The end of Auckland Anglicanism?

The irony of all the rhetoric pouring out of, and into St Matthew's-in-the-City with their billboards and cutting edge pronouncements on this and that, is that Anglicanism in Auckland is fading away. Far from the Matthean missiology blowing fresh life into Auckland Anglicanism, the end is nigh. At least that is how I read this article in the NZ Herald. Actually, I think the article could go further, especially since this pretentious Auckland newspaper entitles itself the "New Zealand" Herald. There is no particular reason to think that decline of Anglican churches, mainstream churches, and non-immigrant adherence to Catholic churches is confined to Auckland.

Thus amidst reshaping of ministry units in NZ dioceses, especially in the post quake (i.e. exposure of high costs of buildings) phase of our life, we face the age old question of proclaiming the gospel. What is the gospel in the 21st century? How do we best proclaim it in word and deed? Are we proclaiming it? More urgent (arguably) than rearranging our congregational life and its housing is the Matthew 28:20 question: what is our mission and where is it focused?

We face an urgent need if we are to live as viable and vital Anglican churches into the 21st century. But where is that facing taking place? Not at General Synod. Mostly not at local diocesan synods. Probably not in other important meetings of our church (e.g. TPMC).

What will it take for us to focus on our mission? The next General Synod will be held in Paihia in 2014, a Bay of Islands location  near to where Marsden first preached the gospel in 1814. But will that be an outward show of gospel orientation with the substance of the business devoted to ... internal bickering over finances?

Fair's fair (3)

If you are tired of wondering whether there is a simple deadlock over the next ABC, or a complicated one, such as Ruth Gledhill reports (or 'reports', how does she know?), that is, that there is agreement on name number one, +Durham, but disagreement on name number two, then you could return with me to the intriguing flow of posts coming from England which, in a sense, is about another deadlock.

Continuing a series of posts from English evangelicalism, as linked in my posts below, in which an important voice of a celibate person experiencing same sex attractions is heard (Vaughan Roberts), along with a serious, respectful voice of a conservative-on-marriage-itself but pragmatic-on-the-reality-of-gay partnerships within the context of centrist Fulcrum (Matthew Grayshon), we now have a rejoinder from another celibate evangelical experiencing same sex attractions. Meet Sean Doherty, also writing on Fulcrum, who challenges Grayshon's ethic.

It is refreshing to find Christian brothers writing who are open about their sexuality even as they support traditional Christian sexual ethics. For too long it has seemed that the only voices to be heard on the internet were straight Christians insisting on the traditional ethic or gay Christians insisting the traditional ethic is impossible.

However keeping evangelicals grounded is this citric opinion from Andrew Brown who argues that the liberals have won because the churches' wars on sexuality are over (at least in the Normandy landings' sense that WW2 was over on 6 June 1944).

Brown is wrong. He does not know where the church will end on vital issues such as officially accepting and publishing a marriage rite which is gender neutral.

Breaking the deadlock

The deadlock on the Crown Nominations Commission (if reports be true) re the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury is familiar territory for the church. Finding a new vicar, abbot, theological college principal, etc is always open to the possibility that two or more equally good (or bad!) candidates are presented which the appointing body cannot resolve to an agreed nomination. Sometimes one of the candidates is an imaginary person, the ideal candidate, who may be an amalgam of some brilliant predecessor along with the immediate holder of the office whom all had become used to. Against the ideal candidate, the actual candidates can seem at best equal in stature and at worst deficient. A question worth asking is whether a failure of imagination by the appointing body has led to the stalemate as much as an perception of equal worthiness.

In the case of Canterbury, is there a failure of imagination inhibiting consideration of ++Sentamu? A failure, for instance, to understand how responsibly he would take up this more senior office? Or, to take +Welby, a failure to imagine how quickly this able man would grow into the office?

A further possibility is a failure of imagination concerning what the office should become. To take a different scenario, appointing a new vicar. Parishes can be very comfortable about the way they have become. The previous much appreciated vicar led congregational life to a point of happy contentment. Naturally a new vicar is looked for who will maintain the contentment. But might that be a recipe for stagnation? Should imagination at this point lead to a vision of a different kind of vicar, one who will lead the parish into new, growing life. Perhaps the demography of the parish has developed in the direction of young families. A young candidate is dismissed for want of experience. But perhaps precisely such a candidate is the best appointee for the next period because able to connect with the changed demography and thus able to lead congregational life into new growth.

Back to Canterbury: a question worth asking is whether the new ABC can lead a national church mission? Naturally questions are being asked about the candidates' ability to speak in public without making gaffes, to offer a theological line which is inclusive of opposing dictums (especially over women bishops and gay partnerships), and generally to look like a worthy member of the English establishment. Is the question being asked about the candidates' ability to lead the church in its mission in the 21st century?

Perhaps this, we should have predicted

As reported here, here and here, the CNC has failed to agree on a name to propose for the ABC. Perhaps this (initial) outcome of deliberations should have been predicted by those of us drawn to bookies and their speculations. After all, when the frontrunner keeps changing, and the latest frontrunner is a man of relatively little episcopal experience, it is more obvious in hindsight, that the actual deliberating body might struggle to anoint one person out of a (so it seems) less than very impressive pack.

However, ADU is nothing if not constructive, and I remind the CNC that I remain available, especially for attendance at major sporting events, seated in the Royal Box.

Otherwise, I suggest a look at this bloke. He must be one of the best educated archbishops around, and being born in Armagh, he is likely a British citizen.

Failing that, I suggest a rethink and a deeper think about +Durham.

If all else fails, the previous +Durham.

Facing a battle

My attention on Facebook (by one colleague) is drawn to a post on a local blog (posted by another colleague) which leads to this interview of Vaughan Roberts, one of the evangelical leaders in  the Church of England (and a speaker here in NZ a few years ago).

Fair's fair (2)

Thoughtful comment here, on Fulcrum. The starting point for this reflection is one some conservative churches somewhere are going to face (at least in the West): it is not that difficult to insist when choosing a vicar that she or he be married or single; it is another thing to constrain all lay leadership in a parish.

Anyway, without commending or condemning what is said herein, prompted by a commenter, I offer the link. You can comment there, if you wish; or here.

Or not: you might want to give your sense of who is going to be the next ABC ... I remain slightly puzzled about where that will end up and wonder if a very surprising name is not going to emerge.

Reasonable Expectations

Taking a cue from some perceptive comments to the post below, here are some reasonable expectations about the next ABC, likely to be settled on re the internal process of appointment by the end of this week ...

A man. Wherever drawn from, the ABC will be a C of E bishop and thus must be a man.

A person with ability to speak in such a way that draws Anglicans together rather than divides or polarises us. This rules out an extremist, a known polariser, but could allow in a 'grey man' who never offends.

Probably an evangelical (in some sense of that term). An informal protocol is that ABCs alternate from different wings of the C of E. If that protocol is followed then the next ABC will be 'evangelical.'

Unquestionably an orthodox believer who will uphold the creedal faith of Anglican Christians. This is no time to appoint an ABC who from day one is dogged by questions as to whether he believes that Christ rose from the dead.

Someone versed in the ways of English culture and politics. The ABC is the C of E's senior bishop, sits in the House of Lords, and easy target for journalists looking for a headline. A bishop with a British passport somewhere in the former colonies is unlikely to be appointed.

A healthy, fit, robust person. Whether or not the demands of the post are too much, ought to be shared with another 'presidential' person, etc, the reality is that from day one the post will continue for the time being as it is: extremely demanding of time and energy. 

Does such a candidate exist? I think so. In my view there are two or three candidates. I also suggest we continue to reckon with the possibility of a surprise.