Forget Green Moon, bet on Durham

Ruth Gledhill says the bookies have suspended betting on +Welby of Durham to be the next ABC after a rush of cash on him. Chance has always been a fine thing in apostolic succession since the days of Mathias. I haven't been following the odds but I suspect bets on ++Welby won't bring in as much return as betting on Green Moon in the Melbourne Cup yesterday.

Remember, you read it here first that +Welby was the dark horse of the race.

Our common imbecility

The last presidential address of the ABC to the ACC (or any international Anglican gathering for that matter) has been given and the whole text is here.

I suggest reading it with this news item about the bits and pieces of ACC being gathered up for Indaba-ization (i.e. further talk on Hegelian lines) along with an un-Hegelian perceptive and frank interview of Philip Ashey by David Virtue.

++Rowan makes a good point or two about authority in his talk. The question is whether it is Christ-like talk or not. Christ certainly exhibited and encouraged enabling authority. But there was some corrective authority as well.

In particular we might ask of a phrase ++Rowan himself uses, "our common imbecility," whether that aspect of humanity ever needs the firm hand of corrective authority to deal with it.

Rockstar and Theologian of Canterbury

+Rowan Williams has visited what he cheekily called an extension of his Diocese of Canterbury.* In all respects it was excellent.

Saturday afternoon and evening

On Saturday afternoon I was privileged to be part of +Victoria's Christchurch party of 20+ people who, along with the Archbishop and his entourage, three members of the Diocese of Nelson and one from the Diocese of Dunedin were welcomed to Te Wai Pounamou. Such welcomes often involve sitting outside and this one will never be forgotten as it was unseasonably cold and wet. Despite wearing my best woollen English overcoat I was very cold by the end of the welcome which segued into a service which concluded with a blessing of the site of Bishop John Gray's proposed new cathedral for te Wai Pounamou.

Moving into a huge marquee for the hakari (feast) which followed was better re temperature and the evening warmed up in all sorts of ways as we were served the most amazing array of seafood I have ever seen at a meal, followed by a main course served from the hangi pits which had been cooking through the day. The greatest warmth in the evening was the diverse expressions of entertainment as we sang, recited poetry and told jokes which would grace any comedy show, all compered beautifully by +John.

Brian Thomas' account with pics is worth reading here. I have my own picture to contribute courtesy of my father's camera - ++Rowan is flanked by two staff members, Bishops Kito Pikaahu, Victoria Matthews, Brian Carrell, Henry Paltridge, and Mrs Phyllis Paltridge:

Later that evening ++Rowan visited The Concert, a musical event for volunteers of Canterbury.

Sunday morning

Yesterday morning he preached and presided at a service at our cathedral/Christ's College Chapel and then toured the inner city by bus and spoke with parishioners and with the media at the site of Holy Trinity, Avonside.

Fr Ron Smith writes splendidly of the cathedral service here, and a full Stuff report including video interview is here.

Courtesy Stuff we can show this terrific photo after the cathedral service at Christ's College - left (in the photo) of ++Rowan is Acting Dean Lynda Patterson, Fr Ron Smith's face is just behind the archepiscopal left shoulder and I feel sorry for Simon Leese the Headmaster of Christ's College who is obscured by +Victoria's crook! Liturgy's Bosco Peters is the priest on the far right of the photo (and his reflection on the visit is here).

Sunday afternoon 2 pm

So to the afternoon's event at St Christopher's Avonhead where ++Rowan preached at a 40 minute service and then spoke on holiness with Q and A following for an hour with 16-30 year olds at an event gate-crashed by some older people. I figured that if I didn't ask any questions I wouldn't be stealing the 16-30s opportunity to sit at the feet of the master ...

Bryden Black, commenting on an earlier post here, observes about the first afternoon event,

"Which is the more heartfelt my having just returned from hearing a stupendously adroit exegesis and exposition OF THE WORD OF GOD by the ABC in quite simply splendid form! He and we deserve a better outcome from ACC 15 than that presently on track."

Indeed. Expounding John 11:17-44, ++Rowan demonstrated why he is so important to global Anglican life. As the Theologian of Canterbury he took us into the text and through to what lies behind it, that moment amidst the stench of the decaying body when resurrected Lazarus' face is unwrapped (v. 44) and he sees again. What he sees is, of course, the face of Jesus and so we were taken via 2 Corinthians 4 to the glory of God. We were, so to speak, back in the previous Sunday's ordinary gospel reading from Mark 10:46-52, only those who see can follow.

The greatness of the archepiscopal ministry of ++Rowan lies in his being Theologian of Canterbury, one who can see further than the rest of us into the mystery of God and God's love for the world, which is the gospel. With such sight the church can be united and reunited in its life and mission founded on the gospel. Unity through truth; truth gives unity.

