Evangelical Supremacists?

Ian Paul has posted on the question "What is an 'inclusive evangelical'?" 

When I first looked at the post a few days ago, there were 136 comments. Tonight as I write there are 289.

Behind the question is the now quite complex story of where the Church of England is going, or not going, in respect of blessings (or not blessings, because "only" prayers) for same-sex partnerships, as their bishops (who meet in two differently formulated groups) make a move or three, and their General Synod will, or will not make a decision according to this, or may be that canon, or may be not because the bishops have the power to do ... something which is not completely clear yet. Within that complex story, 600 Inclusive Evangelicals wrote a letter, provoked, it seems, by the Church of England Evangelical Council speaking out ... for evangelicals (some, most, all, not the inclusives ...???).

OK. I am having a bit of fun here but, seriously, it is a complex story and clearly many English Anglicans are frustrated whether because change is not happening fast enough and what change is in the air is insufficient or because any change is being mooted - the matter at hand being an unchangeable doctrine.

With respect to the latter frustration, Lee Gatiss, Church Society, is uncompromising re error, errants being disciplined and ++Justin resigning as he reports on a recent meeting of conservatives with the ABC. (For a contrasting meeting, progressives with the ABC, held on the same day see Colin Coward's report here).

Well, let's not discuss, again, That Topic, but a few thoughts about evangelicalism may be in order. (Please discuss Ian's own thoughts at his site.)

One (I think many evangelicals would agree) is that "evangelical" or "evangelicalism" is tricky to define in a widely agreeable manner. From that perspective an extra adjective such as "inclusive" (or "conservative" or "open" etc) may be useful.

In some Anglican conversations I think we could be forgiven for thinking that "evangelical" means "I don't wish to be identified as anglo-catholic, nor as liberal/progressive on certain issues, though I might be liberal/progressive on how I view adaptations to the agreed liturgies of the church, and the songs I really like are never sung at diocesan occasions because some aspects of their theology are vigorously disputed."

In other conversations, of course, "evangelical" ticks more positive boxes: for the Bible being read, studied and preached; for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; for the enduring value of the insights of Luther and Calvin, expressed Anglicanly in the 39A and the BCP and represented in modern Anglican liturgies where such liturgies clearly stand with the BCP and not differentiated from it.

One thought (picking up from Ian's post, but expressed in my own words) is that evangelicals' sharpest edge in distinction from other Anglican groupings is a commitment to "the supremacy of Scripture." 

I have subscribed to this kind of proposition through much of my life (e.g. as part of the doctrinal basis of the Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship here in NZ). But I think it problematic without some extra words around.

In favour of it is that when many things compete for our attention as Christians - fads and fashions, local traditions and the global Tradition of the Christian faith, theologians and their theologies, interpreters and their interpretations, we must test everything through reading and studying Scripture. Scripture is supreme as the written Word of God before which and by which ideas and thoughts, theories and proposals must be tested. No other book - not a prayer book, not a compendium of Barth/Calvin/Piper/etc, not a catechism - has that supremacy.

But there is a shortfall in the conception of "the supremacy of Scripture": Scripture alone cannot determine which part of Scripture is more important than another part, nor how to understand one part when another part appears to be in contradiction of it, nor what we are to do when Scripture (at least as previously understood) is contradicted by new understandings of the world (the classic example being our understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 in the light of understandings of the creation of the world and of life within it which are not the same as what we thought Genesis 1 and 2 were telling us).

The supremacy of Scripture is a limited supremacy (we might say). Scripture can both settle debates in the church and it can be the catalyst of debates. Luther invoked Scripture as supreme over the errors he detected in medieval Catholicism. But Luther+Scripture couldn't settle debates that a new freedom to engage with Scripture engendered (e.g. debates over the meaning of the eucharist).

