Lovely to read this article celebrating the milestone of 25 years existence as a parish planted on bare land in Clendon, Auckland.
I have personally heard Mark Beale talk about the Clendon journey. It is one of the most inspiring stories I have heard in the modern life of our church in these islands.
As we work on possible church plants in post-quake Christchurch we need the wisdom of planters such as Mark to guide us.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Marx on Maori Anglican aspirations
I have been paying attention over the weekend to a series of Tweets recording progress at the annual synod of the Diocese of Aotearoa, also known as Te Runanganui o Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa. For a solid reportage of two key items of business Taonga offers a guide to the substance of the meeting: this report and this report with this final report the one I refer to here.
I understand Marxist analysis of society in these terms: Follow the money. Understand society in terms of what happens to money and you understand a lot. Who earns the money, who spends the money, who doesn't have money and who gets to tell people what to do with their money are all grist to the Marxist analytical mill. For people outside our church and islands the final Taonga report may be incomprehensible. Do not worry, it will also be so for many Pakeha (i.e. European-derived immigrants to these islands) inside our church! However, with Karl Marx's help I will attempt to be your guide.
I suggest that the aspiration of the Maori diocesan synod (Te Runanganui o Te Pihipatanga o Aotearoa) for tino rangatiratanga (i.e. sovereign control) is worth exploring in strictly monetary terms.
For Pakeha Anglicans we exercise our tino rangatiratanga without thinking about it. First, note that we have access to a variety of funding sources, weekly offertories, parish trust funds, diocesan trust funds and (when pushed) fundraising among pakeha. Further, we have associated institutions such as schools which broadly speaking do not consume the financial attention of our dioceses (cf. difficulties with Maori Anglican schools referenced in the Taonga articles). This means that largely we are in control - tino rangatiratanga - of our destiny as Pakeha Anglicans (i.e. Tikanga Pakeha, the seven NZ Dioceses).
When we go to meetings which discuss applications for funds from the St John's College Trust Board (our $300m assets/$12m annual distribution taonga (treasure)), we are glad for the share which comes our way. But engaging in discussion does not affect our sense of control over our affairs because discussion about those funds is about a portion of our gigantic pot, not about nearly all of it.
Put another way: if we lost the St John's College funding, people like me - educators - would (likely) be sacked, but the stipended clergy in parishes would continue their work. (Albeit poorly trained ...!!). Our life as parishes and other mission units bound together as dioceses, and our control of that ecclesiastical life would continue, albeit diminished in significant ways.
By contrast, and to quote a friend and colleague immersed in the life of Tikanga Maori,
Thus to go to meetings about the control of the growth of the assets and about the distribution of the earnings of the Trust Board is an exercise in partial control of Maori Anglican economy, a control which always involves discussion, even argument with Pakeha and Pasefika partners. However oriented those conversations are towards a favourable outcome for Maori, the fact is that Maori do not have control over the outcomes. Pakeha and Pasefika (Diocese of Polynesia) do not have control either, for all are equal partners at the table of discussion. But for Pakeha, the lack of control is more than mitigated by the immense control we exert over our overall 'economy' which is only partially funded by the Trust Board. (Life for Pasefika is different again and I won't attempt here to reflect on it).
Hence we might be able to understand this part of the Taonga article:
"In his paper to Te Runanganui, Professor Winiata outlined his thinking about why Tikanga Maori should exercise sovereignty over half the assets of the SJCTB:
I understand Marxist analysis of society in these terms: Follow the money. Understand society in terms of what happens to money and you understand a lot. Who earns the money, who spends the money, who doesn't have money and who gets to tell people what to do with their money are all grist to the Marxist analytical mill. For people outside our church and islands the final Taonga report may be incomprehensible. Do not worry, it will also be so for many Pakeha (i.e. European-derived immigrants to these islands) inside our church! However, with Karl Marx's help I will attempt to be your guide.
I suggest that the aspiration of the Maori diocesan synod (Te Runanganui o Te Pihipatanga o Aotearoa) for tino rangatiratanga (i.e. sovereign control) is worth exploring in strictly monetary terms.
For Pakeha Anglicans we exercise our tino rangatiratanga without thinking about it. First, note that we have access to a variety of funding sources, weekly offertories, parish trust funds, diocesan trust funds and (when pushed) fundraising among pakeha. Further, we have associated institutions such as schools which broadly speaking do not consume the financial attention of our dioceses (cf. difficulties with Maori Anglican schools referenced in the Taonga articles). This means that largely we are in control - tino rangatiratanga - of our destiny as Pakeha Anglicans (i.e. Tikanga Pakeha, the seven NZ Dioceses).
