An Anglican church in Auckland advertises itself on the internet as ‘free from dogma’. TEC and ACCanada have suddenly discovered that canons matter when its ministers challenge the order of the church, having conveniently forgotten the canons when its ministers challenged the doctrine of the church. One wonders when the canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia will be brought to bear on the a-dogmatic parish in Auckland!
Let it be said, gently, graciously, humbly, that the Anglican Church, historically and presently, is a church with Holy Scripture at its foundation and Holy Scripture over it as its authority. This church of, for, and by Holy Scripture cannot be other than full of dogma, for Scripture both teaches sound doctrine and lays on the ministers of the church the responsibility for teaching sound doctrine, aye, even more, for contending for sound doctrine.
And why this emphasis on ‘Holy Scripture’? My friend Bryden Black reminds me of the reason when he cited Eberhard Jungel on a recent Anglicans All post:
‘The traditional language of Christianity insists, therefore, on the fact that we must have said to us what the word “God” should be thought to mean. The presupposition is that ultimately only the speaking God himself can say what the word “God” should provide us to think about. Theology comprehends this whole subject under the category of revelation.’ (E. Jungel, God as the Mystery of the World, T&T Clark, 1983, p. 13).
Holy Scripture is not a ‘book’ in the sense of a bound writing which can be waved in argument at other bound writings such as ‘prayer book’ or ‘book of canons’ as though each is the same kind of book. No. Holy Scripture is the writing down of the revelation of God – the written speech of the speaking God. Anglicans, it appears, are apt to forget this fundamental character of Scripture. We need to rediscover it. We might resolve some of our problems if we did, for then we might unite together in obedience to the voice of God rather than the current imbroglio in which ‘obedience’ seems to be the last thing on our minds (unless to the canons of the church).
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
History repeating itself
Here's an excerpt from IVP's New Dictionary of Theology:
"Hippolytus led his followers into schism shortly after Callistus was elected Bishop of Rome in 217. The two men were personal rivals ... the two men clashed on church discipline: which sinners could be reconciled to the church and on what terms, and what would be the church's attitude in fellowship on social and moral questions. Callistus favoured taking a forgiving and moderate approach, willing to reconcile those guilty of sexual sins and to recognize marriages not sanctioned by Roman law. Since the church is a saving society it should be inclusive in membership. Hippolytus favoured keeping serious sinners under discipline until their deathbed, leaving forgiveness in the hands of God. He wanted a church of the pure. The two men also represented rival Christologies. Callistus emphasized the oneness of God, trying to walk a middle way between the modalism of Sabellius and what he called the ditheism of Hippolytus. The latter developed his doctrine of Christ from the Logos Christology of the Apologists and from Ireneaus."
That sounds more than a bit like current moves and motivations in the Anglican Communion today!
But the article goes on:
"Hippolytus and Pontianus, Callistus' second successor, were exiled at the same time. They apparently became reconciled, for the two parties reunited and commemorated both men as martyrs."
Which is a point I have made before: where possible avoid schism since the warring parties will only have to reconcile eventually!
(Excerpts from 'Hippolytus' by E. Ferguson, in New Dictionary of Theology, IVP, 1988, p. 304).
"Hippolytus led his followers into schism shortly after Callistus was elected Bishop of Rome in 217. The two men were personal rivals ... the two men clashed on church discipline: which sinners could be reconciled to the church and on what terms, and what would be the church's attitude in fellowship on social and moral questions. Callistus favoured taking a forgiving and moderate approach, willing to reconcile those guilty of sexual sins and to recognize marriages not sanctioned by Roman law. Since the church is a saving society it should be inclusive in membership. Hippolytus favoured keeping serious sinners under discipline until their deathbed, leaving forgiveness in the hands of God. He wanted a church of the pure. The two men also represented rival Christologies. Callistus emphasized the oneness of God, trying to walk a middle way between the modalism of Sabellius and what he called the ditheism of Hippolytus. The latter developed his doctrine of Christ from the Logos Christology of the Apologists and from Ireneaus."
