May God have mercy on us all and hear the cries of the poor.
Friday, February 28, 2014
One hundred years after the war to end wars, a harrowing image
Some pictures convey more than others. The following picture, published around the world (locally, here) conveys the plight of many Syrians caught up in a war, seemingly without end in sight, which threatens death everywhere. If not from a bullet or shell, then from starvation and disease. The scene could be from somewhere in Europe during the forced famines of Stalin's USSR, or the movement of refugees somewhere in Europe in WW2. But here it is, in the one hundredth year after the beginning of the war people thought would end all wars.
May God have mercy on us all and hear the cries of the poor.
May God have mercy on us all and hear the cries of the poor.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Is Gnosticism an eradicated virus?
UPDATE:
Dear Commenters, I do not have time to reply to all comments made yesterday (27 Feb) but I will make the general comment that I think some of you have not read me carefully. E.g. I am not making a comment about the general embeddedness of the churches in Germany in German culture and state; I am offering my interpretation of the German Christian movement in relation to Nazism and the mythology it promoted. Finally, I am particularly interested in any current examples of Gnosticism bedevilling Christianity. So, even if you think my example is poor, even wrong, how about citing another? Incidentally, the eradication of the virus of heresy has no implications per se re the eradication of heretics.
Regards, Peter
START
Always worth a pause is consideration of whether one greater enemy of Christianity, Gnosticism is an eradicated virus or a recurring outbreak of disease in our body. While it is difficult to arrive at a settled definition of Gnosticism, it can be thought of as an influenza which takes various forms. Michael Bird, drawing attention to a comment of Larry Hurtado, suggests this broad definition of ancient Gnosticism:
"Gnostics were trying, each in their own way, to indigenize Christianity in the Greco-Roman world by marrying it to platonic cosmology and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots. But it does come off as a bit like the “Scientology” of the second century."
On that basis, a relatively recent outbreak of Gnosticism was the 'German Christian' movement in 1930s Germany which sought to indigenise Christianity in the Hitlerite Germanic world by marrying it to German culture (think Wagner, Aryanism) and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots.
Are there other forms of Gnosticism in our world today which intersect with the church?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS With H/T to Liturgy I have added the newly arrived blog of Bishop Jim White (Assistant Bishop of Auckland) to my Anglican Tracks blogroll (with a nice parallel with the chosen title of his blog ...). Once upon a time Jim and I were both young Anglicans studying at Knox [Presbyterian] Theological Hall in Dunedin. I don't think either of us have shifted much in our theological tracks/tracts since then. But we are united in not being persuaded to become Presbyterians despite the excellence of our education there :)
Dear Commenters, I do not have time to reply to all comments made yesterday (27 Feb) but I will make the general comment that I think some of you have not read me carefully. E.g. I am not making a comment about the general embeddedness of the churches in Germany in German culture and state; I am offering my interpretation of the German Christian movement in relation to Nazism and the mythology it promoted. Finally, I am particularly interested in any current examples of Gnosticism bedevilling Christianity. So, even if you think my example is poor, even wrong, how about citing another? Incidentally, the eradication of the virus of heresy has no implications per se re the eradication of heretics.
Regards, Peter
START
Always worth a pause is consideration of whether one greater enemy of Christianity, Gnosticism is an eradicated virus or a recurring outbreak of disease in our body. While it is difficult to arrive at a settled definition of Gnosticism, it can be thought of as an influenza which takes various forms. Michael Bird, drawing attention to a comment of Larry Hurtado, suggests this broad definition of ancient Gnosticism:
"Gnostics were trying, each in their own way, to indigenize Christianity in the Greco-Roman world by marrying it to platonic cosmology and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots. But it does come off as a bit like the “Scientology” of the second century."
On that basis, a relatively recent outbreak of Gnosticism was the 'German Christian' movement in 1930s Germany which sought to indigenise Christianity in the Hitlerite Germanic world by marrying it to German culture (think Wagner, Aryanism) and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots.
Are there other forms of Gnosticism in our world today which intersect with the church?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS With H/T to Liturgy I have added the newly arrived blog of Bishop Jim White (Assistant Bishop of Auckland) to my Anglican Tracks blogroll (with a nice parallel with the chosen title of his blog ...). Once upon a time Jim and I were both young Anglicans studying at Knox [Presbyterian] Theological Hall in Dunedin. I don't think either of us have shifted much in our theological tracks/tracts since then. But we are united in not being persuaded to become Presbyterians despite the excellence of our education there :)
Monday, February 24, 2014
Should we stay together for the sake of the children?
