Anglican Down Under

Inexorable law of congregational life (extended)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:45:00 +0000

Visiting several parishes recently has been an excellent re-acquaintance with the style and substance of parish life in our diocese. Fourteen months as priest in charge of one parish was a wonderful experience but left me out of touch with the rest of the parishes.

Not for the first time, I have been struck by the importance of music for the character of Sunday worship. One difference between parishes faithfully following the prayer book as the substance of the regular liturgy is in the music used in the service. Here is 'choral eucharist', there is 'eucharist with hymns', over the way is 'Hillsong eucharist' and down the road is the eucharist with 'Belfast mod hymns'. Of course within some parishes such differences may apply to multiple services.

Each form of service has arguments in its favour, not least that each service actually takes place since that means that a body of people are willing to gather, and some instrumentalist or a group or choir are committed to making the music. There are arguments against each service, not least that some parishioners make it very clear that "8 am" or "9.15 am" or "5 pm" are "not my cup of tea."

But what interests me, reflecting on the big picture of Christian life in our country, statistical trends re belief and commitment is which services are populated by younger generations: children, youth, young adults, parents with young families. The under fifties, in other words. By 'populated' I mean that the dominant presence in a service is the presence of younger generations.

On that score there is simply no doubt, not a scintilla of evidence otherwise, that the younger generations are in services where the music style reflects the general music style of the younger generations. Whether we love it or loathe it, Hillsong/Belfast mod hymns/Matt Redman and the like supply the music for the services where the present younger generations gather and chart the direction of the future services for the elderly (those who are 53 years old and rising). There will be no choral eucharists on Sunday mornings when I am in a rest home.

In the services I have visited, from a church growth perspective many aspects have been done well and are uniform in standard across the parishes: warmth of welcome, hospitality offered after the service, relevant preaching, quality of service leadership, provision of programme for children.

The measurable difference in respect of services with many rather than few younger generations has been the style of music. Already stated here in the past and worth stating again: the age profile of a congregation reflects the music style of the service. It is the inexorable law of congregational life today.

Extension (Wednesday): I am delighted to have what I said above subject to critique in comments below. I also enjoyed a reflective conversation yesterday on my main idea. All of which leads me to add a few words, hopefully clarifying what I am trying to say.

(1) First and foremost I am proposing a law which is descriptive of congregational life in NZ parishes rather than prescriptive: this is the way things are, where there is a congregation well populated by the under forties, the music is appropriate to younger generations. There are no congregations so populated in which most of the music sung is from the English Church Hymnal or the Book of Common Praise, led by organ or piano.

No comments made thus far have provided counter evidence to this law as a matter of description of our life.

(2) Secondly, I am happy to then make a certain amount of prescriptive recommendation based on this law. Here are a couple of examples, relevant to our local situation in post-quake Christchurch.

- a congregation seeking renewal of the generations gathering for worship should address the question of the music style of its service. Preach your heart out. Add cream buns and cheerios to the morning tea. Train welcomers. Bring every aspect of the service such as readings and intercessions up to an excellent standard. Establish a children and youth programme. A certain advance will occur. But my hypothesis is that if the style of music does not change to the style appropriate to the younger generations, full congregational renewal will not take place.

- when we establish new congregations in new housing areas we should aim from the start to provide services in which the music is in keeping with the younger generations. This means, for instance, that if we are planning on appointing a church pioneer to establish a new congregation with a staff which includes a youth worker and a children's worker, we should also be recruiting a music leader, a guitarist, keyboard player and drummer.

(3) Comments herein focus on services of worship as elements of congregational life. I am making no comment about how to plant a church from scratch. The way forward there might include many steps before a service of worship is formed (e.g. praying, forming a group for prayer and Bible study, surveying the area, visiting people, social events for meeting and greeting people). Nor am I commenting in respect of existing congregations seeking renewal in respect of the first steps to take which could be, say, prayer and developing the preaching; or prayer, developing the preaching, reconfiguring the building. But only so many steps can be taken before the question of music needs to be addressed if we wish to see a change in congregational profile.

(4) Something which came up in conversation yesterday: the importance of music style being advocated here is an importance in its own right for any church seeking to be a church with which younger generations can identify. There is an alternative approach in which Anglican churches seek to imitate the music style of the 'successful' church down the road with the hope that similar 'success' is achieved: I am NOT talking about that. I am not talking about that, not least because in my observation, Anglican churches which set about such imitations are somewhat poor at doing it. No, what I am talking about here has nothing to do with the music which is being played at another church (save that one might gain some great songs by listening in) and everything to do with making the connection between church culture and general culture.

Just a thought about dots (expanded)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:27:00 +0000

Nothing to do with Anglican life but I am wondering if news of the Murdoch divorce today is connected in any way to a strange story a couple of weeks ago about a scandal affecting the heart of the British government (though not involving any cabinet ministers) - a story which involved strong legal threats about publishing any details (other than the ones noted above).*

On the big story of the global week, one reason for supporting the continuation of the Prism project is that this man wants it stopped!

For a bit of light Saturday entertainment, and in homage to the British and Irish Lions rugby team touring Australia at the moment, here are some improbable tales, or even true ones, about boys being boys.

Sunday: there is nothing 'light entertainment' about the tragic civil war in Syria. So this is a bit of sober Sunday reflection, coming from Andrew Sullivan. He is a prolific commentator and on many issues I disagree with him. But he gets 100% pass mark for this on Syria.

*If you have read around the internet this weekend, or perhaps in today's Sunday papers, you will have seen speculation about a third party - vigorously denied etc - but speculation that doesn't join the dots with the British cabinet being spooked. So my money remains on another explanation for the divorce.

A very witty insight into the matter is here in the New Yorker. On Friday night I went to a talk where conversation included a familiar topic for Christians reflecting on the state of the world: the alliance between big business interests and the media, combining to suppress the real truth about who controls the global economy and who benefits from it. Everyone there was too civilised to mention Satan and his spawn. But, really, is there any difference between the riff the New Yorker piece plays and the New Testament's disclosure that the dark secret of the world is Satan organising it through the rulers of this world?

ADU has no particular interest in the marriage of one couple among the world's billions. But it is interested if we are about to have a revelation about the nefarious coupling of political power with media power. The connection between the Murdoch story, the NSA story and Obama's decision re arming rebels in Syria, the line through the dots, is the hidden story of who, how, and why decisions are made in this world which determine whether people live or die, but are not engaged with by the people.

Iran has had an election this weekend. To many observers in the West it will appear to be rigged in some way in favour of the real imamic powers controlling that country. But can we in the West be sure that our elections are not rigged by the controlling interests of media, business, military and politicos?

Out back, the real pope is called Walter

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:22:00 +0000

In our crazy world it is possible to live a life in which every day is a good day but the world as a whole is sliding into dark chaos. In that darkness, Christians remain obligated by Christ to shine as lights. Our disadvantage compared to recent past is that Christendom has long gone. There is no lighthouse shining powerfully into the darkness. Just us, little candles flickering in the night breeze, sometimes blown out by the gales winds of militant Islamism, strident secularism, or even the gusts of indifference.

But the light we shine is a sign and the crucial challenge of the 21st century for Christians everywhere and of all kinds is how the sign is understood. In terms of language we have a message to speak. But what language will we use so the message is heard? We know what we want to say. We need to find the translation that connects with our hearers. Aramaic was translated to Greek. Nearly two hundred years ago in Aotearoa NZ, English was translated into Maori. Today, especially in a Western world prone to hear the gospel as yesterday's news, we need to find the language that speaks new good news. It is not good enough for us to shine the light of Christ. The world can see something else. We have all heard stories about lights in the sky which are misinterpreted as alien spacecraft. (As it happens, for many, Christians are seen as aliens!)

One particular light shining in the darkness is Walter Kasper. Office wise he is a cardinal of the Catholic church and once was prefect of a congregation, i.e. right at the top of the Roman hierarchy. But for our purposes today his importance is as a theologian. During Benedict XVI's papacy I sensed that Walter was being pushed ever so slightly to the outer. He represented commitment to fostering and furthering the impact of Vatican II while his boss seemed intent on constraining, even undoing that impact. But the wheel has turned again. Francis seems comfortable with Rome re-finding its bearings in the 21st century with Vatican II as its compass. Has Walter Kasper succeeded and Benedict failed? In the back room of Roman politics, the back room where ideas drive policy rather than the back room of wheeling and dealing, is the real pope called Walter?

Thus when the Living Church publishes an article on Walter Kasper, we Anglicans might profit from paying attention. Here is Kasper's single quest(ion) set out (re a recent conference celebrating his theology) by the article's author, Michael Cover:

"In her opening remarks, conference organizer Kristin Colberg (St. John’s, Collegeville) noted that, by his own admission, Kasper’s theological work has proceeded from a single question: How do we translate Christian tradition in the modern context and the modern context through the Christian tradition? In setting these questions at the forefront of his inquiry, Kasper clearly stands in line with the theological concerns of the Second Vatican Council. But Colberg was quick to point out that Kasper’s quest for relevance never led him to reduce the Church to another social-transformative institution. Rather, the Church achieves its relevance solely by insisting on and preserving its distinctive identity. As such, at the heart of Kasper’s translational theology is what Colberg calls the “identity-relevance dilemma.”"

Kasper writes theology but always connects it to the gospel in the world, as this next citation notes:

"Kasper’s theology represents a turn away from the intramural concerns of neo-Thomism to a dialectical theology, rooted in human experience and aimed at “rendering an account of the Christian hope to every human being” (cf. 1 Peter 3:15)."

