« | Back to main page | »

March 18, 2008

Chch's controversial new bishop

A controversial Canadian woman has been elected Christchurch's next Anglican bishop.

A Canadian Bishop who is part of a high-level advisory group to the worldwide Anglican Communion has been elected Bishop of Christchurch.

The Rt Revd Victoria Matthews is currently bishop-in-residence at Wycliffe College in Toronto. She was Bishop of Edmonton for 10 years from 1997 to late last year, and Suffragan (Assistant) Bishop of Toronto from 1994-97.

She narrowly missed being elected Primate of Canada last year.

Announcing the appointment today, the Primate of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, NZ and Polynesia, Archbishop Brown Turei, said he looked forward to welcoming Bishop Matthews into the church of these islands.
"I'm sure that, with all her experience, she will make a good contribution to our life and witness," he said.

Bishop Matthews, 54 and unmarried, is only the second woman to become a diocesan bishop in New Zealand. The first was the Rt Revd Dr Penny Jamieson, Bishop of Dunedin from 1989-2004.

Bishop Matthews chairs the Canadian Primate's Theological Commission, and has just been appointed to the Windsor Continuation Group, which will look at crucial questions about the shape of Anglican common life around the world.

She is in high demand as a retreat leader and guest lecturer, enjoys leading youth pilgrimages to holy places such as Iona and Taize, and has served as a trustee of Yale University in the USA.

In 2004 Bishop Matthews underwent major surgery for breast cancer. She walked the 800km pilgrimage trail to Santiago De Compostela in northern Spain last year to celebrate a clean bill of health.

In her spare time she enjoys hiking and walking her Anatolian shepherd dog Jethro, swimming, and reading history and theology.

Her installation as the eighth Bishop of Christchurch will take place in ChristChurch Cathedral on August 30. The present Bishop, the Rt Revd Dr David Coles, takes up the position of Vicar of Wakatipu in Queenstown on April 12.

'To visit and to listen'

Bishop Matthews is no stranger to Christchurch. She hiked through New Zealand in the 1980s and was smitten. "Your country is so beautiful,"
she said from her home in Toronto this week.

"I've long admired your (Anglican) prayer book, your commitment to the stewardship of creation, and the leadership of Maori in the church. I'm excited about the move and look forward to forming relationships and making Christchurch my home."

Bishop Matthews' personal priorities on arrival here are "to visit and to listen." And then? "My priority for the diocese would be to call the people of God to excellence in all that they do," she says. "I hate mediocrity, and I despair of sloppiness."

She describes herself as "catholic evangelical" and is widely respected for her quiet authority and her ability to sit comfortably with all theological mindsets. However, she worries that in recent years the churches have moved away from "waiting on God," and believes that a call to prayer is "essential at all levels of our church."

She was educated at Bishop Strachan School in Toronto and has a Master of Divinity degree from Yale. She says she is a great fan of church schools, "especially if they are not only for the wealthy. I wish Canada had more of them."

Although only 44 at the time, Bishop Matthews was invited on to the communications committee for the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops in England. She is involved again in the planning of the Lambeth Conference this July, and will attend as Christchurch's Bishop-elect.

Despite media speculation, Bishop Matthews is careful and moderate on controversial issues such as the blessing of same-sex relationships.
Indeed, she is known internationally for her theological orthodoxy and her resolve to maintain unity.

Last year, during the Canadian General Synod, she was reported as saying that same-sex blessings did not conflict with core doctrines of the Canadian church.

Her comment arose from a Canadian study called the St Michael Report, which identified core doctrines as those relating to the person and work of God.

"Speaking personally, I think a number of things stand in the way of blessing same-gender marriages or unions," Bishop Matthews says.

"First and very importantly, the church needs to decide whether same-gender marriage is a faithful development of the Christian doctrine of marriage. This work is well under way in Canada and, I hope, other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

"Secondly, our church needs to find a way forward whenever the cause of church unity meets the cry of personal and corporate conscience head-on.
Who and how will we decide? The Anglican Covenant Design Group is addressing this."

Bishop Matthews says it is essential, albeit difficult, for churches of the first world to be patient and to listen carefully to churches of the two-thirds world.

"We (in the first world) have been dominant and bossy and arrogant for far too long and the time is right for patience and humility.

"Secondly, by taking the time to do the theology thoroughly and well, we will ease the acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. To be impatient is to risk even further hate and violence against those we have ignored for too long."

Ends

ACNS - Anglican Communion News Service, London

Chch's controversial new bishop
Sunday, 16 March 2008

The Press

A controversial Canadian woman has been elected Christchurch's next Anglican bishop.

The Right Reverend Victoria Matthews, who is bishop-in-residence at Wycliffe College in Toronto, will become the eighth Bishop of Christchurch at a ceremony on August 30.

Bishop Matthews, a former bishop of Edmonton, Canada, has signalled support for blessing gay marriages, but is not expected to break with tradition.

She has twice been in the running to be Primate of the Anglican Church in Canada, the highest post in the country.

In 2004, Bishop Matthews chaired the Task Force on Alternate Episcopal Oversight which looked at the issue of same sex-marriage in Canada.

At the 2007 General Synod of the Canadian church Bishop Matthews voted in favour of a resolution stating "the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church" but voted against permitting those blessings.

Christchurch MP Tim Barnett told The Press newspaper earlier this month he understood the appointment was "a very exciting choice".

Primate of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, NZ and Polynesia, Archbishop Brown Turei said he looked forward to welcoming Bishop Matthews into the church in New Zealand.

"I'm sure that, with all her experience, she will make a good contribution to our life and witness."

Bishop Matthews, 54 and unmarried, is only the second woman to become a diocesan bishop in New Zealand.

The first was the Rt Rev'd Dr Penny Jamieson, Bishop of Dunedin from 1989-2004.

Bishop Matthews chairs the Canadian Primate's Theological Commission, and has just been appointed to the Windsor Continuation Group, which will look at crucial questions about the shape of Anglican common life around the world.

In 2004 Bishop Matthews underwent major surgery for breast cancer.

She walked the 800km pilgrimage trail to Santiago De Compostela in northern Spain last year to celebrate a clean bill of health.

In her spare time she enjoys hiking and walking her Anatolian shepherd dog Jethro, swimming, and reading history and theology.

The present Bishop, the Rt Rev'd Dr David Coles, takes up the position of Vicar of Wakatipu in Queenstown on April 12.

- NZPA

Posted by latimer at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2007

John Stott's Final Public Address

'Incarnational Evangelism' - the way to turn the wold upside down. 'The model – becoming more like Christ.'

Langham Partnership

Close to the end of his own journey John Stott calls for “incarnational evangelism” as the way to turn the world upside down.

Walking slowly and clutching a sturdy wooden cane, 86 year old Rev. Dr. Stott looks every bit the statesman that, in 2005, Time magazine called “One of the 100 most influential people on the planet today”. Echoing that accolade he also received a CBE in 2006 shortly before completing his 50th, and possibly his last, book “The Living Church” launched in 2007.

Having successfully passed the baton of leadership for the international church growth ministry he founded, the LANGHAM PARTNERSHIP (John Stott Ministries in the U.S.) to the current International Director, the Rev. Dr. Chris Wright; John Stott is now enjoying a well earned retirement in leafy Sussex. However, the opportunity to speak again at the Keswick Convention 2007 was enough to draw out another one of those memorable sermons so many have come to expect from this grand orator.

Walking slowly to the podium, and assisted by his research assistant, Chris Jones, John Stott was met by a standing ovation from a Convention tent filled to overflowing, on this warm summer evening on the 17th of July 2007. He began by thanking those who had introduced him in such glowing terms and then, in typically self-deferential fashion, he smiled and added, “But actually I thought I might be listening to my own obituary”.

John Stott clearly explained that the essence of what God is doing in the church today is the work of transforming His people into the image of His Son. Leading his audience from the past reality of predestination (Romans 8:29) through to the present work of transformation (2 Cor 3:18) and culminating in a glorious future (1 John 3:2) when we will discover that ‘we will be like Christ’.

In vintage Stott style, John took the Keswick Convention along a clear and well crafted journey through the evidence for this central purpose of God – to turn the world upside down by transforming His people into the image of His Son. But, he added, it’s the church’s lack of cooperation with this central purpose of God for His people that has been so damaging to our world.

Incarnational evangelism or entering into other people’s worlds with Christ-likeness, Stott noted, is essential to the church’s walk in the 21st century. However, our evangelistic efforts often lead to failure simply because we fail to look like the Christ we are proclaiming. Quoting John Poulton, Stott noted that, “The most effective preaching comes from those who embody their message. What communicates now are people, not words or ideas but rather personal authenticity, that is, Christ-likeness”.

John Stott Address at Keswick
Dr. John Stott – ‘The model – becoming more like Christ.’
Sermon delivered at the Keswick Convention July 17th 2007.

I remember very vividly, some years ago, that the question which perplexed me as a younger Christian (and some of my friends as well) was this: what is God’s purpose for His people? Granted that we have been converted, granted that we have been saved and received new life in Jesus Christ, what comes next? Of course, we knew the famous statement of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: that man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever: we knew that, and we believed it. We also toyed with some briefer statements, like one of only five words – love God, love your neighbour. But somehow neither of these, nor some others that we could mention, seemed wholly satisfactory. So I want to share with you where my mind has come to rest as I approach the end of my pilgrimage on earth and it is – God wants His people to become like Christ. Christlikeness is the will of God for the people of God.

So if that is true, I am proposing the following: first to lay down the biblical basis for the call to Christlikeness: secondly, to give some New Testament examples of this; thirdly, to draw some practical conclusions. And it all relates to becoming like Christ.

So first is the biblical basis for the call to Christlikeness. This basis is not a single text: the basis is more substantial than can be encapsulated in a single text. The basis consists rather of three texts which we would do well to hold together in our Christian thinking and living: Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18 and 1 John 3:2. Lets look at these three briefly.