That sounds more than a bit like current moves and motivations in the Anglican Communion today!
But the article goes on:
"Hippolytus and Pontianus, Callistus' second successor, were exiled at the same time. They apparently became reconciled, for the two parties reunited and commemorated both men as martyrs."
Which is a point I have made before: where possible avoid schism since the warring parties will only have to reconcile eventually!
(Excerpts from 'Hippolytus' by E. Ferguson, in New Dictionary of Theology, IVP, 1988, p. 304).
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Conservatism versus conservatism (3)
Just when one might hope things get better for conservatism in the Anglican Communion, they may have gotten worse with this stringent examination of the meaning of GAFCON by a leading Global South theologian. If I understand this divergence of opinion correctly it boils down to different answers to this question: are conservative Anglicans committed to remaining and working wholeheartedly within the Anglican Communion? I think it’s a statement of fact rather than a deprecatory judgement to say that GAFCON represents conservative Anglicans less than wholehearted about the Anglican Communion. Many bishops at GAFCON will not also be at Lambeth, and this event has been organised without reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury (let alone the ACC or the Primates Meeting or the Joint Standing Committee).
But there are other conservative Anglicans who are committed wholeheartedly to the Anglican Communion united around the Archbishop of Canterbury. These conservatives include the Anglican Communion Institute, a number of folk associated with Global South, and relatively insignificant folk such as myself. As I understand this wholeheartedness, it is in the face of the strong liberal ascendancy in western/northern/Australasian parts of the Communion rather than in denial of that ascendancy or with naïve belief that somehow the influence of liberalism can be made to quickly disappear. By contrast the less than wholehearted conservatives are reserved or even rebellious towards the Communion precisely because they have decided the liberal ascendancy will not go away and they think that Anglican mission and ministry will advance better through some form of disconnection with liberal Anglicanism. In broad terms the two kinds of conservatives can be described as (so-called) ‘federation conservatives’ and ‘communion conservatives’.
I am sure there will be conservatives of both kinds at GAFCON (and so there should be so that there is continuing dialogue and so that each grouping has first-hand rather than internet-hand knowledge of latest news and views), but I presume that federation conservatives will be in the ascendancy. By contrast one would expect from bits and pieces on the internet that the number of federation conservatives at Lambeth will be quite small relative to the communion conservatives.
When the situation is described in this way then one can move to a next step of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of both strategies without denigrating either side (which all too often happens in comments on the internet). For conservatives there is sorrow whatever happens, but perhaps for communion conservatives there is a double sorrow if the federation conservatives disconnect in such a way that actual separation takes place, for then we will be a much smaller minority in the western/northern/Australasian part of the Anglican Communion than would be the case if we stuck together and remained wholeheartedly within the Anglican Communion.
But there are other conservative Anglicans who are committed wholeheartedly to the Anglican Communion united around the Archbishop of Canterbury. These conservatives include the Anglican Communion Institute, a number of folk associated with Global South, and relatively insignificant folk such as myself. As I understand this wholeheartedness, it is in the face of the strong liberal ascendancy in western/northern/Australasian parts of the Communion rather than in denial of that ascendancy or with naïve belief that somehow the influence of liberalism can be made to quickly disappear. By contrast the less than wholehearted conservatives are reserved or even rebellious towards the Communion precisely because they have decided the liberal ascendancy will not go away and they think that Anglican mission and ministry will advance better through some form of disconnection with liberal Anglicanism. In broad terms the two kinds of conservatives can be described as (so-called) ‘federation conservatives’ and ‘communion conservatives’.
I am sure there will be conservatives of both kinds at GAFCON (and so there should be so that there is continuing dialogue and so that each grouping has first-hand rather than internet-hand knowledge of latest news and views), but I presume that federation conservatives will be in the ascendancy. By contrast one would expect from bits and pieces on the internet that the number of federation conservatives at Lambeth will be quite small relative to the communion conservatives.