One of my questions (from within my experience of evangelicalism) is whether evangelicals have really been honest with ourselves about the limitations of the concept of "the supremacy of Scripture"? Haven't we always found we needed - like Catholics! - a magisterium, a teacher or set of teachers whose interpretations of Scripture settled debates for us? Back in a certain day, many of us (especially evangelical Anglicans/Anglican evangelicals) looked to John Stott; or may be to John Stott, Michael Green, Dick Lucas and various contemporaries of theirs who wrote IVP commentaries and other books published by IVP. Scripture was supreme for us but if a tricky question came up, we looked up an IVP book, starting with those authored by John Stott!

Is it time to find another phrase than "the supremacy of Scripture" as part of accurate description of one evangelical distinctive?

Anglican Communion Ties

I have said to my Diocese that I will write a full report on my recent trip to the Diocese of Western Tanganyika. For readers within Christchurch Diocese, this post could be read as a first draft of that report.

Introduction

Prompted by David Close, a former NZCMS missionary in the Diocese of Western Tanganyika (DWT), the current Bishop of that Diocese, Bishop Emmanuel Bwatta and I met at the Lambeth Conference in 2022. +Emmanuel kindly followed up that meeting with an invitation to me to visit his Diocese, with the proposal that I would share in confirmations, and in opening various buildings.

Wonderfully, through the kindness of friends, Teresa was able to travel with me and share in the experience of engaging with this part of Anglicanism in Africa. We left Christchurch on Tuesday 26 September and returned on Wednesday 11 October 2023. We arrived in DWT on Friday 29 September and left on Monday 9 October.

During those days we participated in nine confirmation services (me preaching at seven of the nine), one church opening service, visits to five other parishes, a visit to St. Andrew's School, Kasulu and an associated unveiling of a foundation stone at the new greenfields site for the school, visits to five churches each of which is being rebuilt as a larger church, and a visit to an orphanage. Along the way there were unveilings of foundation stones for two new vicarages and a church office. Teresa's count of the number of people I confirmed is 445 - nearly 900 confirmations between us two bishops. Most of the visits above involved travelling around the Diocese, a few were in Kasulu itself, the second largest city in the Diocese and the place where the Cathedral and Diocesan headquarters are located.

If that sounds busy - it was - nevertheless it was not burdensome - we never cooked a meal while in Tanzania, all travel within DWT was courtesy of the Bishop's Landcruiser and George, his full-time driver, and we had a spacious unit in which to stay when we were in Kasulu (7 out of 10 nights when we were in the Diocese).

To answer a question often asked since we came back: it was hot. Most days, the temperatures rose to between 30 and 35 degrees Celsius, but a few days - when in the highlands of the Diocese, up towards Burundi - the temperatures were between 20 and 25 degrees. The heat was made bearable, especially during long services inside church buildings, by sipping water frequently - courtesy of readily available bottled water.

Impressions

The strongest, most overwhelming and moving impression made on me during this visit was the growth of the churches in DWT. Services filled with people, especially young adults, teenagers, children and babies combined with seeing new, larger churches completed, nearly completed, or underway.

The contrast was clear with (say) my own Diocese of Christchurch which itself - as one reads and hears reports - is illustrative of most Western Anglicanism - some growth, somedecline, increasing average age of regular worshippers.

Church growth is possible in the 21st century - I have seen it with my own eyes!

Yet, even in the midst of this growth, it was intriguing to hear some similar concerns to ones here in Christchurch: where are the men? (It was quite observable that women were the majority of each congregation. And this is so, despite the clergy of DWT being exclusively male, and the membership of vestries being strongly, though not exclusively, male.) 

How do we hold our young people as they move into adulthood - out of education and into the wider world? Both questions are our questions here in Christchurch.