With GAFCON, Global South and the Anglican Communion officialdom all trying to call the shots on Anglican futures, an ongoing question which drives this blog from year to year - the question of Anglican unity - is worth a review.
It is quite clear to me, probably to you too, dear readers, that the bonds of affection remain tautly strained. As the 21st century moves forward added tensions from (say) 2003, are moves in opposite directions re local contexts: so gay marriage is more and more legally approved in the West, while in two key Anglican provinces, Nigeria and Uganda, legislation is moving in the opposite direction. Churches in each sphere (understandably) are wary of moving out of step with the state.
In the sphere I know a little bit about, the West, there is the continuing twist, wound ever more tightly, of Anglican churches living in a state of desperation as the forces of secularization push the church around like a juggernaut, measured statistically by (overall) declining numbers. If the gospel is good news for 'all the people' does that mean bending and flexing in the direction of the people re the new status quo re love, sex and marriage? Or does the gospel mean that as much as ever we have seen before in the history of Christianity, God's gospel people must live out and stand for distinctively different (i.e. holy) styles of living? Let's face our history honestly- it is not a good guide as to what to do now. The church in its mission has sometimes made great progress by shunning the paganism around it and insisting on disciplined holiness; other times it has made progress by embracing the culture of the people to whom it proclaims the gospel.
Undergirding all Christian unity is truth. Some kind of common understanding lies beneath all claims to unity. Anglicans (it seems to me) have been quite good at maintaining some kind of unity on the merest sliver of common understanding! Think ++Desmond Tutu's profound, mischievous (and ultimately inadequate), "We meet." Part of the strain on the bonds of affection at this time is the recognition that unity in the pluralist, post-modern 21st century (i.e. don't tell me what to do) requires more than a sliver of commonality. Thus the question of Anglicans reading the Bible together (a recent Communion project, full of description, devoid of prescription) has become urgent. But urgency has not yielded much re unity (e.g. see above as both GAFCON and Global South take initiative, even though closely aligned theologically).
I wonder if one day we will look back on the past fifty or so years as the messy beginnings of a 'new hermeneutic' for Anglican churches as we read the Bible. Much has challenged our reading of the Bible through these years, especially in respect of developments in human society. Whether we engage questions around roles and status of women, the purpose of marriage in an age of proficient contraception, the value of life in a world of medical advances (e.g. a scan could give plausible reason for abortion, to give or withhold certain drugs towards the end of life is to have a previously unknown power over death), complicated calculations re war (aside from the Second World War, stand up all 'just war' theorists who are supremely confident that any other war of the last one hundred years has been a justified war) or simply attempt to determine who is poor, who is not, and what economic justice looks like in global economic terms, we have huge challenges trying to apply the Bible to these matters according to a consistent hermeneutic.
I say 'huge challenges' rather than 'impossible' because I acknowledge that some think there is a consistent hermeneutic available. But I wonder, really wonder whether there is such a consistent hermeneutic at this time. Even if that hermeneutic is at hand, who or what will articulate it, how will it be recognised and received, when will it be widely applied in fruitful ways?
Perhaps these musings chart a reason for staying together, even in great tension: we do not yet know what future common ground we will find ourselves agreeing to. Thus separating now for reason of the differences immediately in front of us would be wrong because it is a prejudiced understanding of the future. For the sake of the children, the Anglicans of tomorrow, we should stay together.
Nevertheless, we have problems, real problems which trouble us today. Perhaps we ought to give room for GAFCON, Global South and the Anglican Communion office(rs) to take initiatives. From one or more of these may come the road ahead.
It is quite clear to me, probably to you too, dear readers, that the bonds of affection remain tautly strained. As the 21st century moves forward added tensions from (say) 2003, are moves in opposite directions re local contexts: so gay marriage is more and more legally approved in the West, while in two key Anglican provinces, Nigeria and Uganda, legislation is moving in the opposite direction. Churches in each sphere (understandably) are wary of moving out of step with the state.