When the situation is described in this way then one can move to a next step of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of both strategies without denigrating either side (which all too often happens in comments on the internet). For conservatives there is sorrow whatever happens, but perhaps for communion conservatives there is a double sorrow if the federation conservatives disconnect in such a way that actual separation takes place, for then we will be a much smaller minority in the western/northern/Australasian part of the Anglican Communion than would be the case if we stuck together and remained wholeheartedly within the Anglican Communion.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Conservatism versus conservatism (2)
If I occasionally disagree with conservative evangelical Anglicans it does not mean I find myself heading with enthusiasm to conservative Roman Catholicism (as some do). On the one hand RCism is not as uniform in its thinking as some drawn to it assume. Check this great post on what a German Archbishop thinks of Protestant churches (big tick) but note how his superior unwittingly amuses us with his explanation of this theological deviancy. On the other hand there is a conservatism within the RC church which invites some searching criticism, brilliantly captured by Giles Fraser via Tony Benn, because it defines the way of Jesus with an inflexible line on a map which seems to be drawn more by human hands than the hand of God.
The beauty of Anglicanism continues to be its heritage in the great tradition of Christianity married to a freedom and flexibility to make appropriate adaptation to the times and the surrounding culture. This is not without its dangers, for example that we might become enthralled by love for relevance. But that danger is easy to fend off if we stick to Scripture - reading, as Barth suggested, the Bible and the newspaper together! After all, if relevance is a danger, irrelevance is a potential disaster!
In working out what the shape of (conservative) evangelical Anglicanism might be in the twenty-first century - I do not think we can escape the question of relevance. In our mission we relate to the world as it is, even if a goal of mission is to transform the way the world is. In my previous post I touched on the immense challenge and opportunity which change in the role and standing of women presents to the church. In this post I want to begin to take account of the similarly immense challenge and opportunity which change to human sexuality presents to the church. This challenge essentially is that humanity in the Western world, at least, has accepted a wide variety of possibilities as acceptable styles of conducting sexual relationships: singleness and marriage remain options, but to them are added de facto relationships or 'partnerships', civil unions, 'sex in the city'-type casual serial flings, polygamy (cf. acceptance of immigrants in such relationships, and the 'Big Love' TV serial about Mormon polygamists), polyamory, and that's not even beginning on the homosexual versions of such possibilities! The opportunity includes studying Scripture afresh on these matters and reaching out with the love of God to those who have been hurt by the inadequacy of different styles.
Here is one set of questions. Let's suppose we can agree that in the kingdom of God on earth people are either single or married, and divorces do not happen. But how does the church of God minister to the reality around us? Can it uniformly find ministers who are either single or married and never divorced-and-remarried? If it cannot is it possible that our reasonable expectation should be that ministers will reflect a significant part of the reality? (OK we can probably quickly draw some lines around no polygamy, polyamory, or sex in the city-typ casual serial flings, but that leaves quite a bit that does not fit the kingdom ideal).
Let me put it another way: conservatives in particular have some high standards around the conduct of sexual relationships (i.e. be single or be married) and, with the notable exception of a number of remarried divorcees among conservative ministry leaders, generally uphold those standards, but can we expect those standards to be applied across the whole of the Anglican Church?
The beauty of Anglicanism continues to be its heritage in the great tradition of Christianity married to a freedom and flexibility to make appropriate adaptation to the times and the surrounding culture. This is not without its dangers, for example that we might become enthralled by love for relevance. But that danger is easy to fend off if we stick to Scripture - reading, as Barth suggested, the Bible and the newspaper together! After all, if relevance is a danger, irrelevance is a potential disaster!
