Anglican Down Under

Last night's preachers were listening to the Holy Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Long time since I have been to a service where the preaching ministry (shared by a husband and wife) segued into healing based on discernment via a word of knowledge from the Holy Spirit of an injury present in the congregation, and associated with two specific words of encouragement given through the Holy Spirit. All rather lovely really, and a reminder that there is preaching (most of us most Sundays: God working, we might say, in ordinary ways through his ministers of the word) and preaching(!) (a few of us some Sundays, or a rare set among us most Sundays: God working, we might say, in extraordinary ways, wonders to perform, through ministers of the word endowed with particular spiritual gifts of healing, words of knowledge, prophecy and discernment).

Archbishop of York not listening to the Holy Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:11:00 +0000

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu is being reported as telling the British government not to change the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, according to at least one regular commenter here at ADU, this means the Archbishop of York is not listening to the Holy Spirit who is currently guiding the church into new truth on marriage. It being a grave offence for senior church officials not to heed the direct guidance of God, I look forward to reports that the ABY has been disciplined if not ejected from office. Alternatively there could be reports that various liberal/progressive Anglicans around the Communion are revising their estimation of the Holy Spirit's intention to undermine Scripture ...

While on the topic of Anglicans listening to the Holy Spirit, we should all be very clear that great cost may come to those who faithfully listen to God and obey God's directions. This is precisely the place to which TEC, a leading listener to the living voice of God through the Holy Spirit, has come. Curmudgeon pulls together a number of reports which show that TEC's Executive Council is facing the dilemma whether to propose to the forthcoming General Convention that TEC should cut its budget by 5.9 million or 19.3 million dollars for the period 2013-2015. The courage of TEC in facing the consequences of its faithfulness to God's leading, extra courageous because it is against the grain of Scripture, is heartrending.

POSTSCRIPT: Many Western denominations are having their troubles with finances, attendances numbers. There is nothing special about TEC facing economic constraints relative to what many other denominations are confronting. What is special is that TEC has made a particular point in the past few decades of trumpeting its inclusiveness in response to its perceptions of the leading of the Spirit. Ordaining Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool have been the actions of a church choosing one particular way to observe the dictum of John Spong that Christianity must change or die. Choosing Katherine Jefferts Schori to be its current Presiding Bishop (remember there were others to choose from, all of whom (from memory) were more experienced pastors and bishops than her) was a choice precisely to have an eloquent and fearless exponent of the new TEC way, and she has not let her voters down. What may be unfolding in the deliberations of the Executive Council (check in here, here and here) is the reality check when one realises that having undertaken a major change of direction, no is paying attention, no turn around has occurred. Titus One Nine underlines the reality check that may be occurring with this post. Again, the internal business of TEC should not be nosied around here Down Under, it is their busines etc. Except in this respect: we here have among our number those who would have us advance down the TECian way. Why would we want to do that?

UPDATE: Well, I am glad they (Bonnie and ++Katharine) got that sorted out and the Executive have sorted themselves out re the draft budget. But I am going to keep a watch out for what Mark Harris has to say. He will give us the low down.

Confusing array of Catholic liturgical options? Good for evangelisation?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:05:00 +0000

I can never quite get what is happening in contemporary Roman Catholicism. One set of headlines implies that a 'new' mass is being introduced (though really it is the 'old' Latin Mass more accurately translated) and once introduced to a country has to be followed to the last consubstantial change. But then there are headlines which suggest that this and that form may be followed ... well let my confusion not confuse you. But head instead to Catholicity and Covenant which has a post on a recent Roman liturgical announcement and an excellent reflection thereon.

How would we recognise an Anglican church?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:44:00 +0000

Thinking about ACNA and what makes an Anglican church an Anglican church, reminds me of a word my friend and colleague, Bryden Black often refers me to: recognition. A quick googlurvey (Google survey) brings to mind some previous discussions here on ADU, some related writing (by Bryden), an essay by Jordan Hylden and, most importantly, a paper by ++Rowan (Advent 2007). All still worth consulting (especially now that the Diocese of Christchurch has a longer lead time into its Covenant-discussing Synod, 21 April 2012).

Recognition. How we would recognise ACNA as an Anglican church? What would count as Anglican character, content and charisma?

Some discussions on the Anglican blogosphere seem to treat recognition in this way: an Anglican church is recognisable as an Anglican church if it is on the official Communion list of Anglican churches. Thus, could ACNA be recognised as an Anglican church? No, it is not on the list. Could it get on the list? Yes, it could, I suppose, but it probably won't because it is not on the list. Not even if it had all kinds of recognisable Anglican qualities of character, content and charisma? That's right.

OK. Different line of questioning. Could a church on the list be de-listed because it was no longer recognisably Anglican? Possibly, but it is most unlikely. Why is that? Because it is not an Anglican thing to do, running around removing churches off the list.

Right. Let's get this straight: a church which can be recognised as having Anglican characteristics is unlikely to get on the Communion list of official Anglican churches and a church on the list which no longer is recognised as having Anglican characteristics is unlikely to be removed from the list.

You got it!

The Quiet American

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:45:00 +0000

Archbishop Bob Duncan has responded quietly and gently to the recent report from the C of E Archbishops about the relationship between ACNA and the C of E. ++Bob isn't reading too much into the report save for quiet encouragement for ACNA to continue on the course it is on. Reading around the traps I see the opponents of ACNA are saying "nothing changes for ACNA" and give a general impression of business as usual.