When we go to meetings which discuss applications for funds from the St John's College Trust Board (our $300m assets/$12m annual distribution taonga (treasure)), we are glad for the share which comes our way. But engaging in discussion does not affect our sense of control over our affairs because discussion about those funds is about a portion of our gigantic pot, not about nearly all of it.
Put another way: if we lost the St John's College funding, people like me - educators - would (likely) be sacked, but the stipended clergy in parishes would continue their work. (Albeit poorly trained ...!!). Our life as parishes and other mission units bound together as dioceses, and our control of that ecclesiastical life would continue, albeit diminished in significant ways.
By contrast, and to quote a friend and colleague immersed in the life of Tikanga Maori,
'The St John's Trust Board is our economy.'
Thus to go to meetings about the control of the growth of the assets and about the distribution of the earnings of the Trust Board is an exercise in partial control of Maori Anglican economy, a control which always involves discussion, even argument with Pakeha and Pasefika partners. However oriented those conversations are towards a favourable outcome for Maori, the fact is that Maori do not have control over the outcomes. Pakeha and Pasefika (Diocese of Polynesia) do not have control either, for all are equal partners at the table of discussion. But for Pakeha, the lack of control is more than mitigated by the immense control we exert over our overall 'economy' which is only partially funded by the Trust Board. (Life for Pasefika is different again and I won't attempt here to reflect on it).
Hence we might be able to understand this part of the Taonga article:
"In his paper to Te Runanganui, Professor Winiata outlined his thinking about why Tikanga Maori should exercise sovereignty over half the assets of the SJCTB:
“The current funding processes used by the church,” he wrote, “do not provide Maori with the opportunity to express tino rangatiratanga” (as guaranteed to Maori by the Treaty of Waitangi.)
- “At the St John’s College Trust Board, where the decision is made about the size of distribution and allocations of the distributions, Tikanga Maori is required to negotiate with Tikanga Pakeha and with Tikanga Pasifika – the negotiation process denies tino rangatiratanga.
- “The amount to be distributed then goes to Te Kotahitanga, another group where Tikanga Maori negotiates with the other to tikanga for the resources to undertake its planned activities – tino rangatiratanga is denied.
- “The funds then find their way to Te Waka Matauranga, finally into Maori hands for management – however the need to account for spending and reporting practices including the requirement of returning unspent funds at the end of the year denies any real tino rangatiratanga is present.”"
However, I think Professor Winiata's words are in danger of misleading all readers of Taonga. What is at stake - in my view - is not whether Maori have an 'expression' of tino rangatiratanga as though if Pakeha and Pasefika partners remained silent when discussing Maori applications for funds all would be well.
Rather, what is at stake is the state of their own ecclesiastical economy. Control of that economy, tino rangatiratanga, is important but more important is the monetary wherewithal to achieve all mission and ministry aspirations.
The fact is that it is not at all clear that changing the control of the St John's College Trust Board in the way being sought would improve the state of Maori Anglican ecclesiastical economy. My reason for saying this is that the funds of the Board are tightly focused by trust deed and civil law - there is a SJC Trust Board act of parliament - on the provision of education, and that is not education in general terms but in specific terms which include instruction in Christian principles. The accounting for spending which Professor Winiata appears to want to void (section 3 above) is an accounting according to the prescriptions surrounding the funds.
Rather, what is at stake is the state of their own ecclesiastical economy. Control of that economy, tino rangatiratanga, is important but more important is the monetary wherewithal to achieve all mission and ministry aspirations.
The fact is that it is not at all clear that changing the control of the St John's College Trust Board in the way being sought would improve the state of Maori Anglican ecclesiastical economy. My reason for saying this is that the funds of the Board are tightly focused by trust deed and civil law - there is a SJC Trust Board act of parliament - on the provision of education, and that is not education in general terms but in specific terms which include instruction in Christian principles. The accounting for spending which Professor Winiata appears to want to void (section 3 above) is an accounting according to the prescriptions surrounding the funds.
As the Taonga report makes clear, Maori Anglican economy desperately needs improving so that (e.g.) its ministers are stipended. But can that improvement be achieved by gaining control of the St John's College Trust Board funds in the way being pursued here. Those funds have limited applicability to the payment of general clergy stipends (let alone for, say, repairs to church roofs). Tino rangatiratanga over the SJC Trust Board funds would certainly be a step forward for Maori aspirations but I wonder if it would fulfil the deepest aspiration running through the Taonga reports, the aspiration for overall improvement in the economy of Maori Anglican life and mission.
Pakeha reading here should be clear, in my and Karl Marx's view, that what is at stake here is what we largely take for granted, money to do things in Christ's name. What is at stake is not simply another way of doing things to gain the same (or slightly more) amount of funding. What is at stake, I suggest, are the material circumstances in which the mission and ministry of our Maori Anglican brothers and sisters are conducted.
