How did America manage to elect (so it is argued) its most liberal senator to be President? Why is our Maori Party (here in Aotearoa NZ) on the verge of agreeing to support a National Party-led government? How come in recent days we learn from America that its much debated, election turning decisions about government financing of dodgy mortgages are to be revisited ('they know not what they do'?!). We live in interesting times with challenges which are beyond 'interesting' since they are part of a new development in the story of the Western world - a story which can feel a little scary since we do not quite feel authors of our destiny and freely wonder if the eschaton lies over in the next page.
For the church in the West this is a hugely challenging time. Our greatest challenge (IMHO) is to renew our understanding of the gospel of the kingdom and to translate it into the language of our times. Just as John translated 'kingdom of God' into 'eternal life' for Ephesus in the 80s and Paul proposed 'in Christ' as its meaning for much of the Mediterranean of the 50s, we need to translate the gospel for the 2000s. Our translation needs to key into the inclusiveness of 'in Christ', the stability and permanence of the 'kingdom of God', and the hope and promise of the better day of 'eternal life'. From Luke's Gospel we can especially draw on Jesus' critique of wealth. From Mark's Gospel we can witness to the transformative power of Jesus.
Like Obama, we need to audacity to hope and the ambition to bring transformation to the world!
Friday, November 14, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Exceptionalism
Our ACANZP Taonga website has published an edited address to his annual Synod of a retiring diocesan administrator. This edited address includes the following comments in respect of the blessings of same-sex partnerships and the indiscriminate selection of gay and lesbian people for church ministry:
"If I am good enough to have undertaken a ministry of financial management and overall administration of the Diocese – and to have been affirmed in this – then I'm good enough to be considered for all forms of ministry in this church."
"Is it not a supreme irony that the church is the only institution in our society that has an exemption from the Human Rights Act? The church that once led on human rights, social justice, relief from oppression and discrimination, now has a mandate to practise abuses of human rights and discrimination against gay people in church and in other churches and religions, even against women."
"that when I come back to the Diocese I will find two things:
• Firstly, that it will have found the courage to come up with a blessing for same-gender couples. After all, we have blessings for dogs and trees.
• Secondly, that the Diocese will have a policy which makes clear that being gay and in a stable relationship is not a barrier to ordination."
A little barb to prod the church to make progress is this observation:
"And many of you will wonder why the church is seen as increasingly irrelevant to so many."
Let's start with the observation cited just above. A society which wholly and enthusiastically embraces same-sex partnerships will find the church increasingly irrelevant (if it has not done so already). But we can query whether society has been so enthusiastic! Over in California, for example, this week, a proposition forbidding 'gay marriage' has been approved in a referendum. The margin was not terrific; one could say that California is divided on the issue. Tonight we may find in NZ that we have a National Party-led government: if so, that in part will be a reaction to our current Labour Party-led government's 'social engineering'. If our church is ambiguous on homosexuality, perhaps it more evenly reflects the temper of Western society than is implied in the barb above!
As for the rest of the case made above, I find it raises more questions than it appears to resolve.
Is the church another social institution which needs bringing up to date with the remainder of society in respect of 'rights'? I would argue that the church is a social institution with a distinctive set of beliefs not wholly in harmony with the general beliefs of our society around (e.g.) employment and the distinction between private lives and public offices. In church ministry an important question is whether the way we live 'pleases God' (cf. one possible lectionary reading for Sunday 9 November 2008, 2 Corinthians 5:9-10). It is simply insufficient engagement with the teaching of Scripture to assert that living within a same-sex partnership should be inconsequential to acceptance for ordained ministry, or that such a partnership should be blessed without further ado. The church as an institution is precisely a body gathered around the Word of God, existing in the first place because people have heard and responded to the preaching of Scripture. To impose upon it a mandate unfounded (or, not yet agreeably founded) on Scripture is to force an internal contradiction into the very rationale which makes the church what it is.