Therein lies an interesting measure of the work of all would be theologians: have we rendered an account of Christian hope, accessible for all human beings? (!!)

But the quest to communicate the gospel is the quest not of individual disciples but of the body of Christ, the church, so a related question arises whether the church in continuity with its own tradition can develop new forms of ministry for a new world.In essence, this is the significance of Vatican II:

"For Kasper, Vatican II is very much still in its initial stages of reception. As Kasper noted: “If the documents of the Second Vatican Council represent a faithful compass for the Church, the needle of that compass is still wavering wildly.” Hailed as too liberal by some and too conservative by others, Kasper represents a unique middle voice in the translation of the council, calling for “new forms of ministry” that stand in striking continuity with the tradition. For Kasper, Pope Francis serves as an icon of the kinds of changes the council intended."

Now the article goes on to say some other things (about the Anglican Covenant, about the guidance of the Spirit). We may come back to those another day. For this post, let's sit with the question of the task of theology, taking care not to become "intramural" but world facing, developing a 'translational theology', and the shape of the church as bearer of the gospel, developing new forms of ministry (mission?) for a new century.

A light shines in the darkness

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:25:00 +0000

I do not know how you view Western civilization but I see it rushing like a certain herd in a gospel story over a cliff into the deep sea. Somehow our political leadership has become a bunch of people with no leadership skills of the kind that lead nations and the world into a better future.

The European Union is a mess with no one having the courage to do the obvious thing and deconstruct the Euro.

Is there any US politician capable of seeing the forest and not the trees? In Australia, Julia Gillard is leading the Labour Party to electoral oblivion but the alternative includes a politician who recently descended to such awful misogynistic depths re Ms Gillard that I refuse to publish a link to the story. (Or did he? In a comment below there is a link to a refutation of the story. But does the refutation stack up? Either way, Oz politics includes some shameless characters. Bit like the Oz cricket team).

Here in NZ we have an opposition Labour Party that includes hypocrisy the depths of which cannot be plumbed: excoriating Sky City (a gambling conglomerate) one moment, nek minit accepting their hospitality at a rugby match. In another saga, over one politician doing what (apparently) nearly all of them do, leaking stuff to the media, the depths of triviality also cannot be plumbed as they turn on one another.

If we head back to Britain we have the absurd spectacle of a nation which gave us the intellectual powerhouses of Oxford and Cambridge proposing that 2014 be a Year of Pretence in which no one will mention that Germany was responsible for the beginning of World War 1. Perhaps this is a practice run for 2033, the centenary of the rise of Hitler to power and thus the beginnings of the Holocaust, and for 2039, the centenary of ... oh, let's see, Poland causing the start of World War 2 because it had insufficiently armed itself as a deterrent against German ~~aggression~~ territorial ambition. Cue John Cleese's famous Fawlty Tower scene about not mentioning the war.

Meanwhile parts of the world are slowly being taken over by a rising tide of extreme Islamism. Not all Islamic societies are a worry, but some are notably troublesome. Here is Hamas intent on strangling the remnant of Arab Christianity which remains in Palestine. Syrian rebels executed a child the other day for alleged blasphemy. Daily the situation grows worse for Christians in Egypt and Iraq. Yet many Western politicians view Palestinian aspirations as uniformly good and beyond critique, while others want to arm the Syrian rebels and refrain from comment on other situations. There is something worrying about the manner in which Islamic loyalties can trump loyalties to countries that provide a new home for people, as in this example from Australia in which the beheading of Lee Rigby is justified because his actions affronted the Islam nation.

We face the prospect of a world in which beheading could be the normative response in many places to affronts to ruling authorities. But don't worry, our politicians have it all sorted ... once they can work out how to tell the truth, stop denigrating at each other, and acquire greater leadership skills than how to leak to the media without getting caught.

Where does light shine in the darkness enveloping us?

Hopefully it shines in and through the churches. In many ways it does, and for that I give thanks to God. If 2014 is the centenary of the lights going out over Europe, it might be the year in which the lights go on for Western Christianity and we really wake up to the fact that we live in a Post-Christendom world. In that world, the gospel is now just another story competing for attention. And little attention is being paid to it. For NZers, 2014 is the bicentenary of the first preaching of the gospel. Samuel Marsden spoke in English at Oihi on Christmas Day 2014. Ruatara translated for him.

English was then the language of Christendom. Maori was the language of those for whom the gospel was new news. In a Post Christendom world we need to translate the gospel for those for whom it is new news. Who is our Ruatara?

The next post will explore one important contributor to the role of translator of the gospel for today's world.

The Most Dangerous Man in England

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:55:00 +0000

Whoops. That title should be "The Most Dangerous Man in Tudor England."

Melvyn Bragg has produced a documentary on William Tyndale, with that title. He writes about Tyndale in the Telegraph.

What a genius of the word, that Tyndale was. Never one for using multi-syllables when just one would do, Tyndale's Bible translation could have been re-titled, How to Launch a Homespun Phrase into the English language For Eternity.

What a life Tyndale lived. He was the James Bond of Reformation theologians. Except unlike James Bond, the baddies killed him.

What kept him going? He lost his life that the plough boy might know the Bible in his indigenous language. In short, and still relevant to Christianity today, Tyndale stood up for the Bible as God's revelation and for the importance of readers accessing it according to the greatest possible accuracy in communication.

Apropos of Anglican matters in our day, Tyndale stands for the importance of God's voice being heard through Scripture, with the volume of the voice of tradition turned down as low as possible.

UPDATE: Catholicity and Covenant takes a different line to me above. I think it nonsense and have said so in a comment!

Boundless Informant on Global Anglican Surveillance

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 10:08:00 +0000

UPDATE: Are cracks appearing in the story of the whistleblower? Is the journalist he talked to, Glenn Greenwald, reliable? Check here.

ALSO: Edward Snowden should not have broken his vow to keep a secret. But should the Director of NSA have told the truth rather than a direct lie? Read here.

ORIGINAL: Before anyone outs me, I confess. Barack and me have got this thing going, keeping an eye on global Anglican affairs with the aid of a nifty iPhone app called Boundless Informant.

However there are limitations.

"Current technology simply does not permit us to positively identify all of the bloggers or locations associated with a given communication (for example, it may be possible to say with certainty that a communication traversed a particular path within the internet. It is harder to know the ultimate source or destination, or more particularly the identity of the person represented by the TO:, FROM: or CC: field of an e-mail address or the abstraction of an IP address)"

Also, Barack and I admit that some Anglican gossip permeating the internet has affected the course of blog discussions:

""The continued publication of these allegations about highly classified issues, and other information taken out of context, makes it impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion on the merits of these programs.""

PS You are safe posting comments here. Only 5000 workers in the NSA know where you live and what secrets your computer holds :)

PPS This is the bloke who blew the whistle on the little surveillance op Barack and me had going.

Submissive Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:05:00 +0000

+Kelvin Wright, Bishop of Dunedin, has published a report on a Marriage Hui held there recently. I have now had three reports of the event, none quite agreeing with the other. But then the Dunedin Diocese claims some street cred 'diversity'. One example being their diocesan submission to the Ma Whea Commission - though oddly +Kelvin's post heading is 'My submission ...'. Still, L'etat est moi and all that.

I think the submission makes a good point: diversity can hold together in one group. There is also a nice subsidiary point about leadership :)

Reading Available Light prompts me to link to the Latimer Fellowship submission (co-signed by me as a v-p), and to put up my own submission to Ma Whea:

"A Submission to the Ma Whea Commission, 31 May 2013

From: Rev Dr Peter Carrell. This submission is in a personal capacity as a priest of ACANZP. For the sake of transparency about context I am currently: Director of Education in the Diocese of Christchurch, Director of Theology House, Christchurch, [contact address] , as a stipended role in the church; a Vice-President of the Latimer Fellowship as a voluntary role; and a regular blogger on Anglican Down Under.

I submit with specific reference to the following term of reference of the Commission:

A summary of the biblical and theological work done by our Church on the issues surrounding Christian ethics, human sexuality and the blessing and ordination of people in same sex relationships, including missiological, doctrinal, canonical, cultural and pastoral issues;

Dear Commission,

I wish to make an observation, doing so because, in my experience, this observation is generally not made.

Preamble: Our church is considering formally making change to aspects of its life otherwise spoken to by liturgy and/or canon, that is, to the ‘status’ of same sex partnerships, with specific reference to blessing of relationship and to acceptance of partnered gay persons for ordained service.

Such change would involve the church making an authorization and raises the question of the authority of the church as an authorizing agent on behalf of God. Do we have the authority to, say, approve the divine blessing of same sex relationships or to change the definition of marriage from a man and a woman to any two people?

My observation: Many questions are raised about what Scripture and tradition says about human sexuality. A question is often raised about the relevance of a law in Leviticus to life today. Or a question is raised about whether the silence of Jesus on homosexuality is a sign of divine tolerance for same sex relationships. Answers to such questions may be given (e.g. many laws in Leviticus continue to be relevant to life today; Jesus was not actually silent about homosexuality because he fulfilled the law of Moses). But these counter-responses are then argued against.

The end result of such questioning and debate needs careful assessment. Let us say we doubt the relevance of Scripture and tradition to a changing world. What does that amount to?

I suggest that it only amounts to the existence of doubt about relevance. But in some minds it appears to amount to sufficient grounds for the authorization of change by the church.

