Australian Leg of Down Under Visit

Michael Bird's report and reflection, as posted on Virtue Online, includes this report of ++Schori's address in Brisbane:

"As it goes I got the opportunity of hearing Jefferts Schori speak on the Australian leg of the Rainbow Tour. She spoke to a gathering of 120-140 people at Christ Church in St Lu-cia Brisbane, Australia. A mostly receptive audience with a handful of evangelical ministers in attendance as well. To her credit, Jefferts Schori is a very engaging speaker, full of wit, charm, and eloquence. She is a master of working an audience and a superb communicator. Her talk went for 40 minutes and covered four areas.

First, she spoke about the history of the civil rights movement in the USA. This made it clear that gay rights stands in a trajectory with black rights and women's rights. In other words, the inclusion of gay clergy at all levels is not singularly a theological issue as much as it is a civil rights matter. She asked, "What is the normative human being?" and argued that no gender, race, or orientation is normative for all human beings. She spoke a lot about TEC canons and regulations including a 1985 canon that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then 1989 saw the first openly gay priest ordained in TEC and she made clear that it was not considered a matter of doctrine. Most of all, she argued that TEC is obligated to affirm gay partnered relationships when they show signs of 'holy living'.

Second, Jefferts Schori spent time talking about how TEC elects its bishops. She noted that each diocese has its own canons and processes that must be respected. Furthermore, the presiding bishop has no power of veto over appointments. Jefferts Schori said that the presid-ing bishop has no power to intervene in a diocese except on moral grounds. This caused me to cough up a laugh with an embarrassing loudness that made people nearby turn around and look at me to see what I was smirking at. I couldn't conceal my jolted laugh-ter since I know about Jefferts Schori's legal representations in the Diocese of South Carolina that constitute a pre-emptive strike against Bishop Mark Lawrence.

Third, attention was given to changing views of marriage in TEC. Jefferts Schori summarized Paul's view of marriage as "don't bother about it" because Jesus was coming soon and the world was going to end according to Paul.

She rightly noted that marriage as a sacrament did not begin until the 1100s and that was usually for the purpose of legitimating an heir. The original Book of Common Prayer purposed the purpose of marriage as being to avoid fornication and for a child-bearing. In contrast, TECs Book of Common Prayer sees marriage for the purpose of mutual joy which can include child bearing but not necessarily requiring it. The Presiding Bishop also noted that between the 1100s to the late 1800s the blessing of friendships was common, especially for knights, and the intimacy of their friendship was never examined in such a blessing. All this served to demonstrate TECs unique theology of marriage that can accommodate committed long term same sex relationships.

Fourth, she addressed the matter of incursions into TEC's episcopal jurisdiction by Afri-can, Asian, and South American bishops. She noted that ordaining bishops to work in North America occurred in 1999/2000, three years before Gene Robinson was elected. She also mentioned that the Sydney Anglicans have a congregation in New York City (the abdominals.). I had another one of those embarrassing smirks on my face when I heard her appeal to the council of Nicea that forbade wandering bishops from operating out of their own area of jurisdiction. Since when did TEC regard itself as bound by the authority and regulations of the ecumenical creeds and councils?

Several TEC bishops have brazenly denied and denounced every single line of the Nicene Creed at one time or other. If Jack Spong is free to disregard the creeds and councils, why not anybody else? The irony here was most amusing. Anyway, Jefferts Schori spoke earnestly about the "gospel of liberty" that is compromised if the issue of gay and lesbian inclusion is not adequately addressed. She recognized a diversity of views in the church. She was adamant that she wants to keep talking and dialoguing with those who do not agree and does not insist that everyone follows the TEC on this matter.

Several questions followed which addressed her specific views of sexuality and Scripture. I learned that Jefferts Schori expects to be invited to the next Primates Meeting. There was a question about whether TEC's actions would prove to be worth it given the rupture that it has caused. She said she believed it was worth it because dioceses and provinces have to be allowed to determine how they will minister in their own context.

The impression I got from Jefferts Schori's lecture was: (1) TEC is not going to budge on the issue of gay ordination and same sex blessings, it is a done deal from their end of things; (2) The only real authority in TEC are the canons and by-laws, everything else including Scripture and Tradition is up for negotiation; (3) Whatever "Episcopalianism" is, it is not recognizable as orthodox Christianity, and truth be told, it seems clear that they rather like it that way; and (4) Christianity simply provides a vocabulary for talking about spirituality in the postmodern American context, and terms like grace, gospel, redemption, sin, salvation are no longer used with any currency that is recognizably Christian."