Apropos of the part of Bryden Black's comment cited above about the deficiency of the ACC: it is not seeing what it should see, the importance of unity through truth. Instead, if its celebration of the report on the Bible in the Communion is a guide, any time there is disagreement about truth, we celebrate our diversity instead of mourning our loss of unity. Such response is scandalous, a stumbling block to true Christian "progress" which is not marked by harmony with Western notions of progress but by growth in gospel response throughout the world and by growth in maturity among believers.

Celebrating diversity constantly is a shell game, an avoidance of the hard work finding the truth involves. The point of theology is to seek truth. Stopping when the going gets hard with a celebration of diversity of viewpoint is intellectual laziness. We will only progress as a Communion when we repent of our apathy and move forward zealous for the truth. I am, by the way, firing this critical gun at all sides.

I suggest a true critical evaluation by historians of the contribution of ++Rowan's leadership will involve the lead he gave as the Theologian of Canterbury, the clarity with which he expressed that lead, and the calibre of the reception of that theological leadership by the Church of England and the wider Communion. What contemporary critics are missing (I sense, as a result of his visit to Christchurch) is that when his exposition of Scripture invited us to walk together more deeply into the mystery of the Triune love we have held back and preferred to walk apart, according to our own lesser understanding, covering our division with the fig-leaf of celebrating diversity. Our loss. As Adam and Eve found, when the fig-leaf is used, God becomes distant!

Incidentally, on the greatness of ++Rowan as the Theologian of Canterbury, see now Theo Hobson in a commentary which repays careful reading.

Sunday afternoon 3 pm

Back to St Christopher's. The second part of the afternoon was all I believe +Victoria wished it to be - an opportunity for young adults of the Diocese to be inspired by ++Rowan. He spoke movingly and perceptively on holiness and then answered a series of very intelligent and well articulated questions with confidence and clarity. And some humour! He made a point about some resistance to Cardinal John Newman being made a saint on the grounds that (apparently) people who visited him came away feeling rather glum when the general belief is that to be in the presence of a saint is to feel a new joy in living.** His initial answer to a question about what he thought about atheism was "I'm against it!" A fuller answer, of course, followed. (See Lloyd Ashton's account of this session here).

As I observed the process of the weekend - a heavily scripted twenty-four hours designed to maximise the presence of ++Rowan as "the Archbishop of Canterbury", itself a brief respite from the very full timetable of the ACC, in turn an event preceded by visitations en route - I want to suggest that if the key to being the ABC is to be the Theologian of Canterbury, indeed of the Anglican Communion, then the reality is also being the Rockstar of Canterbury.

His importance as the Rockstar is to appear at events, as many as possible, and the inevitable consequence is minimization of access to the Rockstar. Apart from a few moments at the end of the last event when young adults gathered around ++Rowan and chatted with him, I saw no opportunity in the programme for a general conversation on theology with those who like conversational theology. I imagine that is the story of his archepiscopal life wherever he goes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*For those unfamiliar with NZ geography, my city of Christchurch is in the province of Canterbury - the then Archbishop of Canterbury being patron of the society in the nineteenth century which organised the English settlement of this part of Aotearoa NZ.

**I am putting up quite a few of my colleagues for beatification because when I am with them I never feel glum!

POSTSCRIPT: A report of ++RW's presidential address to ACC-15 today is here. Has it grasped the Communion nettles?

Call me a jaded cynic, because I am one

The key to the renewal of Christianity has always been rediscovery of the Bible and obeying it. Whether we are with St Augustine or St Francis or Martin Luther or Tarore and her precious copy of Luke's Gospel, the Bible is the key to the power of Christ to transform lives: the Bible leads us to Christ, hearing his commands and obeying them is true repentance and faith. Divide over the Bible and the power is sapped. Slightly less harmful may be to diversify over our understanding of the Bible but all to readily "diversity" is a fig-leaf for division and "context" is an excuse to soften the hard edge of radical gospel discipleship. So when we read that ACC is celebrating a project on Anglican reading the Bible which essentially says nothing new, nothing about changing the situation of Anglicans and nothing about finding new unity in our agreement as to the meaning of Scripture then, well, call me a jaded cynic about this project because I am one!

Taonga's report begins with jaded cynics:

"Jaded cynics may try to suggest that the Anglican Communion is divided over the Bible."

This "cynic" would like to suggest there is indeed a certain amount of division. Whether division over the ordination of women as bishops or why we should capture what we think the Bible means in a Covenant or whether the gospel should be preached to non-Christians ... we are divided.

The fine words in the report of the Bible reading projected, as described in Taonga's report just do not paper over the cracks. And what they do describe is a state of the play which seems at variance with Communion reality. A commenter here, Andrew Reid (who has an Austral-Middle Eastern perspective on Communion life) cites part of the Taonga article and then aptly asks,,

" "After three and half years of worldwide research, the Bible in the Life of the Church project has found that Anglicans around the globe share “a high common ground” over the essential place and use of the Bible in Anglican life." 