This is an unfortunate assessment as it could mean the church arrives at a position where it makes a false promise to its members. The false promise being that it has the authority to perform certain blessings when it has no basis for making the claim. To doubt the relevance of divine prohibition of same sex partnerships is not equivalent to confidence that the opposite is so.

I thank the Commission for considering this. I do not feel a need to explain myself verbally."

Unsuitable tradition?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:23:00 +0000

Reflecting on whether the Spirit of truth is liberal or conservative, I drew no conclusion to the actual question. And no one commented on that omission. (If pushed for an answer I would say, Anglicanly, "Both.") But in recent comments here (see below) some debate emerged about tradition.

Tradition is a funny thing, is it not? When we Anglicans want tradition we keep it. When we don't, we ditch it. Stuff (unsuitable) tradition!

Let's think about what is going on in the Church of England at the moment. There is a vigorous argument for women being bishops. Yet no one is arguing for the abolition of bishops. Bishops being a tradition we want to keep. There is also a vigorous argument going on for same sex couples being able to be married. Apparently marriage being about a man and a woman is not a tradition many want to keep.

In ACANZP we have our own version of keeping what we want and discarding what does not suit. We want to keep an episcopal church but we do not want to do the hard yards on being one church of multiple cultures, so we have ditched aspects of church unity in favour of a three tikanga model. But in each of the tikanga we are utterly faithful to tradition concerning bishops.

Of course some make a similar play about Scripture. Even accusing me of following Scripture when it suits and not when it does not. Me? How dare they!

Cue removal of faux-outrage. The serious issue here is the question of truth. What is the truth God has revealed to us? If tradition (or a banner being towed behind an aeroplane) tells us the truth, we should abide by it. Scripture also.

If tradition does not tell the truth, we should ditch it, tell it to get stuffed. It is no use. Like a dead parrot.

So hard work continues to lie before us as Anglicans. The catholic bit of us respects tradition enough to check it out rather than ditch it automatically. The reformed or Protestant bit of us questions tradition enough to retain nothing which is not true. We are not bound by tradition but we are bound to seek the truth. We are having a debate about gay marriage in some parts of the Communion, and about women bishops in some places, precisely because the catholic part of us wants to retain tradition and the reformed part of us is willing to change it. But what is the truth of these matters?

It is lazy thinking to appeal to tradition (whether 'tradition' or 'Tradition', whether to an accumulation of the church's understanding of Scripture or to an equal source of revelation besides Scripture) because tradition is no sure authority in itself. Our true authority lies in the truth. Tradition is sometimes handed down truth (affirmed by us when we received the traditions we deem to be Holy Scripture) but often it is handed down speculation, dreamy thoughts, pious legends, habits and practices of the church. These truth claims need checking out.

It can be lazy thinking to appeal to Scripture. 'Scripture' is, after all, a shorthand for 'a complex body of texts, some of which are reinterpreted by other texts in the body (principally the Old Testament texts in relationship to the New Testament texts). But it is always potentially good to appeal to Scripture because Scripture is the received, accepted and ever after affirmed revelation of God.

In that sense, Scripture is always greater than what the church deems to be tradition. It stands as judge over tradition. Even where we reckon 'tradition' to be the interpretation of Scripture accumulated in the collected wisdom of the church, that interpretation is subject to checks and balances, to the TMO (Third Match Official) which turns out to be, Scripture (re-read, searched, dug deeply into).

The church has privileged Scripture in this way. Made a decision that Scripture is true truth. That does not mean the church owns Scripture, like a publisher owns the copyright of a book and can exercise an authority to later change the contents so a new edition is published. Rather the church has recognised that it has a lord and master while on earth. Its recognition and reception of Scripture is a submission to Scripture owning the church. Not the other way round.

Rightly we read Scripture in our worship, use the words of Scripture in the content of our worship and appoint one of our number to preach to the rest of us, Sunday by Sunday.

In this way we continue our submission to Scripture and remember that we ceded power to Scripture when we recognised that there lies the truth that God has given and we must live by.

OK. That leaves the question of who decides, when difference arises, the answer to Pilate's question, "What is truth?" There also lies a lot of current Anglican angst. But there is an answer. As I shall reveal exclusively here soon. I just need to complete transcription on some stone tablets of the revelation I have received ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Remarks made about tradition/Tradition: I cite them for handy reference (without attribution, as far as I can tell it doesn't matter who made these remarks). They are numbered (in no order of priority) for possible ease of future reference:

1. the view that Tradition is the Church’s accumulation of interpretation and commentary on Scripture
2. Eastern Orthodoxy. Their practice of Tradition is again sui generis. It is neither Roman nor Anglican. It does not align itself with the view that Tradition is the Church’s accumulation of interpretation and commentary on Scripture, the view that prevailed well into the second millennium, and normally called “single source”. Nor is it Tridentine, as you point out. Yet to affirm “Holy Tradition completes Holy Scripture” suggests Scripture is not “sufficient”, in direct denial of Article VI.
3. And as for 'sola scriptura', it's a rather circular argument, it seems to me. Where in scripture is the list of books that comprise the scriptures? Answer: nowhere. It's in the tradition.
4. The two-source being the dominant position developing since the Middle Ages. We should have noted as we walked that track, past Trent’s definition, “Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative…Holy Tradition completes Holy Scripture….By the term Holy Tradition we understand the entire life of the Church in the Holy Spirit.” [Agreed Statement Adopted by the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission, Moscow, 1976: 84]
5. The function of the Christian canon was to separate the apostolic witness from the ongoing tradition of the church, whose truth was continually in need of being tested by the apostolic faith
6. might the notion of the Great Tradition itself have a cut-off date parallel somewhat to the Bible's own canonization? Not a question I've had to put so sharply before. Or is Tradition just some ever rolling stream - that permits even changes of the degree now sought by so-called revisionists and their blessing of SS marriages?
7. OR, is Scripture - without Tradition - the sole reference point for faith in Christ? If so, one wonders how the Faith grew before the New Testament was written and codified.
8. only after such things as “two source theories of revelation” come seriously into play thanks to 14th C canon lawyers and then Trent, do we have the grand “majority Christian position”

All theology is economic theory

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:10:00 +0000

I have always had a slight soft spot for Karl Marx. The pure Marx, unmixed with vile Leninism or evil Stalinism or stinky Maoism (Mao didn't bathe) is a romantic creed. Each man as good as his master (Marx wrote before feminism). Socialise the means of production so that streets do not have impoverished workers living in slum housing at one end of the street while the factory owner lives in unparalleled luxury at the other end. What is not to like? It is pretty much the kingdom of God, articulated in the British Museum. Why wouldn't a Christian support Marxism? Many have, but many others have also recoiled at Marx's treatment of 'religion', his atheism and his unimaginative materialism.

The realist in me these days easily suppresses the romantic. So I am capitalist rather than Marxist. The socialization of the means of production is a disastrous way to ensure distribution of wealth. In reality it is likely to produce less than capitalist ownership and so the poor still suffer. The standard of living for the poorest still rises in capitalist economies, but governments do need to raise a dollar or two through taxes to assist the process. One of the great questions of our day is what a 'fair' tax rate might be, where 'fair' is both about how much one might take from the wealthy and how much the government might take in total without wrecking the 'production' of wealth. It is a question which is tearing American politics apart.

Marx in my view is an important thinker because, whether we love him or loathe him, he reminds us that the material conditions of life are integral to life itself. We are not pure spirits. Our bodies matter and thus where we find (say) food cannot be disconnected from where we find (say) spiritual nourishment. Theology is economic theory! Any theologian worth her salt should be able to spell out the material difference her arguments make to the world.

Thus two articles catch my eye this morning. One is an analysis of the actuality of Obamacare re cost of medical insurance for Americans, an analysis which includes this intriguing line:

"Who's right? At some level, this is a theological debate, not a technical analysis. I am going to argue that rate shock does matter, for a number of reasons. Then you can decide for yourself which aspect matters more."

In fact Megan McArdle doesn't mean anything like what I have been saying in the previous paragraphs. By 'theological debate' she means 'debate about principles, values, and commitments of protaganists and antagonists in that debate'. For readers here, for whom many debates exhibit high degrees of 'technical analysis', I suggest McArdle poses both a false alternative and a poor understanding of true 'theological debate'.

The other article, much more to the taste of a theological interest in economics, is Paul Krugman saying something I find myself, surprisingly, in great agreement with. His post is about a Ben Benanke speech which addresses economic theory in society. Here are the (bad pun) money paragraphs:

"OK, this is, whether BB realizes it or not (he probably does) basically a Rawlsian view of the world, in which you think of life as a kind of lottery in which you draw a ticket that includes things like your genetic endowment as well as the wealth of your parents. And what you’re supposed to do, ethically, is support the economic and social system you would choose if you had to enter that lottery not knowing what ticket you were going to draw — if you were making political choices behind the “veil of ignorance”.

As soon as you portray the choice that way, you’ve introduced a strong presumption in favor of redistribution. After all, if you should happen to end up as a member of the top 1 percent, an extra dollar at the margin won’t mean a lot to you; but if you should happen to end up as a member of, say, the bottom quintile, an extra dollar could make a lot of difference. So you should, other things equal, favor a system of progressive taxation and generous aid to the poor and unlucky.