Should the church be exceptional when measured against conventional understanding of 'rights'? The case made above is that it should not be exceptional. (The case made above also stretches to a condemnatory and unjustified attack on the church as thereby 'abusive', but I shall set that aside here). The difficulty with the case made is that it involves its own (so to speak) doctrine of exceptionalism. Measured against the church's tradition, inherited not only from apostolic times, but earlier in the life of Israel, that followers of Christ should live celibately, or in marriage, the claim that same-sex partnerships should be blessed, and that one or more partners applying to be ordained should not be discriminated against because of that partnership is a claim that stable same-sex partnerships are a valid exception to the church's tradition. But in asserting this exception, without further argument, the question arises, why only this exception? A church engaging with this possibility cannot escape consideration of other candidates for exceptional status: a stable heterosexual partnership which is not a marriage ... polygamy (a 'live' issue at least on the African continent) ... an 'open' marriage ... From the perspective of 'rights' the church could not make one exception without making all. The church is hesitant (I suggest) to make one exception because it feels responsible not only to safeguard and uphold its tradition, but also to avoid discarding it completely through allowing one exception which must lead to all exceptions being accepted. Thus it has some reason for its hesitancy, rather than some phobia it cannot get over.
Then a final question concerns the extent to which the argument about the church being unexceptional vis a vis 'rights' is being applied. I find it is very, very rare in these kinds of discussions for the state and status of the Roman Catholic church to be included. Their policy of celibate male priesthood is discriminatory (from a 'rights' perspective) against married men, married women, and single women (to say nothing of recent moves being made to ensure that not even celibate gay men are accepted into the priesthood). But we hear few if any voices asserting that the Roman Catholic ministry should be brought to heel. If the Roman Catholic church is excepted from our discourse on these matters, why cannot the Anglican church also be excepted? We have our own tradition to uphold and as much 'right' as the Roman Catholic church has to do so!
In our search for a way forward through the moral controversies of our time we need better arguments than proffered here if we are to unite behind a significant change to our received tradition.
As for dogs and trees being blessed ... some of us have never done so and have no intention of beginning to do so!
"If I am good enough to have undertaken a ministry of financial management and overall administration of the Diocese – and to have been affirmed in this – then I'm good enough to be considered for all forms of ministry in this church."
"Is it not a supreme irony that the church is the only institution in our society that has an exemption from the Human Rights Act? The church that once led on human rights, social justice, relief from oppression and discrimination, now has a mandate to practise abuses of human rights and discrimination against gay people in church and in other churches and religions, even against women."
"that when I come back to the Diocese I will find two things:
• Firstly, that it will have found the courage to come up with a blessing for same-gender couples. After all, we have blessings for dogs and trees.
• Secondly, that the Diocese will have a policy which makes clear that being gay and in a stable relationship is not a barrier to ordination."
A little barb to prod the church to make progress is this observation:
"And many of you will wonder why the church is seen as increasingly irrelevant to so many."
Let's start with the observation cited just above. A society which wholly and enthusiastically embraces same-sex partnerships will find the church increasingly irrelevant (if it has not done so already). But we can query whether society has been so enthusiastic! Over in California, for example, this week, a proposition forbidding 'gay marriage' has been approved in a referendum. The margin was not terrific; one could say that California is divided on the issue. Tonight we may find in NZ that we have a National Party-led government: if so, that in part will be a reaction to our current Labour Party-led government's 'social engineering'. If our church is ambiguous on homosexuality, perhaps it more evenly reflects the temper of Western society than is implied in the barb above!
As for the rest of the case made above, I find it raises more questions than it appears to resolve.
Is the church another social institution which needs bringing up to date with the remainder of society in respect of 'rights'? I would argue that the church is a social institution with a distinctive set of beliefs not wholly in harmony with the general beliefs of our society around (e.g.) employment and the distinction between private lives and public offices. In church ministry an important question is whether the way we live 'pleases God' (cf. one possible lectionary reading for Sunday 9 November 2008, 2 Corinthians 5:9-10). It is simply insufficient engagement with the teaching of Scripture to assert that living within a same-sex partnership should be inconsequential to acceptance for ordained ministry, or that such a partnership should be blessed without further ado. The church as an institution is precisely a body gathered around the Word of God, existing in the first place because people have heard and responded to the preaching of Scripture. To impose upon it a mandate unfounded (or, not yet agreeably founded) on Scripture is to force an internal contradiction into the very rationale which makes the church what it is.
Should the church be exceptional when measured against conventional understanding of 'rights'? The case made above is that it should not be exceptional. (The case made above also stretches to a condemnatory and unjustified attack on the church as thereby 'abusive', but I shall set that aside here). The difficulty with the case made is that it involves its own (so to speak) doctrine of exceptionalism. Measured against the church's tradition, inherited not only from apostolic times, but earlier in the life of Israel, that followers of Christ should live celibately, or in marriage, the claim that same-sex partnerships should be blessed, and that one or more partners applying to be ordained should not be discriminated against because of that partnership is a claim that stable same-sex partnerships are a valid exception to the church's tradition. But in asserting this exception, without further argument, the question arises, why only this exception? A church engaging with this possibility cannot escape consideration of other candidates for exceptional status: a stable heterosexual partnership which is not a marriage ... polygamy (a 'live' issue at least on the African continent) ... an 'open' marriage ... From the perspective of 'rights' the church could not make one exception without making all. The church is hesitant (I suggest) to make one exception because it feels responsible not only to safeguard and uphold its tradition, but also to avoid discarding it completely through allowing one exception which must lead to all exceptions being accepted. Thus it has some reason for its hesitancy, rather than some phobia it cannot get over.