Romans 8:29 reads that God has predestined His people to be conformed to the image of His Son: that is, to become like Jesus. We all know that when Adam fell he lost much – though not all – of the divine image in which he had been created. But God has restored it in Christ. Conformity to the image of God means to become like Jesus: Christlikeness is the eternal predestinating purpose of God.

My second text is 2 Corinthians 3:18: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness, from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.’ So it is by the indwelling Spirit Himself that we are being changed from glory to glory – it is a magnificent vision. In this second stage of becoming like Christ, you will notice that the perspective has changed from the past to the present, from God’s eternal predestination to His present transformation of us by the Holy Spirit. It has changed from God’s eternal purpose to make us like Christ, to His historical work by His Holy Spirit to transform us into the image of Jesus.

That brings me to my third text: 1 John 3:2. ‘Beloved, we are God’s children now and it does not yet appear what we shall be but we know that when he appears, we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is.’ We don’t know in any detail what we shall be in the last day, but we do know that we will be like Christ. There is really no need for us to know any more than this. We are content with the glorious truth that we will be with Christ, like Christ, for ever.

Here are three perspectives – past, present and future. All of them are pointing in the same direction: there is God’s eternal purpose, we have been predestined; there is God’s historical purpose, we are being changed, transformed by the Holy Spirit; and there is God’s final or eschatalogical purpose, we will be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. All three, the eternal, the historical and the eschatalogical, combine towards the same end of Christlikeness. This, I suggest, is the purpose of God for the people of God. That is the biblical basis for becoming like Christ: it is the purpose of God for the people of God.

I want to move on to illustrate this truth with a number of New Testament examples. First, I think it is important for us to make a general statement, as the apostle John does in 1 John 2:6: ‘he who says he abides in Christ ought to walk in the same way as he walked.’ In other words, if we claim to be a Christian, we must be Christlike. Here is the first New Testament example: we are to be like Christ in his Incarnation.

Some of you may immediately recoil in horror from such an idea. Surely, you will say to me, the Incarnation was an altogether unique event and cannot possibly be imitated in any way? My answer to that question is yes and no. Yes, it was unique, in the sense that the Son of God took our humanity to himself in Jesus of Nazareth, once and for all and forever, never to be repeated. That is true. But there is another sense in which the Incarnation was not unique: the amazing grace of God in the Incarnation of Christ is to be followed by all of us. The Incarnation, in that sense, was not unique but universal. We are all called to follow the example of His great humility in coming down from heaven to earth. So Paul could write in Philippians 2:5-8: ‘Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God some thing to be grasped for his own selfish enjoyment, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.’ We are to be like Christ in his Incarnation in the amazing self-humbling which lies behind the Incarnation.

Secondly, we are to be like Christ in His service. We move on now from his Incarnation to His life of service; from His birth to His life, from the beginning to the end. Let me invite you to come with me to the upper room where Jesus spent his last evening with His disciples, recorded in John’s gospel chapter 13: ‘He took off his outer garments, he tied a towel round him, he poured water into a basin and washed his disciples’ feet. When he had finished, he resumed his place and said, “If then I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet, for I have given you an example’ – notice the word – ‘ that you should do as I have done to you.’

Some Christians take Jesus’ command literally and have a foot-washing ceremony in their Lord’s Supper once a month or on Maundy Thursday – and they may be right to do it. But I think most of us transpose Jesus’ command culturally: that is just as Jesus performed what in His culture was the work of a slave, so we in our cultures must regard no task too menial or degrading to undertake for each other.

Thirdly, we are to be like Christ in His love. I think particularly now of Ephesians 5:2 – ‘walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.’ Notice that the text is in two parts. The first part is walk in love, an injunction that all our behaviour should be characterised by love, but the second part of the verse says that He gave Himself for us, which is not a continuous thing but an aorist, a past tense, a clear reference to the cross. Paul is urging us to be like Christ in his death, to love with self-giving Calvary love. Notice what is developing: Paul is urging us to be like the Christ of the Incarnation, to be like the Christ of the foot washing and to be like the Christ of the cross. These three events of the life of Christ indicate clearly what Christlikeness means in practice.

Fourthly, we are to be like Christ in His patient endurance. In this next example we consider not the teaching of Paul but of Peter. Every chapter of the first letter of Peter contains an allusion to our suffering like Christ, for the background to the letter is the beginnings of persecution. In chapter 2 of 1 Peter in particular, Peter urges Christian slaves, if punished unjustly, to bear it and not to repay evil for evil. For, Peter goes on, you and we have been called to this because Christ also suffered, leaving us an example – there is that word again – so that we may follow in His steps. This call to Christlikeness in suffering unjustly may well become increasingly relevant as persecution increases
in many cultures in the world today.

My fifth and last example from the New Testament is that we are to be like Christ in His mission. Having looked at the teaching of Paul and Peter, we come now to the teaching of Jesus recorded by John. In John 20:21, in prayer, Jesus said ‘As you, Father, have sent me into the world, so I send them into the world’ – that is us. And in his commissioning in John 17 he says ‘As the Father sent me into the world, so I send you.’ These words are immensely significant. This is not just the Johannine version of the Great Commission but it also an instruction that their mission in the world was to resemble Christ’s mission. In what respect? The key words in these texts are ’sent into the world’. As Christ had entered our world, so we are to enter other people’s worlds. It was eloquently explained by Archbishop Michael Ramsey some years ago: ‘We state and commend the faith only in so far as we go out and put ourselves with loving sympathy inside the doubts of the doubters, the questions of the questioners and the loneliness of those who have lost the way.’

This entering into other people’s worlds is exactly what we mean by incarnational evangelism. All authentic mission is incarnational mission. We are to be like Christ in his mission. These are the five main ways in which we are to be Christlike: in His Incarnation, in His service, in His love, in His endurance and in His mission.

Very briefly, I want to give you three practical consequences of Christlikeness.

Firstly, Christlikeness and the mystery of suffering. Suffering is a huge subject in itself and there are many ways in which Christians try to understand it. One way stands out: that suffering is part of God’s process of making us like Christ. Whether we suffer from a disappointment, a frustration or some other painful tragedy, we need to try to see this in the light of Romans 8:28-29. According to Romans 8:28, God is always working for the good of his people, and according to Romans 8:29, this good purpose is to make us like Christ.

Secondly, Christlikeness and the challenge of evangelism. Why is it, you must have asked, as I have, that in many situations our evangelistic efforts are often fraught with failure? Several reasons may be given and I do not want to over-simplify but one main reason is that we don’t look like the Christ we are proclaiming. John Poulton, who has written about this in a perceptive little book entitled A today sort of evangelism, wrote this:

‘The most effective preaching comes from those who embody the things they are saying. They are their message. Christians need to look like what they are talking about. It is people who communicate primarily, not words or ideas. Authenticity gets across. deep down in side people, what communicates now is basically personal authenticity.’

That is Christlikeness. Let me give you another example. There was a Hindu professor in India who once identified one of his students as a Christian and said to him: ‘If you Christians lived like Jesus Christ, India would be at your feet tomorrow.’ I think India would be at their feet today if we Christians lived like Christ. From the Islamic world, the Reverend Iskandar Jadeed, a former Arab Muslim, has said ‘If all Christians were Christians – that is, Christlike – there would be no more Islam today.’

That brings me to my third point – Christlikeness and the indwelling of the Spirit. I have spoken much tonight about Christlikeness but is it attainable? In our own strength it is clearly not attainable but God has given us his Holy Spirit to dwell within us, to change us from within. William Temple, Archbishop in the 1940s, used to illustrate this point from Shakespeare:

‘It is no good giving me a play like Hamlet or King Lear and telling me to write a play like that. Shakespeare could do it – I can’t. And it is no good showing me a life like the life of Jesus and telling me to live a life like that. Jesus could do it – I can’t. But if the genius of Shakespeare could come and live in me, then I could write plays like this. And if the Spirit could come into me, then I could live a life like His.’

So I conclude, as a brief summary of what we have tried to say to one another: God’s purpose is to make us like Christ. God’s way to make us like Christ is to fill us with his Spirit. In other words, it is a Trinitarian conclusion, concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Posted by latimer at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

September 25, 2007

Anglican Church could split by end of year

25.09.07 The worldwide Anglican Church is expected to split radically by the end of the year under plans being drawn up by a leading conservative archbishop to "adopt" a breakaway group of American dioceses, the [UK] Daily Telegraph has learned.

Anglican Church could split by end of year
By Jonathan Petre, Telegraph.co.uk Religion Correspondent, in New Orleans Last Updated: 25/09/2007
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/25/wchurch125.xml

The worldwide Anglican Church is expected to split radically by the end of the year under plans being drawn up by a leading conservative archbishop to "adopt" a breakaway group of American dioceses, the Daily Telegraph has learned.

Under the unprecedented proposals, the archbishop would allow the conservative dioceses to opt out of the liberal American branch of the Anglican Church and affiliate with his province thousands of miles away.

It is understood that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has been informed of the plans.

But Dr William's advisers fear that they could create fresh chaos and accelerate the widespread fragmentation of the Anglican Communion even in the Church of England.

Conservatives believe, however, that Dr Williams is now openly siding with the liberals and allowing the Communion to fall apart by default, leaving conservatives stranded.

Until now, only parishes have left the American Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas provinces in Africa, often amid acrimonious and costly disputes over property.

But under the new plans, whole dioceses will for the first time transfer their allegiances, a significant escalation of the conflict which will be seen as highly provocative by American liberals.

There have already been extensive secret consultations between the American conservative bishops and the bishops of the province that is preparing to adopt them.

The leader of the conservative Network bishops in America, the Bishop of Pittsburg, the Rt Rev Bob Duncan, predicted that up to five dioceses could make the leap, which he characterized as a "modern-day Reformation".