I think that is a mistake. The Anglican Communion is going through a convulsion, if not a revolution. No one knows what the new Anglican Communion will be like (e.g. will it be united around a Covenant or not?) but some signs are being given us. One sign is that the Anglican Communion is renewing its commitment to doctrine as part of the definition of being Anglican. Sure, some want doctrine to be wholly determinative for that definition and some are resistant to any totalisation of doctrine in the definition of being Anglican, with quite a lot of resulting 'noise' on the internet. But the noisy ones may miss the underlying trend towards greater importance being placed on doctrine as something Anglicans hold to rather than something we proudly display our doubts and scepticism about.

Just taking that one factor, I suggest ACNA is staying on course to be a good fit with the Anglican Communion when it is through its convulsion. For the record: I am not simultaneously arguing that ACCan and TEC are going to fail to be a good fit; they have as much opportunity as any Western Anglican church to renew their acquaintance with Anglican doctrine.

But I am arguing that any Anglican Communion church that thinks future membership of the Communion need merely rest on the laurels of "historic" commitments to the Communion should think again. The Communion is moving through its present convulsion to a point where it is going to be less interested in churches claiming they have always been part of the Communion and more interested in churches claiming to be Anglican in doctrine and in practice.

One Cardboard Cathedral To Rule Them All

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:44:00 +0000

A commenter at Liturgy has alerted readers there to an opportunity to make a paper cathedral which is an exact replica of the badly damaged Christchurch Cathedral. Mutatis mutandem thickened paper is light cardboard, and thickened light cardboard is cardboard ... our cardboard cathedral could be our old cathedral.

OK. Cardboard is harder to bend than paper. Anyway, I am having a few thoughts about the future of the cathedral(s) here in Christchurch. Later with those. Here and for now we can salute the amazing ability of the artist and engineer of paper who has come up with this. Press P for Print!

New Directions

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:27:00 +0000

2012 has some new directions for me and my work. There may be many new directions which only God knows about, but the ones revealed to me so far include a shift of the temporary office for Theology House from the parish office building at St Barnabas' Fendalton to another location (which I will name when it is signed and sealed), and me taking up some extra duties as (part-time) Priest in Charge of St Aidan's Bryndwr (following the departure of Malcolm Falloon, its vicar for the past fourteen years, who will take up an opportunity to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Otago).

It will be good to have some continuity in the place where I worship, as well as in preaching and presiding. Please pray for the parish nominators as they work with Bishop Victoria and the diocesan nominators on finding a new vicar.

Inevitably this new ministry will affect regularity and length of posting here. For a while now I have tried to post daily. This may not happen or, if it does, some posts are going to be very brief!

In fairness

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:27:00 +0000

Diarmaid MacCulloch is a brilliant church historian whose writings on the Reformation and on the whole era of Christianity I have appreciated immensely. At Comment is Free (@ the Guardian), MacCulloch argues that compulsory celibacy for gay clergy in the C of E is wrong. In fairness to the issue I am happy to draw attention to the argument which, it almost goes without saying, is presented by MacCulloch with great intelligence and insight.

What do you think?

Open door to Communion membership for ACNA

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:39:00 +0000

ADU's 2012 campaign for ACNA membership of the Anglican Communion receives a timely boost in the form of a report to the C of E General Synod signed by ++Cantuar and ++Ebor. H/T to Thinking Anglicans. The full report is here in PDF.

Cited here (as on Thinking Anglicans) are these concluding paragraphs:

"15. Where then do matters currently stand concerning ACNA on each of these

three issues, namely relations with the Church of England, relations with the

Anglican Communion and the ability of ACNA clergy to be authorised to

minister in the Church of England?

16. The Synod motion rightly began by referring to “the distress caused by recent

divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and

Canada.” That distress, in which we share, is a continuing element in the

present situation and is likely to remain so for some considerable time.

17. Wounds are still fresh. Those who follow developments in North America

from some distance have a responsibility not to say or do anything which will

inflame an already difficult situation and make it harder for those directly

involved to manage the various challenges with which they are still grappling.

18. We would, therefore, encourage an open-ended engagement with ACNA on

the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that

the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet, especially given the

strong feelings on all sides of the debate in North America.

19. The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion

and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the

Episcopal Church (TEC). In addition, the Synod motion has given Church of

England affirmation to the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the

Anglican family.

20. Among issues that will need to be explored in direct discussions between the

Church of England and ACNA are the canonical situation of the latter, its

relationship to other Churches of the Communion outside North America and

its attitude towards existing Anglican ecumenical agreements.

21. Where clergy from ACNA wish to come to England the position in relation to

their orders and their personal suitability for ministry here will be considered

by us on a case by case basis under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry

and Ordination) Measure 1967."

The wording is careful, the acknowledgements of 'distress' are pastoral, the prospects of future membership of the Communion for ACNA are not dimmed by this report.

I suggest the following words repay studied reflection:

"its relationship to other Churches of the Communion outside North America".

++Rowan and ++John shrewdly place in this report a marker: ACNA's future in the Anglican family (broadly speaking) and in the Anglican Communion (i.e. a narrower definition of the Anglican family) cannot be denied or dismissed without consequences for other Anglican relationships. The C of E in this report does not come out as a powerful backer of ACNA but it notes that ACNA has other backers.

The door to Communion membership for ACNA remains open.

Expect the usual suspects to take a dim view of this report!