None of us should be sanguine about this weekend's Runanganui resolution. The unity of our church is a fragile bloom. It is largely held together by our discussions over money. True tino rangatiratanga over half the trust board money would - in my view - mean a cessation of those discussions. The separation of Maori Anglican church life from Pakeha and Pasefika life would be more or less final. But if readers here do not like that outcome we need to attend to the monetary situation of the Diocese of Aotearoa and not to theological considerations, whether they are about unity or about the exercise of tino rangatiratanga.
(Yet, let the reader understand, when the Taonga report tells us of speakers stressing the importance of 'unity', of kotahitanga, we are being given a glimpse of an intense debate within Tikanga Maori concerning relationships with the other tikanga, with Pakeha and Pasefika. In my understanding all Maori Anglicans are concerned to improve the circumstances of Aotearoa's mission and ministry but there is difference over the extent to which this should be conducted in partnership or in a separated but focused independent Maori church.)
Karl Marx tells us that the surest way to avert revolution is to engage in sharing the material goods of society. In our NZ Anglican case, do Pakeha need to rethink our approach to supporting Maori mission and ministry?
Are there ways we have not yet thought of in which we could improve an uneven playing field? Aware of previous thinking about 'resource sharing' which has largely failed, what if we took a different tack such as Pakeha parishes tithing income and sending that tithe to the local Maori bishop? In Pakeha terms, tino rangatiratanga would mean the gift would be sent with 'no strings attached.'
There would be consequences to undertaking such a gifting programme. As Pakeha we would want to 'discuss it' (discussion is often our way of exercising tino rangatiratanga over situations!). But the question remains, again as Marx would have it, has the time for talk begun to end and the hour for action arrived?
Incidentally, for anxious readers perturbed by Karl's presence here, I suggest Karl and St Paul are united on the matter (2 Corinthians 8:13-14)
Declaration: I am Chair of Te Kotahitanga Scholarships Committee, a three tikanga body responsible for a small portion of the distribution of St John's College Trust Board funds, and part of the chain of review and recommendation about that distribution (for which the highest authority is the Trust Board itself).
(Yet, let the reader understand, when the Taonga report tells us of speakers stressing the importance of 'unity', of kotahitanga, we are being given a glimpse of an intense debate within Tikanga Maori concerning relationships with the other tikanga, with Pakeha and Pasefika. In my understanding all Maori Anglicans are concerned to improve the circumstances of Aotearoa's mission and ministry but there is difference over the extent to which this should be conducted in partnership or in a separated but focused independent Maori church.)
Karl Marx tells us that the surest way to avert revolution is to engage in sharing the material goods of society. In our NZ Anglican case, do Pakeha need to rethink our approach to supporting Maori mission and ministry?
Are there ways we have not yet thought of in which we could improve an uneven playing field? Aware of previous thinking about 'resource sharing' which has largely failed, what if we took a different tack such as Pakeha parishes tithing income and sending that tithe to the local Maori bishop? In Pakeha terms, tino rangatiratanga would mean the gift would be sent with 'no strings attached.'
There would be consequences to undertaking such a gifting programme. As Pakeha we would want to 'discuss it' (discussion is often our way of exercising tino rangatiratanga over situations!). But the question remains, again as Marx would have it, has the time for talk begun to end and the hour for action arrived?
Incidentally, for anxious readers perturbed by Karl's presence here, I suggest Karl and St Paul are united on the matter (2 Corinthians 8:13-14)
Declaration: I am Chair of Te Kotahitanga Scholarships Committee, a three tikanga body responsible for a small portion of the distribution of St John's College Trust Board funds, and part of the chain of review and recommendation about that distribution (for which the highest authority is the Trust Board itself).
Friday, November 8, 2013
Francis really is giving us a lead, for those with eyes to see it
If we are to connect with the world around us rather than the world as it used to be or the world as we would like it to be, then we must look, learn and listen to this world. With minds and hearts informed by the Word of God. Of course!
So when not in Rome one might do well to do what the Romans do. In this case, in respect of the minefield of modern marriage and marriage-like relationships, Francis is giving a lead to all who wish to be doctrinally faithful and pastorally fruitful. As you can read here. And the 39 Articulated Questions can be found by heading to Liturgy here.
Will all Anglicans consider following this lead in working out how to move through the 21st century with acute pastoral commitment to work with the complexities of relationships?
A great hornet's nest is being opened up with these questions:
"a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?
b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?"
I wager that very, very few Catholic families in a country such as our own follow their church's teachings on contraception. Time for that teaching to catch up on reality. Wait, that is a principle many Protestant commenters here do not agree with!!!!!
