There are few Kiwi Anglicans blogging, less blogging regularly, and even less blogging regularly with Anglicanism and/or the Anglican Communion as the main focus of their posts. In fact, it could be that the last class consists of two members only! One is moi, the other is Fr Ron Smith, a Christchurch priest who has just begun posting at Kiwianglo's Blog - Anglo-Catholic Liberality . This, by the way, leaves plenty of room on the 'spectrum' for others to join in!
I look forward to reading Fr Ron's blog - a link is on the sidebar of ADU so you can get to it easily.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
So the Covenant is not a good idea?
Votes are running on a Church Times blog 4:1 against the Covenant. It has been declared 'not Catholic' (but see excellent response on More Than a Via Media). So the Covenant is not a good idea? I think the question being missed in the plethora of splutterings about the Covenant and its alleged constraining of debate and discussion, imposing of control on individual Anglican churches, and so forth, is whether the Covenant is good for the future of the Communion in its present global, 38 member strong form? And, if it is not, is there an alternative proposal which is good for its future?
Note, I do not find satisfactory those proposals which do the following:
(1) Exalt the autonomy of individual churches at the expense of the existence of the Communion.
(2) Pave the way for a future entity called the 'Anglican Communion' which is a diminishment in size of the current entity with a narrowing of the theological breadth of the Communion to the centre to liberal part of the spectrum.
But if you are part of the 4:1 voting against the Covenant and are happy with (1) or (2) ... no probs! Be happy :)
Note, I do not find satisfactory those proposals which do the following:
(1) Exalt the autonomy of individual churches at the expense of the existence of the Communion.
(2) Pave the way for a future entity called the 'Anglican Communion' which is a diminishment in size of the current entity with a narrowing of the theological breadth of the Communion to the centre to liberal part of the spectrum.
But if you are part of the 4:1 voting against the Covenant and are happy with (1) or (2) ... no probs! Be happy :)
Friday, November 5, 2010
Why a Covenant is a good idea
Following on from the post below about the newly announced Anglican Republican Party of No Coalition of No (Covenant), it may be worth re-stating simply why the Covenant is a good idea.
(1) To be Anglican is to be open to the new and to be responsive to changing circumstances.
(2) In the early part of the 21st century the Anglican Communion has been faced with changing circumstances, namely the recognition that increasing diversity of theology and praxis has stretched the bonds of affection to breaking point.
(3) Thus a new need has arisen to offer definition of what it means to be (a) Anglican, and (b) in formal global Communion as Anglicans.
(4) Further, recognition that there is division about what it means to be Anglican has led logically to the conclusion of the necessity of a means of discipline in respect of (b) above in order to deepen our fellowship as a global Communion (note, the discipline is not in respect of (a) ... anyone and any church may lay claim to be 'Anglican', it is not a registered trademark).
(5) The Covenant is the proposal on the table: Sections 1-3 in respect of (1) - (3) above and Section 4 in respect of (4) above.
What is intriguing about the Coalition of No is that their talk of shared Anglican heritage of worship and Hooker's classic and normative theology is entirely in agreement with the analysis (1) - (3) above. Their disturbance is over the possibility of discipline if alternative ways of being Anglican are proposed. What would they do if Anglicans in the Communion went against Hooker and our liturgical heritage?
(1) To be Anglican is to be open to the new and to be responsive to changing circumstances.
(2) In the early part of the 21st century the Anglican Communion has been faced with changing circumstances, namely the recognition that increasing diversity of theology and praxis has stretched the bonds of affection to breaking point.
(3) Thus a new need has arisen to offer definition of what it means to be (a) Anglican, and (b) in formal global Communion as Anglicans.
(4) Further, recognition that there is division about what it means to be Anglican has led logically to the conclusion of the necessity of a means of discipline in respect of (b) above in order to deepen our fellowship as a global Communion (note, the discipline is not in respect of (a) ... anyone and any church may lay claim to be 'Anglican', it is not a registered trademark).
(5) The Covenant is the proposal on the table: Sections 1-3 in respect of (1) - (3) above and Section 4 in respect of (4) above.