Why?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:08:00 +0000

Why does Paul write the Epistle to the Romans? Unlike many other NT epistles, it is not very clear that there is a specific false teaching, or false teacher or group of false teachers that Paul is gunning for. It is possible that he is contributing his penny's worth to a debate among the Roman Christians (in which case, likely a debate between Jewish Christians and Gentilic Christians). But I wonder if Paul, excited by the prospect of visiting the great city, is taking the opportunity to offer his maturing (if not mature) thinking on the gospel. After all, as an intellectual Jew called to preach to Gentiles, as a scholar of the Hebrew scriptures reckoning with the spreading flame of the gospel beyond Israel, Paul at some point had to confront with honesty and rigour the questions Romans addresses: what is God's vast eternal plan? How do the Jews figure in this plan? Who may be saved and how might they be saved? What now is the point and purpose of the Law? How are Christians to live in a post-Law, Gentile-including dispensation?

But the gospel is the gospel of Jesus Christ so we also find in Romans a concerted effort to explain the role and significance of the man Jesus of Nazareth 'descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord' (1:3-4).

The power of God and the gospel

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:33:00 +0000

In one sense all of the Christian faith is expressed in the following verses, and all Anglican issues would be resolved if we agreed on what these verses mean!

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith'."

Romans 1:16-17

What is the saving power of God? It is the gospel. What is the gospel? It is the saving power of God. How does this power save us? By believing in Jesus Christ. What is the content of the gospel? The disclosure of the righteousness (or, justice) of God. What is the righteousness/justice of God? (And, to go back a question or two, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?)

Ah! Read Romans 1:18 to the end ...

Incidentally, Paul restates all this at the end, Romans 16:25-27.

The power of God versus the politics of churchianity

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:43:00 +0000

Following a visit to a church on Sunday which I last visited a decade or more ago and noting the dramatic decline in numbers at worship, I have been reflecting on what turns churches round. In the end, helpful though our activism expressed through planning, training, teaching, and performance of ministry tasks, from welcome to hospitality, from worship leading to preaching and so forth, the converting of people to Christ, and the convicting of our hearts that we should be at worship regularly is the work of God. Where is the power of God these days? Or, in the Western world, where is the power of God working to convert and to convict people in the way of Christ?

Following my bloglist here at ADU, I think you and I could be forgiven for thinking that the one question we do not ask ourselves in the Anglican world is about God's power to change, challenge, and transform us! We seem more interested in the politics of the church, that is, in how we can organise ourselves to our own or others' advantage. We might, it is imputed, be thinking of suing the church for having been cast aside as a bishop. We might be entangled on one side or another of a long-drawn out process of suing one another over property. We might be trying to rev up one another in respect of belonging to a political group or committee, or, for that matter, trying to sidle away from such responsibility.

From a human perspective there are good and worthy arguments for working on these matters in a political manner. There have been upsets, hurts, deprivations: what to do to obtain remedy?

But what about the divine perspective? What is God saying to us about a godly manner of responding to difficulties within the life of the church? Might God be chiding us to seek his power at work in the church so his glory might be seen in the church?

In the end, I do not think one person will be won to Christ if someone becomes a bishop by judicial challenge, or a property is retained or obtained by recourse to the courts. We need God's power to work among us powerfully.

Footnote to Extraordinary: fluffy coffee?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:36:00 +0000

The Lead at Episcopal Cafe has a post entitled, Why Should There Be An Episcopal Church?

It serves as a kind of footnote to the previous post here as the person cited in the post and then the commentators give their comments on why they are Episcopalian. Many comments, with tweak here or there, would be made in other Anglican churches around the world (at least, around the Western world).

Some of the comments are a long way from my approach to being Anglican: a church with a theology worth subscribing to rather than a church which I like.

I also suggest some comments highlight why we are in the mess we are in today. To take one line of metaphor, when our reforming forebears served up strong coffee, undiluted with milk and unsweetened with sugar, today's Anglican churches like fluffy coffee, with frothed milk, sugar and a touch of cinnamon on top.

To take another line of metaphor, our reformers clarified the church as a roast lamb, three veges and potatoes church. Somewhere along the line Anglicans have said, "Roast lamb? Surely any meat will do. Why, even a combination of meats will be fine. Veges? Optional! Potatoes? Aren't they a carbohydrate? Yes, well, that's what God wants: some carbs."

The roast lamb, three veges and potatoes church has become the meat comb pizza church. Even worse (speaking theologically - the pizza church tastes fine to many palates), the pizza church looks down on the roast lamb, three veges and potatoes church. Protestations that we should be a roast meal church fall on deaf ears.

Extraordinary

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:13:00 +0000

It is sad how far Anglicanism strays from its foundations. The key to being an Anglican-kind of Christian is that, in humility, we believe we offer a form of being Christian which is truer to Christ than any other form (or, alternatively, at least as true as any other form).* Historically, we claim to have shorn ourselves of the errors of Rome while avoiding the errors of our fellow Reformers. Contemporaneously, we claim that Rome still manifests some errors, while gently asserting that our continuing adherence to episcopal leadership was a good Reformation-decision which many fellow Reformers failed to make. When pressed about continuing Roman error, I discern that the widest Anglican agreement across our rainbow spectrum would be our agreement to disagree that the Bishop of Rome is 'supreme' in episcopal authority. (We might agree to disagree among ourselves about other aspects of the 'primacy' of Rome such as respect for the ancientness of its episcopal presence in the universal church).

To be true to Christ, however, involves Anglicans continuing to press into the inexhaustible riches of Christ (cf. Ephesians 3:8), always seeking to align ourselves with what Christ taught us directly and what the apostles faithfully taught about Christ for our benefit. Thus reading in John's gospel the other day I was struck afresh by familiar (over familiar?) words in John 14:1-14, and especially by the extraordinary words in 14:8-14:

"... whoever has seen me has seen the Father ... I am in the Father and the Father is in me ... I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works ..."