POSTSCRIPT: Archbishop Roger Heerft of Perth offers a model of episcopal care and carefulness in this opinion piece in a local newspaper and in this letter explaining why he will not give his assent to a motion agreed to by the other houses of his synod. Of particular interest to me is his concern for care in theological priorities.
So when not in Rome one might do well to do what the Romans do. In this case, in respect of the minefield of modern marriage and marriage-like relationships, Francis is giving a lead to all who wish to be doctrinally faithful and pastorally fruitful. As you can read here. And the 39 Articulated Questions can be found by heading to Liturgy here.
Will all Anglicans consider following this lead in working out how to move through the 21st century with acute pastoral commitment to work with the complexities of relationships?
A great hornet's nest is being opened up with these questions:
"a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?
b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?"
I wager that very, very few Catholic families in a country such as our own follow their church's teachings on contraception. Time for that teaching to catch up on reality. Wait, that is a principle many Protestant commenters here do not agree with!!!!!
POSTSCRIPT: Archbishop Roger Heerft of Perth offers a model of episcopal care and carefulness in this opinion piece in a local newspaper and in this letter explaining why he will not give his assent to a motion agreed to by the other houses of his synod. Of particular interest to me is his concern for care in theological priorities.
Talking of Jesus as Healer
One of the most memorable experiences of my life, ever, was a weekend healing mission at St Matthew's Church, Dunedin with Bill Subritzky. The most unusual Anglican I have ever heard speak. Exorcising demons with invocation of the words of the BCP in support of this most Anglican thing to do.
Nearly 30 years later, in his 80s, he remains faithful in God's service. The naysayers are out in full force.
Nearly 30 years later, in his 80s, he remains faithful in God's service. The naysayers are out in full force.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Kiwi candidate on slate for New Westminster
Additional to below: a nicely written article at The Living Church, emphasising the global nature of the slate. Here.
From here (H/T to a Twitter correspondent)
"The Candidates
Listed in alphabetical order, the eight (8) candidates which the Committee recommends to you for consideration are:
John writes an interesting and upfront account of himself and his ministry. (Anyone reading this from New Westminster, he is a good bloke).
I disagree with him when he writes, "The Anglican Church is God’s concern.".
I have never received convincing evidence that God has any regard specifically for the Anglican church!
From here (H/T to a Twitter correspondent)
"The Candidates
Listed in alphabetical order, the eight (8) candidates which the Committee recommends to you for consideration are:
- Ven. Ellen Clark-King, Vicar, Christ Church Cathedral, Diocese of New Westminster (Ph.D., M.A., C.T., B.A.)
- Rev. Canon Dawn L. Davis, Incumbent Priest, Trinity Church Aurora, Diocese of Toronto (CHRP, M.Div., B.A.)
- Rev. John Hebenton, Vicar, Anglican Parish of Gate Pa, Tauranga, Diocese of Waiapu, Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (M.Min, BSc, LTh [Hons], B.A.)
- Rev. Richard G. Leggett, Incumbent Priest, St. Faith's Anglican Church, Diocese of New Westminster (Ph.D., M.A., M.Div., B.A.)
- Ven. Lynne E. McNaughton, Incumbent Priest, St. Clement Anglican Church, Diocese of New Westminster (D. Min., M.Div., B.A.)
- Rev. John Oakes, Hon. Assoc. Priest, All Saints Episcopal Church, Belmont, Diocese of Massachusetts, TEC and on leave with permission to officiate, Diocese of New Westminster (Ph.D., M.Div., M.A., M.C.S., Dipl. C.S., B.A.)
- Rev. Canon Melissa M. Skelton, Canon for Congregational Development and Leadership & Rector, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Diocese of Olympia, TEC (M.Div., M.B.A., M.A., B.A.)
- Ven. John R. Stephens, Incumbent Priest, St. Philip's Anglican Church, Diocese of New Westminster (M.Div., B.Sc.)
John writes an interesting and upfront account of himself and his ministry. (Anyone reading this from New Westminster, he is a good bloke).
I disagree with him when he writes, "The Anglican Church is God’s concern.".
I have never received convincing evidence that God has any regard specifically for the Anglican church!
Take note, Kiwi Anglicans
For the sake of clarity re possible futures possibly being contemplated in respect of possible changes in the direction of our church, it is worth noting this post in Taonga re ownership of the material possessions of ecclesiastical life.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
AMiE: Anglican Mission in Every(western)where
If GAFCON has made a gaffe in its communique's understanding of the subtle relationship between gospel and culture in the West by over-emphasising church purity and under-emphasising mission (previous post below), then what is the way forward for Anglican mission in the West?