Saying What You Mean and Meaning What You Say

Blogs and the like are picking up on the Telegraph story that enigmatic Very Rev Dr Jeffrey John may be in line to become the next Bishop of Southwark. (See my post below). John, recall, is enigmatic because he is in a civil partnership with another man, is currently celibate, though once was not.

Christopher Johnson at MCJ waxes on a bit about this. E.g. "What sanctions should be applied against Lambeth Palace? After all, the Americans were sanctioned; why should the British be treated differently? More importantly, if sanctions are applied, who will apply them? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Shall Dr. Williams penalize his own church for taking an action that he probably supports?".

I suspect he will not be the only thinking Anglican who thinks this represents a call to conservative action:

"If Jeff John gets a pointy hat and Rowan Williams doesn’t interfere, the ball is back in the Anglican conservative court. What do they do with it? One would hope that they would be intelligent enough to realize that such an action would destroy any reason to remain “officially” Anglican.

One supposes, for example, that conservative die-hards will separate the Archbishop of Canterbury from the church he heads. That is, Rowan Williams is both the head of the Church of England, with which we have no connection, and the head of the Anglican Communion, something we revere. So the fact that the Church of England consecrated an unrepentant sinner as a bishop is irrelevant."

But the conservative case, all along, has been that there is a difference between orientation and practice. The former involves no moral judgment (whether to accept or to reject as conforming to God's law). The latter involves moral judgment.

If John is celibate there is no moral issue relative to the Windsor Report, Lambeth 1.10, or even Scripture itself. There may be a theological issue (does John uphold the teaching of Scripture in accordance with Lambeth 1.10?) but if that were determined to be a negative against John being a bishop then ... well, I do not think we are going to see mass sackings of bishops who do not agree with 1.10.

So, contra Christopher Johnson, I do not see the problem for conservatives. If we mean what we say and say what we mean, then we make no pre-judgments against celibate homosexuals.

If we mean what we say and say what we mean then we should treat John as saying what he means and meaning what he says when he says he is celibate. All will be well.

Incidentally, far from such a situation muddying the waters around ++Rowan's treatment of TEC reps to Communion committees following the Glasspool consecration, it would clarify an important issue: orientation is one thing, practice is another.

++Rowan looks like he is acting consistently.

Will conservatives act consistently also?

I hope cool headed appreciation of the situation will prevail over any temptation to follow prejudice.

Troubling Text

For nearly a week now I have been thinking off and on about the sermon Presiding Bishop Schori preached in New Zealand last Sunday (the same sermon in Auckland in the morning as in Christchurch in the evening). The full text is published here. Part of my hesitancy in writing anything about this sermon is that, inevitably, it can be seen as a 'picking on the bishop'. But a lot is at stake these days in the life of global Anglicanism, including events in the days since the sermon when it is possible that some moves have been made which add up to the dominance of one theology over another in the make up of the AC Standing Committee.

The sermon, as sermons go, as sermons delivered by bishops go (in my experience of some 40 years of knowingly hearing episcopal sermons), is fine. One sermon cannot be expected to have all doctrinal "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed. Most sermons I hear (and, in all likelihood, also the ones I deliver) have a flaw. In evangelical circles, for example, it is worrying how many profess to preach grace and then apply works as remedy for life's ills! Nevertheless, this sermon is representative of something larger than itself, a theological tendenz in other published writings emanating from the high levels of TEC. (Yes, also representative of thinking we can find in my own church, which also has a member on the AC Standing Committee).

It is within the following paragraphs that I find my reading of the sermon as most troubled:

"The guy who drove me to the airport went a way I hadn’t gone before. It was an eye-opener. We went by a Jewish center with beautiful mosaics on the front of the building, and young men in yarmulkes walking down the street.

We stopped at a red light and I looked over at the next car, to see a Sikh in turban and full beard, with a ceremonial knife hanging from his rear view mirror. That knife is actually a symbol of freedom – in the ability to choose non-violence.