So why not favor complete leveling, America as Cuba? Because for many reasons, both economic and political, we favor a market economy in which people make decentralized decisions about working, saving, and so on. And this means that incentive effects become important; you can’t levy 100 percent taxation on the rich, or completely insulate the poor from any consequences of low income, without destroying the incentives you need to make the economy work.

The question then becomes one of numbers. In particular, how high should we set the top tax rate?"

You will need to read the whole post to find out what that rate should be. I note the neat way in which he deals with the possible Marxist (i.e. Cuban) implications of where his argument leads.

Meantime my body needs breakfast and my family needs me to earn a dollar or two ... tomorrow, hopefully, it is back to some Anglican theological concerns. Should we say, "Stuff tradition"?

PS I agree with paying the top rate proposed in the Krugman post in the sense that, if I am ever paid that much, I am happy to be taxed at that rate :)

Is the Spirit of truth liberal or conservative? (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:37:00 +0000

Picking up the conclusion to the previous post:

"In this way the revelation of 'all the truth' which Jesus promises through the Spirit is not a revelation of new truths (as many take it, so we now have new truths about slavery, about women, and, today, about homosexuality) but a revelation of the full extent of the truth already revealed by Jesus.

Indeed John's Gospel itself is a fulfilment of this promise. But let's stop there for today and come back to that matter another day."

The Spirit of truth takes us deeper into Jesus, the revelation he has made to us about the love of God and the God who is Love, and into the cost of that love, a love which asks us to die to self in order to live completely to God.

John's Gospel as a fulfilment of this promise concerning the Spirit

John's Gospel is a cheeky gospel. Virtually all scholars agree that by the time his gospel was completed, the other gospels had been composed. Whether circulating widely or not, it is reasonable to assume that John had an idea of their contents (not least because parts of his gospel betray knowledge of their contents, or, at least, of the traditions which informed those contents). Yet John publishes his gospel, knowing it is different to the way the gospel is being told elsewhere. It is a cheeky offering to the church. "Yeah, yeah, I know others tell it differently, but here is my version."

What gives him confidence to do this?

I suggest two possible answers. One is enshrined in his gospel and one is enshrined in church tradition.

The latter is that this is the gospel of the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. Who better to have authority to author such an alternative account that one of the apostles, even better one who (according to all gospels) was very close to Jesus (though, according to this gospel, closest of all as 'the Beloved Disciple'). Whether the apostolic John actually wrote the gospel matters little, on this line of thought, since what matters is the authority which commends this gospel to the church. The confidence that the apostle John approves this gospel, indeed 'lends his name' to this gospel is enough.

The former is that the Spirit of God has led the author to write this gospel as a true testimony to Jesus. What is written, on this line of thought, is the Spirit of God leading the church into all the truth about Jesus, the guarantee of which function of the Spirit is given in the words of Jesus about the role of the Spirit of truth. On this line, it matters little whether the apostolic John has any connection with the gospel, since the Spirit of truth is a much greater authority.

Nevertheless the two possible means of confidence for the writer of the gospel are compatible. If both prove true then the confidence is doubled!

In this context, one implication of understanding the Spirit leading into all truth is that this is not about 'new truths', to be revealed through future history, but about the Gospel of John itself. Alternatively, it could be about the gathering of all authentic and authoritative testimony about Jesus into the canon of Christian Scripture (of which, it turns out, John's Gospel is likely the last written document).

Revelation of God's love affects our understanding of human love and its obligations

Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask whether an implication of the Spirit of truth leading us deeper into the truth of the love of God is that we are also led into new dimensions of understanding humanity or who we are as people. In Johannine thought, especially in the context of 1 John, the love of God is always connected to our love for one another (e.g. 4:10-12, 19-21).

Thus in a comment to the previous post, Roger Harper makes this observation:

"You make a distinction between the fuller truth of Jesus, of the love of God, and the new truth of slavery, women in leadership etc. I can't see the basis for such a distinction. The 'new' truth that Christians are not to own slaves is a fuller expression of the truth of Jesus that the love of God means that we are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. It is even a fuller expression of the even older truth that our God liberates slaves, not only from Egypt. So it is in both your categories. The classic Biblical example and authoritative paradigm is the 'new' truth that some of God's people can eat pork. This is a fuller expression of the love of God for humanity, as well as of Jesus saying that what goes into the mouth does not defile. Also fitting well into both your categories. I hope you will include a consideration of the Council of Jerusalem etc. as an important part of what it means for us to be Spirit-led into all truth, including truth we could not bear before now.

Yes, Christians, have made terrible mistakes by not distinguishing between the spirit of the age and the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that we give up on being led by the Spirit and fall back to living under Law, Torah."

Let me both defend myself (a little) while also agreeing (a lot) with this observation.

Defend: In the context of John's Gospel, which has virtually no interest in ethics, in the day to day decisions of believers as to how they will live, it seems to force the text in an un-Johannine direction to take the promise that the Spirit will lead us into all truth to mean that over time a detailed agenda re slavery, women and homosexuality will be attended to by the Spirit, with specific revelations on each matter unveiled for future generations.

This is to say nothing of quite a lot of questions about the Spirit's rationale for, e.g. attending to slaves before women; presiding over the subjugation of slaves for centuries before finally enlightening us; making some matters clear and agreeable to all (say, the equality of women with men) while not making other matters clear to all Christians (say, the ordination of women).

Then there is also the matter of truths which are hard to bear being the ones which will later be revealed: is the eating/not eating of pork one of those truths?

A final point here is whether on the specific matter of the issues of slavery, women and homosexuality, we need some kind of new guidance of the Spirit beyond that already found in Scripture which is very clear on anthropology (men and women made in the image of God), justice, and kindness. A new revelation of the Spirit is not needed to end slavery as a maltreatment of fellow human beings, to end oppression of women as second class humans, and to treat homosexuals kindly and fairly. To the extent to which slavery (to take just one matter) was a means of society having a class of people to undertake basic work, we remain a (now global) society which has a class of people undertaking basic work and for which we have much to do to improve conditions. The improvement of those conditions does not require a new revelation of the Spirit.

Agree: It is unquestionable that Christians pursuing with the Spirit's guidance their understanding of the height, depth, width and length of the love of God must, in time, confront the matter of what this means for human conduct in society, of obligations of discipleship in the kingdom, and of relations between brothers and sisters in the life of the church. It would have been - indeed! - too much to bear to have had some kind of detailed compendium of all future issues and their resolution presented on that night before Jesus died.

Nevertheless, to make this observation does not take us too far. It leaves us with the question of how the Spirit guides us into all truth, and the question of how we know what the guidance of the Spirit is for the church today?

As we work our way through the New Testament, we do see instances of the Spirit speaking to God's servants. Roger Harper draws our attention to the Council of Jerusalem which confronted an issue on which the earliest church was not clear in its own mind, informed as it was with the memory of Jesus' teaching and challenged as it was through special revelation to Peter and to Paul. On this matter the Council came to a common mind and issued a Spirit-led judgment which remains binding on the church to this day. Or does it? (Incidentally, for further comment on Listening to the Holy Spirit, by Roger Harper, go here).

An intriguing observation about the Jerusalem decision is that it is utterly clear about the general inclusivity of Gentiles into the gospel people of God without requirements to also become Jews. But it is not so clear in respect of the specific details re 'abstention' requirements (see any commentary). Indeed Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 10:27-29 would appear to take a more 'liberal' line on the eating of food offered to idols than the line implied in Acts 15:20.

Further lack of clarity exists on relations between women and men (Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:16 acknowledges that there might be other ways to approach the matter than the one he has just argued). In 1 Corinthians 7, discussing marriage, on one point Paul notes that he speaks without the authority of the Lord (7:12) and thus, logically, has no specific guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Incidentally, we cannot pass on from Acts 15 without a remark about the role of Scripture in the guidance of the Holy Spirit: the Council in its determination that the Holy Spirit had spoken found corroboration in Scripture (Acts 15:15-8 = Amos 9:11-12; Jeremiah 12:15; Isaiah 45:21).

In sum: in some situations it is clear what the Spirit is saying to the church, in other situations it is clear that the Spirit is offering no specific guidance for the church, while there is a third set of situations in which the guidance of the Spirit is yet subject to further consideration, even debate as to its specific applicability in the life of the church.

How do we know which is which situation? To reiterate the questions above:

How does the Spirit guide us into all truth?

How do we know what the Spirit is saying to the church today?

In Johannine terms, the Spirit guides us into all truth through recalling for us what Jesus has taught. We know the Spirit is speaking to the church today when we are called to belief in Jesus, to remain faithful to Jesus when opposition arises, that is, when we are drawn by the Spirit to die to self in order to share in the risen life of Jesus.

The best we can say beyond that on issues of the day could be this:

Where the church unites in discernment of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (compare the Council in Jerusalem, Acts 15), uniting both in what it hears the Spirit saying and in determining that this is corroborated by Scripture, the church is so guided.

Where the church is not united in discernment of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it may be that the matter is not important (i.e. adiaphora, indifferent). In Johannine terms we could think of the remarkable conversation between Jesus and Peter in John 21 where it does not matter that Peter's future as a disciple is different to the future of the Beloved Disciple.

Or, it may be that the matter is not yet resolved.

Is the Spirit of truth liberal or conservative? (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 31 May 2013 20:08:00 +0000

In pursuit of the question of what John 16:12-14 means I proposed that 'the truth' which the disciples cannot now bear but which the Spirit will guide them into concerns the love of God and the God who is Love. I concluded the previous post:

"In John's Gospel disciples keep falling away from Jesus because his teaching is too tough for them. In 1 John the Christian community of love is torn apart through sectarian division.

