Told You So!

UPDATE: Of course, one would never say 'Told You So' about the contents of a post like this ... would one? But one might say, "Full marks for consistent logic."

ORIGINAL

One of the observations made here (not necessarily by me, this is not a credit claiming exercise) is that there is a connection between changing marriage laws for one thing and for another.

In particular, there is a likelihood that once marriage laws have changed to remove the constraint that the contract is between a man and a woman, it will not be long before other constraints will be removed. The most likely such removal is the constraint that marriage be between only two people.

Such a move is being made in Utah. (OK, no great surprise there!) Kiwis may have seen a report about this on Stuff a few days ago. Jonathan S. Tobin offers his reflections here. I want to offer some of his work on the connections between same sex marriage and polygamous marriage.

"Once you blow up a societal consensus it cannot be easily reconstructed to protect only those practices or beliefs you like while still banning those you think ought to be kept beyond the pale. That’s the upshot of a case decided late on Friday in a Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah that essentially decriminalized polygamy."

"While gay marriage advocates have sought to distance themselves from anything that smacked of approval for polygamy, Waddoups’s ruling merely illustrates what follows from a legal trend in which longstanding definitions are thrown out. The inexorable logic of the end of traditional marriage laws leads us to legalized polygamy. Noting this doesn’t mean that the political and cultural avalanche that has marginalized opposition to gay marriage is wrong. But it should obligate those who have helped orchestrate this sea change and sought to denigrate their opponents as bigots to acknowledge that the end of prohibitions of other non-traditional forms of marriage follows inevitably from their triumph." 

"But liberals like Turley still refuse to acknowledge that Justice Antonin Scalia was right when he predicted in his dissent in Lawrence that the demise of sodomy laws would lead to the legalization of some things that advocates of gay rights wanted no part of. If we have “evolved” to the point where marriage by any two consenting adults of either sex should be recognized by the state, then there isn’t any logical or legal rationale for prohibiting the same privilege for any number of citizens cohabiting to claim the same right.

All that is needed is a little candor on this issue on the part of critics of the dwindling band of opponents of gay marriage. The floodgates have been opened, and if that makes some of us uncomfortable, especially those who understandably view polygamy as synonymous with the exploitation of women, then we should be honest enough to acknowledge that it is merely part of the price that had to be paid to give gays the same right to marry afforded to other citizens."

"Oh," you might say, living Down Under, "We are not in Utah." True. But we are part of the Western world which seems very desirable to people who come from countries which tolerate polygamy. It is just a matter of time and the pressure will come.

Now it strikes me that there are two directions response in liberal social democracies could go. One is to seek to revoke the changes we have made, on the grounds that we didn't know what we were unleashing. Well, good luck with that! There were folk who tried to make the point and were dismissed as worry warts.

Another direction is a bit of frankness and honesty: yes, we have made changes, we didn't know what we were unleashing, but that is okay because we believe in same sex marriage with such commitment that if consequentially there is legalization of polygamy then so be it. The price of exploitation of women is a price worth paying.

Or is Jonathan Tobin just another worry wart?

Those inclined to think he is over anxious, if you are prepared to comment here, could you please articulate for ADU readers on what rational grounds a Western state would approve same sex marriage but not approve polygamy. Thank you!

Supplementary question: When Jesus said there were many things he had to teach us which we could not yet bear, did he have polygamy in mind? (H/T MCJ)

Aside: great article here re Scripture, reason, tradition

Best Archbishop's Advent Statement Ever?

What do poor NZ religious census figures call for from church leadership? Mea culpa? Try harder, folks! Best we smooth the pillow of a dying church?

No!!

At least not in the case of our Archbishop Philip Richardson who has issued a statement this Advent which I think is the best I have ever read from our archbishops over the years. Punchy. Pointed. Purposeful.

The whole is at Taonga.

Here are the money sentences (with words which especially warm my heart emboldened):

"The 2013  census on religious affiliation contains few surprises. Not even the decline in Anglican affiliation should catch us unawares.

These trends liberate us from notions of self-importance and turn us back to our fundamental calling.

They also situate our Church more on the margins of our society, where we really belong.

