Latimer: Crisis in NZ church Archives

Home About Latimer Fellowship Join us - become a Member Issues and discussion News and upcoming events Free weekly newsletter Books and DVDs for sale Contact us

« | Back to main page | »

August 31, 2007

Not schism but revolution

... the future is to be found in returning to the key Reformation and evangelical principles ...
by Chris Sugden in Evangelicals Now, September 2007

Not schism but revolution
Thursday August 30th 2007, 10:14 pm

by Chris Sugden in Evangelicals Now, September 2007
www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=2046

Revolution in common parlance is an overthrow of the existing order. But when a wheel has completed one revolution, a point on its circumference has returned to its point of origin. And a revolution is a return to the beginning, a restoration.

What we are in the middle of now in the Anglican Communion is not schism or separation, but a revolution. In the last decades, the Communion has been increasingly under the dominance of leadership which is over-influenced by the assumptions of western intellectual culture through the dominant role of the Church of England and ECUSA. People are now saying publicly that this unrepresentative dominance must end.

Archbishop Orombi of Uganda has said “However we come to understand the current crisis in Anglicanism, this much is apparent: The younger churches of Anglican Christianity will shape what it means to be Anglican. The long season of British hegemony is over.

“The reason there is a global Anglicanism today is that Anglicans were compelled by the Word of God to share the gospel throughout the expanding British Empire and beyond. In the absence today of such a convenient infrastructure, the future of the Anglican Communion is found in embracing the key Reformation and evangelical principles that have had such an impact in Uganda. Without a commitment to the authority of the Word of God, a confidence in a God who acts in the world, and a conviction of the necessity of repentance and of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, we will be hard-pressed as a communion to revive and advance our apostolic and missionary calling as a church.” Read here

In other words, the future is to be found in returning to the key Reformation and evangelical principles that are the strength and core of the Anglican expression of Christian faith.

Bishop Duncan said publicly in July: “Never, ever has he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) spoken publicly in defense of the orthodox in the United States,” adding that “the cost is his office”. “To lose that historic office is a cost of such magnitude that God must be doing a new thing,” he said.

In other words, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not provided for the safe oversight of the orthodox in the United States, he has forfeited his role as the one who gathers the Communion. This has become further obvious with the refusal of the invitation to the Lambeth Conference by the leaders of over half the Anglicans in the world and the questioning by some English bishops as to whether they will attend.

So are we seeing a schism or a revolution? A long overdue development is taking place, namely that significant and meaningful leadership is now being given in the Anglican Communion by Christians from Africa and Asia. This is being expressed in the very practical issues of first determining to stand by the teaching of the Communion; secondly refusing to attend a dumbed-down Lambeth Conference which will not address this issue decisively and which will include those who have deliberately defied that teaching; and thirdly by providing the orthodox oversight that orthodox Anglicans are requesting.

One facet of many revolutions is that the old leadership gets increasingly out of touch with reality. The Archbishop of York noted recently about the Episcopal Church. “…I haven’t found that in Ecusa (sic) or in Canada, where I was recently, they have any doubts in their understanding of God which is very different from anybody. What they have quarreled about is the nature of sexual ethics.”

“John Sentamu hasn’t looked or listened hard enough. The battle, at least in North America, is over core doctrine and belief: who Jesus is and what authority Holy Scripture has.”

We are seeing before our eyes a revolution in leadership. The Communion will remain, but the form and the leadership will change just as the 13 American colonies remained, but their form and leadership changed.

Posted by latimer at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2007

"Sexuality - and what it means to be human"

What is being implied more and more is that human beings are creatures who have reached a particular point on an evolutionary continuum and now ready to move on. Behind such notions is the presupposition that we have reached a degree of maturity that permits us to direct the evolution of future generations. To some this may sound bizarre, but there are numbers of serious anthropologists, philosophers, and so forth toying with this notion, while developments in biogenetics, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, nanotechnology, and so forth, mean that such gameplans need to be taken seriously. Richard Kew

"Sexuality - and what it means to be human" - Richard Kew (US & UK)
http://richardkew.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-does-it-mean-to-be-human.html

Dear Friends,

I dislike being quoted in the press because the result is always mangled. Last week I was in a position where I couldn't avoid talking to a reporter, and as is inevitable what was published was partial at the best. This led to a conversation yesterday evening with someone who took exception to what had appeared. While the reporter did not actually misquote me, she took words from the beginning of the interview and words from the end, then put them together with no reference to the modifiers from the middle.