In working out what the shape of (conservative) evangelical Anglicanism might be in the twenty-first century - I do not think we can escape the question of relevance. In our mission we relate to the world as it is, even if a goal of mission is to transform the way the world is. In my previous post I touched on the immense challenge and opportunity which change in the role and standing of women presents to the church. In this post I want to begin to take account of the similarly immense challenge and opportunity which change to human sexuality presents to the church. This challenge essentially is that humanity in the Western world, at least, has accepted a wide variety of possibilities as acceptable styles of conducting sexual relationships: singleness and marriage remain options, but to them are added de facto relationships or 'partnerships', civil unions, 'sex in the city'-type casual serial flings, polygamy (cf. acceptance of immigrants in such relationships, and the 'Big Love' TV serial about Mormon polygamists), polyamory, and that's not even beginning on the homosexual versions of such possibilities! The opportunity includes studying Scripture afresh on these matters and reaching out with the love of God to those who have been hurt by the inadequacy of different styles.
Here is one set of questions. Let's suppose we can agree that in the kingdom of God on earth people are either single or married, and divorces do not happen. But how does the church of God minister to the reality around us? Can it uniformly find ministers who are either single or married and never divorced-and-remarried? If it cannot is it possible that our reasonable expectation should be that ministers will reflect a significant part of the reality? (OK we can probably quickly draw some lines around no polygamy, polyamory, or sex in the city-typ casual serial flings, but that leaves quite a bit that does not fit the kingdom ideal).
Let me put it another way: conservatives in particular have some high standards around the conduct of sexual relationships (i.e. be single or be married) and, with the notable exception of a number of remarried divorcees among conservative ministry leaders, generally uphold those standards, but can we expect those standards to be applied across the whole of the Anglican Church?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Conservatism versus conservatism (1)
Recently I came across this point made within a comment on a meeting between conservatives of the Diocese of South Carolina and the Presiding Bishop of TEC, Katharine Jefferts Schori: "by separating to win the latest Anglican battles in the culture wars, the conservatives are setting themselves up to actually lose the larger cultural war over time. Interesting survey data reports that even the younger USA evangelical believers are much, much more gay-friendly than their parents or their grandparents ever were - as citizens, as believers."
As a conservative Anglican I do not always find myself agreeing with fellow conservatives. The quote above captures an important aspect of the kind of disagreement I can find myself in! Namely, I struggle on some issues to see how they are going to bring the whole of the church down; and, conversely, I am amazed that the bigger picture of change in society impacts so little on some issues within the conservative fold. That is, we can get pretty intense over 'battles' and not look up and around long enough to get a measure of the 'war' we might yet lose.
A case in point is women in authority. Whatever the meaning and application of 1 Timothy 2:12-15, the fact is that it does not describe the uniform and unerring character of women in leadership. The advances of society in respect of recognising the equality of men and women have been followed (sic) for the most part by the church which has discovered that (e.g.) women may be educated to the same degree as men and be as faithful or as feckless as men in upholding orthodoxy. The facts are simple: if even one woman appointed to a position of authority over men in the life of the church proves to be faithful, undeceived and undeceiving then 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is not a universal and timeless rule prohibiting women from being in authority (since the reason for this rule being given is a disposition in women, running from their matriarch Eve, towards being gullible and deceiving). Tried and true women are present in the life of the church. Given the maleness of the John Spongs, Paul Tillichs, Teilhard de Chardins, and the like, if the church be charged with erring because of false teaching, the blame does not fall on women alone! Yet some conservatives - people I cherish and respect for their obedience to God and their skill in exegesis - continue to fight the battle against women in leadership.
But here is the rub. Despite winning some large congregations in places, is the church overall growing in numbers because of this particular 'faithfulness' to Scripture? Is the church under pure male leadership of mixed congregations with women leaders only over women and children impacting throughout society, town and country, upper, middle, and lower classes? The answer to both questions is 'no'. Is it possible that 50 or 100 years from now conservative churches opposed to women in leadership over men will be a marginal oddity on the edge of society? I think the answer is 'yes'!