My immediate response, then, is thankfulness to God that we are being refined, called to repentance and to a refocusing of our mission. It’s an exciting and challenging time to be in Christian leadership.

Following Jesus has always been fundamentally counter-cultural. And the Church has always been most authentically the Body of Christ when it is salt and leaven rather than the ‘religious’ dimension of modern society

...

Wherever I go in the Church I see signs of renewed and re-invigorated Christian discipleship

...

An Advent challenge for all who profess Christian faith is to critique our ministry and to try harder to live out our discipleship of Christ.

Our Church may be smaller numerically, but we may also be more authentically Christ’s Church as we recover our saltiness and become real leaven.

Odd as it may sound, then, the census elicits in me both excitement and possibility. It calls me back to the fact that we are first and foremost the Body of Christ, not an institution, and that ultimately we are called to “give ourselves away”.

As agents  of God’s unchanging love, we are challenged to engage wholeheartedly in the world, proclaiming  God’s justice, peace and love. This life is no waiting room; this is the time and place where we are a foretaste of a whole new way of being.

...

Happy Advent!"

Now I happen to think, continuing in the vein of thinking here, that we have a long way to go in repentance, refinement and refocusing. But this is a great start.

A few of my own thoughts (in no particular order of importance or self-importance).

(1) If we are to cease being an 'institution' and become what in Christ we are meant to be, 'the Body of Christ,' then I think we need to do some work on our clobber. Last night I was at a splendid, rich and rousing installation service* for our new Dean, Lynda Patterson. Naturally this brought out quite a few persons in robes beyond the basic clerical attire of alb-and-stole. And what a varied and hard-to-decipher collection of additional robes they were (e.g. for the proverbial visiting Martian, what would she have made of the variety?). When we dress up with these additional robes for such an occasion, it strikes me (at least, anyone else?) that we are expressing ourselves as though we heartily believe we are an 'institution' and a rather 'self-important' one in the centre of society rather than the 'Body of Christ' living on the margins. If ++Philip is right then we should do some work on what that means for how we dress for the splendid and important symbolic occasions in our life together. Is he right?

(2) To be refined, to repent, and to refocus our mission, are great biblical actions - frequent themes in the prophets, for example. But, in the spirit of the phrase 'critique our ministry,' what is being refined and/or needs to be refined? Of what and from what is God calling us to repent? On what is the refocusing of our mission to be? I suspect we could all agree on these questions. But, arguably, the decline in our statistics is a warning that we have little time to secure agreement on the answers!

(3) ++Philip picks up a new resolve in our church to think of ourselves as disciples. He makes an excellent (and New Testament) point that being disciples is about living out 'a foretaste of a whole new way of being.' There lies a singular challenge for us in an age of many new ways of being. How can we live as disciples a way of being which engages people as the first disciples did according to the Acts of the Apostles? In those days the key to the burgeoning life of the not-yet-an-institution was the Holy Spirit. As we renew and reinvigorate discipleship, do we need to pray for the Holy Spirit to come in a new Pentecost?

- - - - -
*I regret not thinking faster after the service last night. We could have had a photo of the bloggers responsible for Liturgy, Available Light, Broken Moments, Anglo-Catholic Liberality,  and ADU!

Anglicans need Francis Effect on sad stats

Scientists have announced the discovery of the Francis Effect. Unexpectedly, while focusing on phenomena concerning Snowden Illuminations, Assad Acidity and Cruz Verbosity, a nearly accidental shift of perception occurred in a Roman laboratory this year resulting in a paper to the prestigious journal Nature Time announcing the effect on religion when a largely forgotten mixture of Spanish DNA, Jesuitical spirituality, cheerful countenance, humility and authentic discipleship are thrown together to make a catalyst for transformation. It has been named the Francis Effect after the latest member of the research team to join the laboratory.

However, in early responses to this scientific announcement, a vigorous debate has broken out concerning whether one of the contributions to the mixture is more important than the others. Professor Ignatius Loyola says that he cannot separate Spanish DNA from Jesuitical spirituality as the key factor in the mix. Dr Hans Kung, however, dismisses the role of Spanish DNA. He made the point that German DNA had no bearing on a recent experiment in the same laboratory which he himself thought had an unfortunate effect. From his own perspective, in keeping with his own personal life discoveries, he suggested humility was the most important part of the mixture.