The issue was, of course, that depressing constant of human sexuality. Life and ministry are about a great deal more than sex, but these days a huge amount of what we do and say is interpreted through this grid of the politics of where we stand on the issues of sexuality.

For a number of years leading up to and following on from that critical point in this crisis in August 2003 I had been puzzling over why human sexuality had turned into such a hot potato. It always seemed that there was more at play here than what it had been reduced to, and which was now being as fiercely fought a fight as a Quidditch game between Gryffindor and Slytherin.

I reached the conclusion that actually sexuality was only a symptom, not the real cause of the problem. Treating sexuality as a stand-alone is about as intelligent as treating toothache without trying to find out the underlying cause. This meant reaching behind the battle to see what exactly is at stake.

My conclusion was, and this has been backed up since then by my testing of the hypothesis, that what we are dealing with is the issue of what it means to be human. How we actually "manage" sexuality is only a part of a much larger and more significant whole. Although it is obviously a highly emotional subject, I assert that it is only a small part of the enormous challenge that faces the 21st Century, which is to discover afresh what it really means to be human, and to appropriately define the limits of humanity and the boundaries for human behavior.

One of the reasons I have tried not to engage the sexuality wars as enthusiastically as some have wished is that I believe they are a skirmish in a much more significant debate and conflict. To fight over sex is to distort realities by focusing on only a part of the picture. The result of this is that the whole issue has been highly politicized in all arenas with parties backed into corners from which we lob shells, doing our best, perhaps, to do as much damage as we can to each other, rather than addressing the true extent of what is going on and what the issues really are.

The clue to a whole book is often found in the first chapter, even in the first few paragraphs, and Scripture is no exception. When humanity is introduced to us we are told that God set out to make 'adam' (human) in his own likeness, to have dominion and stewardship of the earth, and that he made them "in his own image, in the image of God he created him (adam); male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27). The rest of Scripture is, in effect, dealing with the implications of these few words.

Judeo-Christian culture has had built into its very being this high understanding of what it means to be human, and the dignity of the stewardship to which we have been called. This presupposition has shaped every aspect of our understanding of humanity, from the way our laws are configured, through science and medicine, to our social interaction and behavior.

But in the last few generations our culture has been abandoning any workable notion of a creator God. In the last 30-40 years the impact of this has filtered into society's perception of what it means to be human, and meanwhile we have been steadily letting go of any sense of the absolute. We are now at a point where increasing numbers are willing to negotiate what it means to be human.

The truth is that in so many fields the tools are either in place or will soon be there to enable human beings to alter their physical, psychological, and ontological nature. Reading professional literature as well as thoughtful stuff in journals and news sources, it is clear that there are many who have no qualms about pushing this envelope as far as they can, while those of us who say, "Wait a minute, let's just get some definitions in place as to what it means to be human," are thrust aside as dinosaurs who ought to shut up and get out of the way.

Our confusion about the nature and place of sexuality is part of this much larger picture -- a symptom that what we have accepted as givens are no longer acceptable in this brave new world.

I believe that John Paul II recognized this and sought in his theology of the human body to address these realities, but his thinking, and that of others like Dr. Leon Kass, who has been Chair of the President' Council on Bioethics, is not being as seriously listened to because it requires caution and thoughtfulness on the part of those scrambling to make fresh scientific discoveries.

The reason recent trends in sexuality are part of this picture is because they are, I believe, a component of this renegotiating of what it means to be human. There are those who are suggesting because of their own biases that we are free to re-assess what it means to be sexual beings, and what it is to be made in God's image. Clearly, what Genesis 1 teaches, and this is then echoed throughout Scripture, is that part of this being made is God's image is that we are either male or female, and that men and women have not just a functional but an ontological complementariness. From this then emerges the whole flow of biblical teaching about being human, and sexual ethics.