The concrete expression of munerical congregational growth in DWT was seeing the number of buildings being enlarged or replaced with larger churches or having been replaced with larger churches within the past decade. I was told that  age-old questions concerning "buildings" versus "people" are discussed in this diocese, but it seems that "buildings" prevail. Apart from the obvious advantage that buildings confer on a congregation (a dedicated space to meet in, a space protected from the elements in which to gather), it struck me that church buildings - often the largest buildings in villages also stand as a testimony to the living God. Note, incidentally, that often in villages there were three large church buildings: Anglican, Catholic, Pentecostal.

Large recent church beside smaller former church

Seeing church growth in a diocese such as DWT made a great impression, not only about growth in people at worship, in size of church buildings and in new church plants, but also in the self-confidence of the African church. Our experience was of an Anglican church which has the confidence of knowing it is growing, it is contributing to community cohesion, and it is controller of its own destiny. Projects such as church builds and a new school being built no doubt benefit through support from outside of Tanzania, but at no point were appeals made to us for assistance nor was there talk about any regular supply of such external support. The sense we had was that this diocese is full of generous givers committed to development for a better future.

But the impression of self-confidence was also of a church which despite its origins in British/European/Australasian missionary work, had moved a long way on from dependency on a far off mother church. This was a post-colonial church developing its own style, character and engagement with Tanzanian society and culture.

Insights

The cultural situations of Tanzania and New Zealand are very different in many ways, though we share a love of smartphones! From a church and gospel perspective I have come away from Tanzania with the realization that churches engage with the cultural hand they are dealt with, and no church is necessarily better at that engagement than another.

In my understanding the cultural hand dealt to the Anglican church in Tanzania - or, at least, in the Diocese of Western Tanganyika - is one in which natural population growth offers opportunity for churches to naturally grow as children are brought up in the faith. (On population growth generally in Africa, see this NYT article).

Further, compared to the material, social, sporting and outdoor opportunities available in a country such as NZ (i.e. plenty of things to do at the weekend rather than participate in church), it struck me that there were few attractive alternatives in Tanzania to being involved in church. (Arguably, this situation, broadly speaking, has similarities with NZ in the 1950s: a "baby boom", few alternative activities to church on Sunday mornings, churches at the centre of community activities including church-based sports teams, churches being built as housing expanded in new suburbs in our cities).

Thirdly, my sense out of various conversations, is that in Tanzania, the general cultural attitude to faith (Christian or Islam) is that this is a good and normal thing. (Compare to NZ culture where actual Christian commitment demonstrated by regular church involvement is often seen as a weird and strange thing.) That is, the cultural hand dealt to the Anglican church, indeed all churches in Tanzania, is a pretty good hand to be dealt with when aspiring to lead churches into growth.

Put in another way, here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we are working hard to be church and to share the gospel of Christ in a challenging cultural milieu, with many things against that work - a hardened post-Christian indifference to the gospel, alternative activities in life, lives which through good health and material benefits mostly have no urgency about engaging with spiritual realities. We may be tempted to despair when we work so hard for the Lord, but we can and should rejoice: we are doing the Lord's work in this particular time and place and culture. Meanwhile, in Tanzania, church workers also work hard and they are doing the Lord's work in their particular time and place and culture and we rejoice with them in the growth which is taking place.

Image

An image in my mind is that if culture is the sea and the church is a surfer with a surfboard then the wave of Western culture has crashed down on the Western church. As a result we are discombobulated, disrupted and distracted as we ask the question how can we get back on our surfboard and find again a wave to ride triumphantly.

By contrast, on this imagery, the Anglican church and other churches in Tanzania are riding the crest of a wonderful wave. May it never crash down on them!

Investment

I am very grateful for the support of the Church Property Trustees/Diocese of Christchurch in covering the expense of my return air tickets and other associated expenses of the trip. Air travel is not cheap these days - even when travelling economy - and the final thoughts here are my thoughts on the benefits of the visit to DWT for my ministry as Bishop in the Diocese of Christchurch.

In no particular order of priority:

- A general increase in breadth of experience and understanding of the role of bishop (I have not previously spent 11 days in the company of just one bishop!).

