who does not believe in demons.

Actually our Catholic Archbishop does not come out too well in this item. Though required by canon law to have a diocesan exorcist, he does not have one!

For the record, I am with Michael Hewat, also quoted in the article. I do not have a lot of experience in this area, but I believe that beyond the realm we call psychosis and neurosis, the devil and his minions can gain and retain a foothold on lives and houses. When we discern that, we should pray for deliverance.

For local Christchurch readers with long memories, one of the most memorable experiences of my curacy was being part of an exorcism performed in a house where the manifestation was the sound of a ticking clock. The then Diocesan Exorcist was Archdeacon Peter Witty. It was definitely a case of watch, listen, learn and never forget.

Back to our present day colleague who does not believe in demons. I see his comments as illustrative of something which is a problem in our church today: saying one thing openly with our lips and believing another privately in our hearts.

Here are a few other examples:

What we say: "We are proud of being a three tikanga church."

What we believe: Our church is not working. There are many problems as a result of being a three tikanga church which we are not addressing.

What we say: "We think gay people in same sex partnerships should be able to be ordained."

What we believe: Our parish needs a married vicar who has a young family to help regrow the Sunday School.

What we say: "Our prayer book is an amazing taonga of which we are very proud, especially when we hear how popular it is in North America."

What we believe: For next Sunday's service I can make whatever changes to the prayer book I want in order to make it relevant to 2013.

What we say: "We think its great that we are the kind of church which can make radical decisions such as electing the bare-footed, dreadlocked Justin Duckworth to be Bishop of Wellington."

What we believe: Apart from one or two bold decisions like that, we haven't got many clues on how to turn our aging, declining church around.

You may be able to supply more!

PS A few days ago I posted two links to a series of three Living Church essays. The third essay, Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore is now posted.

Free radicals: thoughts on vagrant dioceses

Not all bishops are anchored into geographical locations and such bishops may be what is known as episcopi vagantes, wandering bishops. The vagantes concept could also be invoked where whole dioceses secede from one province of the Communion, stake a claim to continue to belong to the Communion while not legally tied into a relationship with another province or network with provincial links or directly to the oversight of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a diocese wanders, we could say, canonically free. Currently such a diocese is the Diocese of South Carolina. It is a free radical diocese, pursuing without fear or favour where its Anglican roots might be replanted.

The Living Church has a useful and fascinating series of reflections on this situation.

Why Provinces Matter by Jesse Zink

Don't Cheat the Prophet by William G. Witt

A third essay is coming. AND IS NOW HERE Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore

The whole series has the title Sic et Non which plays on Abelard's mediaeval work trying to reconcile contradictions!

What do you think?

Or, do the real vagantes dioceses exist where a wandering occurs from one fad to another with bishops at the helm who chart a course according to the prevailing winds of society?

Brewing the Perfect Storm in our Church (3)

INTRODUCTION

If I lived in one of those great castles built on a cliff beside the sea I don't think a perfect storm would worry me too much. But what if I lived in a sandcastle on the sea shore? Jesus got there before me and told the story. The house built on the rock will stand.

Rather than prognosticate on how strong I think our church is to withstand controversy, let me ask readers these questions.

If we engage in a perfect storm over the next few years, will there be an Anglican church in these islands in twenty years time? 

Do we have the strength to survive the storm and rebuild after it passes through? 

Where the Anglican church has exhibited a progressive agenda in these islands, can we measure the impact of that agenda in terms of congregational growth?

A PERFECT STORM WILL NOT NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE

In an important comment to the previous post in this series Bosco Peters makes the case that there need not be a perfect storm over the matter of the blessing of same sex partnerships (especially here). His supporting analogy is that on the question of divorce and remarriage where we have made decisions and pursued practice which is not biblical, nevertheless we have remained together as a church. I agree that there need not be a storm. I think that all those for whom 'biblical' is an important criterion for judging what we should and should not do would do well to ponder the following: what things in our church are practised which we think are unbiblical, and why do we accommodate them by staying rather than leaving?

In other words, in terms of disagreements in our church, as outlined in previous posts (e.g. approaches, attitudes, authority), we have experience of sharp disagreements being overcome and of disagreements being maintained in tension without spilling over into schism. The present brewing storm need not lead to division.

YET DANGER REMAINS BEFORE US

Nevertheless, I suggest there are possible decisions our church could make which would contribute to a perfect storm engulfing us. Here are three.

(1) If we changed our canon on marriage (and text of our marriage liturgies) in order to extend our ecclesial definition of marriage to include two people of the same gender.

As I listen in our church I hear voices which are open (some much more open than others) to our church doing something re 'blessing' same sex partnerships but draw the line at change to our understanding of marriage as being about a man and a woman. In other words some pragmatic recognition of same sex partnerships which does not revise what we already have written down about marriage in our formularies and canons may avoid the perfect storm developing.

A different voice, though getting at the same idea, that marriage between a man and a woman is sui generis, is expressed by Bryden Black, in various comments over time on this blog, but especially here.