Astute comments have been made to my previous post. Comments which are worth reflecting on carefully as we make out way through waters which may be partly charted (i.e. repetitions occur in church history) and partly uncharted (i.e. by definition Christendom has never experienced post-Christendom!)
On the one hand, here is Stephen Donald, a colleague working in the Diocese of Waiapu:
On the other hand, and just selecting a few paragraphs from many pertinent paragraphs posted in the thread below by Bryden Black, a colleague working here in the Diocese of Christchurch:
With such pertinent thoughts in mind, about the state of the society in which we are missional Anglicans and the state of the church to which we Anglicans belong, how should we engage in mission?
One of the great lessons of my days of fond memory at Knox Theological Hall, Dunedin, in the 1980s, was reading an article (from memory, in the journal Interpretation) about six missional strategies for responding to the (Hellenistic) cultural hegemony of Rome and its empire in the Israel of Jesus' day, all neatly described with "I" words.
Insulation - the Pharisees who lived within society by tried to keep the dominating culture at bay with many rules and regulations for daily and domestic life.
Isolation - the Essenes who physically took themselves to the wilderness and set up communities to live a pure Jewish life (as they understood and regulated it).
Insurrection - the Zealots who determined that the hegemony of Rome needed to be overthrown
Integration - the Sadducees who determined that their faith commitments would not stand in the way of working hand in glove with Rome yet held to their faith commitments sufficiently to debate with Pharisees and with Jesus.
Identification - the Herodians who made Rome's interests their own interests.
Incorporation - the Christians who set out to convert the Roman empire and thus integrate it into the kingdom of God (and determinedly not the other way around).
Thus the first thing I recommend for Anglican churches engaged in mission to the West, with its imperial hegemony of secular, pluralist culture, is that we are clear about which of these six strategies we are pursuing.
Anglicans have not been well known for their Insurrectionist tendencies but I see signs in my reading of history and of contemporary Anglican life of each of the other five strategies being followed. Predominantly, however, the Anglican tendency is towards Integration, Identification or Incorporation.
The point about Incorporation is that Christians set out, principally via their chief strategist Paul, to shape Christianity to convert the whole world, Jew and Greek, slave and free, men and women. Along the way they had to deal to tendencies towards Insulation (so Galatians and Paul's rebuke to Peter, perhaps too Hebrews and its appeal to readers not to go back to Judaism), Integration (see letters to churches in Revelation 2-3), Identification (so 1 Timothy where false teachers whose interests seem similar to the prevailing religion of Ephesus are battled) and perhaps even Isolation (is that what Paul avoids in 1 Corinthians 5:10 and the Elder toys with in 1 John?)
Secondly, once the strategy has been chosen (or clearly identified as the one which is actually being pursued), I suggest we need to work out what steps will enable the goal of the strategy to be achieved.
For the Pauline strategy of Incorporation, it is noticeable how Paul went along with the Roman Empire by avoiding unnecessary antagonism (so Romans 13) and how Luke presented the Christian movement (in Luke-Acts) as no explicit political threat to the Empire. Yet Paul preached Jesus Christ as the true Caesar (Kyrios = Lord) and Luke celebrated the advance of the empire (i.e. kingdom) of God which was, in the deeper reality of life, a total undermining of Roman political power.
What steps do we take today to avoid unnecessary antagonism of the prevailing cultural hegemony while being utterly faithful to the gospel that Jesus is Lord and seeking the advance of the rule of God over the world?
What I am arguing for through recent posts is that we take steps to avoid confrontation with the prevailing culture of the West over homosexuality, including avoiding becoming the church known as the anti-homosexuals church. One such step is not to separate over homosexuality. Where separation nevertheless seems necessary over theological matters of authority, true versus false gospel, faithfulness to Jesus as Lord, (a responsive point being well made by commenters) can we clearly articulate that those are the reasons without association also being made by observers with issues over homosexuality?
I have my doubts that at the present time those inclined to separate can do so while maintaining the perception that the separation is not to do with homosexuality but concerns a larger mess of doctrinal failure, gospel fecklessness and cultural captivity.
As an evangelical I appreciate very much that many issues are at work in, behind and underneath current controversy over homosexuality. That it is, depending on metaphors being invoked, this controversy is the tip of an iceberg which began growing centuries earlier or the latest station on a very long journey on a road which long ago forked in the woods of Enlightenment.
There is an argument for decisive concrete action, for acting on one's convictions if one's church should take one more step along that road by explicitly approving the blessing of same sex partnerships or even changing the doctrine of marriage. That argument is that enough is enough, no further capitulation to or accommodation with the relentless growth of the hegemony of liberal theology is tolerable.