He said that at least three had plans to vote on the issue in their diocesan synods in the coming months to legitimize their decision.

But the Episcopal Church is almost certain to declare such dioceses vacant and appoint new bishops, leaving two rival Anglican entities running parallel with each other within the same geographical area.

Bishop Duncan said that Dr William's efforts to keep the worldwide Church together at all costs had undermined his own authority as Archbishop of Canterbury.

"The attempt to hold everything together may prove a fatal mistake for Anglicanism and his office," said Bishop Duncan.

He also said that the "victory" of Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop whose consecration in 2003 sparked the crisis, had "come at a tremendous cost."

"The Episcopal Church which formed me and which I have served all my life is almost unrecognizable," he added. "Yet I haven't changed, nor have so many of us."

Meanwhile, Anglican Church officials and a coalition of liberal and conservative American bishops have been working on a compromise aimed at keeping the Episcopal Church within worldwide Anglicanism.

The proposals, which were discussed by the whole House of Bishops yesterday, will fall short of conservative demands for unequivocal assurances that they would end same sex blessings and further appointments of gay bishops indefinitely.

But they are likely to be seized on by Dr Williams as evidence that the Americans have modified their pro-gay agenda sufficiently to prevent their expulsion from the worldwide Church.

The Americans are also expected to suggest the creation of a new pastoral council made up of members from across the worldwide Church representing a spectrum of opinions to sort out disputes and preempt conflicts.

Posted by latimer at 03:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2007

Archbishop sees vibrant future for Anglican church

"...we need to share this [church] relationship with a lot more people in the community and be very welcoming to other people".
ABC Stimon Santow

Archbishop sees vibrant future for Anglican church

Monday, 17 September , 2007
Reporter: Simon Santow

www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2035770.htm

MARK COLVIN: More drum kits and fewer stained glassed windows. That's the future of the Anglican Church through the eyes of the leader of Australia's biggest Anglican community. Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen has used the Church's annual Synod or parliament to attack his own church as forbidding and unnecessarily old-fashioned.

But there's a definite limit to Dr Jensen's appetite for change. He says there's still no need for women to become priests in his diocese or for the Church to embrace the openly gay.

Simon Santow reports.

SIMON SANTOW: At a time when there are fears of a split in the worldwide Anglican communion over homosexuality, Dr. Peter Jensen's message to the faithful is about making the Church more accessible to outsiders.

PETER JENSEN: At the present moment, our way of doing things cuts us off from the community somewhat and makes us a bit forbidding. We want people who would like to know what we're on about, and like to share it to find an easy way into our fellowship.

SIMON SANTOW: When pressed, the leader of Sydney's Anglicans says the sense of intimidation often starts at the Church front door.

PETER JENSEN: Entering a new building, coming to a whole group of people you've never met before can be daunting for anybody. In fact, I find it a bit daunting sometimes, and if I'm on holidays, going to a new church.

So, I can imagine the ordinary person finds it so. The building are often rather old-fashioned, and sometimes too they give the air of being, you know, you mustn't speak above a hushed whisper and that sort of stuff, whereas really I think they ought to be more like our family homes, where people feel free to enter and are able to relax and find relationships.

So, even at the local level I think we can be less forbidding and more welcoming than we are.

SIMON SANTOW: His speech to Synod goes on to bemoan a lack of contact with people unconnected to the Anglican Church. And he complains of an abyss separating his flock from the wider community.

PETER JENSEN: The quality of life in the churches is good, and there's a tendency therefore to just enjoy the relationship in the Church rather than to want to share that with others. It's a funny thing about all sorts of organisations, and churches are no exceptions, that you get to a certain size, for example, and people feel comfortable, they like it there and instinctively they don't want it really to grow much. It's counter-intuitive.

So, I need to challenge our churches and say, "No, that's not good enough, we need to share this relationship with a lot more people in the community and be very welcoming to other people".

SIMON SANTOW: Dr Jensen has huge ambitions for the Church. He says under his watch, it's added an extra 5,000 adult members, donations taken at the plate have risen by a third to $56-million dollars, the average age of parishioners has dropped, and there's been a significant boost to the number of active licensed clergy.

Ultimately, the Archbishop wants to count 10 per cent of the population as Anglicans, a figure well beyond the current estimate of around two per cent. He says he can get close to his goal by resisting pressure to go the way of other states; states which allow women to become fully ordained ministers.

PETER JENSEN: It may come up, there is a motion about it, I'm not sure how much time we will spend on it.

SIMON SANTOW: So, there's no mood for change as far as you've been hearing?

PETER JENSEN: No.

SIMON SANTOW: And there's a similar dismissal of the issue of openly gay priests and parishioners.

PETER JENSEN: We've talked about it many times in the past, and there's nothing in this Synod that will necessarily bring that to the surface. We often get on well together, even though we come up with different answers, but there come boundary moments when we can no longer really work closely together.

So, that's why we have Baptist and Anglicans, for example, we just disagree on a certain key issue, but we get on personally well, although we can't cooperate at the same level.

SIMON SANTOW: But there's an irony that at a time when votes will be cast and numbers counted in the Church's own parliament, Dr Jensen is a little reluctant to get too involved in federal politics, so close to polling day.

PETER JENSEN: We're very lucky to be living in Australia, that we have … the possibility of secret voting, that they are as Christians, entirely free to cast their ballot in the way that they think God wants them to, and I have no influence over that whatsoever.

MARK COLVIN: The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, ending Simon Santow's report.

Posted by latimer at 01:42 PM | Comments (0)

September 04, 2007

My dream begins with the Word - ++Peter Jensen

"And so, Mr Morrison, you really expect that you will make an impression on the idolatry of the great Chinese Empire?"

Posted by David Virtue on 2007/8/30

My dream begins with the Word

www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6588

Archbishop Peter Jensen
24 August 2007

"And so, Mr Morrison, you really expect that you will make an impression on the idolatry of the great Chinese Empire?" asked the sceptical owner of the vessel which took the young man from the London Missionary Society to China. "No, sir," said Robert Morrison, "I expect God will." (See David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing, p36).

Morrison only won 10 converts in his lifetime, but he is known as the father of Protestant missions in China and the impact of his work has had an incalculable ongoing effect to this day.

Morrison was a gifted linguist and employed as a translator by the East India Company. What impelled him to sacrificial work was his love for Christ and his determination that others should also hear about the Saviour. He founded an important Christian college and talked to people about Jesus. But his central achievement was the translation of the Bible. The labour involved in such an enterprise is amazing. Having the Bible in your own language is an immense gift of love from those involved. We thank God for the dedicated labours of Robert Morrison and those who supported him.

Just think of the part played by the Bible in your own life. We learn at once of the fact that this is one world, created and owned by one God; we learn what it is to be human; we learn about marriage and work; we learn what pleases God; we learn about the redemption that God accomplished through Jesus; we learn how his death has saved us; we learn that history has a purpose and that Jesus will return to judge the world; we learn about the Holy Spirit and the church; we learn about the new heavens and the new earth. These are the great facts which give us our special worldview. How empty would be a world without them!

The Bible has a huge impact on the church. God's word is a public revelation of himself to us. Part of the joy is that it belongs to us all, and we can study it together.

English-speaking people have enjoyed this privilege for centuries and the Bible has shaped the English language at a profound level. More important, it has shaped the way we see the world and live in it. There are many testimonies to the power of the Bible to bring people to a knowledge of God. It is one of our chief evangelistic weapons. But knowledge - and ownership - of the Bible is growing less common, especially amongst younger people. This lack of knowledge will make the overall task of evangelism more difficult.

One of the earliest works done by Christians in Sydney in the 19th century was to go from door to door distributing the Bible. They saw this as a vital task if people were going to know God. In those days literacy was a problem and Christians were also very busy teaching people to read and write. Literacy and the Bible go hand in hand.

Today the challenge is a similar one. We want people to have access to the Word of God in their own language. Books remain an easily transportable and accessible way of communicating knowledge. But books are not alone.

Down through history many people could not read. But they could all listen as long as the Word made sense to them. If we wish to make the Word of God well-known, we may expect to use contemporary means of communication so that all will have access. For some this will mean reading, for others viewing or listening.

I have a dream - a dream to give all our fellow citizens in the Diocese a copy of the word of God. This would have to be a major Christian effort and would involve planning, training, publications, prayer. If we set aside the year of 2009 in particular (the 50th anniversary of the first Billy Graham Crusade) and worked together on such a great project, I think we would experience much joy in the Lord's service. It would also help fulfil the aim of our Diocesan Mission that all may hear his call to repent and believe on him.

Would it not be a wonderful thing if, over the years following such an effort, many people became Christians? Would it not be wonderful if some person to whom you gave a copy of the word of God read it and was saved? Such things happen and we ought to trust God and pray to him that he will bless the distribution of his word in our region.

--The Most Rev. Peter Jensen is Archbishop of Sydney, Australia

Posted by latimer at 02:15 PM | Comments (0)

August 31, 2007

US Anglicans join Kenyan Church

Kenya's Anglican Church has consecrated two US bishops in a move likely to deepen a bitter row over homosexuality.

US Anglicans join Kenyan Church

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6970093.stm

Kenya's Anglican Church has consecrated two US bishops in a move likely to deepen a bitter row over homosexuality.

Bill Murdoch, of Massachusetts, and Bill Atwood, of Texas, will be answerable to the Kenyan Church, although they will serve in the US.

They left the US branch of the Anglican Church - the Episcopal Church - after it consecrated an openly gay bishop.

There are growing tensions within the Anglican denomination around the world, mainly over the issue of homosexuality.

Strong opposition

The two Americans were consecrated at a service at All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi by Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi.

They vowed to "serve the international interests of the Anglican Church of Kenya, to serve clergy and congregations in North America under the Kenyan jurisdiction".