Then a final question concerns the extent to which the argument about the church being unexceptional vis a vis 'rights' is being applied. I find it is very, very rare in these kinds of discussions for the state and status of the Roman Catholic church to be included. Their policy of celibate male priesthood is discriminatory (from a 'rights' perspective) against married men, married women, and single women (to say nothing of recent moves being made to ensure that not even celibate gay men are accepted into the priesthood). But we hear few if any voices asserting that the Roman Catholic ministry should be brought to heel. If the Roman Catholic church is excepted from our discourse on these matters, why cannot the Anglican church also be excepted? We have our own tradition to uphold and as much 'right' as the Roman Catholic church has to do so!
In our search for a way forward through the moral controversies of our time we need better arguments than proffered here if we are to unite behind a significant change to our received tradition.
As for dogs and trees being blessed ... some of us have never done so and have no intention of beginning to do so!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
None dare call this orthodoxy!
Here is the Presiding Bishop of TEC, Katherine Jefferts Schori, on matters salvific:
"Others questions addressed theological matters, including the issue of whether Jefferts Schori had suggested there are ways to salvation other than following Jesus.
"That's not what I said," Jefferts Schori said, explaining that she has noted in the past that "most Christians believe Christ died for all, as savior for the whole world."
She said she has also cited the Bible's record of God's promises to the Jewish people and other promises that "were not broken by Jesus' life, death and resurrection."
"Therefore, Jews have access to salvation without consciously saying 'Jesus is my Lord and savior.' I didn't do that; God did it. I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael, whom Muslims claim as their ancestor," she said. "I don't think God broke those promises when Jesus came among us."
Jefferts Schori had touched on the question during her sermon, noting that "Episcopalians and other Christians wrestle with how broadly to understand the family of God, and whether non-Christians are included, for we can certainly point to holy examples who show us what God at work in the world looks like -- people like the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi."
She suggested that "it seems more fruitful to remember that Jesus' saving work was and is for the whole world, and that our baptismal promises are about living holy lives, together, in community." "
Does this mean, dear Christian sisters and brothers in the Islamic world, martyred for your faith, that you have died in vain? The PB seems to imply, dear Islamic brothers who have given your life for the cause and taken the lives of others, including, on September 11th 2001, several thousand fellow citizens of the PB, that Jesus respects your soteriology and will honour it according to the promises made to Hagar and Ishmael. And, should the PB and St Paul ever have a conversation, does this mean she would say to him, 'Nice work in the Mediterranean, but you did not need to go to all the synagogues ... fancy not understanding the full implications of your own thinking in Romans 9-11'?
The error in the Presiding Bishop's thinking about salvation is a misunderstanding of the fullness of God in Jesus Christ. 'Salvation' is not an inoculation which ideally is taken by injection but some can receive it through ingesting pills. It is a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ, in whom God alone has dwelt in all fullness, in whom God became incarnate and through whom alone salvation is received, because salvation is new life in Christ. The glory and scandal of the gospel is the calling to follow Christ, and Christ alone.
Will ++Rowan, the ACC, and other Anglican Communion leaders see and understand? TEC is a different religion, promoting 'another gospel', at each and every turn diminishing the uniqueness and status of Jesus Christ.
Will TEC implode under its theological confusion? Possibly ... though we should note that Unitarian Churches in the States have shown a surprising resilience over the years!
POSTSCRIPT Interesting that the PB has a confident view of what God has said according to the Pentateuch, "I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael". I recall God saying some other things in the Pentateuch which are not so confidently affirmed by TEC!!
"Others questions addressed theological matters, including the issue of whether Jefferts Schori had suggested there are ways to salvation other than following Jesus.
"That's not what I said," Jefferts Schori said, explaining that she has noted in the past that "most Christians believe Christ died for all, as savior for the whole world."
She said she has also cited the Bible's record of God's promises to the Jewish people and other promises that "were not broken by Jesus' life, death and resurrection."