But I respectfully (to my evangelical colleagues and friends thinking about such decisive action) submit a counter argument. No matter how widely (or loudly), gently, reasonably we articulate that decisive action is because of the base of the iceberg or length of the wrongly taken journey, it will be pinned against us, both by others in the church and by the wider community, that we have taken action because of homosexuality, indeed because of homosexuals. No matter how strongly we feel such perception is discordant with reality, is that a perception we wish to encourage?
I raise the question because in that perception it will look like we are scapegoating homosexuals who are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Of all the perceptions we might think it worth living with in order to live out our convictions, is scapegoating somewhere between 1% and 5% of our congregations a price worth paying?
Importantly, from a missional perspective, would such perception impede our mission if we are determined to pursue an Incorporation strategy?
There is an alternative way and it is being charted by one of the more evangelical popes in history.
The resounding model today in respect of Incorporation is the manner of Pope Francis' public communication of the faith.
He has not changed (conservative) Catholic teaching on any matter one whit but has managed to frame answers to questions in such a way that the tone of discussion has changed, the prevailing media interest in the Roman church is not its scandalous faults but its possibilities for supporting human dignity.
Are conservative evangelical Anglicans able to engender similar sympathetic response from the public if we generate media coverage that we are forming new churches outside of existing structures because of differences over homosexuality?
Our attention and emphasis should be elsewhere than on sexuality. Steps I suggest we need to take in current mission in the West concern presenting Jesus in a manner which connects with people today.
First, we need to present Jesus as alive - the resurrected Jesus present in the world through his Spirit - doing so through deed as well as word. 'Deed' includes acts of compassionate service and offer of healing prayer. The Jesus of history cuts no ice today. What matters is the now and the future. The 'historical Jesus' sounds as irrelevant as Caesar, Genghis Khan and Darwin.If Jesus is not here in the world today, he is nowhere in the minds of the iPhone generation.
Secondly, we need to find language for today which translates key terms such as 'Saviour', 'the Bible', even 'church'. My suggestion is urgent exploration of Jesus as Healer (rather than Saviour), the sacred writings (rather than the Bible), and 'spirituality centres' (rather than 'church'). Improvements welcomed in the comments.
If there is one thing the cultural hegemony of the West is responsible for it is the immense hurt created by tolerance even encouragement of breakdown of familial relationships. But is it clear to the average shopper in our Malls or to fans at football matches that our churches are places of healing for the hurts being buried through shopping and obsession with sport?
Thirdly, what is happening in our worship services? Are they Jesus-shaped? As an Anglican with deep love for liturgy I see within our liturgies, their underlying dynamics properly understood, great potential to present Jesus to all who gather to find him. But I also see strange obsessions with form, including with robes, ceremonies and over elaborate ritual movements. Are these constructions of barriers to meeting Jesus inside the church?
That is enough for now.
Astute comments have been made to my previous post. Comments which are worth reflecting on carefully as we make out way through waters which may be partly charted (i.e. repetitions occur in church history) and partly uncharted (i.e. by definition Christendom has never experienced post-Christendom!)
On the one hand, here is Stephen Donald, a colleague working in the Diocese of Waiapu:
"Communicating the gospel in our Westernised context (and in Aotearoa – New Zealand in particular) is precisely the issue, wherever we may sit on our broad Anglican spectrum of theology and church practice. Rather than fixating on issues around homosexuality, we need to reshape our mission to an increasingly secularised (and often indifferent) society, in which most people see us, at best, as irrelevant, and at worst, judgemental, bigoted and hypocritical.
Even on the most superficial level in the traditional ‘hatched, matched and despatched’ ministries we fail to connect. When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s clergy held an almost monopoly in the area of life-passage celebration, but now there are very few requests for baptism, only 1/3 of all weddings in total are taken by organisational celebrants (which includes those from other religions, not only Christian), and an increasing number of funerals are conducted by celebrants or family members. The ‘horse has bolted’ on Christendom, and without a change of approach and a good hard look at ourselves, we will continue to miss the mark, and in the eyes of Joe Public, drift off into oblivion.
When we do deliver the goods to our communities in the face of tragedy and disaster (as in the Pike River disaster and the Christchurch earthquakes) or enhancing community celebration and connectedness as I am often involved in here in the Gisborne-East Coast area, we win friends for Christ and influence people, although this is rarely expressed as more bottoms on pews, for all the reasons given above.
Of course the content of the Gospel is important as well as the context. Grace is not cheap and repentance is required. But so is graciousness; those within the Church who believe ‘the other’ is taking Christianity to hell in a handcart (and both extremes are guilty at times) need to assess their motives. I suspect this often has much more to do with power and control, and a fear of the unknown, than any missional objective."