It is my contention that this vital passage in Genesis 1 has not been given the attention that it deserves, and neither has it been looked at within the wider context of changes and movements in our culture that are calling into question and seeking to remake what it means to be human. There is a lot of work ahead of us if we are to find a way forward, but right now we are into lobbing emotionally laden shells rather than creatively engaging the whole much more worrying issue of which this is only part.

This passage is extremely challenging. It raise to the highest level what it means to be human because we are created in the image of God which means taking incredibly seriously the dignity of every human being -- and that means every man, woman, and child on this planet, no exceptions. But it also demands that we take with the utmost seriousness what all the given-nesses of our lives are about, our gender being a crucial part of this. In truth, serious study of Genesis 1:26-31, and Genesis 2:4-25 will stretch all of us to ask and try to answer some very uncomfortable questions.

I suspect that we will not find a way forward in the culture as a whole, or the church, until we are prepared to deal with the whole picture and not part of it.

In Christ,
Richard Kew

Posted by latimer at 11:41 AM | Comments (0)

February 02, 2007

'Agnostic' Bishop Richard Randerson to retire

The Anglican bishop who caused a furore by declaring himself an agnostic has announced he is to quit his job.
NZ Herald - 02.02.07

NZ Herald - 02.02.07
by Simon Collins
www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10422059

The Anglican bishop who caused a furore by declaring himself an agnostic has announced he is to quit his job.

Richard Randerson, the Assistant Bishop of Auckland and dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, said he had told Auckland's senior bishop, John Paterson, a year ago that he planned to retire in the middle of 2007.

"I will be 67 this year. Even that is a year or two beyond the normal sort of thing," he said. "I have some regrets at retiring at this stage because the response to the religious debate that we've had has been absolutely astonishing."

The bishop sparked the debate with an article in the Herald on January 8 welcoming a planned national statement on religious diversity and expressing discomfort at leading Christian prayers in public, "thus excluding people of other faiths".

He said "much of the language of the Bible is to be read in categories of poetry and image, not as a scientific textbook". "In terms of the existence of such a being, an atheist is construed as a non-believer, an agnostic as one who feels it cannot be proved one way or another. By that measure, I regard myself as an agnostic," he wrote.

The admission unleashed a flood of letters and public argument. A Hamilton Anglican vicar, Michael Hewat, wrote that "to reject the doctrine of God's personhood, or that he is a supreme being, is heretical."

Bishop Randerson acknowledged that Mr Hewat and others promoted "a traditional view" that saw faith differently, but he had written to Mr Hewat to explain his views.

Mr Hewat said last night that Bishop Randerson had written "a very gracious response" in a letter published in the Herald on January 23, where he reaffirmed his faith in "God who, although a mystery, is fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ".

"That means that we have come together on that one," Mr Hewat said.

Posted by latimer at 12:37 PM | Comments (0)

January 18, 2007

Fear not, God does reign - Garth George

I have been following, with increasing perplexity, the pronouncements of a relatively senior member of the Anglican clergy, and the discussion that has arisen apropos his remarks.
NZ Herald - Opinion 18.01.07

NZ Herald - Opinion 18.01.07
Garth George
www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00004BBA-9DDE-15AD-ABAC83027AF1010F

I have been following, with increasing perplexity, the pronouncements of a relatively senior member of the Anglican clergy, and the discussion that has arisen apropos his remarks.

Richard Randerson has admitted publicly that he has become an agnostic, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as a "person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God".

Mr Randerson, however, says he is an agnostic who believes in God but is more comfortable with God existing in forms such as "love" and "spirit" than as a supreme being.

He says he does not believe that Adam and Eve were real, or that there is any proof the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus in a "gynaecological miracle".

Yet he proclaims "I'm not just some wishy-washy non-believer as [some] would like to make out."

Now Mr Randerson is dean of the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Parnell and thus is administrator and chief priest of a building not only erected to the glory of God the Father (and supreme being) but to the Holy Trinity consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Also, Mr Randerson is assistant Bishop of Auckland, a position he was inducted into just over four years ago.

The Anglican Prayer Book service for the ordination of bishops contains these questions and answers.

Presiding bishop: "Do you believe that the Bible contains all that is essential for our salvation and reveals God's living word in Jesus Christ?"