What is intriguing about the Coalition of No is that their talk of shared Anglican heritage of worship and Hooker's classic and normative theology is entirely in agreement with the analysis (1) - (3) above. Their disturbance is over the possibility of discipline if alternative ways of being Anglican are proposed. What would they do if Anglicans in the Communion went against Hooker and our liturgical heritage?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Oh dear
It ain't easy being an evangelical Anglican, what with opposition from progressives, ... and embarrassment from fellow evangelicals:
"The Right Rev Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes, told the Reform conference of conservative Anglicans: “I feel very much increasingly that we’re in January of 1939. We need to be aware that there is real serious warfare just round the corner.” "
What brought this on? The threat of nuclear war being launched against the C of E? A predicted pandemic of persecution against conservative Christians? No. Just the continuing democratic process of decision-making in the Church of England General Synod.
(H/T Anglican Taonga for the report in the Telegraph).
"The Right Rev Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes, told the Reform conference of conservative Anglicans: “I feel very much increasingly that we’re in January of 1939. We need to be aware that there is real serious warfare just round the corner.” "
What brought this on? The threat of nuclear war being launched against the C of E? A predicted pandemic of persecution against conservative Christians? No. Just the continuing democratic process of decision-making in the Church of England General Synod.
(H/T Anglican Taonga for the report in the Telegraph).
Wrongly named international Anglican Coalition favours covenant
There can be but one interpretation of the announcement that an international Anglican coalition has been formed with the name 'No Anglican Covenant: Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity.' That is that the coalition favours a covenant binding Anglicans together, for what is an Anglican coalition with a website but a fellowship with a binding document, and what is a fellowship with a binding document but a covenantal community!
So unfortunately this coalition has the wrong name. It should be called 'Not that Covenant but this one: Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity'! Incidentally 'Comprehensive Unity' is a covenantal idea since it values unity around an agreed conception of comprehensiveness.
The website for the covenanting coalition describes its view in this way:
"We believe in an Anglicanism based on a shared heritage of worship, not on a set of doctrines to which all must subscribe. Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view the covenant as profoundly un-Anglican."
A 'shared heritage of worship' means what, these days? The Book of Common Prayer (1662, C of E)? Wait, every province has moved away from the BCP to one degree or another! A shared theology of worship? No. Some of us are to the right of Zwingli and some to the left of Benedict XVI!
Ah, but a 'shared heritage of worship' could mean something more precise, a 'shared heritage of worship' as defined by certain Anglicans, a sort of covenantal understanding of that heritage: here is our definition of it, do you sign up to it?
This description is also curious in another way. It pits 'shared heritage of worship' versus 'a set of doctrines to which all must subscribe' yet I am constantly told by Anglicans that we Anglicans express our doctrine in our liturgies. If I subscribe to the liturgies I subscribe to the doctrines!! What is this coalition trying to say here?
Then finally, note the nail which completes the building of an Anglican covenantal community, 'Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view the covenant as profoundly un-Anglican.' Here is covenantal Anglicanism smuggled into a sentence which appears to deny its possible existence: how can something be declared to be 'un-Anglican' if there is not a shared definition of what 'Anglican' is? Indeed the first part of the sentence makes just that claim: 'Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view ...'
In a nutshell this coalition is saying 'we prefer our covenant to the official Covenant'. As Anglicans we are free to express such preferences, but it would be more persuasive if better arguments for the preference were forthcoming.
PS I am surprised that there is not an Australian presence on the coalition when prominent theologian Bruce Kaye is a publicly declared opponent of the Covenant. Perhaps that presence is being negotiated as we speak!
PPS I am even more surprised that this kind of nonsense is being put out and about re the Covenant (source here):
"We believe that acceptance and approval of the current proposed
Covenant will:
o Bring historic changes to the nature of Anglicanism.
o Trade a vibrant and colorful Anglicanism for drab uniformity.
o Impede local mission and destroy creative evangelism.
o Trade local oversight for centralized decision making.
Thank you for your consideration of this message."
Trade a vibrant and colourful Anglicanism for drab uniformity?
Impede local mission and DESTROY creative evangelism?