How can a communion which can't agree on whether it is even God's Word possibly have a "high common ground"? And that's before we get onto interpretation, criticism, contextualisation etc. The authors appear to have done a thorough job in their research, but it doesn't seem to pass the common sense test. Why is our communion falling apart if we all agree on our foundational text and its meaning for us today? Why are we suing each other, refusing communion, establishing parallel structures and living by different morals if how we approach, use and apply the Bible is so similar?"

I do not want to pour cold water on things ACC seeks to celebrate but is this body living in the real politik world of global Anglican life?

These are the days of Elijah

Andrew Brown has written a cracking article on the state of the Church of England and, consequently, what kind of man is needed to be the next ABC. With a nip and a tuck and some mirror imaging here and there what he writes could as easily apply to the state of the Anglican church in NZ and (I imagine) Oz, the States, Canada, etc (but not Africa, Asia or South America). Here is his conclusion,

"What keeps the Church of England running is not its leadership nor its structures. It's the clergy's faith in God. Williams, for all his mistakes, was loved around the church because he seemed to share and even to exemplify that faith. The next archbishop will have to get that bit right if he is to inspire his followers. It's not a matter of having the right slogans."

OK, so we are not in the business of recruiting followers of bishops, but the point is not deterred by that faux pas. The church everywhere lives existentially by faith or dies. Leaders are required who inspire faith and win followers to the way of Christ.

Brown is right that ++Rowan has been an inspirer of faith. He has never for one moment failed to be a public witness to the truth of God in the marketplace and coffee shops of the world. Some of his detractors (including commenters here) have been quite uncharitable on that score. In that sense ++Rowan has been a leader not only of the C of E but of the worldwide Anglican church. When he has spoken he has been reported in newspapers Anglicans everywhere read. To the extent that we have acknowledged and been led in faith's journey by his proclamation we have been a worldwide church looking to a single leading figure.

For those of you who do not accept that the Anglican Church is the Anglican Church, I am afraid that you have to reckon with the authority of the Christchurch Press. A paragon of truth and virtue which this morning - anticipating ++Rowan's visit to our fair (but possible wet) city this afternoon - describes him as,

"The leader of the Anglican Church ..." (A6).

But back to faith-filled clergy and the next ABC. The biblical figure that comes to me as I reflect on Andrew Brown's article is Elijah. A mighty man of God with extraordinary faith and a mighty miracle working ministry. There is a lovely song some of us sing these days in church which is apt to the search for the next leader of the Anglican Church ... These are the days of Elijah

ACC: In ACC news this youth steward from Dunedin reports on the opening powhiri ...

ACC: the gift that keeps on giving credence to Covenant

There is no need for further satire about the ACC and the Covenant. Today's support for the Covenant comes directly to us from the largest internal bureaucracy associated with ACC, the Department of Irony. Here is Charles Waldegrave, Kiwi cleric, social justice leader and theologian speaking to ACC on gender-based and family violence:

"In his opening remarks last evening, Charles Waldegrave reflected on peace as a theological concept.

Peace, he said, flowed from the notion of covenant, and from right relationships. Abuse, he added, was “non-peace”, and a violent relationship with a partner or child was an assault on the fundamental covenant between people and God.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, chaired last evening’s presentation, and in his concluding remarks he reflected further on the problem, and on ways the Communion was dealing with it.

Yesterday's Safe Church resolution was part of the answer, he said. And further reflection on the nature of covenant would also be helpful.

Covenant, he said, involves “the self-restraint of power. The parties to covenant agree to be for one another, and not for themselves.

“We have to get away from the idea that the essential human action is control, rather than response.” "

So, once again, ACC-15, tackling an important human issue and agreeing wholeheartedly on the significance of the issue and on the Christian response to it, is faced with the importance of "covenant." Covenant contributes to human shalom, to setting forth the fundamental terms of justice in respect of relationships and to constraining human wickedness. What is not to like?

What might Covenant do for the Anglican Communion? To paraphrase Charles Waldegrave and ++Rowan Williams, Peace for our Communion will flow from right relationships undergirded by the Anglican Covenant which itself in its substance mirrors the fundamental covenant between people and God. The Anglican Covenant (despite contrary claims) involves the self-restraint of power because the parties to the Covenant agree to be for one another and not for themselves.

So, ironically, the ACC which appears likely not to give any particular boost to the progress of the Covenant keeps finding itself either making covenants (cf the charter of the other day) or being taught that covenant is key to social progress.

Are any of the members of the ACC able to see irony bars when they are being waved in front of them?

I have my doubts.

By the way, despite much vitriol being poured on David Virtue, he provides a great news service. Go here for a catch up on key moments in ACC-15 to date.