In these few words God is disclosed to be who Jesus Christ is, and who Jesus Christ is shows us who God is. The claim a few verses earlier "I am the way, the truth and the life" is not so much a claim about the uniqueness of Christ but about the completeness of Christ as revelation of God. Christ is not a better way to God than other ways, or more truthful about God than other claimants, or better at giving the divine life: God the Father being in the Son and the Son being in the Father, the truth about God is only found in Christ, apart from whom there is no other way to the Father, nor life from the Father.

If being Anglican is about being true to Christ then being true to Christ is about the scandal of particularity: God is Christ-shaped and Christ is the only revelation of the truth about God. There is no alternative.

Strangely Anglicanism in the past one hundred years or so has often seemed embarrassed about the completeness of Christ as the revelation of God, in particular shying away from the implication of this completeness, that Christ is, indeed, the unique way to the Father.

I do not think God owes any great allegiance to Anglicanism - God is under no obligation to continue our existence as a denomination, let alone as a 'branch' of Christianity. Nor for that matter do we have any obligation to the God who is met only in Jesus Christ to preach and promote that God: we are free to adapt Anglicanism as we see fit.

There is just the tiny problem that if we adapt Anglicanism as we see fit then, paradoxically, we become another proposal to be a way to God, alongside all other proposed ways, none of which, according to Christ are the way to God.

Better, by far, to re-envision ourselves as Anglican: those who seek to be truest to Christ, that is, those who proclaim that Christ is the complete vision of God and therefore the unique way to God.

*In saying this I am not trying to be 'the Judge of all churches' and treating the churches as though we are in an 'X Factor' competition determining who is the best ... guess what, the Anglican church is superior to all others! Rather I am simply stating that if I am a person of theological conviction (as I attempt to be) then there are reasons why I remain steadfast as an Anglican and do not become a Moravian, why when I studied at a Presbyterian college (and loved it) nevertheless I saw no convincing reason to continue with Presbyterianism. In other words, wowed though I am by Luther and Calvin, I find Hooker to offer a better way; impressed though I am by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, indeed in agreement with them on many things, nevertheless I cannot agree with them on all things.

NZ General Synod delegates in danger if they go to Fiji

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:51:00 +0000

I have written to some leaders in our church requesting that someone in authority writes to each member of our General Synod, informing them of the increased risks they run by participating in General Synod in Fiji in July this year.

The recent lifting of one set of martial law restrictions on public meetings has been placed by more draconian ones. A member of GS speaking in a manner deemed offensive by soldiers present at the GS could be arrested and once arrested will have virtually no rights as there is no legal means to challenge the arrest.

It would be naive to think that an arrested NZer will simply be deported back to NZ. There is the possibility of beatings while in custody and some do not recover from those beatings.

Read here, here, here, and here and tell me I am wrong ... that all will be well and all manner of things will be well for our GS in July if it goes ahead in Fiji.

Before you write in to tell me if I am wrong, please also assess whether all will be well only if our members say the most anodyne, inoffensive, and non-confrontational words in the midst of one of the most repressive regimes in the world! Is that a price we wish to pay as a church for meeting in Fiji: the constraint of our freedom to speak plainly and prophetically to the world?

May Anglicans be panentheists?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:08:00 +0000

Many Episcopalians are panentheists, at least according to no lesser an authority than Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (on an interview on Lutheran radio, with transcript via Virtue Online):

"WILKEN: On that issue of "people-of-faith" the subtitle of the book is "Finding the Sacred in the Middle of Everything." so it might sound to some like pantheism. Do you believe that the "sacred", as you define it, is found in all religions?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes, I think it probably is. We're not pantheists, many Episcopalians might be understood to as "panentheists". The difference being that pantheists see everything as God and panentheists see God reflected in all of God's creation. When we talk about human beings being made in the image of God that's a piece of what we are talking about and we would extend that to all of creation. "

But being part of a 'diversity-in-unity' Communion, if it is okay for Episcopalians to be panentheists, it is okay for any Anglicans to be panentheists.

What do you think?

I feel all Spongish about this (i.e. I am sceptical) ...

Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church of North America (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:30:00 +0000

I guess the most annoying thing I find about the Anglican situation in North America is that it seems like some arbitrary force field is at work in the minds of leaders and pundits. Actually, this force field works in other parts of the globe. It works in this way: it prevents a natural (or, if you prefer, unnatural) Anglican tendency to doubt and question things from doubting and questioning a select group of things. Bodily resurrection (may be questioned), virgin birth (can be doubted), Jesus as unique way of salvation (definitely to be questioned), Anglican history (to be much debated), marriage requires two people of different gender (what!?); but two Anglican churches in one region (no way), a Covenant (unAnglican), limit Anglican diversity (quelle horreur), question the decisions of a synod (get outta here: the Holy Spirit has spoken).

Why can't Anglicans question anything and everything?

If we can doubt what is said in the creeds, can we question the way we order our life? If Lambeth 1998 1.10 can be disregarded, why not disregard every resolution of the Communion, including the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral?

In the end what intrigues me about the idea that one day the Anglican Communion might accept ACNA as a member church is that it would demonstrate a certain consistency in being Anglican: everything about what we believe and what we do is able to be questioned, revised, and changed. We would even slaughter the sacred cow of one member church per region.