In England Prime Minister David Cameron announced that, in keeping with his own approach to challenging issues (e.g. here and then in response to outrage, here), British scientists had assured him that the most important contribution to the Francis Effect was a cheerful countenance. This announcement, however, has been greeted with derision from a group of scientists known as the 'Anglican bloc'. A spokesperson for the bloc pointed out that cheerful countenance was potentially dangerous to emphasise. "What kind of disaster would befall us if we greeted, say, the Pilling Report or news that women could become bishops, with a cheerful countenance? The proper scientific method for reception of such matters is (a) Very Serious Furrowed Brows (b) Intense Debate." They did acknowledge, however, that humility played no part at all in English life, except in certain spheres such as the southern hemisphere whenever the English cricket team was visiting there.

Speaking of the southern hemisphere, a  little known scientific blogger, working in the ADU laboratory, has suggested exploration of the Francis Effect on Anglican statistics (also known as 'sad stats') could be fruitful. In particular he has proposed intense and urgent (but cheerful) investigation into the following hypotheses:

(1) the Francis Effect is primarily due to the contribution of 'authentic discipleship.'

(2) Popular reception of the Francis Effect is explained as people being really, really pleased that a church leader has Jesus-like qualities.

(3) When people experience church leaders (indeed any Christian) having Jesus-like qualities they enter a zone of thinking in which they are bombarded by ideas such as 'Maybe Christianity is true after all.'

(4) The scientific problem of Anglican 'sad stats' has a complex solution (involving a string of factors we won't bore you with here) but one part of the solution can be implemented immediately: capturing and then multiplying the Francis Effect through engagement in authentic discipleship.

CODA: The really scientifically thoughtful among us will want to know the Kantian angle on the matter of the Francis Effect, helpfully brought to you here.

Every picture tells a story (extended) (a bit more)

Update: America likes NZ and is following our trends (sorta)!

NZ stat graph

NEW LINKS

With thanks to colleagues on the staff for supply of links, read also these reflections:

a. For some hard work on the stats and perceptive comments, read and digest what Geoff Robson (a ministerial colleague here in Chch) has to say. One great comment is this:

"And remember, while there are plenty of nominals among the ‘Christian’ respondents, there is no such thing as a nominal when it comes to No Religion. When you tick that box, you mean it."

b. Mike Crudge (also a ministerial colleague in Chch) makes an excellent point in this analysis, that actual church attendance is a critical statistic as 'census' religiosity is measured. He gives a graph which implies that the peak of church attendance in NZ was in (a) 1980s (b) 1960s (c) 1880s (d) 1930s. Actually, when we allow for the decline in that stat as a percentage measure and for rise in population, we have the curious possibility that actual 'bums on pews' in NZ is pretty constant! (That, at least, could explain the complacency of those of us in leadership ... 'Well, when I went to church on Sunday, the church was full.' Maybe it was, but how many were at the beach!?)

c. From the Dim-Post blog, a graph re the 'oddities' here.

Friday 13 December: new reflections from Bosco Peters here.

ORIGINAL POST

This picture tells an alarming story for the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand (but not Polynesia). With graph supplied by leading religious researcher in our country, Dr Peter Lineham, we see a sorry story via census figures of Anglican decline continuing  without sign of leveling out. Worse, Anglicanism is aging here (as reported here). As Bosco Peters says, according to the graph, in two decades Anglicanism ceases to exist here!

The story for Protestant Christianity is also alarming as every indicator here shows decline for non-Catholic Christianity and continuing growth for the religion of None or No Religious Commitment.

As we head to our bicentenary year for celebrating the first preaching of the gospel on these shores, should we spend a year in sackcloth and ashes rather than in celebration?

Credit where credit is due: as this news seeps out today (e.g. here and here) all Christians should acknowledge the success of the Catholic Church as it becomes the largest denomination here.