No. We need to think a little about the love of God, the truth of which we cannot bear now but the Holy Spirit can guide us into it gently. What is the Spirit of truth telling us about the love of God?"

One of the trickier parts of the John's Gospel to understand is the reaction of some of the disciples to Jesus' teaching on the bread of life. 'When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" (6:60). What is tricky to understand is what gives offence. Is it Jesus words about eating his fleshing and drinking his blood? (6:53) Or, is it the differentiation Jesus makes between the manna in the wilderness which sustained God's people and the living bread come down from heaven? (6:48-51) Or, is it the implication that for Jesus' flesh and blood to be heavenly food, he will have to die? Either way, Jesus makes an extraordinary and wonderful promise concerning eternal life. Yet some are not attracted by it. They find it 'difficult'. They cannot 'bear' what Jesus has to say.

Or we might delve into John 8. In the midst of a tense argument there is somewhat surprising information that 'many believed in him' (8:30). To these believers Jesus says,

'If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.' (8:31-32)

Brilliant!

Except these new believers then appear to walk back on their belief. They react badly to what Jesus has just said, denying they have ever been slaves (8:33) and resorting to counter-argument to Jesus (8:34-59). They cannot bear what Jesus has to say.

In each of the two examples above, Jesus offers a way into a deeper experience of the love of God: eat and drink me, continue in my word, thus receive eternal life and freedom. But this is too difficult for some. Why?

The answer, ultimately, lies in a moment in John's Gospel when what is said intersects precisely with Synoptic Gospels' teaching on discipleship.

'The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also.' (John 12:23-26a; cf Matt 10:39; Mark 8:3; Luke 9:24; 14:26).
.
True disciples die to themselves.They crucify their selfish, sinful, ego-centric way of life. Metaphorically (and sometimes literally) they die with Christ on the cross and rise to eternal life. This is demanding, uncompromising, and difficult.

The love of God draw us to God, who is revealed not to have love as an attractive attribute but to be Love itself (or, better, Love himself). But this love is not about us as though God is saying 'Have some love. Your life will then be complete.' That is the way advertisers sell new TVs, holidays in the tropics and beauty enhancing products. God is a little different!

God's love is about God. His love for us is not a gift to us to enhance our lives. His love for us is a gift to himself because it draws us into himself who (it turns out in the fullness of the revelation of God) is Father Son and Holy Spirit, One in love. Eternal life is inclusion in the Godhead of love through Christ.

This drawing into God involves death to self. 'Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.' This is the hardest truth, the reason why the disciples who found Jesus' teaching difficult turned away.

What then does Jesus mean when he says, 'I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now'? These things are about the character of discipleship in relation to the love of God. The gospel is a message which is simultaneously a No and a Yes. A No to self and a Yes to God. It will always be opposed and often rejected, and the disciples with it. A hard road lies ahead for those sent by Jesus as the Father has sent him (John 20:21). The Spirit of truth's revelation of those things which 'you cannot bear now' includes 'the things that are to come' (16:12). The future of discipleship is suffering. Jesus mercifully spares his disciples the details as they struggle to absorb the impact of their master's own impending departure as the grain of wheat which falls to the ground.

In this way the revelation of 'all the truth' which Jesus promises through the Spirit is not a revelation of new truths (as many take it, so we now have new truths about slavery, about women, and, today, about homosexuality) but a revelation of the full extent of the truth already revealed by Jesus.

Indeed John's Gospel itself is a fulfilment of this promise. But let's stop there for today and come back to that matter another day.

Is the Spirit of truth liberal or conservative? (1)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Tue, 28 May 2013 18:23:00 +0000

ADDENDUM: Wonderful Corpus Christi note here. I hope to publish Part 2 of below tomorrow (1 June), and Part 3 on Tuesday 4 June.

BEGINNING of original post:

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:12-14, NRSV)

One current theme in Anglican theology, at least in the august corridors of ADU, is that the Spirit is speaking new things into the life of the church. Intriguingly, even where these new things might disagree with what we thought the Spirit has spoken to us through Scripture, invocation is made of Scripture. Specifically, John 16 is invoked, "I still have many things to say to you ... the Spirit ... will guide you into all truth."

What do these words mean?

In one way it is a little bit ludicrous to think that, say, Jesus really wanted to give the disciples the low down on the iniquity of slavery, but that had to wait to a future time when they could 'bear' that truth.

In another way, we can see that Jesus is making no great claim for the future of general knowledge and his disciples. Jesus is not here a schoolmaster with pupils thirsty to learn facts and figure. He is the Only Son of God who has come from the Father's heart to make the Father known (1:18). 'All the truth', especially when it relates to what the Spirit hears from the Father and the Son, is the truth of God. To be guided by the Spirit into all truth is to be guided deeper into the heart of God. Intimate knowledge of God is unbearable and we need a gentle, understanding guide. The Spirit of truth who is also in Johannine terms the Paraclete/Helper/Counsellor/Advocate/Comforter is that guide.

But what does it mean for disciples to be drawn ever more deeply into the truth of God? In Johannine terms, thinking in terms of 1 John as well as the Fourth Gospel, the truth of God is that God is love (1 John 4:7).

At this point in our exegesis we need to take great care. Such great care that I am going to make this part one of a series and come back after further thought to the matter! The care needed is how we understand the love of God and the God who is Love.

We have a way of talking about the love of God which goes something like this: God loves you. You do not quite understand this, so let me say it again, God loves you. It is the love you need, the love you may never have received as fully as you would like from family and friends. It is - when truly understood - utterly irresistible, this divine love.

But is the love of God like that? If it is, then our churches, surely, would be full of people giving thanks for that love? More to a Johannine point, if that is the love of God, how does that square with the divisiveness of Jesus' ministry? In John's Gospel disciples keep falling away from Jesus because his teaching is too tough for them. In 1 John the Christian community of love is torn apart through sectarian division.

No. We need to think a little about the love of God, the truth of which we cannot bear now but the Holy Spirit can guide us into it gently. What is the Spirit of truth telling us about the love of God?

Back soon (ish - some non-blogging deadlines to meet this week)

The one rule liberal Anglicans always follow

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:23:00 +0000

Mention the Diocese of South Carolina or ACNA and a stock standard liberal response here at ADU if not elsewhere is that they are not Anglicans as they do not belong to the Anglican Communion. It strikes me that for all the noise liberals make about rules not defining and binding us as Christians there is one rule which liberal Anglicans always follow: to be an Anglican you must belong to a church which belongs to the Anglican Communion.

This is, of course, a very useful rule because it means that it doesn't matter what happens in The Episcopal Church, even the most egregious exegesis by its Presiding Bishop, everything is Anglican because it has taken place within or been uttered by the chief leader of an 'official' Anglican church, one that belongs to the Anglican Communion.

But the serious issue here is what makes an Anglican an Anglican. Is belonging to the Anglican Communion the sine qua non of being a proper Anglican? Is it allegiance to the prayer book as in the BCP (which one?) or its local successor? (Some discussion along these lines occurs at Liturgy) Then there is the important corporate dimension of Anglicanism. What makes a diocese and a province 'Anglican'? Three recent essays at Living Church tackle this question, with specific reference to the current and future status of the Diocese of South Carolina which, shall we say, has stepped aside from TEC for the time being.

Jesse Zink, "Why Provinces Matter?" astutely observes:

"Hierarchy in the church is a bedeviling issue. The Episcopal Church itself has not provided persuasive reasons why hierarchy is necessary on a provincial level but unnecessary on a Communion-wide level. Surely for a church that defines its existence in terms of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, hierarchy cannot stop at the water’s edge?"

He then strikes a challenging note on Anglican ecclesiology:

"As in Scripture, so also in ecclesiology: the pernicious hermeneutic of self-justification remains a constant temptation. This is regrettable. Ecclesiology is not a minor administrative matter that can be casually tossed aside. It is part of the core good news Christians have to proclaim. In a globalizing world that is dominated by discord and fracture, the Church makes the counter-cultural claim that in baptism we come to belong to the body of Christ. No other entity is shaped by a common willingness to die daily with Christ and be raised with him who is the author of true and abundant life. We believe we belong, and that this is good news. Anglicans work out the implications of this radical claim in the constellation of parishes, dioceses, provinces, networks, and institutions that comprise our global Communion.

The dispute in South Carolina could provide an opportunity — yet unrealized — to think seriously about the ecclesiological and theological convictions underlying Anglican churches."

William Witt weighs in with further angles on the subtle issues at stake in the ecclesiology evolving out of current disputes. His diplomatic language barely disguises a ruthless demolition - emboldened by me - of TEC's pretension to being one, holy, catholic and apostolic church:

"The issue that is little addressed in such discussions is the theological nature of episcopacy. What does it mean to be a bishop? Standard Church histories make clear that the office of bishop is about continuity, specifically continuity between the apostolic Church and the catholic Church of the second century. To be a bishop is to recognize and submit oneself to the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments as the faithful witness of prophets and apostles to the triune God revealed in the history of Israel, the saving work of Jesus Christ, and the Church as summarized in the Rule of Faith.

Whether bishops of the Episcopal Church have acted in continuity with this apostolic Church in proceeding to approve of same-sex unions is precisely the issue that is splitting the Anglican Communion. There are, of course, issues of universality involved as well. A bishop is a bishop not just for a local diocese but for the whole Church. In the long run, an extra-provincial diocese accountable only to itself is problematic. But then again, a national church that refuses to be accountable to an international communion has brought the Anglican Communion to its current crisis, even as a bishop who does not understand his chief role to keep intact the apostolic witness has rather missed the point of being a bishop."