The ceremony was watched by a huge congregation of Kenyans, by archbishops and bishops from across Africa, and by the men's friends and supporters from the US.

"We need to love them [gay people], we need to preach to them, but not to make them lay readers, pastors, bishops" Archbishop Nzimbi

Earlier, Archbishop Nzimbi said the consecration was not intended to widen the gulf in the church, but was a Christian response to a plea for help and pastoral care from Anglicans in the United States.

Gay people, he said, did not have a place as leaders in the Anglican communion.

"We need to love them, we need to preach to them, but not to make them lay readers, pastors, bishops," he said.

African authority

Last year two US churches, unhappy with the Episcopal Church's stance on homosexuality, voted to place themselves under the authority of the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria.

Much of the Anglican Church in Africa is conservative and deeply opposed to the ordination of gay priests.

In February, Anglican bishops meeting in Tanzania issued an ultimatum to the American church, demanding an end to the appointment of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex couples.

US bishops have until 30 September to respond.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal diocese of Chicago on Tuesday included a lesbian priest among five nominees for bishop.

Posted by latimer at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

Lesbian priest among nominees for Episcopal bishop

The Episcopal Diocese of Chicago included an openly lesbian priest [The Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, who has a female partner] among five nominees for bishop Tuesday, as fellow Anglicans demand that the church bar gay bishops.

Lesbian priest among nominees for Episcopal bishop

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- The Episcopal Diocese of Chicago included an openly lesbian priest among five nominees for bishop Tuesday, as fellow Anglicans demand that the church bar gay bishops.

The Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, who has a female partner, will be on the November 10 ballot.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/08/28/episcopal.bishop.ap/index.html

Posted by latimer at 02:25 PM | Comments (0)

July 30, 2007

John Stott Ends Public Ministry with Call for Christ-Like Efforts

The Rev. Dr. John Stott concluded his final public engagement this past week, asking evangelical Christians in England, "What is God's purpose for his people?”

John Stott Ends Public Ministry with Call for Christ-Like Efforts
The Rev. Dr. John Stott concluded his final public engagement this past week, asking evangelical Christians in England, "What is God's purpose for his people?”

Sun, Jul. 22, 2007 Posted: 13:27:26 PM EST

www.christianpost.com/pages/print.htm?aid=28528
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rev. Dr. John Stott concluded his final public engagement this past week, asking evangelical Christians in England, "What is God's purpose for his people?”

Giving his last major address before retiring from public ministry, the man whom many regard as one of the most celebrated evangelists of the modern era told the crowd at this year’s annual convention in Keswick, England: “I want to share with you where my mind has come to rest as I approach the end of my pilgrimage on earth.

“God wants His people to become like Christ,” Stott said, as he was greeted with a standing ovation. “Christ-likeness is the will of God for the people of God.”

Stott, who has been called by the Rev. Billy Graham as “the most respected clergyman in the world today,” spoke Wednesday night as his last speaking engagement before he is to retire from public ministry at the age of 87, moving to a retirement community for Anglican clergy.

His decision in April was made “with the strong belief that it is God’s provision for him at this stage.”

Building his sermon on three texts – Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18 and 1 John 3:2 – Stott affirmed Wednesday night that “if we claim to be a Christian, we must be Christ-like.”

He went on to stress the five main examples in the New Testament of how Christians should seek to imitate Christ.

“We are to be like Christ in his Incarnation,” he said. “It was unique, in the sense that the Son of God took our humanity to himself in Jesus of Nazareth, but the amazing grace of God in the Incarnation of Christ is to be followed by all of us. We are to be like Christ in his Incarnation in the amazing self-humbling which lies behind the Incarnation.”

Stott warned his audience that being Christ-like in “patient endurance...may well become increasingly relevant as persecution increases in many cultures.”

The Anglican evangelist urged believers “enter other people's worlds …. [a]s Christ had entered our world.”

"This entering into other people's worlds is exactly what we mean by incarnational evangelism. All authentic mission is incarnational mission,” he said.

“Why is it, you must have asked, as I have, that in many situations our evangelistic efforts are often fraught with failure?” Stott continued. ”[O]ne main reason is that we don't look like the Christ we are proclaiming.”

Explaining his comments, Stott referred to a “perceptive little book” by John Poulton, entitled “A Today Sort of Evangelism.”

“The most effective preaching comes from those who embody the things they are saying,” Stott cited from the book. “They are their message. Christians need to look like what they are talking about. It is people who communicate primarily, not words or ideas. Authenticity gets across. Deep down inside people, what communicates now is basically personal authenticity.”

To illustrate the impact that a Christ-like church could have on the world, Stott noted the words of non-Christians such as a Hindu professor in India who said one of his Christian students: ”If you Christians lived like Jesus Christ, India would be at your feet tomorrow.“

From the Islamic world, Stott noted the words of the Rev. Iskandar Jadeed, a former Arab Muslim, who said: “If all Christians were Christians – that is, Christ-like – there would be no more Islam today.”'

Rallying a captivated congregation, Stott asked the question: “Is Christ-likeness attainable?”

He concluded: “In our own strength it is clearly not attainable but God has given us his Holy Spirit to dwell within us, to change us from within ... God's way to make us like Christ is to fill us with His Spirit.”

Commenting on the evening, Keswick Convention Council Trustee and preacher Jonathan Lamb said: “He may be known as one of the greatest Christian leaders of the 20th century, but few of us could remain unmoved by the sight of a stopped figure, now quietly spoken, calling us to become more like Jesus Christ.

“Emotions were high amongst the thousands present, each with memories of the power and clarity of John Stott's writing and preaching, and thankful for a life of godliness, integrity and humility. How fitting that his final visit to Keswick should deliberately point to the Lord Jesus, whom he has served so faithfully.”

Stott, who served as chaplain to the Queen from 1959 to 1991, has now officially retired from public ministry and returns to a retirement community for Anglican clergy in the south of England, which his representatives have said will be able to provide more fully for his present and future needs.

Daniel Blake
Christian Post Correspondent

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

This is a critical time - A Statement from the Global South Steering Committee

This is a critical time - A Statement from the Global South Steering Committee

Global South Steering Committee
London, July 16-18, 2007

www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/this_is_a_critical_time_a_statement_from_the_global_south_steering_committe/

1. We are grateful for the prayers and witness of the millions of Anglicans around the world who live out their Christian faith in complex and sometimes hostile situations. Their lives and witness offer hope to a world that is in desperate need and we have been greatly encouraged by their testimony. Their commitment to the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’ deepens our determination to stay true to the biblical revelation and our historic tradition.

2. We reaffirm our dedication to the vision of the church that has a passion to reach all those who have not yet come to a saving knowledge of Christ and one that is truly good news for the poor and freedom for those who are oppressed. We are saddened that the actions of a small part of our Communion family have caused such division, confusion and pain and we are grieved that our witness to the oneness of Christ and his Church has been sorely compromised.

3. We in the Global South remain committed to the underlying principles and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various Communiqués that we have issued, especially the statement that was produced during the most recent Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam. It was the result of enormous effort and heart-felt prayer and we remain convinced that it offers the best way forward for our beloved Communion. In particular, we are hopeful that the development and endorsement of an Anglican Covenant will help us move past this debilitating season into a new focus of growth and missionary zeal.

4. We were distressed by the initial response of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA issued on March 20th, 2007, reaffirmed by the Executive Council on June 14th, 2007, in which they rejected the underlying principles and requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We urge them, once again, to reconsider their position because it is their rejection of the clear teaching of the Church and their continuing intransigence that have divided the Church and has brought our beloved Communion to the breaking point. Without heartfelt repentance and genuine change there can be no restoration of the communion that we all earnestly desire and which is our Lord’s clear intent.

5. We have also been pained to hear of the continuing and growing resort to civil litigation by The Episcopal Church against congregations and individuals which wish to remain Anglican but are unable to do so within TEC. This is in defiance of the urgent plea agreed to by all of the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. This approach to use power and coercion to resolve our current dispute is both enormously costly and doomed to failure and again, we urge the immediate suspension of all such activities and a return to biblical practices of prayer, reconciliation and mediation.

6. Because of the categorical rejection of the unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme and the urgent needs of the growing number of congregations now linked to various Provinces in the Global South, we have had no choice but to provide additional episcopal oversight from the concerned Provinces. We believe that failure to do so would have resulted in many individuals and congregations lost to the Anglican Communion. The rejection of the proposed Pastoral Scheme has also had a profound impact on those dioceses that had requested alternative primatial oversight. We are aware that they are exploring various ways in which they can maintain their Anglican identity apart from The Episcopal Church. We are encouraged by this and also that they are working together within the Common Cause Partnership to avoid unnecessary fragmentation. We recognize that this is a temporary measure and look forward to the time when it is either no longer necessary or they are all part of a new ecclesiastical structure in the USA.

7. We are aware of the anticipated visit by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC to the September meeting of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA. Sadly we are convinced that this decision, made jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chair of the ACC, undermines the integrity of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We believe that the Primates Meeting, which initiated the request to the TEC House of Bishops, must make any determination as to the adequacy of their response. We strongly urge the scheduling of a Primates’ Meeting for this purpose at the earliest possible moment.

8. We have also noted the decisions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada and are dismayed by their unilateral declaration that ’same-sex blessing is not core doctrine’. While we were grateful for the temporary restraint shown in not proceeding with any further authorization, we have observed that a number of the bishops are continuing to defy the recommendations of the Windsor process. We are exploring the possibility of additional pastoral provisions for those who want to remain faithful to Communion teaching and have been affected by the continuing actions of their own bishops.

9. We are concerned for the future of our Communion as a truly global fellowship and our witness before the world as a respected ecclesial family within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In regards to the proposed Lambeth Conference in 2008, we are concerned that the publicly stated expectations for participation have changed its character and function. It is now difficult to see it either as an instrument of unity or communion. At a time when the world needs a vision of reconciliation and unity, our failure to restore the ‘torn fabric’ of our Communion threatens to show the world a contrary example.