Trade local oversight for centralized decision making?
Has the coalition read the Covenant?
As for 'Bring historic changes to the nature of Anglicanism': it looks like an egregious offence, until we consider that 'historic changes' happen continuously with or without a Covenant ... Synod of Whitby ... Wycliffe translating the Bible ... Henry VIII dismissing the pope's jurisdiction ... Cranmer rewriting the liturgies ... (jumping a few centuries) ... all provinces revising the BCP ... setting up Instruments of Unity ... ARCIC ...
I think global Anglicanism deserves a better quality of opposition to the Covenant!!
So unfortunately this coalition has the wrong name. It should be called 'Not that Covenant but this one: Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity'! Incidentally 'Comprehensive Unity' is a covenantal idea since it values unity around an agreed conception of comprehensiveness.
The website for the covenanting coalition describes its view in this way:
"We believe in an Anglicanism based on a shared heritage of worship, not on a set of doctrines to which all must subscribe. Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view the covenant as profoundly un-Anglican."
A 'shared heritage of worship' means what, these days? The Book of Common Prayer (1662, C of E)? Wait, every province has moved away from the BCP to one degree or another! A shared theology of worship? No. Some of us are to the right of Zwingli and some to the left of Benedict XVI!
Ah, but a 'shared heritage of worship' could mean something more precise, a 'shared heritage of worship' as defined by certain Anglicans, a sort of covenantal understanding of that heritage: here is our definition of it, do you sign up to it?
This description is also curious in another way. It pits 'shared heritage of worship' versus 'a set of doctrines to which all must subscribe' yet I am constantly told by Anglicans that we Anglicans express our doctrine in our liturgies. If I subscribe to the liturgies I subscribe to the doctrines!! What is this coalition trying to say here?
Then finally, note the nail which completes the building of an Anglican covenantal community, 'Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view the covenant as profoundly un-Anglican.' Here is covenantal Anglicanism smuggled into a sentence which appears to deny its possible existence: how can something be declared to be 'un-Anglican' if there is not a shared definition of what 'Anglican' is? Indeed the first part of the sentence makes just that claim: 'Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view ...'
In a nutshell this coalition is saying 'we prefer our covenant to the official Covenant'. As Anglicans we are free to express such preferences, but it would be more persuasive if better arguments for the preference were forthcoming.
PS I am surprised that there is not an Australian presence on the coalition when prominent theologian Bruce Kaye is a publicly declared opponent of the Covenant. Perhaps that presence is being negotiated as we speak!
PPS I am even more surprised that this kind of nonsense is being put out and about re the Covenant (source here):
"We believe that acceptance and approval of the current proposed
Covenant will:
o Bring historic changes to the nature of Anglicanism.
o Trade a vibrant and colorful Anglicanism for drab uniformity.
o Impede local mission and destroy creative evangelism.
o Trade local oversight for centralized decision making.
Thank you for your consideration of this message."
Trade a vibrant and colourful Anglicanism for drab uniformity?
Impede local mission and DESTROY creative evangelism?
Trade local oversight for centralized decision making?
Has the coalition read the Covenant?
As for 'Bring historic changes to the nature of Anglicanism': it looks like an egregious offence, until we consider that 'historic changes' happen continuously with or without a Covenant ... Synod of Whitby ... Wycliffe translating the Bible ... Henry VIII dismissing the pope's jurisdiction ... Cranmer rewriting the liturgies ... (jumping a few centuries) ... all provinces revising the BCP ... setting up Instruments of Unity ... ARCIC ...
I think global Anglicanism deserves a better quality of opposition to the Covenant!!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
God is good
Somehow I managed to survive 22 hours in Wellington, earlier this week. Wellington is a fine city, recently voted 4th best in the world according to somebody or other (much to the chagrin of Christchurch). But it is a pedestrian's city and my 22 hours involved several trips in a car shifting things here and there in streets with little room to manouvre and next to no parking spaces.