"Therefore, Jews have access to salvation without consciously saying 'Jesus is my Lord and savior.' I didn't do that; God did it. I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael, whom Muslims claim as their ancestor," she said. "I don't think God broke those promises when Jesus came among us."
Jefferts Schori had touched on the question during her sermon, noting that "Episcopalians and other Christians wrestle with how broadly to understand the family of God, and whether non-Christians are included, for we can certainly point to holy examples who show us what God at work in the world looks like -- people like the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi."
She suggested that "it seems more fruitful to remember that Jesus' saving work was and is for the whole world, and that our baptismal promises are about living holy lives, together, in community." "
Does this mean, dear Christian sisters and brothers in the Islamic world, martyred for your faith, that you have died in vain? The PB seems to imply, dear Islamic brothers who have given your life for the cause and taken the lives of others, including, on September 11th 2001, several thousand fellow citizens of the PB, that Jesus respects your soteriology and will honour it according to the promises made to Hagar and Ishmael. And, should the PB and St Paul ever have a conversation, does this mean she would say to him, 'Nice work in the Mediterranean, but you did not need to go to all the synagogues ... fancy not understanding the full implications of your own thinking in Romans 9-11'?
The error in the Presiding Bishop's thinking about salvation is a misunderstanding of the fullness of God in Jesus Christ. 'Salvation' is not an inoculation which ideally is taken by injection but some can receive it through ingesting pills. It is a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ, in whom God alone has dwelt in all fullness, in whom God became incarnate and through whom alone salvation is received, because salvation is new life in Christ. The glory and scandal of the gospel is the calling to follow Christ, and Christ alone.
Will ++Rowan, the ACC, and other Anglican Communion leaders see and understand? TEC is a different religion, promoting 'another gospel', at each and every turn diminishing the uniqueness and status of Jesus Christ.
Will TEC implode under its theological confusion? Possibly ... though we should note that Unitarian Churches in the States have shown a surprising resilience over the years!
POSTSCRIPT Interesting that the PB has a confident view of what God has said according to the Pentateuch, "I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael". I recall God saying some other things in the Pentateuch which are not so confidently affirmed by TEC!!
No religion in our politics!!
Congratulations to Barack Obama! I do not like his politics around abortion, and I am under no illusions that the rhetoric of the campaign will not translate completely into a new reality (economic restraints and all that) but he is the outstanding personality of this generation of political leaders.
Here in NZ - a small note for overseas readers - our political arena has little or no religious factor. Last night we had a TV debate between the two candidates to be prime minister after this coming Saturday's election. Here is a report on one point in the debate:
"Both said they did not believe in God or in an afterlife, and that it was a woman's right to choose on abortion."
Oh, well, at least we Christians can make our choices purely on the basis of policy considerations!!
Here in NZ - a small note for overseas readers - our political arena has little or no religious factor. Last night we had a TV debate between the two candidates to be prime minister after this coming Saturday's election. Here is a report on one point in the debate:
"Both said they did not believe in God or in an afterlife, and that it was a woman's right to choose on abortion."
Oh, well, at least we Christians can make our choices purely on the basis of policy considerations!!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Stay or go? Where the faultline runs through the Anglican Communion
Reflecting further on recent developments and discussions in Anglican life I am seeing the Anglican Communion in this way: there are contented Anglicans and discontented Anglicans.
In the discontented Anglican camp are the Diocese of Sydney and fellow travellers who seem to think the Reformation was prematurely stopped in its tracks and it is their calling to finish the job; many Anglo-Catholics who see Rome as the rock from which they are hewn and the Reformation as an unfortunate mistake; much of TEC and its fellow travellers who have no regrets for jettisoning the Thirty-Nine Articles and make no apology for the consequences of doing so.
In the contented Anglican camp are ... the rest of us! Content, that is, with the Anglican Communion being reformed and catholic; comfortable with the main lines of our thinking following Hooker's reasonable, traditional, and Scriptural approach; and happy to accommodate some different emphases (evangelical, liberal, catholic) so long as they do not seek to change the comprehensive character of Anglicanism as shaped by the historical shaping of the Church of England through the 16th and 17th centuries.
One thought I have, if it be accepted that there is a fault-line through Anglicanism between the discontented and the contented, is that a lot of the fighting energy for the current controversies is found on one side of the fault-line and not on both. Another thought is this: if there is to be a division in the Communion then all the discontented should go, otherwise the contented are lumbered with discontent for a further time.