Well there is more to say ... on 'relevance' and its dangers, on human sexuality and its challenges re 'battles' and 'wars' .... look out for more postings!
As a conservative Anglican I do not always find myself agreeing with fellow conservatives. The quote above captures an important aspect of the kind of disagreement I can find myself in! Namely, I struggle on some issues to see how they are going to bring the whole of the church down; and, conversely, I am amazed that the bigger picture of change in society impacts so little on some issues within the conservative fold. That is, we can get pretty intense over 'battles' and not look up and around long enough to get a measure of the 'war' we might yet lose.
A case in point is women in authority. Whatever the meaning and application of 1 Timothy 2:12-15, the fact is that it does not describe the uniform and unerring character of women in leadership. The advances of society in respect of recognising the equality of men and women have been followed (sic) for the most part by the church which has discovered that (e.g.) women may be educated to the same degree as men and be as faithful or as feckless as men in upholding orthodoxy. The facts are simple: if even one woman appointed to a position of authority over men in the life of the church proves to be faithful, undeceived and undeceiving then 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is not a universal and timeless rule prohibiting women from being in authority (since the reason for this rule being given is a disposition in women, running from their matriarch Eve, towards being gullible and deceiving). Tried and true women are present in the life of the church. Given the maleness of the John Spongs, Paul Tillichs, Teilhard de Chardins, and the like, if the church be charged with erring because of false teaching, the blame does not fall on women alone! Yet some conservatives - people I cherish and respect for their obedience to God and their skill in exegesis - continue to fight the battle against women in leadership.
But here is the rub. Despite winning some large congregations in places, is the church overall growing in numbers because of this particular 'faithfulness' to Scripture? Is the church under pure male leadership of mixed congregations with women leaders only over women and children impacting throughout society, town and country, upper, middle, and lower classes? The answer to both questions is 'no'. Is it possible that 50 or 100 years from now conservative churches opposed to women in leadership over men will be a marginal oddity on the edge of society? I think the answer is 'yes'!
Well there is more to say ... on 'relevance' and its dangers, on human sexuality and its challenges re 'battles' and 'wars' .... look out for more postings!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
God help us to be reasonable
Read the following, posted on Titus One Nine recently:
QUOTE: Canon law expert Perry says, however, that the 39 Articles also spell out that a priest must be appointed by the local bishop to be allowed to preach within a diocese, something the Network churches have relinquished by voting to split.
"The notion that a parish could be freestanding and claim to be Anglican is perverse in the Anglican structure," he said. "It just wouldn't exist."
Liberal Anglicans also argue that theological understanding continues to evolve.
"It's an ongoing revelation," Niagara Archdeacon Michael Patterson says.
And there is no requirement that the revelation be the same for everyone, says Perry, adding that a founding principle of the church was that, unlike the Catholic Church from which it split in the 16th century, there is no central authority decreeing the beliefs that define an Anglican.
Says Perry, "Somebody once said that the good thing about the Church of England is that it doesn't tend to interfere with your religion."
In fact, he says, the openness to diversity of opinion has traditionally been its strength, enabling it to span divergent cultures around the world. UNQUOTE.
So, says this Bear of Small Brain, Perry and Patterson understand that on matters of Anglican theology, revelation changes, develops, and can be contradictory (providing not occurring in the same place). But on matters of Anglican polity there can be no change, no development, and no contradiction.
The logic is somewhat baffling to this BoSB. But let's suppose I have it correct. How can it be, I feel compelled to ask, that we can etch in concrete the law of the church but write in sand the Word of God? Should it not be the other way round?
This is not the only occasion recently when I have noticed 'liberal' Anglican voices on the internet proclaim the irrevocable character of Anglican polity while sitting light and loose to what God has said through God's written Word.