Bishop-elect: "Yes, I do ... "

Presiding bishop: "Will you maintain the doctrines of the faith as this church has received them?"

Bishop-elect: "Yes, I will ... "

Immediately before these questions, the bishop-elect (and all present) recites the Nicene Creed, which begins: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen."

It continues: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God ... For us and for our salvation he ... became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man."

In the Prayer Book is a catechism, which contains the essential doctrines held by the Anglican Church. The catechism affirms both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and adds: " ... God creates all the worlds that are, and is sovereign over all" and " ... Jesus is the only Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary."

In the secular world the foregoing would be seen as the terms of employment to which prospective employees agree before taking up a position.

And it is taken for granted that if an employee disobeys or resiles from any of those conditions of employment, he or she would expect to face at best a warning or a request to leave, or at worst to be dismissed.

So my question is this: If as an ordained Anglican clergyman Mr Randerson no longer believes in God as the supreme being, and if he no longer believes in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, how come he is still dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, vicar-general and assistant Bishop of Auckland?

I understand from conversations with genuine Anglicans who are familiar with the workings of their church that once a parson reaches a certain level of authority in the church it is well-nigh impossible to dislodge him (or her).

But that's irrelevant to my way of thinking. If I, as editor of a Christian newspaper, found myself no longer believing in that which my employers hold as fundamental Christian truth, the first thing I would do is resign.

Another cause for perplexity is Mr Randerson's activities as a member of the interfaith reference group which is looking at the framework for a national statement on religious diversity.

He has raised two questions which have surprised other members of the group, including the non-Christians who recognise that this is still traditionally a Christian country.

He has suggested the Parliamentary prayer should be reviewed; and that the prayers said at Anzac Day services should be stripped of specifically Christian references by omitting the concluding references to Jesus Christ.

His argument is that if Christian prayers are said in public in a country which has become multifaith and multicultural, people of other religions will feel excluded - although there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

For those readers alarmed, disturbed or disheartened by all these goings on, here are a few words taken from a document released by the Catholic Church in New Zealand called Worshipping Under Southern Skies: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Mass.

It says (to all Christians, not just Catholics): "The life of God and the Church is an objective truth. Our growth in faith occurs when we allow ourselves to receive the revealed heart of this truth.

"We find our human health and happiness when we allow this truth to settle in the depth of our hearts. This is a tall order. People today have an inherent suspicion of anything promoted as unchanging truth or doctrine.

"The Church is not formed by our opinions and reflections. The Church is not even formed by our sound theological knowledge or just action.

"The Church is the Church of God, brought into existence by the will of God and maintained in time by the power of the Holy Spirit."

So be not afraid.

Garth George
NZ Herald

Posted by latimer at 08:05 PM | Comments (0)

January 16, 2007

Rev Michael Hewat: There's heresy afoot in this Christianity debate

Amid the current debate about diversity of belief there have been Perspectives articles from an atheist (Ernie Barrington), an agnostic (Richard Randerson) and an unbeliever who is neither an atheist nor a humanist nor a rationalist (John Roughan).
NZ Herald 16.01.07

NZ Herald - 16.01.07
www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00008AC7-012E-15AB-BEF783027AF1010F

By Guest Columnists

Michael Hewat: There's heresy afoot in this Christianity debate
Amid the current debate about diversity of belief there have been Perspectives articles from an atheist (Ernie Barrington), an agnostic (Richard Randerson) and an unbeliever who is neither an atheist nor a humanist nor a rationalist (John Roughan).

There have been references to Christianity and to "traditional Christians", but - as is so often the case - the "traditional"(or better, the "orthodox") Christian voice has not been heard.

One might well object that an Anglican bishop should be able to be counted on to provide just such an orthodox Christian perspective but sadly this has not been the case. If Christians from other denominations find this galling, as many of the letters to the editor indicate, imagine how Anglicans find it.

Most Anglicans believe in a supreme being, the trinitarian God of the creeds and The 39 Articles of Religion, and long to hear their leadership publicly affirm it.

The position Bishop Randerson has adopted, if I understand him correctly, is a rather hopeful intermediate one between atheism and what he calls "traditional Christian belief in a supreme being".

