Defining the church?

No time to post today, but if you have time, check out this post on "When the church is no longer the church" at Conciliar Anglican. I like a phrase in the essay which (lifted out of context) is this:

"because Anglicanism offers the pure Gospel, without anything being added or taken away".

Unless someone finds the kryptonite by Saturday, we could be doomed

As nicked off F/B

For overseas readers: NZ has a controversial politician who is like a cat with nine lives, could be re-elected to parliament this Saturday ... and cause much consternation :(

Too much information

I am very saddened to read this morning's Press with its front-page headline "Bitter row over cathedral plan." You can read the article online here. The "bitter row" concerns the shutting out of the City Council from a process of descision making regarding the partial demolition of the cathedral to make it safe (i.e. leaving the decision making to the cathedral authorities and CERA, the government mandated super-authority over the post-quake Christchurch situation). It would appear the shut out is precisely because the City Council's documents can be requested under our Official Information Act, so removing the Council from the exchange of letters and documents would appear to stymie attempts to make a sensitive discussion a public discussion.

We do not need "bitter rowing" about the cathedral. We need peace, light and wisdom. I am sure that we will have that if we entrust relevant authorities to have their discussion in private. Inevitably there will be disagreements, to-ing and fro-ing on the best course of action to take place. Headlining mid-discussion where the conversation has got to has all the potential in the world to derail the emerging plan. So part of my sadness is that Brendon Burns, a local MP (Labour), has pursued his right under the OIA to secure the information he has. Brendon is a decent bloke but he has made a number of comments in recent months about Christchurch's heritage which, in my view, are at odds with reality - the reality that most of our old buildings are unaffordable to save. Also at odds with Labour Party policy which these days is stressing the needs of solo mothers and their children. Not sure how we help the poor in our country while pouring millions into saving old buildings!

Meantime, let's pray that the future of the cathedral can be worked out in a timely manner without the intrusive voices of media, local politicians and assorted pundits getting in on the act, fuelled by too much information.

AnglicanVote in AotNZ 2011: YouGov

As Anglican voters we have an opportunity to compare spokespeople, prophets, and leaders as they guide us about the state of the world, the issues which burn, and the prospects which face us.
Take, for instance, today and two announcements.

Paul Krugman tells us that the whole world economy could be destroyed, fairly soon. (Handy interactive graph on BBC here).

Meanwhile, also today, our Archbishops and Social Justice Commisioner have made a statement about our forthcoming election in Aotearoa NZ which is, summarised, Do not vote First Past the Post back into the electoral picture of how we decide governments.

These statements will guide us as to how to vote in the election booths this Saturday. One statement handily informs us of the need to be extra-wise about which government we choose. The other helps us to vote wisely in the accompanying referendum.

Here is what I think will happen as Anglicans vote on Saturday re government:

Most of our Pakeha clergy will not vote for National. I have scarcely ever heard an Anglican cleric openly admit to supporting National.

Most of our Pakeha laity will vote for National, especially in our country parishes.

Most of our Maori clergy and laity will vote for the Maori Party.

It happens that for the last three years National and Maori have been a fairly effective coalition. It also happens that Labour (the only alternative leading party to National re a different government) is showing itself to be confused by its own figures about how it would run the economy.

In the light of Prof. Krugman's wisdom, it is a no brainer that we should be voting for National or any party which will support them in government.* At least on the basis that National is less confused than Labour about what to do in the storm we are sailing into.

As you can see from the link above the fact of this no brainer decision is without supporting comment from our Archbishops.

Given that nearly every household in the land will be bitterly affected if the whole world economy turns to custard, it is surprising that the Archbishops have stuck their necks out on the voting systems we will vote on in the referendum, and not on the imminent human travail which we may experience if we miscast our votes in the election itself. They could speak to the dire prospects facing us without going so far as me here saying it is a no brainer to support a National-led government.

Incidentally, for a sermon I preached yesterday re the election, go to my other site.

Of course if Paul Krugman is wrong then you may as well vote as you like!! But what if he is right?

*In my view that means one could vote for National, ACT, United Future, Maori, Conservative, Green with a view to voting directly or indirectly for a National-led government (with only a remote chance of Conservatives gaining any seats, a slight chance of ACT gaining a seat or two, and a possibility that United Future will retain one electorate seat).

Flying the Anglican eucharistic airliner on an even trim

Excellent letter on the eucharistic ministry of the Anglican church by Richard Chartres, Bishop of London. His aim is mostly at some silly clerics in his diocese who, ignoring swimming the Tiber and camping beside it (the Ordinariate), nevertheless want to use the latest Roman rite, including its declaration of being in communion with the Pope which is, let's face it, somewhat economical with the truth if you will neither a swimmer nor a camper be. Anyway along the way there is a special mention for us evangelicals, so he clearly wants London flying along eucharistically like an airliner in even trim, both wings in balance with the fuselage. But the whole letter is cool, so read it here. (H/T Thinking Anglicans). I may come back to other parts of its excellency.

Here is a word to evangelicals:

"Our liturgy is one which arises from the command of Jesus Christ, “Do this in remembrance of me” not in order to build a temple made with hands but to build his body which the gospel writers say has replaced the physical temple.

It follows from all this that obeying his command is an integral part of Christian discipleship. In this context there are a number of aspects of our own church life which deserve urgent consideration at the present time.

In some parts of our church it can appear that the service of Holy Communion is an appendix to services of the Word and not accorded the central significance which the express command of Jesus would seem to warrant. The reformers of our own church, Cranmer and Ridley [as Bishop of London] desired more frequent communion than was the practice in the late mediaeval Western church. Calvin also commends weekly eucharistic practice in his Institutes [IV: xvii. 46], “At least once in every week the table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of Christians.”Despite the teaching of the early Reformers their intention was overtaken later in the 16th century by a near exclusive focus in some parts of the church on the ministry of the Word."