There is an alternative approach ... but it is a bit frightening for some. It would involve acknowledging that our tradition ought to be respected more than we do (including respected in a more consistent manner), as well as our Scripture being paid attention with greater consistency. That would be a quite reasonable thing to do. In working on these things we would be attempting to work out what a global Anglican understanding of being Anglican meant (i.e. something more profound than shouting 'unAnglican'), and we would need to formulate that understanding. Of course for such a profound formulation to work we would need some manner of keeping ourselves up to the Anglican mark.

Oh, wait. That's the Covenant!

Incidentally, some powerful African support from ++Thabo Makgoba for the Covenant - in fact 'a necessary Covenant'!

Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church of North America (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:21:00 +0000

Around Christmas time, having anticipated this series of posts in my last post for 2011, I found that Mark Harris at Preludium made a post about my views re the AC/ACNA with many ensuing comments, some of which I made, and now joined by comments here, including Andrew Reid's thoughtful points re post (1). The long and short is, of course, practically, realistically speaking, at least four conditions would need to be fulfilled before ACNA could even look like being admitted to Communion membership:

(1) ACNA and TEC recognise each other's right to exist as a bona fide 'Anglican' church for the territory of the USA; ditto ACNA and ACCan re Canada.

(2) Reconciliation is achieved in respect of outstanding disputes re property.

(3) ACNA, TEC and ACCan mutually recognise that the breadth of global Anglicanism in North America is best represented by an arrangement whereby all three churches operate in that region.

Don't say what you are tempted to say about 'flying pigs' ...

Andrew Reid makes an excellent point when he alerts to the danger of encouraging schism by accepting dual or multiple jurisdictions (saving the ones already existing).

One response to make (which I am inclined to make) is that we can consider whether exceptional circumstances exist which warrant accepting dual or multiple jurisdictions.

Three such exceptional circumstances already exist within the Anglican Communion:

(a) the respectively American and British oriented jurisdictions in Europe where (I suppose) the exceptional circumstance is the cultural differences between Americans and British residing, permanently or temporarily, in European cities and resorts;

(b) the arrangements of my own church the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, whereby up to three different bishops may have jurisdiction in a given area (such as my own city where Pakeha clergy are under the jurisdiction of Bishop Victoria Matthews, Maori clergy under the jurisdiction of Bishop John Gray, and one deacon is under the jurisdiction of Bishop Winston Halapua, the Bishop of Polynesia who lives in Suva, Fiji. While these arrangements have been questioned in the past by the Communion (by the Primates specifically), our church remains represented at ACC, the Primates, and at Lambeth Conferences;

(c) with appropriate permissions granted by the local Australian bishops, etc, our Maori bishops share responsibility for Maori congregations in the Australian cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

In the cases of (b) and (c) I assume that 'exceptional circumstances' revolve around cultural differences between Maori, Pakeha, Australians and Polynesians, along with the belief that those cultural differences mean the best way for ministry and mission to occur along cultural lines is through different jurisdictions within the same geographical areas.

A potentially fruitful question to ask about the situation in North America is whether cultural differences are involved in the disputes which have arisen there. After all, the conflict going on between 'left' and 'right', between 'GOP' and 'Democrats', or between 'Tea Party' and the rest are described in terms of culture wars!

If cultural differences in one part of the Communion lead to accepted dual or multiple arrangements re jurisdiction, why not in another part? I can already think of objections!!

To be continued ...

Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church of North America (1)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:58:00 +0000

Thesis: if we admit ACNA to membership* of the Anglican Communion then we take seriously what it means to be Anglican** and to be a Communion.

The existence of the Anglican Communion makes a claim that global fellowship between Anglican churches is both possible and desirable and raises questions about what it means to be ‘Anglican’ (can any church adding ‘Anglican’ to its name become a member church of the Communion?) and to be a ‘Communion’ (is fellowship in this Communion with or without obligations, and what kind of obligations? How is fellowship deepened between members? What (if anything) can break fellowship?).

Present difficulties in the Anglican Communion (exemplified by the failure of all bishops to go to Lambeth 2008 and by the absence of some primates from recent Primates’ Meetings) mean that all is not well. Among these difficulties the pressing need to develop our understanding of ‘Anglican’ is felt (e.g. some Anglicans are calling the actions of other Anglicans ‘unAnglican’). As well, there is stress on our understanding of ‘Communion’, most urgently experienced in the debate over the possibility of the Anglican Covenant being embraced as a key document for the ongoing life of the Communion. For some the argument for the Covenant is its necessity to hold the Communion together; for others the argument against the Covenant is its likely effect of transforming the Communion into a global (Roman Catholic-like) church.

In fact I would like to suggest that another question is implicit (at least) about our understanding of ‘Communion’: are we a formal Communion focused on arrangements between official national or regional Anglican churches with an unvarying principle of only one such church per nation or regiona being recognised, or are we a pastoral movement motivated to draw in as many Anglicans as possible into our global life?

To be continued ...

*membership = in every possible way: admission to ACC, ACNA primate invited to Primates’ Meetings, bishops invited to Lambeth, etc

**for purposes of this and related posts, ‘Anglican’ includes both ‘Anglican’ and ‘Episcopal(ian)’

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Hopeful Epiphany

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:19:00 +0000

With best wishes to all readers ...

... a little blog holiday, a respite from posting, a temporary withdrawal from Anglicana is in order.

ADU will be taking a holiday from posting anything from 24 December 2011 to 8 January 2012. Comments may be posted from time to time. And if the sky falls on our heads but leaves the internet on, I may post on such an event.

Note re yesterday's (23 Dec) quakes in Christchurch: I and my family are safe. They were bad shakes and things fell over but we are okay.