In the sphere I know a little bit about, the West, there is the continuing twist, wound ever more tightly, of Anglican churches living in a state of desperation as the forces of secularization push the church around like a juggernaut, measured statistically by (overall) declining numbers. If the gospel is good news for 'all the people' does that mean bending and flexing in the direction of the people re the new status quo re love, sex and marriage? Or does the gospel mean that as much as ever we have seen before in the history of Christianity, God's gospel people must live out and stand for distinctively different (i.e. holy) styles of living? Let's face our history honestly- it is not a good guide as to what to do now. The church in its mission has sometimes made great progress by shunning the paganism around it and insisting on disciplined holiness; other times it has made progress by embracing the culture of the people to whom it proclaims the gospel.
Undergirding all Christian unity is truth. Some kind of common understanding lies beneath all claims to unity. Anglicans (it seems to me) have been quite good at maintaining some kind of unity on the merest sliver of common understanding! Think ++Desmond Tutu's profound, mischievous (and ultimately inadequate), "We meet." Part of the strain on the bonds of affection at this time is the recognition that unity in the pluralist, post-modern 21st century (i.e. don't tell me what to do) requires more than a sliver of commonality. Thus the question of Anglicans reading the Bible together (a recent Communion project, full of description, devoid of prescription) has become urgent. But urgency has not yielded much re unity (e.g. see above as both GAFCON and Global South take initiative, even though closely aligned theologically).
I wonder if one day we will look back on the past fifty or so years as the messy beginnings of a 'new hermeneutic' for Anglican churches as we read the Bible. Much has challenged our reading of the Bible through these years, especially in respect of developments in human society. Whether we engage questions around roles and status of women, the purpose of marriage in an age of proficient contraception, the value of life in a world of medical advances (e.g. a scan could give plausible reason for abortion, to give or withhold certain drugs towards the end of life is to have a previously unknown power over death), complicated calculations re war (aside from the Second World War, stand up all 'just war' theorists who are supremely confident that any other war of the last one hundred years has been a justified war) or simply attempt to determine who is poor, who is not, and what economic justice looks like in global economic terms, we have huge challenges trying to apply the Bible to these matters according to a consistent hermeneutic.
I say 'huge challenges' rather than 'impossible' because I acknowledge that some think there is a consistent hermeneutic available. But I wonder, really wonder whether there is such a consistent hermeneutic at this time. Even if that hermeneutic is at hand, who or what will articulate it, how will it be recognised and received, when will it be widely applied in fruitful ways?
Perhaps these musings chart a reason for staying together, even in great tension: we do not yet know what future common ground we will find ourselves agreeing to. Thus separating now for reason of the differences immediately in front of us would be wrong because it is a prejudiced understanding of the future. For the sake of the children, the Anglicans of tomorrow, we should stay together.
Nevertheless, we have problems, real problems which trouble us today. Perhaps we ought to give room for GAFCON, Global South and the Anglican Communion office(rs) to take initiatives. From one or more of these may come the road ahead.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Actionable Anglicans
Anglicans can action things; sometimes Anglicans take action against one another. While I contemplate some lessons in Anglican history to apply to current difficulties, here is a Saturday round up of a few things ...
Novel, creative, inspiring ecumenical action at Lambeth Palace.
Taking action against false teachers begins with refuting the notion that love means inaction about heresy.
Global South is not taking current Anglican matters lying down. A call to action is being made here. Let's face it, there are three initiative takers in the Anglican Communion these days: GAFCON, Global South, the officialdom of the Anglican Communion. Like spicy takeaways, Communion life comes in three intensities these days: hot, medium, mild! Just as the days of three Popes eventually worked its way through to one papacy again, so, eventually, we will have one recognised initiative taker. But which one?
A new bishop for Waikato will be ordained today in Hamilton, Helen-Ann Hartley. She will be the third woman bishop in our church, and this will be the first time that we have had two women bishops on our bench of bishops.
(ADDED: talking of bishops, it is great that Pope Francis recognises at least one Anglican bishop as a 'brother bishop'! Damian Thompson wonders if he is hearing a rule book being torn up. We might wonder about the other rule book, viz. the Anglican one which is a little unlikely to recognise a bishop belonging to this crowd. This church, I simply have to say, can't be really Anglican because they break the most fundamental Anglican rule of recognition of them all: I have never heard of them before!)
Finally, good news out of England (despite the other headlined woes of the C of E): lots of new vicars aged under 30!
Novel, creative, inspiring ecumenical action at Lambeth Palace.
Taking action against false teachers begins with refuting the notion that love means inaction about heresy.