Nevertheless, the NZ Catholic report notes that the Catholic figures above show a decline in the number of 'census Catholics'. 491,421 in 2013 is less than the number in the 2006 census, 508,812.

Further, the relative strength of the Catholic church does not much mitigate the continuing decline of Christian allegiance in this country. We were once 90% a Christian country, now we are a country which is less than 50% Christian. We are sliding further and further into some kind of secular and/or spiritual-but-not-religiously-committed country

To return to the Anglican tragedy unfolding before our eyes: get past no longer being the largest denomination and focus on simple numbers. In 2006 there were 554,925 census Anglicans. In 2013 there are only 459,771 census Anglicans. That by my maths is a decline of 17%.

As a correspondent has said to me this afternoon, the whole of our next General Synod should be devoted to asking ourselves how we arrest and turn around the decline in our church?

But it would not be worth asking ourselves that question if we do not take a long and careful look at why the Catholic situation is currently relatively stronger than the Anglican situation.

FURTHER REFLECTIONS or 'on further (slower) reflection, after writing the above in haste (and correcting some initial incorrect reading of the graph' about an hour after first publishing the post)!

(1) Anglicans certainly need to ask two related questions:

Q1: why is our rate of decline as steep as it is? (Wrong answer: that we are shedding our aged members (see here). That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not answer the question why we have not been drawing in new members, and why the aged members do not have more Anglican children and grandchildren willing to name themselves as Anglican in census returns)

Q2: when we have many similarities to the Catholic church, why are their numbers (looking at the whole line) fairly steady compared to our decline? A comment below is worth noting, "As Stark and Finke have shown, churches that stand for something thrive, while those that equivocate tend to decline."

(2) All churches in these islands could do well to continue the reflections already begun with previous censuses on why Christianity as a whole is in decline. That question should be asked, in my view, alongside the question of why No Religion is on the rise. In one sense, if only our decline was matched by a corresponding rise in (say) Islam. Then we could more valiantly fight for Trinitarian doctrine (which we are quite good at). No. Our challenge (likely) is twofold:

(2.1) how do we communicate the relevance if not the eschatological urgency of faith to those comfortable with no faith?

(2.2) to those who understand themselves to be spiritual but indifferent to 'organised religion'(see, again, here), how do we communicate the blessings of fellowship and the advantages of corporate worship?

(3) Anecdotally (as mentioned in reports such as here) the decline in all churches is sharpest among second and higher generation Kiwis. That is, if we were to exclude (say) recently arrived Asian Catholics or South African Anglicans or Korean Presbyterians from the census figures, we could be in 'last one out turn off the light bulb' territory re active church participation. What specifically draws established Kiwis into dissociation with the churches of their forbears? (Possible answer, seriously: life is too good here. Who needs God when we have a working health service, long life expectancy, and heaven on earth at the beach, in the bush and on the mountains?)

(4) What can non-Catholic churches learn from the Catholic education system in our country? (In my view one of the significant reasons for the comparative strength of the Catholic church in this period of decline of Christian allegiance is the association between 'school and parish', forged via requirement for baptism in order to gain enrolment in a Catholic school. But that is only the start of the learning points ... Bosco Peters recently published pertinent reflections here.)

Advent grinches?

We could spend Advent anticipating the coming of Christ to be born our Saviour and the second coming of Christ to be our judge. Or we could ditch that and read the Gospel of St Marcus as true light enlightening the world. Or maybe not. Borg seems to have stolen the Advent spirit and hidden it in a pile of progressive platitudes.

This week we could spend the period of mourning for Nelson Mandela celebrating his Christ-likeness, or we could do a slash-and-burn-his-legacy grizzle about how he was a dupe of global capitalism. Thanks John Pilger for worrying about the role of capitalism in improving life in South Africa. I had never realised that socialism was a well proven alternative. With a sterling record of socialistic success on the African continent, how could I have missed that obvious fact!

Advent is a potentially a time for quiet reflection (e.g. for people who do not send Christmas cards, buy Christmas presents and attend break ups, prize givings and carol services). We could do better than the above pieces by reading this thoughtful (but long) piece on Jesus the Theological Educator. A nice thought, says this theological educator :)

Since penning the above paragraph in draft, I note a superb evaluation of the Pilling Report by Andrew Goddard at ACI: sobering! His title, Divisions Deepen in Pilling, reminds us that this attempt to hold the C of E together may actually hasten its separation into two or more churches.