On the flight back I had something to read which I ought to have read because I have a deadline for completing it, but I did not read a word. I had a window seat on a crystal clear day with an uninterrupted view of the east cost of the South Island from the tip of the Marlborough Sounds to Christchurch city itself. I never tire of such views which included mountains, rivers, valleys, beaches, towns and villages, much of which is familiar to me from ground travelling by road. What a difference a new perspective makes to familiar scenes. In this case the grandeur of the northern South Island is extraordinary from the air. When God renews the heaven and the earth it is difficult to envision how this part of the world might be improved!
Then to a funeral service for Bishop Maurice Goodall, Bishop of Christchurch (1984-90), a familiar figure in my life as a family friend and a notable figure because his prompting led to me offering for ordination when I had not expected to do so. He ordained me deacon and priest. The service was a lovely tribute to +Maurice who, as someone said in the course of the service, was the kindest man they had ever met. (For local readers, a public memorial service for +Maurice will be held in Christchurch Cathedral this coming Monday 8th November at 2.30 pm.)
+Maurice was an extraordinary pastor with accomplished, impactful ministries in parishes, City Mission, cathedral, and diocese. My last and lasting memory of +Maurice is seeing him recently at an evening service in his local parish. This service is geared for young people and the congregation make up is dominated by young people. But at the age of 82 +Maurice was there as often as possible, wanting to encourage the next generation, a faithful servant of the gospel to the end.
God is good!
On the flight back I had something to read which I ought to have read because I have a deadline for completing it, but I did not read a word. I had a window seat on a crystal clear day with an uninterrupted view of the east cost of the South Island from the tip of the Marlborough Sounds to Christchurch city itself. I never tire of such views which included mountains, rivers, valleys, beaches, towns and villages, much of which is familiar to me from ground travelling by road. What a difference a new perspective makes to familiar scenes. In this case the grandeur of the northern South Island is extraordinary from the air. When God renews the heaven and the earth it is difficult to envision how this part of the world might be improved!
Then to a funeral service for Bishop Maurice Goodall, Bishop of Christchurch (1984-90), a familiar figure in my life as a family friend and a notable figure because his prompting led to me offering for ordination when I had not expected to do so. He ordained me deacon and priest. The service was a lovely tribute to +Maurice who, as someone said in the course of the service, was the kindest man they had ever met. (For local readers, a public memorial service for +Maurice will be held in Christchurch Cathedral this coming Monday 8th November at 2.30 pm.)
+Maurice was an extraordinary pastor with accomplished, impactful ministries in parishes, City Mission, cathedral, and diocese. My last and lasting memory of +Maurice is seeing him recently at an evening service in his local parish. This service is geared for young people and the congregation make up is dominated by young people. But at the age of 82 +Maurice was there as often as possible, wanting to encourage the next generation, a faithful servant of the gospel to the end.
God is good!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Anti-Covenant salvo firing blanks
Andrew Goddard, as usual, quickly, eruditely, intelligently, and concisely parries the attempts at a meaningful salvo from certain progressive elements in Anglican life. This time the 'attack' ads against the Covenant, being mounted in English church newspapers by a couple of groups uniting together for common anti-Covenant purpose, are repelled. Here is a flavour:
"Two of the Church of England groups most associated with an appeal to reason have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of reasoned argument. They have also revealed themselves so hermeneutically challenged when faced with a relatively simple and short text whose contemporary context is well known that, did I not know some of the groups’ leaders, I would conclude they were deliberately misrepresenting the situation and framing false charges just in order to rally their troops and engender fear in those relatively uninformed of the covenant’s background and content."
As you can see, no prisoners will be taken in this counter-raid. The attackers, Goddard is saying, are firing loud and noisy ... blanks! The whole post is here.
"Two of the Church of England groups most associated with an appeal to reason have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of reasoned argument. They have also revealed themselves so hermeneutically challenged when faced with a relatively simple and short text whose contemporary context is well known that, did I not know some of the groups’ leaders, I would conclude they were deliberately misrepresenting the situation and framing false charges just in order to rally their troops and engender fear in those relatively uninformed of the covenant’s background and content."
As you can see, no prisoners will be taken in this counter-raid. The attackers, Goddard is saying, are firing loud and noisy ... blanks! The whole post is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)