Here is the word to Romanophiles:

"Our part of the Church is not alone in having spent a great deal of effort on liturgical reform. At Advent, our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church will be required to use new liturgical texts. We can always learn from the example of other members of the Christian community and indeed our own liturgy has been reformed by reference to the testimony and practices of the Church of the first centuries.


In former times before the liturgies of our Church had fully recovered these early forms, some of our priests adopted the Roman rite as a sign of fidelity to the ancient common tradition and an expression of our unity in Christ. At best their intention was to contribute to the recovery of a tradition which is both Catholic and Reformed, while pointing the way to the liturgical convergence we now enjoy, not least through the work of the international English Language Liturgical Consultation. They also recognised the proper place in the liturgy of prayer for leaders in the world wide church in addition to our own Archbishop. This is especially true of the Pope, who is undeniably the Patriarch of the West and as head of the Roman Catholic Church is charged with awesome pastoral and missionary responsibilities.

Much has been achieved and the debates of previous generations have influenced the Church’s liturgical practice and contributed to a convergence of eucharistic doctrine and rites. So it is with some dismay that I have learned of the intentions of some clergy in the Diocese to follow instructions which have been addressed to the Roman Catholic Church and to adopt the new Roman eucharistic rites at Advent.

The Pope has recently issued an invitation to Anglicans to move into full communion with the See of Rome in the Ordinariate where it is possible to enjoy the “Anglican patrimony” as full members of the Roman Catholic Church. Three priests in the Diocese have taken this step. They have followed their consciences.

For those who remain there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate.

At the same time rather than building on the hard won convergence of liturgical texts, the new Roman rite varies considerably from its predecessor and thus from Common Worship as well. The rationale for the changes is that the revised texts represent a more faithful translation of the Latin originals and are a return to more traditional language.

Priests and parishes which do adopt the new rites – with their marked divergences from the ELLC texts and in the altered circumstances created by the Pope’s invitation to Anglicans to join the Ordinariate – are making a clear statement of their disassociation not only from the Church of England but from the Roman Communion as well. This is a pastoral unkindness to the laity and a serious canonical matter. The clergy involved have sworn oaths of canonical obedience as well as making their Declaration of Assent. I urge them not to create further disunity by adopting the new rites.

There will be no persecution and no creation of ritual martyrs but at the same time there will be no opportunity to claim that the Bishop’s directions have been unclear."

Loving that last sentence, especially the words I have italicised.

Predictable, personal, pressure, praying

The predictable has now happened. The Electoral Commission has referred the matter of the stickers on National Party billboards to the police.

This is very personal with Jolyon's name being specified in the statement issued by the Commission. (Let us remember that he is allegedly but one of fifty complicit in the matter of this organised protest).

I can only imagine the pressure this places on him, and the other forty-nine.

I am praying for my brother in Christ. Will you join me?

Saying grace before our election

For these and all your many mercies, we give you thanks, O Lord.

I cannot recall an election quite like this one before, that is, an election with so many non-issues being dressed up as issues (teacups, storm in; billboards, stickers over*) while a major world economic catastrophe bears down on us like the wolf on the fold or the 10 metre tsunami on the beach. What is not devoured will be swept away if Europe falls, takes the US with it and exposes China's growth as a bubble. Actually, I suspect that the NZ public has some instinct for the crisis in the world and that is why the National Party is polling so highly - not, perhaps, as a lovefest for National but as a trustfest for stable, continuing government. What is far from clear is whether our news media have any sense of a vision for the future of New Zealand. If they did we would expect to see a media scrum around the potential prime ministers and ministers of finance, rigorously and ruthlessly scrutinising their capabilities to lead us through the global crisis. Instead it is blah, blah, blather about nothing at all.

There are, nevertheless, many things we can be thankful for as we run up to the election. Here are three.

(1) That we are having an election at all. Recently governments in Italy and Greece, ostensibly civilised democracies, indeed one is the birthplace of democracy, changed at the behest of the Franco-German alliance controlling Europe. As Damian Thompson wittily asks, How many elected politicians are in the Italian cabinet? Check the link for the answer!

(2) That our election involves genuine choice (a plethora of parties), real prospect of minority voices being represented (porportional representation), and even a chance to change the system of voting (a referendum on MMP).

(3) That, actually, despite the blather of the media and the (mis)leading advertising of our politicians, our country is a great place to live in. That thought struck me recently when I had occasion to visit one of our all night emergency health centres: the variety of people and the range of health situations, at 11 pm at night, including a cough so excruciatingly painful to listen that I feared for my life if I caught the bug, was a salutary reminder that we live in a wonderful place with access to services second to none. The owners of Smiths City might also be thankful, caught out yesterday as they re-opened their quake struck Colombo St store by thousands more shoppers than they had bargained for.

Speaking personally I am still unsure of whom (in the electorate) and what (in the party vote) to vote for. I thought I would have a go at a quiz on the Conservative Party's website designed to tell the participant how conservative they are. I scored 10. The CP want people with a 10+ score to join them in their endeavours. I scarcely qualify in that direction so I remain both "undecided" and uncertain where my values lead me in terms of my two votes!

I imagine most Kiwi readers here would not mind me offering a certain statement about one party I will not vote for: New Zealand First. Even if they were the last party standing I would not vote for them.

*The wittiest interpretation of Jolyon's coordinated campaign I have seen is the description, "Jolyon White ... corrects misleading National Party advertising."