10. We remain committed to the convictions expressed in the CAPA report “The Road to Lambeth” and urge immediate reconsideration of the current Lambeth plans. It is impossible for us to see how, without discipline in the Communion and without the reconciliation that we urge, we can participate in the proposed conference; to be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness. The polarization surrounding the Lambeth meeting has been exacerbated because we are also unable to take part in an event from which a number of our own bishops have been arbitrarily excluded while those whose actions have precipitated our current crisis are included.

11. We have received requests from around the Communion to call a gathering of Anglican Communion leaders. We expect to call a Fourth Global South Encounter to bring together faithful Anglican leaders across the Communion to renew our focus on the apostolic faith and our common mission.

12. This is a critical time for the Anglican Communion and one that will shape our future for many years to come. We are praying for all those in leadership that the decisions made and the actions taken will bring glory to God and encouragement to all God’s people. We are hopeful for the future because our confidence is not in ourselves but in Jesus the Christ who gave his life that we might have life. (see John 10:10)

Posted by latimer at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2007

Churches of Global South Represented at National Latimer Conference

The Warden of the Latimer Fellowship and Vicar of the parish of Bryndwr, the Revd Malcolm Falloon, welcomed the participation of the wider Anglican Church at the Latimer Conference, “We can no longer pretend that what is happening on a global scale has no impact on the local church, and vice versa.”

Churches of Global South represented at National Laitmer Conference

Last year, the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen was the guest speaker at the Conference of the Latimer Fellowship, a national association of Anglican Evangelicals.

This year two international speakers will attend the National Latimer Conference for 2007 to be held from Monday 2 to Tuesday 3 July at St Christopher's Anglican Church, Avonhead. The Revd David Short from Vancouver, Canada and the Revd Terry Wong from Singapore.

The Revd David Short is from the diocese of New Westminster, Canada, where his parish, along with others, has opposed the authorising of same-sex blessings by the bishop, which has led to a conflict that has reverberated around the Anglican Communion. In February of this year he was part of a delegation from ANiC (Anglican Network in Canada) who met with Anglican leaders prior to the Anglican Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Primates meeting of Archbishops from around the world met to find a way of preventing the fragmentation of the Anglican communion due to the actions of the Canadian church and the subsequent consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop by the American Church, a man living in a same-sex relationship.

David Short says, “The issue really has nothing to do with sex. The issue underneath it has to do with Scripture and whether our faith comes from the revelation of God in Scripture.”

The Revd Terry Wong is based in Singapore and is chaplain to Archbishop John Chew, Primate of South East Asia. Archbishop John Chew is a leading Primate of the ‘Global South’, a coalition of non-western churches that make up more than 75% of the Anglican Church worldwide. The Global South leaders have consistently challenged the Western church over its departure from the teaching of the Bible in respect to sexuality. Terry Wong will present a paper at the conference giving a Global South perspective on the deepening divide within the Anglican Communion.

The Warden of the Latimer Fellowship and Vicar of the parish of Bryndwr, the Revd Malcolm Falloon, welcomed the participation of the wider Anglican Church at the Latimer Conference, “We can no longer pretend that what is happening on a global scale has no impact on the local church, and vice versa.”

Malcolm Falloon said, “The liberal wing of the Anglican Church is advocating an approach to the Bible that makes everything (and hence, nothing) provable from the Bible, robbing the Church of the very Gospel that sustains its life and mission. It is this Gospel mandate that we seek to reaffirm at this year’s conference”

Revd Malcolm Falloon

Posted by latimer at 01:37 PM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2007

Anglican coalition to force through breakaway

13.06.07 - A powerful coalition of conservative Anglican leaders is preparing to create a parallel Church for conservatives in America in defiance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, provoking the biggest split in Anglican history. Dr Rowan Williams described the Anglican Church as 'very vulnerable, very fragile'
The UK Daily Telegraph has learned.

Anglican coalition to force through breakaway
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:17am BST 13/06/2007
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/13/nanglican113.xml

A powerful coalition of conservative Anglican leaders is preparing to create a parallel Church for conservatives in America in defiance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, provoking the biggest split in Anglican history, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

According to sources, at least six primates are planning the consecration of a prominent American cleric as a bishop to minister to Americans who have rejected their liberal bishops over the issue of homosexuality.

The move will send shock waves through worldwide Anglicanism and may prove to be a fatal blow to the efforts of Dr Rowan Williams to hold together what he described last month as a "very vulnerable, very fragile" Church.

The initiative is understood to have been co-ordinated by senior African archbishops, including the Primate of Kenya, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi, who represent the core of the so-called Global South group of conservative primates.

But the group has a wider base and is also thought to include several relatively moderate primates from outside Africa.

The size of the group - its leaders represent well over 10 million Anglicans - will alarm Lambeth Palace as it could eventually evolve into a powerful rival Anglican Church.

Insiders said the scheme was not being led by the maverick Global South leader, the Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, who has already set up a similar "missionary" Church in America headed by Bishop Martyn Minns. One said: "This enormous division has been provoked by the unilateral actions of the Americans. They have walked away and we have to care for the survivors."

Dr Williams has repeatedly appealed to his fellow primates to refrain from provocative actions while he struggles to avert what appears to be an increasingly inevitable schism.

Last month he attempted to placate the warring factions by announcing that neither Bishop Gene Robinson, the homosexual American bishop, nor Bishop Minns would be invited to next year's Lambeth Conference, the 10-yearly gathering of all the world's bishops in Canterbury. But conservative leaders were furious that Dr Williams had invited the rest of the liberal leadership of the American Church despite its reluctance to toe the line on homosexuality.

The move by the conservative primates will also dismay the liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of Anglicanism, which originally provoked the crisis by consecrating Bishop Robinson in 2003.

The new conservative organisation in America will create ripples in the Church of England, which has been increasingly torn over the issue of homosexuality. It is certain to surface at next month's meeting of the General Synod in York.

Posted by latimer at 07:12 PM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2007

The Church is Flat: A New Anglicanism - Bp Martyn Minns

05.07 - "We are determined to reclaim a vision for the church that holds true to its founder’s intentions."

By Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns
May 3, 2007

www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_church_is_flat_a_new_anglicanism/

In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman explains how our world has shrunk. Thanks to instant information and rapid transportation, hierarchical structures have been flattened.

One global organization that should be ideally positioned for this transformation is the Christian Church. The genius of its founder was that it was designed to be “flat;” small groups with a common vision, a common language of faith, and international networks that crossed national boundaries. As often happens, initial flexibility was soon lost and replaced by more predictable and controllable structures and the early vision forgotten while waiting for another fresh wave of inspiration and creativity.

We are witnessing such a new wave. A prime example is the Anglican Communion - an international community of more than 75 million in 164 countries, ordered into 38 separate provinces.

In the good old days mandates, money and missionaries flowed from the traditional power base of London and, more recently, New York to their grateful recipients in the developing world. But that is all changing now and we have, as noted Penn State religion and history professor Philip Jenkins describes it, ‘A New Christendom’ where much of the energy, leadership and vision now come from the Global South. The old ways of doing church are being shaken and we are rediscovering what it means to be part of a truly global community.

One example is the birth of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, or CANA. It was first conceived as a way to provide a safe harbor for Nigerian Anglicans who no longer felt welcome in The Episcopal Church because of its deliberate distancing from traditional mainstream Christianity but now includes a growing number of other Anglican congregations from across America.

This realignment isn’t simply about issues of human sexuality but on the other much more basic questions such as the role and authority of the Scriptures and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It is part of an emerging movement of formerly Episcopal churches and new congregations, which are breaking out of their hierarchical straightjackets and connecting directly with other parts of the Anglican Communion. What unites them is a vision for global Christianity; a commitment to a common language of faith and abiding friendships that connect across challenging cultural divides.

This movement is variously derided by the hierarchical power brokers as being either a small group of American malcontents or an example of reverse colonialism. They are missing the point - the Church got flat and they didn’t notice.

There are serious questions, however, that must be addressed. How do we make sense of our common commitment to individual human rights in such dramatically different civil and religious settings? How do we preach that every person is made in the image of God, is loved by God and is of inestimable worth when one part of the family is dieting from eating too much and others are dying of starvation? How do we demonstrate the love of God to people whose life experience is so very different from ours? In this global network how do we find a common language so that we can talk with one another about differences without demonizing those with whom we differ?

We have a long way to go and CANA is only a small part of the solution. We have no delusions of grandeur. We are merely an association of churches who love being in the mainstream of the Anglican Communion.

We are determined to reclaim a vision for the church that holds true to its founder’s intentions. We take God at His Word and are trying to live out a gospel of radical inclusion and profound transformation. Jesus of Nazareth didn’t give his life for a structure but rather for a vision of a world where every person can know that they are loved by God and given new hope for tomorrow - whether they live in Kaduna or Kansas City, in Bethlehem or Boston, in Darfur or Dallas.

The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns
Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

Posted by latimer at 01:27 PM | Comments (0)

Everything has changed in the Anglican Communion - Lord Carey

31.05.07 Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in today’s Church of England Newspaper

Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in today’s Church of England Newspaper

Sir, Kenneth Kearon suggests (CEN May 25) that the decision not to invite AMiA bishops, or the recently consecrated CANA Bishop, to the Lambeth Conference relates to a precedent I set in 2000. This set my mind flashing back to the circumstances of that period. My opposition to the consecration of the two AMiA Bishops related to the setting up of Episcopal activity in the United States which I regarded as unconstitutional and unnecessary (at least at that period).