But there need not be division! We could recognise that true communion involves holding discontented and contented together; that is, holding all the discontented together, not making choices as to which one of the discontented should stay and which should go.
The creative possibility flowing from the Sydney Synod is that we recognise that there will always be Anglicans, for one reason or another, from the 'left' or from the 'right', who wish to turn Anglican polity upside down. Thus we should learn to live with such 'revolutionaries' rather than work out how to dispense with them! At first sight diaconal presidents and gay bishops may not have much in common when stemming from Sydney and New Hampshire respectively. But both are 'dis-ordered' measured against traditional Anglican order. We could reject both. But we could also take the risky step of accepting both - not so much as a new Anglican order but in recognition that order can live with a little disorder.
In the discontented Anglican camp are the Diocese of Sydney and fellow travellers who seem to think the Reformation was prematurely stopped in its tracks and it is their calling to finish the job; many Anglo-Catholics who see Rome as the rock from which they are hewn and the Reformation as an unfortunate mistake; much of TEC and its fellow travellers who have no regrets for jettisoning the Thirty-Nine Articles and make no apology for the consequences of doing so.
In the contented Anglican camp are ... the rest of us! Content, that is, with the Anglican Communion being reformed and catholic; comfortable with the main lines of our thinking following Hooker's reasonable, traditional, and Scriptural approach; and happy to accommodate some different emphases (evangelical, liberal, catholic) so long as they do not seek to change the comprehensive character of Anglicanism as shaped by the historical shaping of the Church of England through the 16th and 17th centuries.
One thought I have, if it be accepted that there is a fault-line through Anglicanism between the discontented and the contented, is that a lot of the fighting energy for the current controversies is found on one side of the fault-line and not on both. Another thought is this: if there is to be a division in the Communion then all the discontented should go, otherwise the contented are lumbered with discontent for a further time.
But there need not be division! We could recognise that true communion involves holding discontented and contented together; that is, holding all the discontented together, not making choices as to which one of the discontented should stay and which should go.
The creative possibility flowing from the Sydney Synod is that we recognise that there will always be Anglicans, for one reason or another, from the 'left' or from the 'right', who wish to turn Anglican polity upside down. Thus we should learn to live with such 'revolutionaries' rather than work out how to dispense with them! At first sight diaconal presidents and gay bishops may not have much in common when stemming from Sydney and New Hampshire respectively. But both are 'dis-ordered' measured against traditional Anglican order. We could reject both. But we could also take the risky step of accepting both - not so much as a new Anglican order but in recognition that order can live with a little disorder.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The value of the Jerusalem Declaration?
Here is the Jerusalem Declaration (of GAFCON) clause 7:
We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
Here is the 'classic Anglican Ordinal' on deacons duties:
"to assist the Priest in Divine Service, and specially when he ministereth the holy Communion, and to help him in the distribution thereof, and to read holy Scriptures ...'
Difficult to see where presiding at Communion is specified there.
So, in the light of Sydney's approval of diaconal presidency, what is the status of the Jerusalem Declaration? Is it authoritative? Is it a 'pick and choose' document?
We really need some guidance here! And soon, because the non-conservative Anglican world is bemused by what conservatives are up to; or just laughing at us!
PS After I wrote the above, I noticed this thread on Fulcrum in which the point I am trying to make is also made.
We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
Here is the 'classic Anglican Ordinal' on deacons duties:
"to assist the Priest in Divine Service, and specially when he ministereth the holy Communion, and to help him in the distribution thereof, and to read holy Scriptures ...'
Difficult to see where presiding at Communion is specified there.
So, in the light of Sydney's approval of diaconal presidency, what is the status of the Jerusalem Declaration? Is it authoritative? Is it a 'pick and choose' document?
We really need some guidance here! And soon, because the non-conservative Anglican world is bemused by what conservatives are up to; or just laughing at us!
PS After I wrote the above, I noticed this thread on Fulcrum in which the point I am trying to make is also made.
Views on Sydney and GAFCON and all that
Giles Fraser puts his finger on a few issues regarding where GAFCON's future as an attempt at an alliance of conservative evangelicals and anglo-catholics might go.
So does John Richardson. I think he underestimates the danger of the course Sydney is charting. But the whole of his article is worth reading, especially for its rebuttal of 'private judgement' and its assertion of the need for systematic theology.
So does John Richardson. I think he underestimates the danger of the course Sydney is charting. But the whole of his article is worth reading, especially for its rebuttal of 'private judgement' and its assertion of the need for systematic theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)