Global South is not taking current Anglican matters lying down. A call to action is being made here. Let's face it, there are three initiative takers in the Anglican Communion these days: GAFCON, Global South, the officialdom of the Anglican Communion. Like spicy takeaways, Communion life comes in three intensities these days: hot, medium, mild! Just as the days of three Popes eventually worked its way through to one papacy again, so, eventually, we will have one recognised initiative taker. But which one?
A new bishop for Waikato will be ordained today in Hamilton, Helen-Ann Hartley. She will be the third woman bishop in our church, and this will be the first time that we have had two women bishops on our bench of bishops.
(ADDED: talking of bishops, it is great that Pope Francis recognises at least one Anglican bishop as a 'brother bishop'! Damian Thompson wonders if he is hearing a rule book being torn up. We might wonder about the other rule book, viz. the Anglican one which is a little unlikely to recognise a bishop belonging to this crowd. This church, I simply have to say, can't be really Anglican because they break the most fundamental Anglican rule of recognition of them all: I have never heard of them before!)
Finally, good news out of England (despite the other headlined woes of the C of E): lots of new vicars aged under 30!
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Do Christians Understand What It Means To Be Christian?
Perhaps there is no finer expression of the 'deep' issue at stake in the You Know What macro/meta debate going on in global and local Anglicanism, and other churches at this time than the following two comments made here yesterday:
"If you will allow a quotation from 'Anglican Taonga', Peter, in which your own writing features, I would like to post here a comment by the Kiwi writer, Imogen de la Bere, a Lay Anglican living in England, who also has an article in the same edition. Here she comments on the Church v Society, today:
"I sometimes think Christianity has been too successful for the good of the church. The universal acceptance of human rights is effectively a global and secular working out of the Christian agenda, and consequently, what we have to offer is less startling.
"If you will allow a quotation from 'Anglican Taonga', Peter, in which your own writing features, I would like to post here a comment by the Kiwi writer, Imogen de la Bere, a Lay Anglican living in England, who also has an article in the same edition. Here she comments on the Church v Society, today:
"I sometimes think Christianity has been too successful for the good of the church. The universal acceptance of human rights is effectively a global and secular working out of the Christian agenda, and consequently, what we have to offer is less startling.
Secular society has so completely embraced the Christian ethic that we have less to set us apart. It is commonly accepted that each individual is valuable and his or her person-hood is sacrosanct.
Ironically the church now lags behind liberal society. It’s as if we laid down the path, showed it to the world, and they have sprinted ahead of us."
I think this statement, succinct as it is, might fairly sum up a valid view of how the Church today is not coping with the advance of civil society, on matters of justice and freedom consonant with the Good News of the Gospel."
Thus Ron Smith (and Imogen de la Bere) give expression to a fine argument with a potentially overwhelming conclusion for the You Know What debate, that history (at least in the Western, post-Christendom world) has moved into a state of mature Christian fullness (while the church has lost its way and become, relative to that state, a little less than Christian). Let's say this argument is valid. Then Christians have no considerable amount of repenting to do: we have lost touch with the will of God, acted in ways to quench the Spirit of God, and tried to stop our own fervent prayer, "Your kingdom come" from being answered.
I don't think Ron or Imogen would mind if I wondered aloud (as someone not expert on the history of ideas) whether this is not a version of Hegelianism?
To which comment above, Bryden Black responds,
"Imogen de la Bere is indeed putting her finger upon a most important thing Ron. Yet both you and she also fail to notice an equally important aspect of this entire development of an idea and its effective practice.
As an initial aside firstly - which nonetheless is absolutely basic. The “Christian agenda” has as its premise the understanding of God and so of Reality, and notably human reality in the “image” of that God, to be Triune. As Walter Kasper sums it up: “The need was to reflect upon the data of Scripture and tradition and to break away from the one-sidedly essentialist thinking of Greek philosophy and into a personalist thinking ... laying the foundation of a new type of thought.”
It is this notion of personhood which has become part and parcel of our general understanding of the human. There is however another, absolutely crucial factor to consider, one which again has its roots in theology - or in this case, an a-theology. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll root it in the 17th C, and the sowing of the seeds of what became the Enlightenment in the following century. In a word: autonomy.