Although I regarded these bishops (both honourable and good men) as ‘irregularly’ consecrated, there was no question about the validity of their consecrations. This, of course, was before 2003 when the Episcopal Church clearly signalled its abandonment of Communion norms, in spite of warnings from the Primates that the consecration of a practising homosexual bishop would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion’. It is not too much to say that everything has changed in the Anglican Communion as a result of the consecration of Gene Robinson.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s prerogative to invite bishops to the Conference is a lonely, personal and important task. Before each Conference a number of careful decisions have to be taken, with the focus being on the well-being of the Communion. The circumstances facing each Archbishop of Canterbury will vary according to the needs of the hour. For these reasons, I believe, that Dr Rowan Williams should not regard the advice he has evidently received that this matter is ‘fixed’ as necessarily binding on him in the very different circumstances of 2007. He and all his colleagues will be in my thoughts and prayers.

Lord Carey of Clifton
London

Posted by latimer at 01:11 PM | Comments (0)

April 19, 2007

++Rowan Willians: Conservatives Misread Scripture on Homosexuality

Williams commented that he found "unacceptable a draft covenant presented to the senior archbishops, or primates, that would allow the communion to boot out member churches deemed to have stepped out of line doctrinally on issues such as sexuality."

Anglican Head: Conservatives Misread Scripture on Homosexuality
www.christianpost.com/article/20070418/26946_Anglican_Head:_Scripture_on_Homosexuality_Does_Not_Help_Conservative,_Liberal_Cases.htm
Lillian Kwon

Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Apr. 18 2007 12:34 PM ET

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told a group of theological students that the scriptural text conservatives use to argue against homosexuality is misread.

The Anglican spiritual leader was speaking in Toronto on Monday when he examined the practice of reading the Bible. He said the primary point of the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality – for the majority of modern readers – is not about homosexuality. Instead, it's meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin.

In the first chapter of Romans, the apostle Paul lists same-sex relationships as "unnatural" relations along with other moral depravities of mankind. The text is "famously" used by conservative Christians to back their argument against homosexuality. But Williams said Paul's rhetorical gambit is not helpful to the conservative "who has been up to this point happily identifying with Paul's castigation of someone else."

"Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding," he stated, according to the Anglican Church of Canada.

William's comments, however, does not favor either side. He stressed the text is "not helpful for the liberal case either since Paul's point is that everyone "in his imagined readership" agrees in thinking same-sex relations is as obviously as immoral as idol-worship.

The 77-million Anglican Communion is currently wracked by debate over homosexuality and near breaking point. Anglican primates (leaders) issued a Sept. 30 deadline for the Episcopal Church to unequivocally pledge not to consecrate another openly gay bishop or authorize the blessing of same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop in 2003.

Williams stressed that his comments on Monday "does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment." Instead he was explaining a strictly theological reading of Scripture.

"Take Scripture out of this context of the invitation to sit at table with Jesus and to be incorporated into his labor and suffering for the Kingdom, and you will be treating Scripture as either simply an inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct or a piece of detached historical record – the typical exaggerations of Biblicist and liberal approaches respectively," he said.

The Anglican head warned that there is a division in the communion "and it's getting deeper and more bitter," according to The Washington Post. "If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose."

As the leader of the Anglican Communion, Williams said the main thing he can do "is try to maintain the level of credibility that allows him to get people around the table." He further stressed the importance of community in the Christian church.

The Anglican Communion is currently in the process of drafting an Anglican Covenant, intended to be a faith statement to foster unity among its churches. Williams commented that he found "unacceptable a draft covenant presented to the senior archbishops, or primates, that would allow the communion to boot out member churches deemed to have stepped out of line doctrinally on issues such as sexuality."

Williams announced on Monday that he intends to visit the United States in the fall in response to the invitation from the Episcopal House of Bishops.

Posted by latimer at 04:18 PM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2007

Dialogue with people of other faiths in New Zealand

By Rev Dr Bob Robinson: The recently issued ‘National Statement on Religious Diversity’ concludes with a call for New Zealand’s faith communities “to promote mutual respect and understanding” and to “build and maintain positive relationships with each other.” This is an ideal opportunity to learn about this issue and dialogue with other Christians about it.

Dialogue with people of other faiths in New Zealand

Written by Bob Robinson

Are there persuasive biblical and theological reasons for it?

The recently issued ‘National Statement on Religious Diversity’ concludes with a call for New Zealand’s faith communities “to promote mutual respect and understanding” and to “build and maintain positive relationships with each other.” Theologically conservative Christians are, however, little interested in inter-religious dialogue. They are either indifferent to such dialogue or are even found – because of belief in the message of the Bible, especially its message about the uniqueness and finality of Christ – holding negative views about the religions, and with no time or taste for dialogue. Such Christians seem to prefer monologue to dialogue, especially in public. Now there is quasi-official pressure (in the form of this ‘National Statement,’ and presumably for pragmatic reasons such as the avoidance of social conflict) for religions to be less confrontational and more accommodating in their attitudes towards each another. And, with varying degrees of thoughtfulness, exasperation and factual knowledge, there is the often-heard question from members of the public, “Why can’t the religions get along better and stop their arguing and fighting?”

How should NZ Christians respond to such appeals to ‘get along better’ and to ‘start talking to one another’? In this writer’s experience some good reasons can be advanced to help Christians at least understand or consider dialogue and without compromising the Christocentric faith that is vital to their Christian self-understanding. In fact, these reasons could be summed up in the following suggestions and affirmations taken from the Bible and from some theological and pragmatic reasons and examples.

1. Remember our own ‘alien’ status

In the first five books of the Bible there are more than fifty references to ‘aliens’ or ‘strangers’ and how the people of God are to treat them (all followers of ‘pagan’ religions, of course) with respect and even a generous welcome. The reason: because you too were once aliens and strangers; you remember what it is like to feel strange and culture-shocked and for that very reason you are to be generous and hospitable. The label ‘alien’ or ‘foreigner’ is then repeated in the New Testament (eg 1 Peter 2.11) and applied to us as Christians – which implies that we too should treat newcomers with welcoming respect.

2. Notice that the Bible is more generous than we sometimes recall

Christians are usually well aware of the Bible’s teaching about the realities of sin and idolatry and about the unique revelation and final salvation found in Christ alone. But they often seem unaware that alongside this stream runs another that offers a rather more positive assessment of the religions. This stream points out that all humanity is made in God’s image and all human beings are the beneficiaries of God’s providential faithfulness and immense love. God’s creation and care of the whole universe (Gen 1), God’s universal presence in every corner of reality (Ps 139), God’s universally present wisdom working within human personalities and structures (Prov 8; Rom 2), God’s covenant through Noah with the entire human family (Gen 9) – all these impact on every single person in the world. There is a ‘general revelation’ available to all (God not having left himself without a witness anywhere: Acts 14.17; see also Rom 1 and Acts chapters 10 and 17) and some non-Israelite believers in the living God acknowledge and are known by him (Melchizedek (Gen 14), Jethro (Exod 18), Ruth, Naaman, the Ninevites, Job and others). In other words, even in the Bible itself there is far more recognition of universal or general revelation than conservative Christians are usually able or willing to admit. That is, there is some real knowledge of God among those who cannot be called God’s people in the Biblical (meaning covenantal) sense. From the New Testament as well one could argue (along with the early church) for some positive implications of Logos theology, including the statement in John 1.9a that describes Christ as the true light that enlightens / shines upon everyone. And attention should also be given to Acts 10 (Cornelius), eg verses 34f and Paul’s statements in Acts 17.22-31 (especially 26f) that God has planted the human search for God within all people. It is also God’s plan to re-create and restore all of creation (1 Cor 15:22-28; Eph 1:9f; Phil 1:10f). So, from this cosmic – universal – inclusive stream a case can be made for religion as including a search, even a divinely inspired search for God. Searching is not the same as finding, of course; but think of the dialogue opportunities if and when we realise that our friends of other faiths might be on some kind of God-inspired search!

3. Note that ‘dialogue’ is a Biblical idea

There are a number of clear biblical precedents for at least some kinds of dialogue. The Bible has many examples of genuine conversations in which the prophets, Jesus, Paul and even God communicate in ways that can be called dialogue in the sense of communication that moves well beyond monologue and confrontation. This is what Jesus is reported as doing in his question and answer sessions with his contemporaries, not least in the portrayal of his encounters with the relatively few non-Jewish people that he met (such as the Samaritan woman and the Syro-Phoenician woman) – as we shall see. If the Bible affirms dialogue, so should we!

4. Note further that ‘dialogue’ is even a Biblical word

In the Septuagint ( the Greek version of the Old Testament), and in the New Testament we find: dialegomai (to converse, confer), dialogizomai (to reflect on, discuss), dialogismos (consideration, discussion) which makes clear that dialogue certainly has some place in the biblical repertoire – alongside communication understood as monologue or proclamation. Some kind of ‘dialogue’ is what Paul is reported as doing in his encounters with both Jews and gentiles. In fact, the Greek verbs (from which the word ‘dialogue’ is derived) are used some ten times in the New Testament (mainly in Acts 17-24, but also elsewhere) in the sense of ponder, consider, converse, discuss or argue. For example:
“Jesus dialogued with them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?’” (Luke 24:38)
“As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he dialogued with them from the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:2)
See also examples from Athens (Acts 17:7), Corinth (Acts 18:4), Ephesus (Acts 18:19; 19: 8f; 20:7, 9), in court (Acts 24:12, 25).
Care must be taken not to exaggerate the place of dialogue as a means of communicating the Gospel in the NT. But at the same time, we can question the assumption that proclamation - in the sense of monologue - is the only Biblically-based or Biblically-approved means of communication.

5. Consider the personal example of Jesus

It is not certain whether Jesus actually met few or many people of other religions; after all, he rarely moved beyond the ancient borders of Israel. But based on an understanding of the demographics of the Israel of his time, there is as one scholar puts it, “every possibility that Jesus was in frequent contact with non-Jews …. In Jerusalem, Judea, and the countryside surrounding the Sea of Galilee, it would be almost impossible for him to avoid them.” It is true that these encounters as recorded in the Gospels are few in number: for example, the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7.24-30 // Matt 15.21-28), the centurion whose servant was healed (Matt 8.5-12 // Luke 7.1-10). But each of them is significant because of the way in which they do involve real dialogue and even appear to have Jesus changing his mind or, at least, stretching the traditional understanding of the possibility and place of gentiles within the growing Kingdom.