- A specific gain in understanding of African Anglicanism through a Tanzanian lens. African Anglicanism is both the majority Anglicanism in the globe today and the fastest growing part of global Anglicanism.

- I appreciated seeing with my own eyes the roles (i) culture and (ii) natural population growth are playing in the growth of Anglicanism in this part of the world.

- A particular insight into the role the Gafcon movement is playing in African Anglicanism: I learned that while GAFCON the conferene is appreciated, Gafcon the movement telling people whom they may or may not associate with in the Anglican Communion is not appreciated by all African Anglicans!

- In my own ministry, as a result of the visit I would like to review (or immediately change) the following aspects of ministry:

1. Joint visiting of ministers/parishes with the local Archdeacon.

2. Require specific ministry work to be undertaken in a parish by a person seeking ministry discernment. (For clarification: most people seeking discernment in our Diocese are working well on specific ministry tasks. )

3. Review how we give our monetary offerings during church services. (Without implying any specific change, I was taken by the active manner of giving in services in DWT, whereby each individual, including children, walked forward to place their offering in a collection basket/bowl.)

Finally, there is plenty to think about in respect of developing a relationship with DWT and/or another Tanzanian diocese, projects re education and parish ministry that might be supported, and an appropriate way or ways in which we might receive ministry here from DWT and/or another diocese.

Reset progress

During and since the Lambeth Conference 2022 there has been talk of a "reset" for the Anglican Communion, with a specific initiative coming from the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches - a group with overlaps to Gafcon but not exactly contiguous with it.

Recently "Anglican Orthodox Leaders" met in Cairo, Egypt had produced a statement which included these paragraphs on reset progress:

"III. RESETTING THE COMMUNION:

9. To press on in resetting theCommunion according to its biblical & historical roots: 

a)    The Anglican world has changed so dramatically in the last century. In 1900, about 80% of the Communion lived in England. Today, about 75%of Anglicans are estimated to live in Global South countries. The demographics have changed, and sadly in our day the theology of many bishops in the Church of England has also changed towards revisionism. We need new wineskins for a new reality.

b)   On the 9th of October 2023, the Church of England House of Bishops signalled their intent to commend prayers of blessing for same sex couples. Despite all that is happening, we as orthodox leaders are very encouraged to see orthodox groupings within the Church of England beginning to collectively stand against this revisionism in their Church. We applaud the 12 bishops in the Church of England who have indicated that they are unable to support the decision by their House of Bishops, and we will uphold them in our prayers. We will stand with orthodox Anglicans in England both now and going forward.

c)    We lament with tears all that has happened to the historic ‘mother church’ of the communion, and continue to pray for her restoration. At the same time, orthodox Anglican churches and entities will press on with the work God has given us to do as he renews the fallen creation through the finished work of Jesus Christ our Lord. 

d)   In relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other instruments of communion, we affirm the Ash Wednesday Statement and the Kigali Statement.

10. As orthodox Primates, we reaffirm our adherence to Lambeth Resolution 1.10 of 1998 in full, both in moral teaching and pastoral care. We recognise this resolution as the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on marriage and sexuality and urge that renewed steps be taken to encourage all provinces to abide by this doctrine in the faith, order, and practice." 

There is no doubt that a demographic shift in the Anglican Communion has taken place and that the shift to the vast majority of the Communion being African and Asian rather than British/Irish, North American and Australasian will continue through this and the next century.

Population growth in Africa is immense (see, for instance, this NYT article) and church decline in numbers in "white" Communion provinces is salutary.

Just where the Communion goes between a natural reset (the people who make up the Communion), a structural reset (provincial leaders proposing this and that as a new way forward for the structure of the Communion to match the people of the Communion), and our actual historical setting (the role of the See of Canterbury) is both a matter for debate (what do we want to do? who do we want to be as Anglican Christians?) and for speculation (where will we end up? Will there ever be another well attended Lambeth Conference?).