ACC: a shadow of the reality it could be

Tim Chesterton, commenting on an earlier post here, hits an important nail on the head:

"I often wonder whether God actually notices the existence of national churches. After all, in the NT, 'church' refers either to (a) the universal church of Jesus Christ, or (b) the local congregation. No in-between unit (diocese, or national church) seems to be envisioned. And what would Paul and the others think of a movement to establish 'the Church of Pontus' or 'the Church of Macedonia' as independent units with no obligation of loyalty to a larger body? (Note how he always uses the plural for this sort of grouping - 'the churches of Macedonia', not 'the Church of Macedonia')."

The gist of a strong Anglican argument against a tighter understanding of "Communion" than Tutu's "We meet" is that we have never been and never should be anything other than a grouping of (more or less*) national churches. Chesterton takes that argument head on. Our pride in being such a grouping, a pride at being autonomous, independent, post-colonial no one tells us what to do churches is not the divine perspective. God has never been interested in national churches and always worked on enlarging the internationalism of the church. The point of being church is, in a beautiful "thick" phrase, "obligation of loyalty to a larger body."

If, for instance, I believe that by baptism I am a member of the universal church of God, the body of Christ which includes the communion of all the saints, on heaven and in earth, then loyalty to that larger body means that my practical daily, weekly involvement in a local expression of the universal church is to work for that church to be attuned in mind and action with the universal church (cf. Philippians 2). If that local expression is the Anglican Parish of X then other loyalties press on me. In what way can X be coherent with the Diocese Y to which it belongs, and how can Y be of one mind and heart with the national/provincial church Z?

If then we ask how Z might be at one with the universal church of God, a practical starting point is to work on how all Anglican churches can work on an obligation to a larger Anglican body, that is, to the Anglican Communion. Sorting that out would be an excellent step on the way to renewing the common mind and heart of the universal church on earth. To give a blunt example, how can Anglicans engage in real steps to Christian unity with the Roman church if it does not know how to express loyalty to its own larger body?

From this perspective the Anglican Communion is an opportunity to grow in unity, to develop the 'larger body' on the basis of shared 'obligation of loyalty.' But reality is tawdry.

The Covenant, a magnificent proposal which takes seriously the obligation of loyalty to a larger body, is in very serious trouble, if not dead in the water (see now a state of the play analysis at Preludium). Bishop Victoria Matthews has rightly analysed an important aspect of the problem, a failure to read the Covenant in plain English. Reader response theory chickens, so lovingly nurtured in our theological colleges, have come home to roost!

The present ACC meeting is a shadow of the reality it could be. Instead of moving from unanimous agreement on a charter regarding care and protection of the vulnerable to consideration of how such unity could be found on other issues, such as our very life together as a global communion, the next network lines up to give its report. Instead of this much trumpeted "we are the only truly representative" Instrument of Unity being what it says, instrumental in Anglican unity and tackling the issues which prevent unity, it chirps along on matters which, to be sure, are important but not half as important as working out how Anglicans show loyalty to a larger body.

Chesterton's comment highlights a huge gap between reality and potential. To an extent the ACC is a meeting which takes place because Anglicans do have an obligation of loyalty to a larger body. People have bothered to show up. But there is no sign that any member of ACC is bothered about the parsimonious nature of the loyalty - a conditional loyalty which never permits any obligation to anything which might trump loyalty to the national church from which they have come.

On the ACC agenda every time should be the question of the evolution of the Communion to global church. What progress has been made in the last three years? What needs to be done in the next three years?

One of the saddest observations in the report of Bishop Victoria's presentation to the ACC is this line:

"She stressed the point that it was not the work of IASCUFO to promote the Covenant, but rather to monitor its reception."

For goodness sake, a Communion which took seriously the obligation to loyalty to a larger body would authorise IASCUFO to promote the Covenant not just monitor its reception.

How have we got to this shadow compared with the reality to which Christ has called us? I would stress the word 'we'. All of us have fallen short. Yes, I would urge loyalty to the truth of the gospel, a doctrinal undergirding of Anglican life. But I need to also work on what 'loyalty' means for a body which includes people different to myself, both in belief and in lifestyle: specifically, how can I be loyal to brother and sister Christians who also identify as gay? What do you, dear reader, need to work on to fulfil your obligation of loyalty to a larger body of Anglicans?

By the way, I am not trying to smuggle in a quasi-Roman internationalism with the ABC as an erstwhile Anglican pope. As Anglicans we have a different approach to being the church at large, more emphasis on synod as government than bishops and so forth. What we lack is courage and ecclesiological vision to work out what that might mean on a global stage. If only ACC would show some such courage and vision it might be worth the time and expense which have gone into is meeting in Auckland.

(*Some Anglican churches are international to a small degree, including my own which embraces the group of countries Aotearoa NZ, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga).

ADDENDUM: For a list of participants at ACC, go here.