There are also teaching passages in the Gospels that seem to be relevant. There are, for example, parables in which Jesus refers to gentile participation in the Kingdom of God (Mark 4.30-32; Matthew 22.1-14; 25.31-36; Luke 11.29-32). There are also occasions on which Jesus praises the faith of pagan gentiles and urges his Jewish hearers to learn from them. Such gentile faith seems commendatory to Jesus – which is why a contemporary evangelical scholar can write of the examples in Luke 4, and that of the centurion whose servant is healed, that “the Gospel writers imply that we Christians can also learn from these pagans.” And, over against the attitude and actions of a priest and a Levite, Jesus also commends the attitude and the actions of the ‘good Samaritan’ (Luke 10) a phrase that is a virtual oxymoron in the minds of his hearers. Jesus also points out that it is “foreigner” - a Samaritan - who was the only leper among the ten who was “found to return and give praise to God” (Luke 17.18). Again, if Jesus engaged in genuine dialogue, so should his followers too.

6. Weigh the theological impact of Jesus’ example

Among the characteristics of these dialogue-based encounters the following might be noted as relevant.

(a) Jesus is surprised and affirms the faith of the gentiles in most of the stories examined – and this is in addition to stories where other gentiles exercise faith (eg the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5).
(b) An eschatological note is sounded, especially in the teaching passages that often follow the encounters. That is, the new age has begun in Jesus – and the gentile response is proof of this! For example, immediately after the healing of the centurion’s servant and Jesus’ commendation of the centurion’s faith, Jesus announces that “Many will come from the East and the West to feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 8.11f). The discussion with the Samaritan woman clearly sounds an eschatological note and the arrival of the Greeks in John 12 prompts Jesus to say that “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12.23). This same eschatological note is also heard in the Temple cleansing (which is in itself a highly significant challenge to Jewish nationalism) where, according to Mark 11, Jesus echoes the Isaianic hope that God’s house “shall be called a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56.7). Also relevant is the parable of the great banquet (Matt 22.1-14; Luke 14.15-24).
(c) But at the same time – and in sharp contrast with most of the Jewish belief of his time – this is an eschatology without vengeance on gentiles as the further teaching of Jesus makes clear, for example in the highly significant Nazareth sermon in Luke 4.
(d) The disciples are surprised (as well as being made anxious) by the gentile response.
(e) The presence of the Kingdom is affirmed in these encounters between Jesus and the gentiles. As one writer points out, “the miracles worked by Jesus for ‘foreigners’ have the very same meaning that he gives to all of his other miracles. They mean that the Reign of God is already present and at work (cf. Mt 11.4-6; Lk 4.16-22; Mt 12.25-28).”
(f) And this leads to an even more profound point: Jesus – the fully human as well as the truly divine Son – does seem to learn from his encounters. This is the Christ who had “made himself nothing” (literally: ‘emptied’ himself (Phil 2.7)) who learns what he previously did not know in his humanity (cf Luke 2.52; and Heb 5.8).

It is not unreasonable to apply the example of Christ to our situation today: if Jesus is found to enter into genuine dialogue from which he learns, then so might his followers today.

7. Dialogue will help understanding and reduce tension

The simplest reason for entering into dialogue is the need to understand clearly why others believe and act in the ways they do, and to offer explanations in turn. This enables misunderstandings to be removed and positive understanding to be deepened. (In fact, it includes what someone has called “the art of avoiding misunderstanding.”) Division and opposition between religious communities often seem to be an unnecessary burden to add to a nation (or world) already and painfully divided by other issues. Interreligious understanding is especially important where ignorance, social isolation and prejudice can and do breed misunderstanding, fear and alienation – and dialogue can help overcome these. At the very least, the way of dialogue seems to offer a means towards a more positive coexistence in place of the self contented passivity or insecure suspicion that can be found in religious communities. No compromise is entailed in allowing and even promoting such increased understanding.

8. Common social concern is a form of dialogue

When urgent human needs are tackled together by Christians and others rather than separately this might be called a kind of ‘dialogue in action.’ Such dialogue that arises out of mutually agreed social concerns enables Christians to meet with their neighbours as national citizens and not simply as members of different religious groups. Such action adds a practical and visible dimension to a dialogue which may otherwise become both empty and unrewarding if attempts are made to confine it to discussion of religious matters alone. Whereas religion might separate, common action for social justice might unite in some way (however limited and temporary that might be). Again, no compromise is implied in allowing and even promoting such shared social concern (whether it’s helping refuges with housing or homework or any other need) - and, as agencies such as World Vision have found, people never forget those who help them in their times of need.

9. Common humanity and the ideal of community are reasons for dialogue

Another starting point for dialogue can be the common humanity that is shared by people of different faiths. Common humanity, not common religion or religious experience, is the common denominator in the meeting of people of different faiths. This is a basis for dialogue that may be of particular interest or appeal to those Christians who hesitate to pursue the inter-faith encounter because of a distaste for the seemingly inevitable interreligious disputations that so quickly arise. The Christian appeal to a common humanity has a theological as well as a pragmatic basis. For example, there are the Biblical statements about humanity made in the image of God (Genesis 1.26a, 27a) and about the unity of humankind (Acts 17.26a). The idea of a shared and inter-dependent humanity also points to the distinctly personal basis of dialogue in which meetings are not meetings between, say, Christianity and Islam, or even between representatives of Christianity and Islam but, rather, an encounter of human beings - of individual Christians and individual Muslims. Dialogue is, in fact, the movement from thinking and talking about ‘them’ to thinking and talking in some way about ‘us’. This need not imply a unity between religions; perhaps the notion of potential harmony – which is less static and abstract and implies the continuing recognition of religious differences – may be a better basis for dialogue.

10. Dialogue can become a means of mission

Some have seen dialogue as a means of implementing the Christian mission in general including evangelism. Such dialogue will, of course, raise concerns for those who might be unhappy to be seen as the targets of Christian missionary interest but Christians have always wanted to share their faith and every example of such witnessing to gentiles in the NT involves dialogue. This is not the only reason for dialogue – as this paper has been arguing. But it is significant that two of the three opening paragraphs of the ‘National Statement on Religious Diversity’ strongly affirm the past and present significance of Christianity in NZ and so people of other faith will not be surprised to meet vocal and witnessing Christians. In fact, they are usually surprised not to meet more of us – and they are invariably (in this writer’s experience) open to talking about spiritual issues and even to being prayed with. Dialogue will confirm that this is true!

11. Consider some notable personal examples

In this writer’s experience, it can also be helpful and reassuring to some Christians to consider a few actual lived-out examples of the inter-religious encounter. Two examples from the meeting of Christians and Hindus come to mind. There is, for example, Sadhu Sundar Singh (1889 1929) who is said to be “perhaps the most famous Indian Christian who has yet lived, and whose influence has been widespread and prolonged.” He combined a deeply Christ-centred faith with a quite positive and creative adaptation and use of Hindu terminology. After his dramatic conversion, his life’s work was to “offer the water of life in an Indian cup.” Books, films and videos are available about this remarkable Christian. Then there is the American missionary, E Stanley Jones (1884 1973) who spoke and wrote widely on ‘The Indian Christ’ and whose ‘Round Table’ conferences enabled an unprecedented series of meetings of people of different faiths (and some of his highly readable books are still in print). The encounter between Hinduism and Christianity in these two examples can continue to inspire and challenge. They might be seen as examples of a commitment to one’s own faith that does not require the denigrating of other faiths. In a postmodern context a narrative retelling of these lived examples of a fruitful and intentional encounter across religious boundaries may be helpfully reassuring – and even inspiring – to some. Readers may know of other examples, including some notable Kiwi stories, about missionaries and others who have live on the boundaries.

12. Loving friendship is the usual (and best) place to start

Sustained ordinary friendship is both a means of and one of many conditions for fruitful dialogue. One of the simplest means of healing suspicions between religions is to take the simple step of forming and cultivating genuine friendships. Whenever there is co-operative endeavour for the common good, or joint participation in gatherings and organizations, or respectful attendance at one another’s weddings or funerals, or a serious attempt to understand (or even study in some way) the beliefs of another, then a kind of dialogue (perhaps what might be called an ‘interior’ or silent dialogue) is occurring. In other words, the most common forms of interreligious encounter are, then, the most prosaic: the everyday meetings and the often unavoidable cultural immersions of life of which conversation itself is perhaps the most basic. Too often inter-faith discussion is confined to the meeting of what might be called the elite and articulate traditions of the faiths. At least from a Christian perspective, attention is well drawn to the potential value of the simple but important casual encounters of everyday life and the importance of preparing members of congregations to make sensitive use of them in fostering understanding and co-operation when that is possible. Moreover, to start with friendship is to start with the common humanity that all people share – and not with the religious beliefs that, if begun with, may lead to disagreement.

Another way of understanding dialogue is to see it as a fruit of the Gospel. Thoughtful friendship is a witness to the love of Christ, and an expression of Christian neighbourliness. God loves every person in the world and that includes each of our neighbours. In fact, alongside love of God, this is the next great commandment according to Jesus: that we love our neighbours as ourselves. We can’t be said to love our neighbours if we don’t talk with them – and that’s dialogue!