The next block was filled by a beautiful old stone church complex – Mary, Queen of Martyrs Roman Catholic Church. The shops and storefronts gave evidence of the world’s many families, languages, peoples, and nations.

Are we free enough to see that as blessing? Are we free enough to meet all the world’s people with a desire for their full flourishing? Can we be martyrs – witnesses – to the image of God in all people?

The freedom we have is to choose for those on the margins, to be in solidarity with the friendless and forgotten, the despised and the demonized. Exercising that freedom is almost always challenging – it annoys people who don’t see any need to change the status quo, it offends those in power, it challenges the ways of the world that say, “me first.” "

In the end I am simply unclear as a reader/hearer of this sermon whether the diversity of people belonging to other faiths is any kind of problem. It seems to be fine that some people in this world do not know Christ. Also unclear here is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is. If the Gospel of Christ is a message of the transforming power of Christ to bring people from darkness to light, from bondage to the power of sin to freedom in the Spirit of God, available universally to all people, then that is opaque. It seems that the gospel is about 'full flourishing' of people (without address as to their responsibility for not fully flourishing (i.e. that 'all have sinned') since the responsibility by implications lies with those not on the margins, such as 'those in power'). Despite reference to the full flourishing of 'all the world's people', the gospel witness of Christians is to one side of the world divided into two sides: what Christians say to the marginalisers, the despisers, the demonizers about their being made in the image of God is not said.

But the most troubling aspect of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lies in these words,

"Can we be martyrs – witnesses – to the image of God in all people?".

The sentiment is understandable. People are made in the image of God, but not all know this, and knowing this could help significantly in confidently reaching out to embrace a fully flourishing life.

But questions flourish here. Where is the Gospel, and our witness to it defined in Scripture or theology as bearing witness to the image of God in all people? The normal sense of witness in relation to the Gospel is witness to Christ, better to Christ and what he has done for us on the cross. When the cross is at the heart of the gospel the connection to the idea of being made in the image of God is not 'that we are made in the image of God' but that we are marred as the image of God with the good news that through Christ the image may be restored. Further, this understanding applies to every human being, rich and poor, centre and margin, powerful and weak.

The crucial difference between the Gospel of Christ as taught in the New Testament and the Gospel represented here is that the difference the gospel makes is not through knowledge (overcoming my ignorance of my being made in the image of God) but through power (Christ transforming my life on the basis of his work on the cross forgiving my sin and defeating the powers of sin and death).

The difference will seem small, even negligible to many Anglicans. But on it turns quite a lot. When we get the gospel wrong, even on a small part, we are like a ship on a course relative to another ship. Initially the wrong bearing matters little because each ship can see each other. Eventually they become miles apart, and finally they are completely separated. The genius of Anglicanism, in a sense, is that it has held two or more ships together in its fleet, here and there correcting direction to enable each to be in sight of the other. The breakdown of Anglicanism in the 21st century could occur not because it has (as some allege) 'two religions' in its midst, but because it fails as a whole, or one or other or both religions fail, to correct course.

But then I may be wrong ...

Media engineered crisis looming?

Jonathan Wynn-Jones is a follower of a sub-branch of the Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste school. His sub-branch is the Never Let An Opportunity To Generate a Good Crisis Pass By school of journalism. So with a bit of inside info on Rev Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, former candidate for Bishop of Reading, and "gay cleric" according to Wynn-Jones' headline, being a leading candidate for the Diocese of Southwark, he works his article up according to the school rules:

"Promoting him to one of the most senior offices in the Church would trigger a civil war between liberals and conservatives and exacerbate existing divisions within the Anglican Communion."

Wynn-Jones does mention that John is celibate. That is the bit that may prove the undoing of Wynn-Jones as a prophet. We might hope that his gratitude that we do not live in 'biblical times' knows no bounds!

John Richardson of The Ugley Vicar is an astute commentator on C of E affairs. He knows which side the bread is buttered on:

"it would be difficult to condemn Dr John’s appointment on the grounds that he is in a relationship with someone of the same sex. The Church of England accepts the existence of civil partnered clergy, and although some (including myself) may think this is a mistake, the House of Bishops has made it clear that this acceptance is based on the provision of assurances that such relationships are sexually celibate. Moreover, Dr John has (as I recall) declared that this is the case for his own relationship.