When the notion of human personhood is allied to the notion of human autonomy, then we have frankly a bastard child of the Christian faith and the Christian agenda. Failure to appreciate this (mostly, by western Christians who are quite simply immersed in this cultural pond water, ‘naturally and obviously’) is by and large the cause of much confusion in the Church today. And it behoves us to adhere to Rom 12:1-2 in as profound a manner as possible. Otherwise the Church will be captured by the father of lies, and know only slavery again."
What is Bryden putting his theological finger on? It is the question of what it means to be a human person, with special reference to what authority or governing idea(s) shape that understanding. (About which, see here). His underlying argument is that this is a prior question to the question of human rights. Human rights, after all, apply to humans and there is sound logic in asking first who or what 'humans' are to which 'rights' apply.
An implication of what Bryden is arguing is that there is no brave new post-Christendom world which turns out to be the fulfilment of the Christian vision. Hegel's Spirit controlling history is the spirit of humanity rather than the Spirit of God, and a fallen humanity at that, which has crucially taken a wrong turning in its self-understanding. A wrong turning, precisely, because we have sought 'self-understanding' of ourselves rather than God's understanding of ourselves.
One interesting (and, OK, provocative) aside here is to note that Ron and Bryden cannot both be correct. Paradoxically they are united on this point: the implication of each one's argument is that there are Christians around the world who do not understand what it means to be Christian.
POSTSCRIPT
You be the judge!
Here is history being made in the 21st century. It involves men and women, the powerful and the powerless. Does it epitomise the Hegelian divine spirit at work in the world as the divine will for humanity is worked out through history (more rapidly, note, than the church itself has been able to keep up with)? Or bog standard sinners, in this case instruments in the service of imperial oppression, familiar subjects in terms of the Bible's account of the state of the world?
I think this statement, succinct as it is, might fairly sum up a valid view of how the Church today is not coping with the advance of civil society, on matters of justice and freedom consonant with the Good News of the Gospel."
Thus Ron Smith (and Imogen de la Bere) give expression to a fine argument with a potentially overwhelming conclusion for the You Know What debate, that history (at least in the Western, post-Christendom world) has moved into a state of mature Christian fullness (while the church has lost its way and become, relative to that state, a little less than Christian). Let's say this argument is valid. Then Christians have no considerable amount of repenting to do: we have lost touch with the will of God, acted in ways to quench the Spirit of God, and tried to stop our own fervent prayer, "Your kingdom come" from being answered.
I don't think Ron or Imogen would mind if I wondered aloud (as someone not expert on the history of ideas) whether this is not a version of Hegelianism?
To which comment above, Bryden Black responds,
"Imogen de la Bere is indeed putting her finger upon a most important thing Ron. Yet both you and she also fail to notice an equally important aspect of this entire development of an idea and its effective practice.
As an initial aside firstly - which nonetheless is absolutely basic. The “Christian agenda” has as its premise the understanding of God and so of Reality, and notably human reality in the “image” of that God, to be Triune. As Walter Kasper sums it up: “The need was to reflect upon the data of Scripture and tradition and to break away from the one-sidedly essentialist thinking of Greek philosophy and into a personalist thinking ... laying the foundation of a new type of thought.”
It is this notion of personhood which has become part and parcel of our general understanding of the human. There is however another, absolutely crucial factor to consider, one which again has its roots in theology - or in this case, an a-theology. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll root it in the 17th C, and the sowing of the seeds of what became the Enlightenment in the following century. In a word: autonomy.
When the notion of human personhood is allied to the notion of human autonomy, then we have frankly a bastard child of the Christian faith and the Christian agenda. Failure to appreciate this (mostly, by western Christians who are quite simply immersed in this cultural pond water, ‘naturally and obviously’) is by and large the cause of much confusion in the Church today. And it behoves us to adhere to Rom 12:1-2 in as profound a manner as possible. Otherwise the Church will be captured by the father of lies, and know only slavery again."
What is Bryden putting his theological finger on? It is the question of what it means to be a human person, with special reference to what authority or governing idea(s) shape that understanding. (About which, see here). His underlying argument is that this is a prior question to the question of human rights. Human rights, after all, apply to humans and there is sound logic in asking first who or what 'humans' are to which 'rights' apply.
An implication of what Bryden is arguing is that there is no brave new post-Christendom world which turns out to be the fulfilment of the Christian vision. Hegel's Spirit controlling history is the spirit of humanity rather than the Spirit of God, and a fallen humanity at that, which has crucially taken a wrong turning in its self-understanding. A wrong turning, precisely, because we have sought 'self-understanding' of ourselves rather than God's understanding of ourselves.