However, his use of the word agnostic has proven unhelpful to him because, while technically correct in the sense he uses it, it has placed him closer in most people's eyes - mine included - to atheism than to Christian belief.

Regardless of how hard Bishop Randerson has tried to nuance his position as a believer in god (with a little "g"), he has left little doubt that he no longer believes in the one God of the creeds. What is unclear is how what he does believe in - "love" or "spirit" - constitutes any form of divinity at all.

Christianity is a revealed religion. Christians, like Jews, believe that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and that he has revealed himself in his mighty acts in history. Unlike Jews, Christians believe that God's supreme revelation of himself was in his son, Jesus Christ, whose life, death, resurrection and ascension testify to God's great love for his whole creation, and his determination to deal with sin and evil and redeem creation according to his loving purposes.

The Bible records this as good news (the meaning of "gospel") and Christians are called to bear witness to it, in word and in deed, as they live lives transformed by the power of God's Holy Spirit.

That Christians have often failed miserably to do so does not alter the fact that what God has revealed of himself, and the way he has prescribed for humans to live, is wholly good.

The significance of Christianity being a revealed religion is that you must either accept its truths as revealed in history and recorded in the Bible, or reject them.

Christianity allows that everyone has the right to make that choice, albeit at their eternal peril.

The Christian is bound to respect the right of the atheist to reject God, and the agnostic to refuse to commit either way. Christians must also accept that people will choose to follow other gods.

Apropos the proposed national diversity statement, therefore; neither atheists nor agnostics, nor unbelievers, nor people of other faiths should have anything to fear from orthodox Christianity.

There is nothing in the New Testament which advocates the spread of the Gospel by force or oppression, or the suppression or persecution of other faiths. Those who have claimed or acted otherwise have erred badly.

Conversely, I do not see that Christians have anything to fear from the national diversity statement either, so long as it does all that Bishop Randerson claims it will do.

While Christianity allows individuals the right to freely accept or reject its teachings, it does not allow for those who profess Christian faith to pick and choose between the bits they like and the bits they don't.

Those who call themselves Christians but choose to reject essential tenets of the Christian faith have, from the beginning, been called heretics (from the Greek word meaning "able to choose").

A heretic is one who has chosen a different, and therefore wrong belief. So, to reject the doctrine of God's personhood, or that he is a supreme being, is heretical.

Orthodox Christianity is a coherent belief system. You simply cannot remove God the Father, replace him with an abstraction such as "love" or "spirit", and claim you have not lost anything.

Remove God from Christianity and all the central Christian doctrines fall over like dominoes. Not only is this true at a theological level, it is true of Christian praxis too.

How do you worship these substitutes for God? Why would you want to and what good would it do? What about prayer or Holy Communion? These no longer have any object or meaning.

No wonder those Christian churches which have abandoned orthodox faith are those which are in rapid decline while those which are not ashamed of the Gospel and believe in the love and power of God to save continue to experience dynamic growth.

All New Zealanders should welcome religious tolerance, but religious compromise is not something that should be required of anyone. All religions, atheism and agnosticism too, make their own exclusive truth claims.

There is no reason these should not be allowed to be respectfully expressed in public. I hope and pray that the national diversity statement will guarantee this.

* The Reverend Michael Hewat is vicar of the West Hamilton Anglican Parish.

Posted by latimer at 02:53 PM | Comments (0)

Bishop Randerson on 'agnosticism'

Bishop Randerson seeks to explain his views on God, Jesus, Bible Stories and Public Prayer further - read more:

To AnglicansAll www.duomo.ac.nz/acnz from Bishop Richard Randerson, re the “agnosticism” remark:

GOD : Because God is mystery we can only talk about God in terms of symbolism and imagery. There are many symbols of God, none of which can fully represent God. The traditional image is of God as supernatural creator, and some go further to claim such an entity is scientifically verifiable. It is SOLELY in relationship to that image of a scientifically verifiable entity that I used the word agnostic, meaning that you cannot prove the existence of such an entity one way or the other.
There are other images of God. The Bible says God is love, and God is spirit. These are images of God that I and many others feel much more helpful. I believe totally in God, and find these images of love and spirit more meaningful for me. But everyone needs to have an image that they feel is helpful to them, remembering that we are talking here about images, not the reality of God to which any image can only point.