There are therefore no current grounds within the Church of England’s teaching and practice regarding Dr John’s domestic arrangements for condemning his appointment as a bishop."

This kind of thinking could mean that not only is civil war averted, but the situation never comes close to war.

That is not to say there are no problems with this appointment: John has not taught that celibacy is required of gay and lesbian Christians, and has argued in favour of there being no such requirement. Richardson canvases the difficulties in respect of this doctrinal angle on the possible appointment.

I hope and pray that the C of E follows the lead of theologians such as John Richardson and not the lead of journalists!

PS One presumes that Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark has no objection to Jeffrey John becoming his new bishop :)

Unsteady Standing Committee

What is going on with the Anglican Communion Standing Committee which is losing members and not sorting out the status of Bishop Ian Douglas' membership? Check here and here.

I am picking that the resignations represent discomfort that Presiding Bishop Schori remains a member of the committee. Yes, properly elected etc (to head off one line of comments). But her presence is at odds with the majority understanding of the mind of the Communion.

Stick around as is your legal right; but if the Communion unravels around you, please do not say no one warned that this would happen!

Is this the slow motion Communion train crash gathering speed?

Terrifying Taonga Text

Lloyd Ashton at Taonga has worked fast to get a report on the Hermeneutics Hui posted. Read it here. A few things to ponder. The intervention cited at the beginning of the article was a very moving moment in the Hui.

Very Fruitful Thursday

What could be a measure of a successful Hui on Hermeneutics? One measure could be down the track of life, “Where the church is now, is down to that hui back in 2010.” We will pass that one by. Another measure could be a sense as people leave that some things in our life together are better. That may not be much of a measure, since whatever sense we have at the end of the hui could result in no action such as follow up reporting back to our dioceses and hui amorangi. Here are my thoughts about what is better in our life together because of our hui this week:

1. We may have a deeper commitment to move forward together resolved to lose no one, conservative or liberal (or those who do not identify as either), straight or gay or lesbian – a commitment deepened because we have listened to each other in a responsible way, recognising that both experiences and theological commitments matter.

2. We may have begun to say to ourselves that our reading of Scripture corporately is something we cannot sidestep. Holy Scripture is our Holy Scripture. We may, in this (new) beginning, be realising two things. First, that Scripture says what it says about sexuality (including homosexuality). Despite some creative hermeneutical explorations around the possibility of concluding that Scripture does not say what the church has thought it has been saying, it does say what it says (i.e. an overall negative approach to homosexuality). Secondly, that it is possible that we may need to go beyond Scripture because we face a new situation, unknown when the Bible was written. A ‘going beyond’ akin to what we have done on matters such as usury and remarriage of divorced persons. Yet it is notable that on those two matters our church has gone forward together.

3. We are recognising that each tikanga is engaged with consideration of the place of gay and lesbian and transgender and bisexual people in our church. Once upon a time we could only have said that of one tikanga.

4. We may be recognising that finding a way forward towards reaching some kind of decision as a whole church (any decision, one way or another) may involve “re-envisioning” of the situation. Perhaps a new framing of the situation in different language to the language that has been used hitherto. (I hope to offer further reflection on this soon on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity).

5. We may be recognising that through this last decade some things have been changing about our church, things which we need to factor into our reflections and explorations, such as certain ways in which we are becoming more conservative, and certain ways in which an underlying therapeutic model of church is being transformed into a missional model of church.

6. We may be recognising that more people are affected by the way we are handling these matters than we have recognised before: ‘more people’ including gay and lesbian people in our congregations, and gay and lesbian people in the extended families or whanau which make up our churches.

7. We may be recognising that some arguments are better than other arguments in order to advance whichever cause we are promoting. In each of the three hui so far there have been arguments advanced which have not gained traction across the majority of those present. Arguments are not everything in ‘changing attitude’ but for some aspects they are important. They need to be good, in tone and content, otherwise they will not persuade.

Well I never set out to write down seven emerging things; but I have. I will stop for now. If you are asking the question, ‘Where will this end up?’, then my answer is, ‘I do not know.’ But I think it is more likely that we will end up in a place where we are both undivided and inclusive than if we had not held the hui.

Please read this as a personal statement of one individual at the Hui. It is not a description of the Hui per se, nor a record of its outcomes. It is an attempt to offer a sense of what its meaning for the church might be.