My own wish is that there was less emphasis placed on (say) what the Church of England is doing within its own house, and more emphasis on exploring what being Anglican means in the differing contexts of each Anglican province, with an empathetic openness to understanding those differing contexts.

There are reasons why the CofE is in its particular situation AND why the Anglican church in Egypt is not in that situation - and they are not solely theological reasons!

Disruptive Gospel

A couple of weeks ago we had a lovely and well-attended "Leading Your Church into Growth" conference, with UK presenters, Harry Steele and Rhiannon King. At the conclusion of the conference, during our closing eucharist, I preached a short sermon, the text of which is published here. 

Anglican and Catholic Bishops' Statement on Gaza / Israel

Last week our House of Bishops met over three days in Wellington. On the third day we met with the NZ Catholic bishops. One outcome of that third day meeting, as we digested news of a deadly explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital (sometimes described as a Baptist hospital but in fact run by the Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem for many years), was the following statement (reported here).

"War is once again destroying people’s lives in the Holy Land.  This new cycle of violence in this long conflict brings us new images of bloodied bodies and the anguished cries and faces of children, women and men – both Palestinian and Israeli.  We’re seeing homes destroyed, lives shattered and hope for peace strangled. 

The Anglican and Catholic Bishops of Aotearoa New Zealand, meeting together in Wellington this week, jointly express their horror at the latest acts of violence and join international voices in calling for an immediate ceasefire.

 

Anglican Archbishop Philip Richardson said: “Hospitals and civilian infrastructure are protected under International Humanitarian Law.  Such niceties of law did not protect the wounded in Al Ahli Anglican Hospital and the people who were seeking sanctuary and protection. There are no winners in war: so often, it is innocent people who are maimed and killed.”

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a wound that has continued to fester. Various diplomatic efforts to find a solution have failed because of the unwillingness to honour international agreements. Violence will never be a solution.

Bishop Steve Lowe, President of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops’ Conference said: “As Bishops, we endorse the work of those groups and institutions in Israel and Palestine who work for peace, justice, and reconciliation.  Such work recognises our common humanity. This is the path that we advocate for peace in the Holy Land.”

The bishops jointly ask: “Our government and diplomatic authorities to advocate for an immediate ceasefire and the opening and ongoing safeguarding of humanitarian corridors.

“In this very emotional time, we cannot let anger lead us into antisemitism or Islamophobia. Let us remember that there are innocent victims on both sides of the conflict. To our fellow interfaith religious leaders, we ask: let us unite in prayer and action for a lasting peace.

“To the people of Aotearoa New Zealand: we urge you to pray for peace and to support aid appeals for those impacted by this humanitarian crisis.”

In Psalm 130 we hear: ‘Out of the depths I cry to you O Lord; hear my voice. O let your ears be attentive to the voice of my pleading.’

“May we too be attentive to those who call out to us from the depths of despair and destruction. May we commit ourselves to being instruments of peace,” the bishops concluded."

Our Anglican Missions Board is running an appeal for the hospital - details are here.

I continue to ask - at least myself - will Hamas repent of the evil deeds it committed on 7 October 2023 against Israeli citizens?

Postscript on Israel and Gaza

Surveying various things being said over the past few days, the following comes to mind:

1. Much as we all want Israel to stop its retribution against Hamas/Gaza (to save lives of innocent Palestinians), we may be missing the point of what Israel is now intending: to destroy Hamas as a terrorist group once and for all.

2. We may also be missing the point that Hamas itself could stop the intended invasion by (a) handing over unharmed the hostages they have taken, and (b) handing themselves over to Israel. (Obviously this is very unlikely to happen; but it is, in fact, a solution to the problem Gaza is facing).