One interesting (and, OK, provocative) aside here is to note that Ron and Bryden cannot both be correct. Paradoxically they are united on this point: the implication of each one's argument is that there are Christians around the world who do not understand what it means to be Christian.
POSTSCRIPT
You be the judge!
Here is history being made in the 21st century. It involves men and women, the powerful and the powerless. Does it epitomise the Hegelian divine spirit at work in the world as the divine will for humanity is worked out through history (more rapidly, note, than the church itself has been able to keep up with)? Or bog standard sinners, in this case instruments in the service of imperial oppression, familiar subjects in terms of the Bible's account of the state of the world?
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Time for another quo vadis post?
With one eye on what is happening in England about You Know What (see yesterday's post for links), we might cast our other, speculative eye across our church in these islands of cricket records. Quo vadis? Which way are we heading. Already I hear talk of the possibility of a "Pilling Report" solution for our church. Or perhaps that is the wishful thinking of those who could live with that kind of solution for our church? (To declare a bias, I think such a solution could be something I could live with, so I count myself among the wishful thinkers).
Yet the dear old C of E has found that trying to follow the Pilling approach has led to this and that being said, including the most recent statement of the House of Bishops there - or is it just the two Archbishops? I find it hard to keep up on a limited time budget - which is widely being panned if not pilloried. Even, some say, their statement is a dog's breakfast. Not exactly a declaration that the bread of life is available on the menu. So, quo vadis for our church? Or not?
A few observations might be worth making about our particular situation.
1. I detect no widespread support for changing our doctrine of marriage (e.g. to line it up with our state's 'doctrine' of marriage). A few may push that at General Synod in May, but they will get nowhere. For a variety of reasons I will not detail here, suffice to say, one reason is it would involve more work than our already hard-pressed bishops and chancellors would want to commit to.
2. Logically that leaves the push for change in our church focused on 'blessing.' One significant question is,
Might we permit our bishops at their discretion to authorise priests to bless same sex partnerships (i.e. conduct a service of prayers for their relationship and praise God for the love and commitment the couple share together)?
But I also detect another question, theologically driven out of our ecclesiology,
Should we not wait until we are a church (of common mind and heart) which authorises all its priests to bless same sex partnerships?
(I won't waste my writing time or your reading time by also exploring some nuances to these questions. I simply acknowledge that other questions re 'blessing' are in the mix of formal and informal conversations at this time).
3. I am not sure how much the following matter is understood at large in our church, but it is an important question - perhaps even the most important question at this time. This is the question of authority, viz.,
By what authority would any change re blessing (or marriage) be allowed?
We do things in the church either because we believe them to be commanded by God or allowed (i.e not prohibited) by God.
Our eucharistic ministry, for instance, is founded on the command of Christ, 'Do this ...'
Our orders of ministry, for an example of 'allowed' action, are founded on the models of ministry in the New Testament and the practice of the church since and the understanding that God has not forbidden such ordering of ministry. A similar observation could be made about baptising the infants of believing parents: there is no specific, clear command to do so, but, observing the practice of 'household baptisms' in the New Testament, the continuing practice of the church since, and the lack of prohibition of infant baptisms, we believe we are authorised to conduct infant baptisms.
Thus (casting a cross glance within ACANZP to Chris Huawai making a stirring point that 'Our LGBTQ Family Aren't Worth Dirt' and to Ron Smith, posting about the current 'tied in knots' situation in the C of E) I see a missing note which concerns the question of authority re change. The authority to bless dirt, or heterosexual marriage, in Anglican understanding, comes from God. We need the same authority to bless same sex partnerships. At this time neither the C of E, nor ACANZP is agreed that we have that authority.
Whether we claim that authority comes from the Spirit of God, from parliament appointed by God, from Scripture, from tradition or from common sense (reason), the normative working of the church is that the church accepts that claim as a matter of common mindedness. To be frank, it is not always clear to me, serving in ACANZP, that we are a church which understands this (fairly basic) point about ecclesiastical authority. Please feel free to tell me (if you are a member of ACANZP) that I am weirdly shortsighted about this ... that really and truly everyone else gets this point!!