On the other hand, and just selecting a few paragraphs from many pertinent paragraphs posted in the thread below by Bryden Black, a colleague working here in the Diocese of Christchurch:
"As I’ve tried myself to tease out this question [Editor: the question of ecclesial blessing of same sex partnerships and how the church has arrived through the theological and philosophical journey since the Reformation at a point where it is very open to providing an affirming answer to the question], as a Christian who has all his life straddled many cultures, past and present, and so has a degree of self-transcendence hermeneutically, I have been forced to conclude what I’ve said before: it’s but the presenting tip of an iceberg. I also have two other analogies:
(1) it’s like a glacier, which grinds away over many, many years, and then suddenly, at its edge, a piece - and in this case, a large piece - falls off, precipitating an enormous avalanche. Everyone notices the avalanche and focuses on it and its effects. No-one, or at least only a few, give any credence to the years and years of slow grinding away of the glacier, out of sight - that is, now to apply the analogy, the slow shifts in cultural and societal movements which actually brought about this visible, tangible, presenting thing.
(2) More simply, and more morally (and possibly more in tune with your own ‘missionary’ assessment): the source of the ‘pollution’ is quite simply upstream, historically and culturally; it’s just the case that downstream is where we are; and how we are is ... well; it is what it is! [And of course, one may still use this analogy in a non-pejorative moral sense by using say the confluence of two tributaries: I anticipate a few yells!]...
I think you may by now have something of the flavour as to why we may actually be more in disagreement than you realise. My ‘hermeneutical antennae’, intellectual, cultural, philosophical and historical, as well as spiritual, tune into two things at once: there is a single presenting issue; which however is inordinately rich and complex in its own aetiology, historically, culturally, etc., let alone in the actual instance of any one person who happens to deem themselves gay.
No wonder we humans, this side of the Parousia, are seemingly in freeze-frame mode about ‘it’. Well; some are, and some are not; and those that are not represent two extremes often, the total ‘revisionists’ and the total ‘traditionalists’. What I hope to have shown - again all too briefly - is that there might yet be another stance. I’ve tried to canvass as wide and as deep a perspective as possible, but have still arrived at a position that utterly refuses to align myself with any amendment to the definition of marriage, as the societal and cultural and spiritual thing it really is: such amendment just does not stack up overall! And it is a matter of choose this day: life - or death. Therefore, at root, baptismal distinctiveness, and so sheer holiness [pace Haller] must, yes must, be the order of the Christian Church. And if this particular institution foregoes that ... well; we shall see ..."
With such pertinent thoughts in mind, about the state of the society in which we are missional Anglicans and the state of the church to which we Anglicans belong, how should we engage in mission?
One of the great lessons of my days of fond memory at Knox Theological Hall, Dunedin, in the 1980s, was reading an article (from memory, in the journal Interpretation) about six missional strategies for responding to the (Hellenistic) cultural hegemony of Rome and its empire in the Israel of Jesus' day, all neatly described with "I" words.
Insulation - the Pharisees who lived within society by tried to keep the dominating culture at bay with many rules and regulations for daily and domestic life.
Isolation - the Essenes who physically took themselves to the wilderness and set up communities to live a pure Jewish life (as they understood and regulated it).
Insurrection - the Zealots who determined that the hegemony of Rome needed to be overthrown
Integration - the Sadducees who determined that their faith commitments would not stand in the way of working hand in glove with Rome yet held to their faith commitments sufficiently to debate with Pharisees and with Jesus.
Identification - the Herodians who made Rome's interests their own interests.
Incorporation - the Christians who set out to convert the Roman empire and thus integrate it into the kingdom of God (and determinedly not the other way around).
Thus the first thing I recommend for Anglican churches engaged in mission to the West, with its imperial hegemony of secular, pluralist culture, is that we are clear about which of these six strategies we are pursuing.
Anglicans have not been well known for their Insurrectionist tendencies but I see signs in my reading of history and of contemporary Anglican life of each of the other five strategies being followed. Predominantly, however, the Anglican tendency is towards Integration, Identification or Incorporation.
The point about Incorporation is that Christians set out, principally via their chief strategist Paul, to shape Christianity to convert the whole world, Jew and Greek, slave and free, men and women. Along the way they had to deal to tendencies towards Insulation (so Galatians and Paul's rebuke to Peter, perhaps too Hebrews and its appeal to readers not to go back to Judaism), Integration (see letters to churches in Revelation 2-3), Identification (so 1 Timothy where false teachers whose interests seem similar to the prevailing religion of Ephesus are battled) and perhaps even Isolation (is that what Paul avoids in 1 Corinthians 5:10 and the Elder toys with in 1 John?)
Secondly, once the strategy has been chosen (or clearly identified as the one which is actually being pursued), I suggest we need to work out what steps will enable the goal of the strategy to be achieved.