Postscript petition: if worldwide Christianity could agree on one thing, could it please be that preachers at Christmas time will not spend time during their sermon casting doubt on the virginity of Mary at the time of her conception of Jesus?! It is quite offensive to innocent believers, to say nothing of disrespect to our Lord and his Mother to air these thoughts when people are gathered to squeeze as much joy and celebration out of the occasion of our Lord's birthday as possible. It also tends to undermine the occasion. So, as I was thinking when hearing this pretentious claptrap one Christmas, Jesus was not born of a virgin mother, in any case such stories were a dime a dozen in the ancient world, and biology had not been invented as an NCEA subject which Matthew and Luke studied, what was special about Jesus which led to all this invented biography, to say nothing of imagined biology? I imagine if I turned up at Easter to hear this particular preacher I would hear the resurrection undermined so we would be left with, oh, Jesus the home spun wisdom spinner was quite a guy and impressed some people to ... make stuff up about him. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. For clarity: (a) the sermoniser behind this petition was not an Anglican colleague; (b) I am not against people airing their doubts about any doctrine or celebration of Christianity, but in the case of Christmas and Easter I am against these occasions and their sermons being the event in which doubts and unbeliefs are aired.

Postscript: BISHOP JOHN SPONG note: readers here know I think BISHOP (he is still recognised as such by TEC) John Spong is one of the most dangerous heretics around because he undermines the Christian faith on a global scale. Well, what do we find in the Christchurch Press on Christmas Eve? A feature article entitled 'Divine Intervention?' in the 'Your Weekend' magazine, pp. 4-6. As usual for our Kiwi secular media it serves up scorn and scepticism about the miracles of God in Jesus Christ which lie at the core of the gospel. You do not need my help to guess that the major Christian "scholar" brought forward to substantiate that scorn and scepticism is BISHOP John Spong. No Christian feast can do without him undermining why we celebrate. Thanks John, not.

Reflective postscript: Matthew and Luke on the birth of Jesus are endlessly fascinating. Matthew starts Jesus at Bethlehem and has to tell a story of how Jesus gets to Nazareth. Luke starts Jesus (in the womb of Mary) at Nazareth and has to tell a story of how Jesus gets to be born in Bethlehem. Matthew seems driven by the need to make many Old Testament prophecies come true. Luke seems driven (as he is through Luke and Acts) by relating Jesus to the course of Roman history, seeking to pull off the remarkable feat of Jesus being a rival to Caesar who is no threat to Caesar. Is the absence of Herod's terror at the birth of Jesus in Luke's gospel an absence due to the impossibility of explaining how Jesus was not a threat to Caesar when his birth caused so much alarm to Herod?

John, incidentally, on the face of it has an ambivalent approach to Jesus being born at Bethlehem (7:40-52). Don Carson in his magisterial IVP commentary on John suggests we think of John being ironic here. Feeding off that thought I wonder if John is toying with us a little as readers as he reports this debate about whether the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem or not. Having read John 1:1-18, he implies, we should understand that it is immaterial whether the Messiah was born at Bethlehem or not because the ultimate 'birthing' of Jesus is from the heart of God, before time began.

In turn, the theology of the incarnation, whether we are in John 1:1-18 or Philippians 2:5-11, presents a paradox about the birth narratives of Jesus in respect of their historicity. If the creedal claim is true, that the Word was God and the Word became flesh, that 'though he was in the form of God [but] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form' (Philippians 2:5-7), then it is a small thing that the circumstances of the birth should line up with ancient prophecies, that a virgin should become pregnant through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, that visitors from far and near should turn up, and the local potentate catching wind of the birth should break out in cold sweat. But if we forget the creedal claims and focus on Matthew and Luke's narratives in isolation from the remainder of the New Testament, they look like cooked up stories, bolstering the sense of importance the adult life of Jesus has engendered.

In the end, while there is a strand of Old Testament forecasting the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem (highlighted by John's ambiguous passage in 7:40-52) which arguably necessitates any birth narrative placing the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, it is difficult to think of any OT passage which necessitates visits from wise men or from shepherds. If Matthew and Luke invented their respective visitations what led them to do so? Might we reasonably conclude that some significant visitations to Jesus did occur, Matthew reporting one and Luke another, and neither inventing what they reported?

Further reasonableness re history (?): Matthew and Luke each have traditions in their minds that tell them about Jesus' birth: shared traditions re Bethlehem as place of birth and Nazareth as place of upbringing, as well as of names of parents, and of the pregnancy occurring as a miraculous event; separate traditions about visitations (and for Luke, about John the Baptist's birth and connections to Jesus). Matthew tells his story in a manner which betrays his lack of knowledge that Joseph and Mary come from Nazareth to Bethlehem, as well as his Jewish presumptiveness that (of course) Jesus was circumcised and presented in the Temple, and fast forwards to the surprising appearance of the wise men and the consequences of the visit, fleeing to Egypt and sojourning there for a while. Luke tell his story in a manner which betrays either his knowledge of Roman censuses hidden to us, or his mucking about with the (even then) known facts of Roman censuses (in the cause, we might note, not of offering fulfilled OT prophecies, but of tying the birth of Jesus into the history of the Roman empire); as well as his ignorance of the actual date of Jesus' birth before Herod the Great died (or his convenient obscuring of that date). For reason given above, if he did know of the Herodian persecution he simply omits that part of the narrative.