In my words, at least two views of marriage are at work in the Western world (in one marriage is an estate ordained by God for the conjugation of a man and a woman with potential for fruitful procreation and capacity to both image the diversity-in-unity of the Triune God and of Christ and the church, and in the other marriage is a legally and morally acceptable arrangement in which two people express their committed love for one another).

Our allegiances within the church to one model over the other represent a cleavage between an understanding of the church as a body governed by a theology disclosed by God through revelation and as a body governed by theology built from the ground upwards where the ground is human reflection on experience. At some point in the history of the church in the 21st century this cleavage will result in conflict rather than conciliation. This may be that moment.

(2) If we made general willingness to conduct blessings of same sex partnerships determinative of selection for ordination or appointment to licensed ministry.

We likely will make a decision which in principle means that ministers are equally free to offer such blessings or to refuse to give them. After all, currently ministers are free to accept or to refuse to conduct a wedding. But that is not where controversy lies. Where controversy lies is in the processes of discernment for ordination and for appointment to licensed ministries. In that process questions can (and should) be put about attitudes to things. Examples include wearing robes, using the prayer book, following certain customs, approach to collaborative ministry. Sometimes these questions are put to yield a kind of profile of the interviewee with no one question being a "killer" question in which the wrong answer could mean a refusal to proceed to ordination/appointment. Sometimes one question is a killer. I will be upfront and say, I can imagine in some dioceses that an expression of refusal to offer blessings for same sex partnerships will determine the outcome of interviews.

(3) If we so approved whatever it is that we might approve by way of change that licensed ministers and officers of the church felt they could no longer sign with good conscience that they will abide by the authority of the General Synod.

On this matter I am speaking about a specific concern voiced by colleagues whose integrity is such that they would leave their current ministries by handing in their licences if a decision of General Synod meant they could not remain committed to the authority of General Synod. In reporting this concern I have no specific example to give of how GS might word a decision so that the concern is met and all is well. Put another way, while there is the obvious example that a change to our marriage canon (see 1) above would trigger this concern, it is not clear to me what might count as a change instituted by General Synod which either does not trigger the concern or is at least ambiguous enough for hesitancy to occur as to whether the trigger is pulled or not. But I will observe this: for General Synod to offer the possibility that each bishop may determine whether or not blessings of same sex partnerships may occur within their episcopal jurisdiction may be a step too far.

For now, that is the end of this series. Comments are welcome. They may yet trigger some further thoughts.

PS I am offering reflection on the possibility of a perfect storm arising if our church proceeds in certain directions. It is also possible (though may be not equally possible) that if our church does not proceed in certain directions there will be a perfect storm.

Apropos of things American

A bit of a fuss is being made about an interview Rob Bell has given in the UK. The Ugley Vicar calls it a 'train wreck'. Head there to click into the interview. I have not seen the whole interview so am not commenting directly upon it. Could it be turned into a Nooma video on the word Obfuscation?

Noted in comments below is a sermon which Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has preached in Curacao in the Diocese of Venezuela. [Thanks for correction to original wording in a comment below]. This is also being made a bit of a fuss about. It involves the most extraordinary wrongheaded, or just plain wrong interpretation of a passage in Acts. It is "beyond" commenting on! It would be insulting to liberals to call this an example of liberalism. It is beyond that. It is sui generis, in a class of its own as an example of just plain wrong interpretation! (Later: do not just take my word for it. Note the plethora of negative comments about the sermon which the ENS publishes in the link about). A word to the wise preacher: it is not necessarily a smart idea to publish sermons.

PS in proper deference to the Presiding Bishop I will only accept comments about this which either discuss the "exegesis" without naming the preacher or which name her properly e.g. the name with title used above, or ++Jefferts Schori. I think Rob Bell can be called "Rob" or "Bell". As far as I know he is not holding any church office other than "free lance speaker and writer."

PPS It is not the case that wrong exegesis of Scripture is confined to Anglican bishops. A very interesting, unusual and sad-for-Christians everywhere case is unfolding in Singapore. It concerns the misuse of funds donated to a mega church, a misuse which has led to a trial. In following progress on this situation (via my colleague Gerard Jacobs' blog) I noticed this description of wrong exegesis at this church:

"One of his examples is as follows: In the gospel account of the feeding of the 5000, when Jesus asked the disciples to feed the crowds, the disciples responded by saying that it was difficult to get food because of the lateness of the day where most places would be closed. Kong Hee alluded to this response as being an indication that Jesus and the disciples had the money to feed the crowds, but could not do so because of the places to purchase food were closed due to the lateness of the hour. Therefore proving that Jesus was wealthy and had the financial means to feed the multitudes. This interpretation of that scripture is completely out of line with the derived meaning scholars and theologians accept; it’s out of line with the rest of scripture!"

PS For a voice within TEC concerned at "delusional exegesis", read here.

PPS And for another, read here.

Apropos of things Sydney

In the run up to the election of a new Archbishop of Sydney, you may like to read this long but informative review of Michael Jensen's book Sydney Anglicans. The review is by Kevin Giles.