For the Pauline strategy of Incorporation, it is noticeable how Paul went along with the Roman Empire by avoiding unnecessary antagonism (so Romans 13) and how Luke presented the Christian movement (in Luke-Acts) as no explicit political threat to the Empire. Yet Paul preached Jesus Christ as the true Caesar (Kyrios = Lord) and Luke celebrated the advance of the empire (i.e. kingdom) of God which was, in the deeper reality of life, a total undermining of Roman political power.
What steps do we take today to avoid unnecessary antagonism of the prevailing cultural hegemony while being utterly faithful to the gospel that Jesus is Lord and seeking the advance of the rule of God over the world?
What I am arguing for through recent posts is that we take steps to avoid confrontation with the prevailing culture of the West over homosexuality, including avoiding becoming the church known as the anti-homosexuals church. One such step is not to separate over homosexuality. Where separation nevertheless seems necessary over theological matters of authority, true versus false gospel, faithfulness to Jesus as Lord, (a responsive point being well made by commenters) can we clearly articulate that those are the reasons without association also being made by observers with issues over homosexuality?
I have my doubts that at the present time those inclined to separate can do so while maintaining the perception that the separation is not to do with homosexuality but concerns a larger mess of doctrinal failure, gospel fecklessness and cultural captivity.
As an evangelical I appreciate very much that many issues are at work in, behind and underneath current controversy over homosexuality. That it is, depending on metaphors being invoked, this controversy is the tip of an iceberg which began growing centuries earlier or the latest station on a very long journey on a road which long ago forked in the woods of Enlightenment.
There is an argument for decisive concrete action, for acting on one's convictions if one's church should take one more step along that road by explicitly approving the blessing of same sex partnerships or even changing the doctrine of marriage. That argument is that enough is enough, no further capitulation to or accommodation with the relentless growth of the hegemony of liberal theology is tolerable.
But I respectfully (to my evangelical colleagues and friends thinking about such decisive action) submit a counter argument. No matter how widely (or loudly), gently, reasonably we articulate that decisive action is because of the base of the iceberg or length of the wrongly taken journey, it will be pinned against us, both by others in the church and by the wider community, that we have taken action because of homosexuality, indeed because of homosexuals. No matter how strongly we feel such perception is discordant with reality, is that a perception we wish to encourage?
I raise the question because in that perception it will look like we are scapegoating homosexuals who are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Of all the perceptions we might think it worth living with in order to live out our convictions, is scapegoating somewhere between 1% and 5% of our congregations a price worth paying?
Importantly, from a missional perspective, would such perception impede our mission if we are determined to pursue an Incorporation strategy?
There is an alternative way and it is being charted by one of the more evangelical popes in history.
The resounding model today in respect of Incorporation is the manner of Pope Francis' public communication of the faith.
He has not changed (conservative) Catholic teaching on any matter one whit but has managed to frame answers to questions in such a way that the tone of discussion has changed, the prevailing media interest in the Roman church is not its scandalous faults but its possibilities for supporting human dignity.
Are conservative evangelical Anglicans able to engender similar sympathetic response from the public if we generate media coverage that we are forming new churches outside of existing structures because of differences over homosexuality?
Our attention and emphasis should be elsewhere than on sexuality. Steps I suggest we need to take in current mission in the West concern presenting Jesus in a manner which connects with people today.
First, we need to present Jesus as alive - the resurrected Jesus present in the world through his Spirit - doing so through deed as well as word. 'Deed' includes acts of compassionate service and offer of healing prayer. The Jesus of history cuts no ice today. What matters is the now and the future. The 'historical Jesus' sounds as irrelevant as Caesar, Genghis Khan and Darwin.If Jesus is not here in the world today, he is nowhere in the minds of the iPhone generation.
Secondly, we need to find language for today which translates key terms such as 'Saviour', 'the Bible', even 'church'. My suggestion is urgent exploration of Jesus as Healer (rather than Saviour), the sacred writings (rather than the Bible), and 'spirituality centres' (rather than 'church'). Improvements welcomed in the comments.
If there is one thing the cultural hegemony of the West is responsible for it is the immense hurt created by tolerance even encouragement of breakdown of familial relationships. But is it clear to the average shopper in our Malls or to fans at football matches that our churches are places of healing for the hurts being buried through shopping and obsession with sport?
Thirdly, what is happening in our worship services? Are they Jesus-shaped? As an Anglican with deep love for liturgy I see within our liturgies, their underlying dynamics properly understood, great potential to present Jesus to all who gather to find him. But I also see strange obsessions with form, including with robes, ceremonies and over elaborate ritual movements. Are these constructions of barriers to meeting Jesus inside the church?
That is enough for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)