In the end the 'contradiction(s)' often alleged between Matthew and Luke's accounts is, perhaps, more about the apparent contradiction of known historical facts within Luke's account re the invoking of Quirinius' association with an empire wide census, than about any straight contradiction(s) between Matthew and Luke's accounts. I know of no attempt to rescue Luke re Quirinius which offers a simple explanation of how Quirinius can be governor of Syria in the period immediately before Herod's death AND there was an otherwise unreported empire-wide census at the same time. There was a local regional census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, 6/7 A.D. so any harmonization between Luke and Matthew involves positing another period when Quirinius was Syrian governor and an otherwise unknown census which required people to return to their ancestral home towns. I am not saying such harmonization is impossible, just that it is not simple to do so. For a site which offers a case for harmonization yet simultaneously highlights the many difficulties re paucity or ambiguity or absence of evidence for Luke's report to be strictly true, see here.

Luke, we might point out, is a complicated historian. Yes, as often observed, he is an outstanding historian re many aspects of his narratives in respect of many dates (especially in the Book of Acts) and details (e.g. we are told that he had an impressive knowledge of ancient marinership; names of consuls are correct, etc). But consider this simple 'playing with time' which occurs within his own two volume narration of Jesus' mission: in Luke 24 the resurrection narrative is told in a manner such that everything narrated, from dawn discovery of empty tomb to ascension could have happened in one "24" hour day. But in Acts 1 he categorically states that everything from resurrection to ascension took place over a forty day period. Suddenly, Luke is hard to pin down re the history of the resurrection through ascension, and, given the significance of the resurrection and ascension, we have to confront the question that Luke the theologian shines more through this part of his two volume story than Luke the historian.

FINALLY for Christmas reflections, H/T Rosemary Behan for her alert in a comment below, John Richardson at The Ugley Vicar offers an excerpt from the Queen's Message which is brilliant, and his own excellent sermon re Christmas.

THINKING about the Anglican Communion and a theme for 2012 ... 'Give one good reason for ACC 2012 not to invite ACNA to join the Anglican Communion.' I will come back to this in 2012 but ...

Here is my thinking: when TEC ordained Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003 it opened a new chapter in Anglicanism. First, it declared that what other Anglicans think does not matter re an action deemed to be 'Anglican.' Secondly, it declared that the past is irrelevant to Anglicans acting as Anglicans. In this case the past includes the grain of Scripture, the Tradition and traditions of Anglicans, and Resolution 1.10 of just five years earlier. Thirdly, it underlined that previous rules, regulations, articles and canons pertaining to Anglicanism, especially the Thirty-Nine Articles, are indeed to be held lightly and let go if they stand in the way of a desired action. Fourthly, it stretched the concept of Anglican diversity yet further, while loosening the sense that 'diversity-in-unity' might be an important Anglican value.

If then we ask why ACNA could not be invited to join the Anglican Communion we should seek to be consistent in offering an answer to the question. We should not worry about what TEC thinks about making the invitation. We should set aside any concerns about lack of precedent for it or the weight of Tradition or traditions being against it. We should not invoke any ancient rules etc, and certainly not any canons of Nicea which talk about only one bishop with jurisdiction per region. As for such an invitation stretching the idea of what Anglican diversity means: we should welcome the invitation being made. Not only would it increase our diversity, it would be of no concern if it weakened our unity. Further, such an invitation would strengthen all Anglican claims to inclusiveness of the outsider and the marginalised.

We can in fact go further. If the Covenant is a bad idea because the crucial value at the core of the Communion is simply ++Desmond Tutu's "We meet" then what harm could be done by inviting a new member to the meeting? If the Covenant is a good idea for the Communion then we would have a potential barrier to ACNA being invited to belong to the Communion: what if it refused to sign the Covenant? At that point I think they should be refused membership.

The best ever Christmas sermon preached by an atheist?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:15:00 +0000

I notice friends and colleagues drawing attention to this remarkable 'Address-in-Reply' speech by the co-leader of the Green Party, Russel Norman. Someone has already described it in terms of being the best ever Christmas sermon preached by an atheist. I happily concur.

God uses the unlikeliest of servants!

The rest of the speech is here:

You can read a transcript of the 'sermon' here.

Go the Greens!!

Behold, the tabernacle of the Lord

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:00 +0000

What a wonderful surprise this morning to pick up the Christchurch Press from my drive and open it up to a glorious photo on the frontpage of my friend and colleague, Mark Chamberlain illustrating an article about the many different places churches will meet in this year for Christmas services, including a magnificent marquee at St Barnabas' Fendalton where Mark is the vicar.

You can read the article here.

PS It looks like a purple shirt but in reality it is not. But there might be some ribbing from colleagues :)

UPDATE: On Christmas morning I and my family worshipped in this tabernacle - beautifully decorated, full of people (we were at 9 am, one of five services in the parish that morning), and with excellent presidential leadership by Philip Robinson and a great sermon by Mark.

Generally it would appear that, with kind weather, outdoors worship (following the quakes on 23rd December 2011) in Christchurch Anglican parishes went well. A lovely account of midnight worship under the Southern Cross for the St Michaels-and-All-Angels parish is given by Bosco Peters.

Good news from America

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:32:00 +0000

Only the hard-hearted could not be pleased to find that some good things are happening among those Anglicans in North America who have felt the honest thing to do about their disagreement with TEC was to reform themselves in a different kind of Anglican way.

Two good bits of news in recent days.

First, a report on growth. Especially growth of young adults among the Anglican Church of North America congregations, Some of those congregations are new church plants. How cool is that!