JESUS : Although God is mystery we know the nature of God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, whom we call Son of God. Through Jesus we find the nature of God to be one of love, forgiveness, justice, peace, and sacrifice for others.

BIBLE STORIES : There are different types of language. The language of science is a different type of language from the language of poetry and symbolism. Many of the Bible stories are of the latter kind, and to confuse symbolism with science is a category mistake (which both Richard Dawkins and fundamentalist Christians make). In reading many of the Bible stories the essential thing is to focus on the MEANING of the story, not to get side-tracked by debating the stories as to whether they are literally factual or non-factual. For example : A. The Creation stories do not offer us an alternative scientific view as to HOW the world was made (as Creationists claim). The MEANING of the stories is that we understand Creation as gift, and treasure it; every person and part of Creation needs to live in a relationship of inter-dependence or symbiosis, with God as the central reality; and as human beings we are called to act as stewards of the Creation to ensure its sustainability for all time. B. Jonah and the whale (literally ‘big fish’). This story tells us of God’s love for all people, in this case the people of Nineveh where Jonah was supposed to be going. C. The Virgin Birth : the meaning of this story lies in its expression of the truth that in Jesus both human and divine natures meet.

Prayer in Public : re-reading my article from Monday I see the word I used was NOT ‘embarrassed’ (as some have misquoted) but ‘uncomfortable’ (because of the excluding nature in a multi-faith setting). And by ‘public prayer’ I was not referring to prayer in a church service (where Christians gather voluntarily for Christian worship), but to prayer in a public setting such as in Parliament, or at an Anzac Day parade at the Cenotaph, where people of many faiths or of none gather..

Posted by latimer at 02:44 PM | Comments (0)

Bishop Randerson explains

"All I would ask is that they have respect for other views in the church that are just as conscientiously and passionately held," he said. "I'm not just some wishy-washy non-believer as they would like to make out."
NZ Herald 13.01.07

NZ Herald - 13.01.07
By Patrick Gower
www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418965&ref=emailfriend

As one of New Zealand's most powerful Anglicans, Bishop Richard Randerson admits that his spiritual views may be seen by some as heresy.

He admits that he is an agnostic who does not believe Adam and Eve were real, or that there is any proof the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus in a "gynaecological miracle".

From an ordained priest of 42 years who is now dean of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell and assistant bishop of Auckland, these are frank admissions.

He declared himself an agnostic in a column written for the Herald this week, saying the term could be used for someone who felt God's existence could not be scientifically proven one way or the other. "By that measure, I am an agnostic," he wrote.

The rebukes were swift: one letter-writer said his opinion piece was "frightening reading"; another warned "the Church must be careful lest it falls".

Bishop Randerson continued to describe himself as an agnostic in an interview with the Weekend Herald, saying he believed in God, but was more comfortable with God existing in forms such as "love" and "spirit" than as a supreme being.

He said he first believed in God as a supreme being but had changed his views over time.

He decided to speak openly of his agnosticism to rebut the "celestial teapot" thesis recently advanced by science writer and atheist Richard Dawkins: that belief in God is as silly as believing in a teapot.

Bishop Randerson said Dawkins had put up a "straw God" by attacking the traditional image of a supreme being and had been dishonest in failing to acknowledge that other views were widespread in Christianity.

The bishop added that Christians with traditional views - including strict Anglicans in his own congregation - could do just as much damage to the church as atheist attacks because they were "a real turn-off".

He knew his admission of agnosticism was "risky" and would upset some.

"For those who have grown up with a particular way, they will say that this is an abandonment of the faith. They will say: 'This is the way, we've always known this, you are saying something else, obviously we are right and you are wrong.'

"But I am also aware of those beyond the traditional believers who want to believe in God in categories that make sense to them."

Bishop Randerson said he was sensitive about how "agnostic" was defined and was uncomfortable with the Oxford Dictionary definition put to him by the Weekend Herald as a "person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God", which fits with common use of the word.