[Editorial note: please discuss the contents of Chris' and Ron's posts at their sites. Only comments discussing 'authority' to bless (as I am discussing here) will be accepted].
This question takes us over well trodden ground, namely, what does the Bible say to us as God's Word on the matter? (Noting, by the way, that there is precious little other ground to dig over, as the one thing which cannot be said about blessing same sex partnerships is that this has been the practice of the church through the ages).
Cutting to the chase and keeping this post to reasonable length,
(4) There is a lot of merit in the position of my own Diocese of Christchurch as we head to the General Synod in May: [the following is a revision of what was previously here, to more accurately reflect the way synodical processes work] that position is stated in clause 4 of resolution 3 of our September session of Synod 2013:
"Notes the cautions expressed in our Bishop’s charge about the care we should take
in changing a long-held doctrine of the Anglican Church; believes more time is
needed to give in-depth consideration to the theological foundations of the doctrine
of marriage and therefore requests General Synod in 2014 to postpone any decision
concerning changing the doctrine of marriage to at least the 2018 General Synod."
My question to the church at large is then, Will we pause to reflect on the matter of authority?
The most diplomatic thing we can say about ACANZP (and the C of E) at this time is that we are churches operating at two speeds re the authority to authorise blessings of same sex partnerships.
The C of E has tied itself in knots trying to be a ship operating at those two speeds. The ACANZP has not begun to do anything quite so ropey!
Yet the dear old C of E has found that trying to follow the Pilling approach has led to this and that being said, including the most recent statement of the House of Bishops there - or is it just the two Archbishops? I find it hard to keep up on a limited time budget - which is widely being panned if not pilloried. Even, some say, their statement is a dog's breakfast. Not exactly a declaration that the bread of life is available on the menu. So, quo vadis for our church? Or not?
A few observations might be worth making about our particular situation.
1. I detect no widespread support for changing our doctrine of marriage (e.g. to line it up with our state's 'doctrine' of marriage). A few may push that at General Synod in May, but they will get nowhere. For a variety of reasons I will not detail here, suffice to say, one reason is it would involve more work than our already hard-pressed bishops and chancellors would want to commit to.
2. Logically that leaves the push for change in our church focused on 'blessing.' One significant question is,
Might we permit our bishops at their discretion to authorise priests to bless same sex partnerships (i.e. conduct a service of prayers for their relationship and praise God for the love and commitment the couple share together)?
But I also detect another question, theologically driven out of our ecclesiology,
Should we not wait until we are a church (of common mind and heart) which authorises all its priests to bless same sex partnerships?
(I won't waste my writing time or your reading time by also exploring some nuances to these questions. I simply acknowledge that other questions re 'blessing' are in the mix of formal and informal conversations at this time).
3. I am not sure how much the following matter is understood at large in our church, but it is an important question - perhaps even the most important question at this time. This is the question of authority, viz.,
By what authority would any change re blessing (or marriage) be allowed?
We do things in the church either because we believe them to be commanded by God or allowed (i.e not prohibited) by God.
Our eucharistic ministry, for instance, is founded on the command of Christ, 'Do this ...'
Our orders of ministry, for an example of 'allowed' action, are founded on the models of ministry in the New Testament and the practice of the church since and the understanding that God has not forbidden such ordering of ministry. A similar observation could be made about baptising the infants of believing parents: there is no specific, clear command to do so, but, observing the practice of 'household baptisms' in the New Testament, the continuing practice of the church since, and the lack of prohibition of infant baptisms, we believe we are authorised to conduct infant baptisms.
Thus (casting a cross glance within ACANZP to Chris Huawai making a stirring point that 'Our LGBTQ Family Aren't Worth Dirt' and to Ron Smith, posting about the current 'tied in knots' situation in the C of E) I see a missing note which concerns the question of authority re change. The authority to bless dirt, or heterosexual marriage, in Anglican understanding, comes from God. We need the same authority to bless same sex partnerships. At this time neither the C of E, nor ACANZP is agreed that we have that authority.
Whether we claim that authority comes from the Spirit of God, from parliament appointed by God, from Scripture, from tradition or from common sense (reason), the normative working of the church is that the church accepts that claim as a matter of common mindedness. To be frank, it is not always clear to me, serving in ACANZP, that we are a church which understands this (fairly basic) point about ecclesiastical authority. Please feel free to tell me (if you are a member of ACANZP) that I am weirdly shortsighted about this ... that really and truly everyone else gets this point!!