Here's the thing: one cannot treat God's Word lightly. Judgement follows prophecy. My hunch is that many parts of the Anglican Church are doomed to die within the next 50 years ... unless there is a reawakening to the import of Scripture!
QUOTE: Canon law expert Perry says, however, that the 39 Articles also spell out that a priest must be appointed by the local bishop to be allowed to preach within a diocese, something the Network churches have relinquished by voting to split.
"The notion that a parish could be freestanding and claim to be Anglican is perverse in the Anglican structure," he said. "It just wouldn't exist."
Liberal Anglicans also argue that theological understanding continues to evolve.
"It's an ongoing revelation," Niagara Archdeacon Michael Patterson says.
And there is no requirement that the revelation be the same for everyone, says Perry, adding that a founding principle of the church was that, unlike the Catholic Church from which it split in the 16th century, there is no central authority decreeing the beliefs that define an Anglican.
Says Perry, "Somebody once said that the good thing about the Church of England is that it doesn't tend to interfere with your religion."
In fact, he says, the openness to diversity of opinion has traditionally been its strength, enabling it to span divergent cultures around the world. UNQUOTE.
So, says this Bear of Small Brain, Perry and Patterson understand that on matters of Anglican theology, revelation changes, develops, and can be contradictory (providing not occurring in the same place). But on matters of Anglican polity there can be no change, no development, and no contradiction.
The logic is somewhat baffling to this BoSB. But let's suppose I have it correct. How can it be, I feel compelled to ask, that we can etch in concrete the law of the church but write in sand the Word of God? Should it not be the other way round?
This is not the only occasion recently when I have noticed 'liberal' Anglican voices on the internet proclaim the irrevocable character of Anglican polity while sitting light and loose to what God has said through God's written Word.
Here's the thing: one cannot treat God's Word lightly. Judgement follows prophecy. My hunch is that many parts of the Anglican Church are doomed to die within the next 50 years ... unless there is a reawakening to the import of Scripture!
Monday, March 3, 2008
Conservatives have a point
Conservatives seem to get up the noses of many people in the church. I am not sure why, really, because church by definition is conservative - believing the same truth for millennia, believing only God has the power to make changes that really matter. But conservatives might have a point - don't you know! Take the issue of human sexuality where conservatives' 'marriage or singleness' ethic gets up the noses of many because its inflexible, out of step with society, unloving, etc.
But conservatives are unclear what criticism of this ethic is about. Is it purely about homosexuality and a less restrictive ethic re same sex partnerships or is it about a general ethic of sexual freedom? It would help to know. Take, as an example, a phenomenon in our society which is becoming more public about its existence: polyamory (couples extending to inclusion of one or more people in their relationship), which has featured not once but twice in The Press (Christchurch, NZ) of late. Check the latest article.
If critics of a conservative Christian sexual ethic do not wish to include acceptance of polyamory in the revised sexual ethic they would like the church to adopt, it would be good to know this, and even better to know on what grounds they would reject polyamory.
The sneaking conservative suspicion is that once the Bible is set aside as a relevant text in the discussion of homosexuality it becomes an irrelevant text fullstop in the dicussion of sexual ethics!
But conservatives are unclear what criticism of this ethic is about. Is it purely about homosexuality and a less restrictive ethic re same sex partnerships or is it about a general ethic of sexual freedom? It would help to know. Take, as an example, a phenomenon in our society which is becoming more public about its existence: polyamory (couples extending to inclusion of one or more people in their relationship), which has featured not once but twice in The Press (Christchurch, NZ) of late. Check the latest article.
If critics of a conservative Christian sexual ethic do not wish to include acceptance of polyamory in the revised sexual ethic they would like the church to adopt, it would be good to know this, and even better to know on what grounds they would reject polyamory.
The sneaking conservative suspicion is that once the Bible is set aside as a relevant text in the discussion of homosexuality it becomes an irrelevant text fullstop in the dicussion of sexual ethics!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)