I also note a lovely summary and friendly promotion by Joel Willitts of a new IVP book by no less than Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology.

If nevertheless you are lost for something to read about Christianity there are always the words of Jesus himself! In preparation for a soon to come post on the importance of the Bible for Anglican authority, take a few moments to read John 12:44-50 [NIV (2011)]:

"44 Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.

47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”"

Through Lent 2014 With Matthew

Lynda Patterson and I have completed the second Lenten study booklet in our planned series of four books.* The contents and pics are with the designer now and we hope we might have copies hot of a local printing press before Christmas.

You can order copies for yourself or your Lenten study group now. Go here for details and a link to a pre-publication sample of the text.

From Taonga:

Discipleship has never been an easy option. Neither is it the preserve of ministry professionals.

It’s a lifelong vocation for all the baptised, and we all need regular encouragement in order to stay the course.  

A new resource drawing many spiritual and intellectual insights from Matthew’s Gospel is coming together for Lent next year.

Called Being Disciples: Through Lent with Matthew , it’s a six-part study series written by Peter Carrell (Director of Theology House in Christchurch) and Lynda Patterson (Dean of ChristChurch Cathedral).

The six illustrated studies are:

• The joy and terror of being called (Matthew 4:18-22)

• Disciples in crisis (Matthew 8:23-27)

• Disciples in mission (Matthew 10:37-42)

• When the going gets tough (Matthew 11:28-30)

• Disciples in community (Matthew 18:10-22)

• Disciples in the making (Matthew 28:16-20)

This booklet contains useful questions for discussion and is ideal for both group and individual study.

*The first in the series was The Praying Life: Through Lent with Luke. The remaining volumes in the series will be based on the gospels of Mark and John.

The Pilling Report must be on the right path ... look at its critics

Additional Addition

Am a bit pressed for time at moment re December madness.

Part of that madness is no time to read the whole of Pilling. But thanks be to God for others having time. Here is a great focus on pastoral accommodation via Oliver O'Donovan.

Might I commend a searching post from Steve Bell on grace in the face of evil madness, here.

A different kind of madness, good madness, is cricket joy. NZ doing well against the West Indies. Adelaide Ashes test about to start. Here is a pic, courtesy of Jonathan Agnew (here) of the pitch.

What a belter! Even I could score runs on that :)

Addition

Head to Living Out for a great site, much longed for in the conservative evangelical wing of the Anglican church, of people speaking out about their same-sex attraction.

The Bishop of Birkenhead's dissenting statement is worth reading. Here is the first paragraph (i.e. para 415 of the whole document).

"A Dissenting Statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead

415. It is with much regret that I have concluded that I cannot sign
the report of the House of Bishops’ Working Group on Human
Sexuality (‘the Report’). I offer this dissenting statement to set out
another vision and explain why. Those who have been part of the
Working Group on Human Sexuality have gone out of their way to
listen to my views. They have sought to produce a report that, in their
view, goes as far as possible to meet those concerns. I am supportive of
many of the Report’s recommendations and share many of the concerns
driving the Report as we wrestle with being faithful to Christ in our
changing culture. For the sake of the peace and unity of the Church
I would have loved to have put my name to a unanimous report. I
have no desire to see issues of human sexuality distracting us from
proclaiming the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. However,
after much prayer and soul searching, I have concluded I cannot sign."

The remainder of his statement can be accessed here (look for paragraph 416 on page 119 and keep reading until paragraph 489). Further, a paper of Bishop Sinclair is included as Appendix 3.

In my own quick read I note this:

"459. On theology the Report summarizes the presentations to the
Group made by Fr Timothy Radcliffe and Professor Oliver O’Donovan
(Paragraphs 254–278 and 313–315). It emphasizes that they warn us to
take seriously the things that we do not know and to avoid closing
down the debate about sexual ethics prematurely. But remaining open
to debate is not the same thing as claiming that the Church no longer
has a basis for what it has taught until now. " Precisely!