He preferred instead to focus on his doubts about God as a supreme being.

Such views are not new in the Anglican Church. In the 1960s, John A.T. Robinson, the bishop of Woolwich in England, wrote a book called Honest to God that challenged the ideas of "God up there" and "God out there". American John Spong, the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, has called on Christians to rethink their views on God, Christ and the Bible.

In New Zealand, Lloyd Geering - a Presbyterian - has led the liberal charge. He was tried for heresy nearly 40 years ago after he admitted doubting the physical resurrection of Jesus.

Bishop Randerson could not name any other Anglican bishops who had gone as far as to publicly describe themselves as agnostic.

"But if you asked them, 'Do you believe in God as a scientifically provable entity?' the bulk of them would say probably say no," he said.

Bishop Randerson said he placed the resurrection in a different category from symbolic tales such as the virgin birth because the disciples had actually experienced it, even though it was hard to explain.

In his column Bishop Randerson also wrote that he felt "uncomfortable" leading prayers in public that had an exclusively Christian ending.

He said he was referring to gatherings where all faiths were present, such as Anzac Day, and the wording of the parliamentary prayer, which is under review. Prayers could have the same content without nailing it to one faith, so he had started leaving words "through Jesus Christ our Lord" off the end of prayers, saying "amen" instead.

"I would say to people who have difficulty with that to suppose the Anzac Day service was led entirely by Muslim clerics and every prayer had references to Muhammad and nothing else. They would say, 'Gosh, we're cut out of this."'

Why the bishop would marry a same-sex couple
Bishop Richard Randerson has criticised the Anglican Church's rejection of same-sex marriages, saying it "is not an expression of Christian love".

He said he would perform a civil union or same-sex marriage ceremony if it was permitted, but he did not think the church would change during his time.

During an interview with the Weekend Herald, Bishop Randerson cried as he spoke of the parents of gay and lesbian children who felt rejected by the church because of its stance and how they had thanked him for making them feel wanted through his opposition.

Bishop Randerson said he knew homosexuals in the church, including a close friend of 35 years, who had profound Christian conviction and "to say you've got it wrong, mate, I just couldn't do that".

He accepted it was not the church's view, but he believed the morality of a relationship was found by the love within it, not the gender of the people.

He believed the church would change its stance, but not for years.

By Patrick Gower, NZ Herald

Posted by latimer at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)

NZ Bishop Richard Randerson: Common ground where faiths meet

Atheism is understood to mean a denial of belief in a particular image of God as supernatural creator. Richard Dawkins' thesis that there is no proof of such a being as a scientifically verifiable entity is quite correct.
NZ Herald 08.01.07

NZ Herald
By Guest Columnists
www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00064373-7387-15A0-800E83027AF1010E

Three cheers for Ernie Barrington in his call for respect for atheists. I would go further and seek to remove the word from our vocabulary.

Far better that people be defined in terms of what they do believe rather than what they do not. Humanist is a better word for those who believe in human wellbeing but do not source their commitment from a religious base.

In terms of the existence of such a being, an atheist is construed as a non-believer, an agnostic as one who feels it cannot be proved one way or the other. By that measure, I regard myself as an agnostic.

To seek proof of the existence of God in scientific terms is a category mistake. Much of the language of the Bible is to be read in categories of poetry and image, not as a scientific textbook.

The concept of God is linked to timeless realities of human existence, such as compassion, reconciliation and relationship.

Barrington highlights the difficulty of leading a funeral service in a church context. It is always helpful when those who died indicated the type of service preferred.

One of the biggest challenges for clergy is in a situation where a family say they are not religious but want a service in a church because they want something that will address underlying questions such as the understanding of life and death, and how to come to terms with grief or the trauma of sudden death.

Such trauma is accentuated in the case of the untimely death of someone who is young, and questions of "Why?" arise.

In such circumstances people are seeking insights on matters that are broadly spiritual in nature, even if those insights are not expressed in the categories of traditional religious belief. As an example, a man dying of cancer told me he was an atheist in terms of traditional views of God, but that as he reflected on life he felt part of something bigger than himself, and this gave him comfort.