Then Colin Podmore, "Beyond Provincialism," offers astute observations about recent Anglican history when the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao divided itself into four dioceses in order to become a province, precisely so as not to continue association with a larger but conservative province. A way forward for South Carolina? With this parting shot at TEC at the end of the essay,

"the most important question facing the Anglican Communion is not whether dioceses can exist other than temporarily without being subject to provincial or other metropolitical jurisdiction (in catholic and Anglican ecclesiology they cannot), but whether provinces should not in turn defer to the councils of the wider Church."

There is much to ponder here. I offer two further observations.

(1) I do not have to belong to an Anglican church to be an Anglican, provided I have commitment and intention to belong to an Anglican church. Let me explain. I would not challenge for a second a person who said to me, "I am an Anglican but I worship in a Methodist church. I was brought up Anglican, I remain Anglican in my heart and mind, but ever since I married I have belonged with my wife to her Methodist church. If I were widowed I know I would go back to worshiping in an Anglican church."*

Analogously, I suggest that the Diocese of South Carolina remains Anglican although it has stepped apart from TEC. It has the intention and commitment to belong to the Anglican Communion (that is, formally belong; I understand the Diocese to collectively believe that informally it does belong). That is, just as in the individual example above, the Anglican husband has a plausible reason for not currently belonging formally to an Anglican church, so the Diocese of South Carolina has a plausible reason for not currently belonging to TEC. That is the Diocese disputes the fact that TEC remains, pace Witt, "in continuity with [the] apostolic Church". It is noteworthy that in making such dispute South Carolina is not an idiosycratic diocese but is supported by many Anglican provinces to say nothing of many individual Anglicans, such as myself, in provinces which otherwise maintain goodwill relationship with TEC.

(2) We should take care to not place too much emphasis on the character of Anglicanism being determined by the rules of Anglicans. The true innermost character of Anglican churches is that we are Christian churches, faithful to Christ, in continuity with the one, holy, apostolic and catholic church which Christ founded. The BCP or any Anglican prayer book is nothing save for the fact that it gives expression to this character. Bishops, priests and deacons are nobodies save for the fact that we are faithful to the 'doctrine of Christ' as expressed in our prayer books, articles and constitutions. The Anglican Communion is a fantasy (or a lie!) if it is not a Communion with the Christ who founded the one, holy, apostolic and catholic church. If the rules of Anglicans define Anglicanism in such a way as to exclude Christians determined to be Anglican in the character of their mission and ministry then the rules need reform.

As Bryden Black lamented here recently, the Anglican Covenant is much missed at this point. Its precise contribution to present Anglican difficulties, if we would adopt it, is to renew our understanding of what being Anglican means in respect of common theology. By avoiding adoption we are left with Anglicanism defined by rules which are now out of date.

I am an exorcist but no demon needs to tremble in my presence

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Wed, 22 May 2013 18:17:00 +0000

I was going to post about what makes an Anglican an Anglican but checking in to Stuff I see we have a priest here who has held the office of Diocesan Exorcist while not believing in demons.So let's hold what makes an Anglican until tomorrow (hint: South Carolina is Anglican) and consider this wonderful illustration of what may be wrong with our church: saying one thing and believing another.

The background to the local news item is the global item about the Pope performing an exorcism (or did he?) on a man in a wheelchair. Natch our local press goes to a go-to-guy to get comment and who better than a former diocesan exorcist who does not believe in demons.

Actually our Catholic Archbishop does not come out too well in this item. Though required by canon law to have a diocesan exorcist, he does not have one!

For the record, I am with Michael Hewat, also quoted in the article. I do not have a lot of experience in this area, but I believe that beyond the realm we call psychosis and neurosis, the devil and his minions can gain and retain a foothold on lives and houses. When we discern that, we should pray for deliverance.

For local Christchurch readers with long memories, one of the most memorable experiences of my curacy was being part of an exorcism performed in a house where the manifestation was the sound of a ticking clock. The then Diocesan Exorcist was Archdeacon Peter Witty. It was definitely a case of watch, listen, learn and never forget.

Back to our present day colleague who does not believe in demons. I see his comments as illustrative of something which is a problem in our church today: saying one thing openly with our lips and believing another privately in our hearts.

Here are a few other examples:

What we say: "We are proud of being a three tikanga church."

What we believe: Our church is not working. There are many problems as a result of being a three tikanga church which we are not addressing.

What we say: "We think gay people in same sex partnerships should be able to be ordained."

What we believe: Our parish needs a married vicar who has a young family to help regrow the Sunday School.

What we say: "Our prayer book is an amazing taonga of which we are very proud, especially when we hear how popular it is in North America."

What we believe: For next Sunday's service I can make whatever changes to the prayer book I want in order to make it relevant to 2013.

What we say: "We think its great that we are the kind of church which can make radical decisions such as electing the bare-footed, dreadlocked Justin Duckworth to be Bishop of Wellington."

What we believe: Apart from one or two bold decisions like that, we haven't got many clues on how to turn our aging, declining church around.

You may be able to supply more!

PS A few days ago I posted two links to a series of three Living Church essays. The third essay, Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore is now posted.

Free radicals: thoughts on vagrant dioceses

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Mon, 20 May 2013 18:47:00 +0000

Not all bishops are anchored into geographical locations and such bishops may be what is known as episcopi vagantes, wandering bishops. The vagantes concept could also be invoked where whole dioceses secede from one province of the Communion, stake a claim to continue to belong to the Communion while not legally tied into a relationship with another province or network with provincial links or directly to the oversight of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a diocese wanders, we could say, canonically free. Currently such a diocese is the Diocese of South Carolina. It is a free radical diocese, pursuing without fear or favour where its Anglican roots might be replanted.

The Living Church has a useful and fascinating series of reflections on this situation.

Why Provinces Matter by Jesse Zink

Don't Cheat the Prophet by William G. Witt

A third essay is coming. AND IS NOW HERE Beyond Provincialism by Colin Podmore

The whole series has the title Sic et Non which plays on Abelard's mediaeval work trying to reconcile contradictions!

What do you think?

Or, do the real vagantes dioceses exist where a wandering occurs from one fad to another with bishops at the helm who chart a course according to the prevailing winds of society?

Brewing the Perfect Storm in our Church (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sun, 19 May 2013 19:38:00 +0000

INTRODUCTION

If I lived in one of those great castles built on a cliff beside the sea I don't think a perfect storm would worry me too much. But what if I lived in a sandcastle on the sea shore? Jesus got there before me and told the story. The house built on the rock will stand.

Rather than prognosticate on how strong I think our church is to withstand controversy, let me ask readers these questions.

If we engage in a perfect storm over the next few years, will there be an Anglican church in these islands in twenty years time?

Do we have the strength to survive the storm and rebuild after it passes through?

Where the Anglican church has exhibited a progressive agenda in these islands, can we measure the impact of that agenda in terms of congregational growth?

A PERFECT STORM WILL NOT NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE

In an important comment to the previous post in this series Bosco Peters makes the case that there need not be a perfect storm over the matter of the blessing of same sex partnerships (especially here). His supporting analogy is that on the question of divorce and remarriage where we have made decisions and pursued practice which is not biblical, nevertheless we have remained together as a church. I agree that there need not be a storm. I think that all those for whom 'biblical' is an important criterion for judging what we should and should not do would do well to ponder the following: what things in our church are practised which we think are unbiblical, and why do we accommodate them by staying rather than leaving?

In other words, in terms of disagreements in our church, as outlined in previous posts (e.g. approaches, attitudes, authority), we have experience of sharp disagreements being overcome and of disagreements being maintained in tension without spilling over into schism. The present brewing storm need not lead to division.

YET DANGER REMAINS BEFORE US

Nevertheless, I suggest there are possible decisions our church could make which would contribute to a perfect storm engulfing us. Here are three.

(1) If we changed our canon on marriage (and text of our marriage liturgies) in order to extend our ecclesial definition of marriage to include two people of the same gender.

As I listen in our church I hear voices which are open (some much more open than others) to our church doing something re 'blessing' same sex partnerships but draw the line at change to our understanding of marriage as being about a man and a woman. In other words some pragmatic recognition of same sex partnerships which does not revise what we already have written down about marriage in our formularies and canons may avoid the perfect storm developing.

A different voice, though getting at the same idea, that marriage between a man and a woman is sui generis, is expressed by Bryden Black, in various comments over time on this blog, but especially here.

In my words, at least two views of marriage are at work in the Western world (in one marriage is an estate ordained by God for the conjugation of a man and a woman with potential for fruitful procreation and capacity to both image the diversity-in-unity of the Triune God and of Christ and the church, and in the other marriage is a legally and morally acceptable arrangement in which two people express their committed love for one another).

Our allegiances within the church to one model over the other represent a cleavage between an understanding of the church as a body governed by a theology disclosed by God through revelation and as a body governed by theology built from the ground upwards where the ground is human reflection on experience. At some point in the history of the church in the 21st century this cleavage will result in conflict rather than conciliation. This may be that moment.

(2) If we made general willingness to conduct blessings of same sex partnerships determinative of selection for ordination or appointment to licensed ministry.