Original Post

I am thrilled that the Pilling Report, which apparently bears imprints of a Down Under invisible hand, has generated a very good conversation in the comments below the previous post.

One of the issues highlighted by the process of reception of the report is what is the right path a divided church takes on a difficult issue.

For example, picking up from one comment, should the weight of content for such a matter be on the side of doctrine  rather than practice (including the action of holding the church together)?

To take another matter, does the Pilling Report represent the beginning of the end of the Church of England? That is, when the various 'hedging your bets' and 'buying a bit more time' bits of the report are taken away, is the long-term impact of the report a compass steer to some kind of pure liberalism, of the kind which essentially finishes a church off because it is indistinguishable from 21st century Western secular social democracy?

Then there is the endlessly interesting historical perspective on such a report: if only in 19XX (or even 17XX or if Bloody Mary had never ascended to the throne halting the inexorable destination of the reforms) the church [or, Evangelicals] had not decided to take [a certain progressive and/or compromising step] then we would never be in this confounded situation.

But we are in this confounded situation. And we are in it for a very good reason: our predecessors were neither more nor less gifted in decision-making than we are. In their lights they made the best of their confounded situation. As for historical circumstances beyond influence of decision-making, e.g. Queen Mary. There is no point in 'if only'. No one knows what a confounded mess an alternative situation would have produced! If Edward VI had lived he might have turned on his Protestant advisors ... or turned out to be a playboy like some of his namesake successors :)

Now one interesting aspect of the present moment is that it is difficult to find a 'liberal' chorus for the Pilling Report singing a congratulatory anthem. If we go to Changing Attitude we find a very disappointed lament for the Report being chanted. Here is a summary of the lament from this CA 'initial response':

"This report does not herald radical change and does not therefore fulfil the expectations of Changing Attitude. There are no practical proposals which will begin to dismantle the present culture of secrecy, denial of reality, suppression of identity and the maintenance of unhealthy attitudes. The group has met people and listened and the unhealthy attitudes remain unchanged as the report demonstrates."

Is the C of E going to a liberal hell down a slippery slope on a handcart without brakes? Not according to Changing Attitude!

For me the Pilling Report ticks two important boxes in terms of an Anglican church responding to the present situation which (arguably) is without precedent in the history of the church.

Box One: No change to doctrine of marriage expressed through marriage liturgies.

Box Two: offering pastoral accommodation in a context where opposition to traditional doctrine is not going away, steadfastly remains open and vocal, and continues to tug on the heart strings of the undecided middle (and, taking up a comment below the freshly minted minds of younger generations).

I suggest a question to ask of the Report is whether it is both reasonable and responsible in the context of a divided church in a changing society?

The opposition of Changing Attitude to the report alerts me (at least) to the possibility that the report answers that question with more than a pass mark.

From a Down Under perspective the more work done well by others in the Communion the less we have to do here!

Coda: There is something I feel strongly about re some comments to the previous post. Evangelicalism is itself divided on such matters. But where does responsibility for that division lie? One implication in the comments is that the responsibility lies with open/moderate evangelicals such as organisations like Fulcrum and individuals such as, well, myself. When we could have been united, certain people/groups stepped out of line! But is this a fair analysis of the situation? Isn't there a question of why Fulcrum was formed and why evangelicals such as myself cannot go all the way down a certain conservative line (or set of lines)?

To give one answer, I suggest some conservative evangelical thinking is 'too conservative' to simply go along with it and not vocalise reservations. To give one example, and intentionally steering away from certain 'hot button' issues, there is a line of conservative evangelical theology which is deeply suspicious, if not downright antagonistic to charismatic theology and experience which supports exercising of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, and giving words of knowledge. I cannot go along with that and if I were travelling close to that path I could not be silent if suspicion/let alone antagonism was being preached from the pulpit and taught from the conference platform.

In other words, could we who happily wear the label (libel?) 'evangelical' be kind to one another? Within our community of faith, we have differences, some of which give rise to named groupings. Is there much to be gained from lamenting genuine differences among us, or from one group blaming another group for a currently difficult 'fissiparous' situation?