3. When the Allies faced Hitler in WW2 and Japan in the Asia-Pacific theatre of that war, they had no alternative but to seek the destruction of the Nazis and the Japanese High Command. Only so could peace - genuine peace - be pursued. That destruction involved considerable military action - one thinks of the bombing of Dresden and of the two nuclear bombs. In hindsight we can and do argue whether such actions were excessive - could lesser destruction have achieved the same ends? But what we saw was succssful outcomes to relentless opposition to evil regimes. And, as we have seen since, the countries of Germany and Japan respectively have been at peace and have prospered. Should Israel in relation to Gaza be denied a similar opportunity to destroy an evil regime? (Again, in case this sound like support for war, I remind you that Israel is not the only agent here, so is Hamas.)

4. Hamas is an evil regime. Its pogrom against Jews and others just over a week ago has revealed their true murderous colours: they will not rest until every Jew in Israel is either killed or expelled to a far off country. They are not a regime that can be negotiated with.

5. I can now never hear the cry, 'From the River to the Sea" as some kind of sanguine wish for Palestine to enjoy greater freedom. It is a cry of destruction against not only the State of Israel but also against Israeli Jews. 

6. Nevertheless, inside Gaza is an Anglican hospital seeking to do good for all needing help. Please consider making a response to their plight, as noted here.

What is to be done? Israel - Palestine in October 2023

There is any amount of comment in mainstream and social media about the Iranian-supported, Hamas-led terrorist murder, rape and desecration of Israel civilians a few days ago, including women and children.

I have been sick to the stomach reading about this evil.

Sometimes as a Christian I think there are too many words in the world, and in church, and more silence would be befitting. But this is not that occasion, Silence would mean consent for evil. We must speak out and up and say that evil has taken place, that is was not the result of pressure (no one is forced to behead a child or to brutalise a woman - such things are a choice to exercise power in the worst possible way), that justification for such evil acts (as, unfortunately, many people are attempting to provide) is itself an evil, and that the Israeli government is justified in seeking once and for all to remove Hamas as government in Gaza.

Whether the Israeli government should use means such as starvation of power and water against all citizens of Gaza is a matter of debate, but that debate should include debate about (1) the role the people of Gaza themselves have in removing Hamas - a role they are unlikely to be able to play because Hamas terrorises its own people - which makes its own point about the impossibility of Hamas ever being a partner to peace in the Middle East; and about (2) Egypt’s largely unnoticed role in also blockading Gaza - which I understand at least in part to be because Hamas has killed Egyptian citizens in recent years - which underlines the point about the impossibility of Hamas ever being a partner to peace in the Middle East.

What is to be done?

I have no specific contribution to offer but many good words are available on the internet. One example only, these words by Israeli philosopher Yoah Harari, here.

So, a different question: what might we read in Scripture when faced with the presence of such evil in our world?

When so many of our readings of the New Testament, for example, emphasise the love of God, the importance of our love for neighbour and for one another and the contribution examples of love make to the well-being of communities, where do we turn when face with horrific evil?

My own thought has been to turn to the Revelation of John.

Stop reading now if you hope I am about to link the visions of John the seer to current events as though a specific point in an assume timetable revealed in Revelation has been reached.

Rather, Revelation is Scripture confronting immense and widespread suffering, painful torture and horrific death, as forces seen (Rome?) and unseen (demonic activity of principalities and powers?), as a stark acknowledgement that God’s mission of love is not a seamless robe of progress among humans till the point of human perfection of wellbeing-in-society is reached.

Against that mission of divine love there are evil forces intent on destroying the mission and forcing the world into allegiance with the powers of hatred and oppression. Whether Revelation discloses a periodic unleashing of such evil forces, or a status quo of God’s love-filled mission always being attacked, or a future but always imminent threat of one Herculean, final war against God is a matter for discussion and debate. But what is not debateable is that Revelation presses the case for Christians to face, courageously and honestly, even when painful to do so, as per the past few days, the raw reality of life: that evil exists and is not yet eradicated, and all calculations about progress and improvement in human society should take this into account.

I am back from Africa. In due course I will post some thoughts about my amazing visit there.