We likely will make a decision which in principle means that ministers are equally free to offer such blessings or to refuse to give them. After all, currently ministers are free to accept or to refuse to conduct a wedding. But that is not where controversy lies. Where controversy lies is in the processes of discernment for ordination and for appointment to licensed ministries. In that process questions can (and should) be put about attitudes to things. Examples include wearing robes, using the prayer book, following certain customs, approach to collaborative ministry. Sometimes these questions are put to yield a kind of profile of the interviewee with no one question being a "killer" question in which the wrong answer could mean a refusal to proceed to ordination/appointment. Sometimes one question is a killer. I will be upfront and say, I can imagine in some dioceses that an expression of refusal to offer blessings for same sex partnerships will determine the outcome of interviews.

(3) If we so approved whatever it is that we might approve by way of change that licensed ministers and officers of the church felt they could no longer sign with good conscience that they will abide by the authority of the General Synod.

On this matter I am speaking about a specific concern voiced by colleagues whose integrity is such that they would leave their current ministries by handing in their licences if a decision of General Synod meant they could not remain committed to the authority of General Synod. In reporting this concern I have no specific example to give of how GS might word a decision so that the concern is met and all is well. Put another way, while there is the obvious example that a change to our marriage canon (see 1) above would trigger this concern, it is not clear to me what might count as a change instituted by General Synod which either does not trigger the concern or is at least ambiguous enough for hesitancy to occur as to whether the trigger is pulled or not. But I will observe this: for General Synod to offer the possibility that each bishop may determine whether or not blessings of same sex partnerships may occur within their episcopal jurisdiction may be a step too far.

For now, that is the end of this series. Comments are welcome. They may yet trigger some further thoughts.

PS I am offering reflection on the possibility of a perfect storm arising if our church proceeds in certain directions. It is also possible (though may be not equally possible) that if our church does not proceed in certain directions there will be a perfect storm.

Apropos of things American

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 17 May 2013 04:55:00 +0000

A bit of a fuss is being made about an interview Rob Bell has given in the UK. The Ugley Vicar calls it a 'train wreck'. Head there to click into the interview. I have not seen the whole interview so am not commenting directly upon it. Could it be turned into a Nooma video on the word Obfuscation?

Noted in comments below is a sermon which Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has preached in Curacao in the Diocese of Venezuela. [Thanks for correction to original wording in a comment below]. This is also being made a bit of a fuss about. It involves the most extraordinary wrongheaded, or just plain wrong interpretation of a passage in Acts. It is "beyond" commenting on! It would be insulting to liberals to call this an example of liberalism. It is beyond that. It is sui generis, in a class of its own as an example of just plain wrong interpretation! (Later: do not just take my word for it. Note the plethora of negative comments about the sermon which the ENS publishes in the link about). A word to the wise preacher: it is not necessarily a smart idea to publish sermons.

PS in proper deference to the Presiding Bishop I will only accept comments about this which either discuss the "exegesis" without naming the preacher or which name her properly e.g. the name with title used above, or ++Jefferts Schori. I think Rob Bell can be called "Rob" or "Bell". As far as I know he is not holding any church office other than "free lance speaker and writer."

PPS It is not the case that wrong exegesis of Scripture is confined to Anglican bishops. A very interesting, unusual and sad-for-Christians everywhere case is unfolding in Singapore. It concerns the misuse of funds donated to a mega church, a misuse which has led to a trial. In following progress on this situation (via my colleague Gerard Jacobs' blog) I noticed this description of wrong exegesis at this church:

"One of his examples is as follows: In the gospel account of the feeding of the 5000, when Jesus asked the disciples to feed the crowds, the disciples responded by saying that it was difficult to get food because of the lateness of the day where most places would be closed. Kong Hee alluded to this response as being an indication that Jesus and the disciples had the money to feed the crowds, but could not do so because of the places to purchase food were closed due to the lateness of the hour. Therefore proving that Jesus was wealthy and had the financial means to feed the multitudes. This interpretation of that scripture is completely out of line with the derived meaning scholars and theologians accept; it’s out of line with the rest of scripture!"

PS For a voice within TEC concerned at "delusional exegesis", read here.

PPS And for another, read here.

Apropos of things Sydney

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:02:00 +0000

In the run up to the election of a new Archbishop of Sydney, you may like to read this long but informative review of Michael Jensen's book Sydney Anglicans. The review is by Kevin Giles.

Brewing the Perfect Storm in our Church (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 16 May 2013 10:14:00 +0000

The ideal Anglican church is one in which everyone agrees about everything. For those who think such a church would be terrible, let me point out a resounding attractive feature of it: no committees would be required. :)

The next best Anglican church is the one to which most Anglicans belong most of the time. That is the Anglican church in which terrible disagreements take place but we continue to exist together in a form of coalition. We are able to do this, I venture to suggest, because in this Anglican church we find we are able to pursue different visions for how the church should be, what gospel should be preached and what missional activity is consistent with that preaching.

This is and has been the life of my church, ACANZP ever since the time when Bishop Selwyn arrived and promptly forged a coalition between his high church for settlers and CMS's low church for Maori and (later) evangelical settlers. Albeit with many bits bolted on so that we could also talk of our church as a coalition of progressive liberals, moderates, and conservative evangelicals, of three tikanga, and of those desperate for the church to break out into fresh expressions and those not at all desperate about changing anything.

Coalitions generally withstand ordinary storms of controversy, as our church has done. But can we withstand a perfect storm of controversy?

The brewing storm, previously suggested here in part 1, arises from divisions among us which are not proving easy to reconcile. It is this, should some final failure to reconcile be reached, which sets this current controversy apart from previous ones.

As a church we have managed to propose and receive a new prayer book acceptable to the whole coalition, revise our 1857 constitution to form a new three tikanga coalition, and introduce the ordination of women to all three orders without significant breakage to the coalition. We have also, to pick up a pertinent example, been a coalition which has absorbed change to the way we respond to divorce and remarriage after divorce. But this time things are not turning out so straightforwardly. We are struggling to find common ground.

When one group argues for the acceptance of gay marriage because it is just and another group argues against it because it is unsupported in Scripture, there is not just a difference in the ends of the argument but also in the means to the end!

But the perfect storm brewing is not solely because we have difficulty with arguments. Potentially we could work a lot harder on these but even if we did there are other elements in the storm. (And to those who say, "Haven't we already done a lot of work on the arguments?" I say, "Yes, we have done a lot of work, but it has not been hard work." We have not, for instance, taken a dozen of our best theologians, locked them in a room and told them to not come out until resolution of the arguments has been achieved!)

The storm is also brewing because we have division in attitudes. In my first part I noted that in our church there is a gulf between those who accept our relatively lax approach to sexual discipline and those who do not. Can we have agreement on new sexual ethics for our church if we are not agreed on taking sexual ethics seriously?

Then there is also a contribution because of differences in our understanding of authority in the life of the church. The key legal and theological phrase we are concerned with is "the right ordering of sexual relationships." Order is something which is determined by someone. If we are to determine a new "right ordering", whose orders will we follow? How will we determine whether that person/group has the authority to give the orders?

On the specific matter of homosexuality and the right ordering of sexual relationships, I suggest that we have a problem we are not facing, and that is the problem of authority. May General Synod order sexual relationships? May the bishops? Is it up to individuals? Or individual parishes or dioceses? Somehow that doesn't sound right! Does not General Synod (and all lesser bodies of the church) have to live according to the doctrine of Christ, that is, teach what Christ teaches? Thus we need to know how Christ orders sexual relationships. As many people have pointed out, on the direct matter of same sex partnerships, Christ never said anything! (If, as a church, we wish to say that we have disregarded Christ on the matter of divorce and remarriage, surely we are not to take our disobedience to Christ as a reason to make a determination about what is the 'right ordering' of same sex sexual relationships?)

In short, on what authoritative basis would we as a church institute a "right ordering" of sexual relationships different to what we have inherited from Scripture and tradition?

Part of our storm is that some of us think there is no such basis, some of us do not care whether that basis is secured or not, and some think they have found it but struggle to explain it in theological terms distinct from modern Western social democratic policy.

Ad Hominem With Style

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Tue, 14 May 2013 10:18:00 +0000

If one is going to make ad hominem remarks then one could do worse than learn from the master!

Brewing the perfect storm in our church (1)

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sun, 12 May 2013 19:29:00 +0000

The past week's Human Rights Tribunal hearing into the case of a gay man thwarted from entering the discernment for ordination process in the Diocese of Auckland on account of his honest profession that he is in a marriage like arrangement with another man is part of a 'perfect storm' brewing for our church.

The brewing storm is going to occur over what we decide in the future as a way forward to avoid going to court, whether that court is our civil Human Rights Tribunal or a church tribunal to which a bishop is taken for not observing the standard of chasteness when ordaining someone or making an appointment of an ordained person.

There was quite a lot of chatter last week in and around elements in the case. I cite but two examples of what I have observed on websites, Facebook and Twitter:

This comment made on Taonga, for instance:

"If the canon says they cannot permit people entering into ordination into the priesthood because they are living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Well that accounts for half of the Anglican Clergy in Aotearoa NZ with all 3 tikanga. I know of many clergy living in sexual relationships outside of marriage."

If true this is outrageous. If not true this is either daft (on a generous reading) or libelous against the vast majority of clergy not living in sexual relationships outside of marriage.