[Editorial note: please discuss the contents of Chris' and Ron's posts at their sites. Only comments discussing 'authority' to bless (as I am discussing here) will be accepted].
This question takes us over well trodden ground, namely, what does the Bible say to us as God's Word on the matter? (Noting, by the way, that there is precious little other ground to dig over, as the one thing which cannot be said about blessing same sex partnerships is that this has been the practice of the church through the ages).
Cutting to the chase and keeping this post to reasonable length,
(4) There is a lot of merit in the position of my own Diocese of Christchurch as we head to the General Synod in May: [the following is a revision of what was previously here, to more accurately reflect the way synodical processes work] that position is stated in clause 4 of resolution 3 of our September session of Synod 2013:
"Notes the cautions expressed in our Bishop’s charge about the care we should take
in changing a long-held doctrine of the Anglican Church; believes more time is
needed to give in-depth consideration to the theological foundations of the doctrine
of marriage and therefore requests General Synod in 2014 to postpone any decision
concerning changing the doctrine of marriage to at least the 2018 General Synod."
My question to the church at large is then, Will we pause to reflect on the matter of authority?
The most diplomatic thing we can say about ACANZP (and the C of E) at this time is that we are churches operating at two speeds re the authority to authorise blessings of same sex partnerships.
The C of E has tied itself in knots trying to be a ship operating at those two speeds. The ACANZP has not begun to do anything quite so ropey!
Monday, February 17, 2014
You are the wolves of the park, the (good) pests of the world
It struck me, watching the video below of one small change effecting a whole ecosystem, that the wolves of Yellowstone National Park are a parable of discipleship, a version of 'you are the salt of the earth' and 'you are the light of the world.'
That is something to remember as Anglican gas flares up again over You Know What. Peter Ould catches one or two of the flares here. With another perspective on the recent C of E moves at Titus One Nine. Can the C of E hold together? Will fudge do the trick or should some other glue be found? You might, or might not have an idea of answers to the questions after reading Thinking Anglicans' round up of responses here. (Another comment worth reading is at Liturgy - but please discuss its contents there and not here).
Such thoughts, movements and machinations are not a million miles from my church in these islands Down Under. Daily we get closer to our General Synod in May. Meetings are happening here and there. Bishop Richard of Nelson writes in his latest Ad Clerum,
"Sexuality
Next week [beginning Monday 17 February] I have to attend two meetings around this topic – one is with a small working group which the Archbishop has asked that I attend to ensure the orthodox voice is heard. That is followed, two days later by a meeting with all the Bishops.
Again please pray. ...."
[Editorial note: I am not going to accept comments which attempt to discuss this indicative note per se. +Richard is writing a circular letter not a blogpost! I am citing simply to observe that bit by bit conversation in our church is happening at various levels of 'office', though officially few of us are aware of this fact].
In my next post I would like to take a bit of an overview of where things might head ...
Meanwhile, believe it or not, these distracting discussions do not remit us of our obligation as disciples to be the wolves of the park and the good pests of the world.
That is something to remember as Anglican gas flares up again over You Know What. Peter Ould catches one or two of the flares here. With another perspective on the recent C of E moves at Titus One Nine. Can the C of E hold together? Will fudge do the trick or should some other glue be found? You might, or might not have an idea of answers to the questions after reading Thinking Anglicans' round up of responses here. (Another comment worth reading is at Liturgy - but please discuss its contents there and not here).
Such thoughts, movements and machinations are not a million miles from my church in these islands Down Under. Daily we get closer to our General Synod in May. Meetings are happening here and there. Bishop Richard of Nelson writes in his latest Ad Clerum,
"Sexuality
Next week [beginning Monday 17 February] I have to attend two meetings around this topic – one is with a small working group which the Archbishop has asked that I attend to ensure the orthodox voice is heard. That is followed, two days later by a meeting with all the Bishops.
Again please pray. ...."
[Editorial note: I am not going to accept comments which attempt to discuss this indicative note per se. +Richard is writing a circular letter not a blogpost! I am citing simply to observe that bit by bit conversation in our church is happening at various levels of 'office', though officially few of us are aware of this fact].
In my next post I would like to take a bit of an overview of where things might head ...
Meanwhile, believe it or not, these distracting discussions do not remit us of our obligation as disciples to be the wolves of the park and the good pests of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)