In such a context the expression by Prime Minister Helen Clark of a desire for a National Diversity Statement takes on added meaning. We live in a society where the affirmation of belief, be it religious or non-religious, is important, but the nature of that belief is not uniform.

Neither the suppression of belief, nor a search for some bland amalgam that satisfies no one, is a viable solution.

The proposed diversity statement seeks to affirm the rights of all New Zealanders to hold such religious, philosophical or humanist world-views which are theirs by conviction, to hold them without threat or attack, and to hold them in a way that does not threaten or attack the rights of others.

The statement is being developed by a small group of religious and human rights leaders as a basis for discussion, and is part of the broader search for inter-faith understanding being pursued at this time by Asian and Pacific nations.

Attacks on Jewish graves and Islamic mosques make such a statement timely as a reminder of what we aspire to as a nation.

The issue of the parliamentary prayer is also under review, as is the nature of the prayers used at Anzac Day services.

As a church leader I feel uncomfortable leading prayers in public that have an exclusively Christian ending, thus excluding people of other faiths.

There are prayers that are couched in more inclusive language, as well as a variety of other writings of an aspirational nature, that can catch the spirit of those values we share in common as New Zealanders.

* Richard Randerson is Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell, and assistant Anglican bishop of Auckland. He is a member of the drafting group of the proposed National Diversity Statement.

Posted by latimer at 02:14 PM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2006

The Revd Juan Kinnear shares some thoughts on his recent ordination

Nearly a month has passed since my ordination and I have not forgotten your request for a summary of my thoughts, in the light of events surrounding the 4th of November. It has taken me this long to consider whether it is prudent to comment at all, given the volatile nature of inter-Anglican relations. I am inclined not to say anything, for fear that my comments may be misconstrued and add fuel to an already overheated disagreement. But, I am aware that objections have been raised from some quarters which should not go unchallenged, lest untruth prevail. The objections raised to my ordination appear to reside in two categories – procedural and theological.
www.duomo.ac.nz/acnz/?p=168

Posted by latimer at 12:43 PM | Comments (0)

November 06, 2006

Auckland Bishop in Hot Water

According to a New Zealand newspaper this weekend, the Bishop of Auckland, the Rt Revd John Paterson has licensed a former Priest of the diocese who is not only a celebrant for same-sex Civil Unions, but is also about to be "married" in a civil union himself.

It is little surprise to conservatives in the Anglican Church that such a story should appear on the very weekend that the Bishop of Dunedin ordained a man who he openly admitted was in a same-sex union. For there are already signs that an orchestrated campaign is beginning to emerge which seeks to take the New Zealand church out of the Anglican Communion and align itself instead with the radical American Episcopal church.

The case, reported in the Sunday Star Times, will only deepen the crisis into which the New Zealand Anglican has been plunged by the Dunedin ordinations and will have further international ramifications.

For the Bishop John Peterson is currently serving as Chairman of
the Anglican Consultative Council (one of the international "insturments of unity" within the Anglican Communion), was on the commission that poduced the Windsor Report (2004) and was the New Zealand Archbishop who was part of the Dromantine Statement (2005) produced by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

Although the Bishop Paterson has previously declared that no Priest in his Diocese should either register as a Civil Union Celebrant or conduct same-sex blessings, he as refused to discipline at least two Priests to have conduct such blessings in what the Bishop calls their "private" capacity.

This has been met with astonishment in many quarters of the church who find it hard to believe that the public and private duties of a Priest can ever be separated according to Anglican Church rules.

In the case reported this weekend, the former Anglican Priest, Keith King, who left his Auckland parish in 1999 when he came "out" as a gay man (leaving his wife of 30 years and 3 children) has made a "part-time return to parish duties" as assistant priest in the Grey Lynn parish. In between times he has been living in the Waikato Diocese, where the Diocesan Bishop, Archbishop David Moxon, had refused to grant him permission to officiate.

However, his return to Auckland marks a return to licensed ministry as
assistant Priest. The Vicar of the parish is the Revd Hugh Kempster, who embarrassed his Bishop previously by declaring that he was going to "test the church" by publicly conducting Civil Unions of gay couples.

Revd Mal Falloon
Latimer Warden

Posted by latimer at 10:47 PM | Comments (0)