Or consider Brian Dawson (a senior priest in our church, Vicar of St Peter's Willis St, Wellington) in a 6 May 2013 essay:

"The real problem for the bishop will be consistency. There are canons / rules within the Church that are ignored on a daily basis, so what makes this one different? It would also be naiive in the extreme to imagine every unmarried candidate for ordination, whether gay or straight, is celibate. There are many, many, many situations where this hasn’t been the case, and many where it still isn’t. Any student at St John’s Theological College in Auckland (our national seminary) knows that the single students apartments aren’t always occupied by just one person and more than one vicarage has been the scene of pre, post and extra marital sex. People in sexually active relationships outside of marriage have been involved in all stages of the ordination process, so any bishop who says “it just can’t happen” is likely to be faced with numerous examples of where it has. But then, who cares?"

Again, let's be blunt: if what Brian says here is true, then this is outrageous. We are, according to this summary report, perceived to be a church with lax sexual discipline in which bishops either avoid imposing discipline or feel powerless to impose it.

Whether or not perception equates to or even approximates to reality - in my view we are a much better church than the comments above suggest - the fact is that such chatter reminds us that there are several matters of significant division between us in the brewing of a perfect storm.

(1) We are a church in which there is a large gaping division between those who view lax sexual discipline as a matter about which little can be done and those who view lax sexual discipline as a matter which we ought to do something about.

(2) We are a church in which some are attempting to make the argument against changing our current 'working' definition of chasteness (in sum: no sex outside of marriage) with serious engagement in biblical hermeneutics while others are attempting to make the argument for changing that definition on the basis that sex outside of marriage is already a common feature of our church's life.

(3) On the specific matter of chasteness being the 'right ordering of sexual relationships' (D 1.10.4.1) we are a church which includes those who feel bound to determine that right ordering with respect to Scripture and tradition and those who feel bound to determine that right ordering with respect to reason and experience.

Here is the thing about Anglican divisions in general terms. They do not necessarily spell the end of the church as we know it. They may be elements only in brewing a storm or two not the perfect storm. We are a church which has been for a long time now a kind of coalition in which different divided parties have managed to live with divisions while continuing to pursue different visions for how the church should be, what gospel should be preached and what missional activity is consistent with that preaching.

But I am proposing that we are brewing the perfect storm through the kind of week we had last week, along with the gathering phalanx of commissions looking into this or that aspect of blessings of same sex partnerships, marriage and related matters.

I am not sure when I can get back to this topic with part (2). An unusual and potentially over busy week lies before me ...

The New New New Perspective on Paul?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 11 May 2013 19:51:00 +0000

Thanks to Prodigal Kiwi we are alerted to a significance new publication on 1 November 2013, the fourth part in N.T. Wright's magnum opus of a series about Christian Origins and the Question of God. This two volume extension of the series is entitled, Paul and the Faithfulness of God.

N. T. (= Bishop Tom) Wright is at the forefront of reviewing and revising our understanding of Paul (i.e. perspective on Paul), he and others claiming that the dominant understanding since the days of Martin Luther is not actually faithful to Paul's writings. Hence the New Perspective and, perhaps tongue in cheek, variations on that as the New New Perspective. My title wonders if Wright's final prognostications will deserve being the New New New Perspective.

Certainly the phrase 'the faithfulness of God' in the title suggests a certain creativity at work as debates re the Old v New Perspective often pit 'faith in Christ' versus 'the faithfulness of Christ'. So here, the angle brought by the 'faithfulness of God' looks inviting for some summer reading on a beach near you.

That last thought is obviously a Down Under perspective not share by northern hemisphere readers :)

ADDENDUM: also in New Testament studies news this week, Geza Vermes has died. An illuminating obituary is here. It is illuminating for me, in at least one way, in respect of the way myth may grow. In my mind, picking up bits and pieces of information, Vermes was a Jew who developed an unusual and sympathetic interest in the Jesus of Christianity and on that subject wrote several important works. Now I learn that Vermes' life story was much more complicated. He was a Jew but one brought up as a Roman Catholic, who was ordained a priest and for many years lived the life of a monastic scholar. Later he renounced both priesthood (and married another man's wife) and Christian belief.

The major anxiety of their people in their time

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Sat, 11 May 2013 08:34:00 +0000

Kicker of a report here about the installation of Philip Richardson as our new pakeha archbishop.

Judge Sarah Reeves preached a provocative sermon.

(From the report)

"“The economist John Kenneth Galbraith said all great leaders have one characteristic in common: They are willing to confront the major anxiety of their people in their time.

“Our church is painfully and publically grappling with the issue of blessings for same-sex couples and ordination of people in same sex relationships

“So, Archbishop Philip, you have your work cut out.”

She then a brief, but broad hint at how she feels about the same sex debate:

“I can’t help thinking: Is this really the defining issue of our time?

“Will we really tear ourselves apart over this?

“Surely, this is but a sub-set of building a just and life-giving community for all?

“Society at large has taken measure, and moved on.

“Why can’t we?”"

It is pretty clear where this perspective starts from and sees the end. It is a good example of the framing of the situation of our church from this perspective. God's wisdom has been declared by 'society at large' and we should follow it. Heaven forbid that we should 'tear ourselves apart' through some demurring that there is another wisdom, the wisdom which God has declared, without consulting society. (And 'society' might be wrong, as Charles Moore muses).

Actually, as I am going to attempt to explain soon here at ADU, there will be no tearing apart. But there may be a quiet walking in different ways, as Anglicans seek to follow Jesus according to their understanding of what Jesus revealed.

If Archbishop Philip were to read this, I would encourage him to consider the Galbraith quote very carefully. I think Galbraith is right. But I do not think Judge Reeves is right about the major anxiety of our church at this time. That anxiety is whether we will remain in existence in twenty years time. I very much hope ++Philip will help us to confront that anxiety!

Learning and relearning the gospel, all the time

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Fri, 10 May 2013 04:40:00 +0000

Sometimes I am mistaken for a fellow clergyman, Peter Collier. I sincerely hope that he is never mistaken for me as I get the better end of the deal :) Anyway I have just noticed a very good and very interesting post Peter has made on kiwifruit blog.

Of course if you want to engage directly re what Peter has written, you should do so there.But here I point you to what he has written because disciples should be learners and relearners, all the time. And what Peter tells us he has been learning may help us with our learning. He certainly helps me here.Thanks Peter!

The apostles didn't preach PSA and neither should we

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Carrell) — Thu, 09 May 2013 19:10:00 +0000

Between posts here and posts on Liturgy about 'wrath of God was satisfied' a very interesting and erudite discussion on questions of atonement has emerged, including the doctrine* known as the penal substitutionary theory of atonement (PSA). There have been some painful moments in the discussion, but setting those aside, I have enjoyed the gold which has shone through the dross.

As it happens I dipped during this week into one of the (IMO) great books of modern biblical scholarship, Francois Bovon's Luke The Theologian (Second Revised Edition, Baylor Press). If I went to a publisher and said, "Look, I have read everything there is to read on Luke and Acts and I would like to give a report on that reading," I suppose the publisher would show me the door. But Bovon manages to do just that with brilliant energy which takes the reader on a journey into hidden nooks and crannies in the journey which is Luke the theologian using history as a vehicle to set out christology, missiology, soteriology, ecclesiology and pneumatology.

Relating to PSA, something I learned this week is an insight of Charles Moule about preaching in Acts. Bovon's whole paragraph is this:

"Finally, if the expiatory virtue of the death of Jesus does not appear except in Acts 20 it is because of the literary genre of Luke's texts and the editor's theological reticence. It was not usual in early Christianity to underscore the salvific power of the cross in the sermon. Rather, this was done in the catechism. This is why the hyper emon [i.e. Christ died for our sins] appears in the Epistles, reflecting a catechism, and in the sole speech in Acts addressed to Christians (Acts 20:28 [...the church ... which he obtained with his own blood])." [p. 175]

Sometimes scholars worry about the differences between Luke's theology and Paul's theology, precisely because if Paul is the great hero in Acts then that begs the question how Luke could get Paul so wrong. A particular difference is the seeming lack of a theology of the cross - the centre of Pauline theology - in Luke's writings, especially in Acts.

I understand Moule (via Bovon) as saying that an explanation for the difference is that Paul's writings are catechetical - instructional for Christians - whereas most sermons in Acts are evangelistic with a non-Christian audience.

In relation to the atonement as a specific subject for preaching and teaching, Moule via Bovon is saying that it is missing in Acts where we would expect it to be missing, in the proclamation of the gospel, and present where we would expect it to be present, in instruction to Christians.

So, here is an intriguing possibility: the apostles did not proclaim atonement (let alone penal substitutionary atonement) in their preaching of the gospel, but they did teach atonement in their instruction of Christian disciples.

Should we follow their example?

*I acknowledge that some would say there is a 'doctrine of atonement' but not a 'doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement', rather within the doctrine of atonement PSA is a model or one understanding of 'how' atonement 'works'. I also acknowledge that although the case is made (particularly by evangelicals) that the ancient fathers taught atonement in such a way that PSA was front and centre of their understanding, we do not find the phrase' penal substitionary atonement' in their teaching (as far as I know) and thus a list of 'doctrines the ancient fathers taught' is unlikely to include 'the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.' However, in my view, PSA is a distinctive doctrine within the doctrines or teachings which evangelicals both wish to make the case for within Christian discourse and to acclaim as a distinctive doctrine relating to definition of the 'evangelical' movement within Christianity. Putting that another way, an evangelical is distinguished from those not wishing to so identify themselves by virtue of commitment to PSA.