Secondly, there has been a difficult melt down or break up (varying views on this) in the Anglican group known as 'AMiA' (which once was in what seemed to be an 'arm's length' relationship with ACNA). That is not the good news. The good news is that as the dust settles some sense is emerging from the leadership of the two groups resulting from the AMiA dust up, and that sense is to talk again with ACNA.
Reports from ACNA's ++Bob Duncan and from one part of the ex-AMiA suggest God is making this sad schism into an opportunity for re-union. How cool is that!

A united Anglican church in North America is vital to the future of Anglican/Episcopalianism in North America. While decline continues in ACCan and TEC the situation looks bleak for Anglicanism/Episcopalianism on that continent. Can a united array of Anglican alternatives into one Anglican Church of North America show the way forward?

Modern Church isn't very serious in its opposition to the Covenant

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:51:00 +0000

From a few sources my attention has been drawn to this article by Jonathan Clatworthy of Modern Church, entitled "Instead of the Anglican Covenant". The good thing about the article is that it takes seriously the last published words by ++Rowan on the Covenant, especially his question what alternatives there are to the Covenant, and offers to provide an alternative.

What is not so good is that the article does not take the Anglican Communion very seriously and it makes a surprising assumption for a writer who is clear thinking and offers many sensible thoughts about aspects of Anglican life.

The Anglican Communion is not a whites only, European/North American liberal values educated, Democrats- and Social Democrats-at-prayer sect. It is a 38 member Communion of people drawn from every continent, many cultures, a wide variety of educational backgrounds and an array of contexts in they seek to live out Christianity with an Anglican character, including societies in which opposing religious and political forces will jail, maim and even kill Christians. If we take this Communion seriously, and if we take seriously the possibility of holding this Communion together, we will look for more than an essay reminding us what bishops said at Lambeths past when it was mostly the white guys who gathered together about how theological discussion can solve all our problems given enough time and tolerance.

In that essay I would also expect a discussion on assumptions about Anglican diversity because that is what we do not get in this present offering. A discussion, that is, which notes the folly of assuming that diversity is infinite in Anglicanism and thus all things can be seriously considered in order to find the middling way, the compromise and so forth. Anglican diversity is not infinite. There is no discussion in Anglicanism about whether we should have bishops or baptise infants; and even less discussion about whether we should recognise the hierarchical primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Don't try raising those subjects in the expectation that you will be given a reasonable hearing and an opportunity to have your views considered in a tolerant theological discussion. Expect rather to be run out of the church. Some things are not up for discussion so it is quite proper as Anglicans to argue that other things are not up for discussion and quite improper for opponents, such as Jonathan Clatworthy, to insist that is bad form and should be so.

The fact of Communion life is that we have some who consider same sex partnerships a reasonable matter to discuss as part of possible Anglican diversity and we have those who do not think it part of our diversity at all.* Therefore it is folly to assume that we can invoke 'diversity' as a value which will enable us to move forward.

When Modern Church takes the Communion seriously I am sure we will get a better proposal than what is given by Jonathan Clatworthy.

(*For the record, because I seem to be much misunderstood on these matters, I am one who thinks that is a reasonable matter to discuss: on that I agree with Jonathan Clatworthy. In trying to take the whole Anglican Communion seriously I recognise that many Anglicans think differently to Jonathan and me.)

Covenant 7 - No Covenant 1

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:35:00 +0000

Trusty Kiwi reporter, David Virtue, brings news that the support for the Covenant around the Communion increases even in this week before Christmas. The Southern Cone has voted for the Covenant. This is an interesting development because the Southern Cone is, shall we say, on the more conservative end of the Communion spectrum, and there are opinions aroundabouts that the more conservative are going to vote 'No Covenant'. Anyway, building on my post below about the count having been counted by Mark Harris as 6-1 in favour of the Covenant, I reckon it is now increased to 7-1.

Where is the overall count heading?

I suggest the more that sign up the more likely the C of E is to sign up: it would be doubly embarrassing not to sign up. Not signing would be against the lead of the ABC but it could also be against the tendency of the former colonies (NZ excluded!!). In any case there are plenty of positive reasons for the C of E to sign up to the Covenant. If the C of E signs up I suggest others will pick up on this cue, alongside the cue of the trend of 7-1.

But what about those likely to not sign up? My recent "6-1" post highlighted the possibility that Australia would join ACANZP and TEC in not signing. ACCan is hard to predict - lots of reasons to think it will follow the lead of its sister church below the border, but it has so far shown itself to be somewhat canny in its bending with its discernment of the mind of the Communion. The 'hardcore' GAFCON churches might not sign, but even that is not, in my view, a foregone conclusion. Take Nigeria, for instance, with its CANA branch in North America, itself also part of ACNA: it cannot be unaware that CANA is part of giving ACNA Anglican 'legitimacy' as part of the Communion (albeit a 'legitimacy' not much recognised outside of the conservative end of the Communion spectrum). There is a logic here which leads to the conclusion that in the end Nigeria will sign to the Covenant in order to maintain its Anglican credentials. One might then apply similar logic to Rwanda, Kenya, and Uganda.

So, in my view, 35-3 is not inconceivable. Realistically this one and that one will surprise us (one way or another) and the final count could be 31-7 or 30-8. Or some other figure if there are abstentions.

Incidentally I said earlier this week that my view is that the Covenant needs 80% minimum support to be workable in the life of the Communion. That means a 31-7 vote or better (30-8 is 78.9% support for the Covenant).

And, I agree with those who say the vote of the C of E is decisive: a no from the C of E would make a nonsense of the Covenant as a Communion document.