Conclusion

Despite some problems, there are substantial reasons why Christians should enter into dialogue with others. The reasons offered are numerous. Beginning with the Bible, we have noted the use of the ‘dialogue’ word-group and the example of the apostle Paul. There is the perhaps surprisingly positive example of Jesus towards the Gentiles he met and spoke about. And then there are the pragmatic and theological reasons that have been discussed. Not all the reasons advanced will persuade all those who hesitate to engage in dialogue but, in this writer’s experience, at least some reluctant Christians are willing to consider dialogue on the basis of the biblical examples and the substantial theological and pragmatic reasons that can be given for a principled engagement with people of other faiths – reasons that do not compromise Christian beliefs about the uniqueness and finality of Christ but, in fact, build on his example.

Posted by latimer at 09:49 AM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2007

TEAM: Three speakers put their local contexts into larger Communion's perspective

09.03.07 - Saying "our experience of the Anglican Communion is always local," the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, March 8 invited three participants in the Towards Effective Anglican Mission (TEAM) conference to connect their local contexts of mission to the entire Communion. Jenny Te Paa, the ahorangi or dean of Te Rau Kahikatea (College of St. John the Evangelist) in Auckland, New Zealand, told the conference about how she had been traveling throughout the Communion recently

TEAM: Three speakers put their local contexts into larger Communion's perspective

By Mary Frances Schjonberg
Thursday, March 08, 2007
www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_83214_ENG_HTM.htm

[Episcopal News Service] Saying "our experience of the Anglican Communion is always local," the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, March 8 invited three participants in the Towards Effective Anglican Mission (TEAM) conference to connect their local contexts of mission to the entire Communion.

Jenny Te Paa, the ahorangi or dean of Te Rau Kahikatea (College of St. John the Evangelist) in Auckland, New Zealand, told the conference about how she had been traveling throughout the Communion recently, talking to those who she called "ordinary, global Anglicans."

The first group she talked about was the theological students she has recently encountered both at her own college and those at Church Divinity School of the Pacific (the Episcopal seminary in Berkley, California) and at an ecumenical gathering in Montreal of Canadian seminarians. Those students always offer fresh insights -- if "often somewhat naïve."

Many asked her what to make of the fact that seven Primates refused to receive Communion during the recent Tanzania session of the Primates' Meeting because of the presence of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. She said that teachers and theologians sometimes have to admit that they have no understanding of events such as the "petulant politicizing" of a sacrament, a practice that she called "unconscionable."

At the recent United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) annual meeting in New York, Te Paa said the Anglican delegation prayed together each day for "peace among our people" and for the girls of the world, and they engaged in their own listening process.

They also felt the need to express their concern about how the mission of the church is being affected by distractions like the "incomprehensible" practice of boycotting Eucharist at the Primates' Meeting and the schemes of alternative primatial oversight, the reasons for which "are all but incomprehensible." So the delegation issued a statement "for the Church we love beyond calculation."

The third group Te Paa talked about was indigenous Anglicans who have been "largely polite and infinitely patient." She said that despite all that has been done to indigenous peoples, they have "exemplified what it is to be Christ-like."

In general, Te Paa said her conversations with Anglicans tell her that most people "are looking for an end to our squabbles over sexuality" so that everyone can be more focused on "transforming and deeply loving mission."

Abagail Nelson, vice president of programs for Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD), said that ERD staffers see themselves as people who listen to those people like TEAM conference participants -- the people who work "where the road ends and the dirt paths begin."

In that listening, she said, "I continue to learn so much about faith" and its redemptive possibilities.

Nelson said ERD listens and then works to develop programs to support people in their work as they incarnate the church's mission. As an example she cited ERD's involvement in the NetsforLife initiative that in its current two-year Phase I has given away nearly a half million treated bed nets and trained 3,000 malaria-prevention agents.

"Everyone is being trained and training others," she said. "It's a vast underground network that's out there."

While there are other anti-malarial programs that give away bed nets, NetsforLife is among the few that includes training in malaria prevention. "Why didn't anyone ever tell us this before?" Nelson reported a young mother asking a NetsforLife worker.

"People don't use bed nets because they don't know what they're for," Nelson said, adding that lack of education is one of the kinds of chaos in which the malaria parasite thrives.

Nelson said that another important part of the NetsforLife program is the way it tracks its work and monitors its results. Those measurable results, like the benchmarks of progress built into the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), make people in government and in institutions sit up and take notice

She praised and thanked mission workers whom she called the "quiet heroes in the hidden spaces living out the Gospel."

"As church partners, we will remain with you," she promised, so that everyone can see "how we can become positive globalization forces."

Bishop Munawar Rumalshah of Pakistan told the conference about the mission of reconciliation in his context, which he called "one of the most volatile regions in the world."

He began by telling a story about meeting with then-Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold just after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. During the visit he conveyed his sympathies and asked a "slightly rude question" about when the Episcopal Church had deliberately engaged the world of Islam. Rumalshah reported that Griswold reached over and patted his knee "perhaps saying, ‘my dear son, wait for the day.'"

Four years later a huge earthquake hit Pakistan and 40 percent of the area devastated is in his diocese, Rumalshah said. Diocesan staffers packed what little they had and dashed off to the ruined areas.

He and his staff knew that "this was a moment of truth when we of the church must be counted among the people," most of whom are not Christian.

The bishop said he got his answer about the Episcopal Church's involvement with the Islamic world when ERD "moved in like angels from above."

"God used a tiny church like ours to bring hope to millions of people," he said.

And fundamentalist members of Islam accepted help from Christians, Rumalshah said, recalling a visit to an Islamic area during one of their holidays when 300 men greeted him and his companions after evening prayers. Pointing to the cross on this chest, the bishop said, "this cross had never hugged 300 fundamentalists."

Later he returned to the area at Christmas and "they greeted the Christian family in a way in which we had never experienced before."

Rumalshah told the participants that the rise of suicide bombings has forced him to contemplate the bombers' belief that they hold the keys to the kingdom. He noted that the Arabic and Greek words for martyr both come from root words meaning "witness."

For some people -- both Muslims and Christians -- witnessing means dying, and for others it means serving God's people, he said. One of two "diametrically opposed, radically different paths have to be chosen," he said, contrasting Osama bin Laden and Mother Teresa.

Rumalshah said he preaches reconciliation "not just because it is fashionable" but because it is what we are called to do as Christians. "The embrace, the hug, the smelling of each other's sweat ... is what I believe the mission of reconciliation is about," he said.

The need for reconciliation applies to everyone, he said. "One day, President George Bush and Osama bin Laden must embrace each other and be reconciled."

Later in the day, Idaho Bishop Harry Bainbridge, who also serves on the ERD board of directors, hosted a conversation about best practices and shared experiences. He also invited the conference to view one DVD illustrating development stories form the provinces of the Anglican Communion and another about a visit to the Sudan by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
More than 400 people from 30 of the Communion's 38 provinces are attending the March 7-14 TEAM conference to review the Communion's response to the MDGs and consider how the church can do more as one of the world's largest grassroots development networks. The TEAM conference is in part a follow up to the first-ever pan-Anglican conference on HIV/AIDS, which was hosted by Ndungane in Boksburg in 2001.

The conference is also meant to "encourage a prophetic articulation for an Anglican theology which supports witness and action for social justice."

More information about TEAM is available at the conference website.

-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

Posted by latimer at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2007

2008 NZ General Synod & Hermeneutics Hui

Crunch time: The 2008 NZ General Synod is shaping as a decisive event for this church’s grappling with the Windsor Report and the issues it deals with.

The following is a report of some highlights of the meeting of the Standing Committee of the General Synod, which convened in Rotorua on February 27 and 28, 2007.

Crunch time: The 2008 General Synod is shaping as a decisive event for this church’s grappling with the Windsor Report and the issues it deals with. And if this week’s Rotorua meeting of the Standing Committee has anything to do with it, that General Synod debate will be as constructive and informed as possible.

The Standing Committee, which met on February 27 and 28 at the Kingsgate Hotel, heard a report from Archbishop Brown Turei about the recent Primates’ meeting in Tanzania. It then devoted much of its first morning to considering the ramifications of that meeting, and debating how best it could promote church discussion about the key developments to emerge from that meeting.

Those developments, of course, include the release of the much-anticipated draft covenant for the Anglican Communion – one of the key Windsor Recommendations – and the Primates’ Communiqué which, among other things, gives the Primates reading of the state of the wider communion’s relationship with The Episcopal Church.

The Standing Committee seemed satisfied with our own Province’s contribution to efforts to find a way out of the impasse triggered by Bishop Gene Robinson’s ordination. In particular, the members seemed pleased with the inclusion of clause 8 of the Primates’ communiqué – in which the Primates declare their commitment to what they’ve called: The Hermeneutics Project. That’s the brainchild of our own Archbishop David Moxon, whose proposal for this had been presented to the Primates by the Australia’s Philip Aspinall.

Archbishop David told the Standing Committee that he hoped such a study would “enrich and rationalize the debate about sexuality.” The outgoing General Secretary, Robin Nairn, was one who gave a thumbs-up to Archbishop David’s work on this. The committee seemed to feel that the particular value of the hermeneutics project was that it proposed stepping back and asking fundamental questions about how Anglicans use, read and understand the Bible in its entirety – rather than focusing first on specific texts about which there is contention.

The aim of the hermeneutics project is to seek a consensus – or at least to attempt to find a range of ways that are acceptable to most – for using, reading and understanding the Bible. If that emerges, commented one member, then the church has a new basis for actually debating what the specific texts mean.

The outcome of the Rotorua discussions? The 18 members of the Standing Committee (including our three Archbishops) have been formally requested to ask their episcopal units to pray about, debate and discuss the draft covenant and primates’ communiqué at their respective synods, and to report back to next May’s General Synod.

The Standing Committee was also brought up to speed on plans for our own Hui on Hermeneutics, which is to be held in Wellington on August 28, 29 and 30, at the Loaves and Fishes café attached to Wellington’s Cathedral.

All interested Anglicans are invited to take part, although they will have to meet their own expenses. Archbishop David said an agenda for the hui would be circulated as soon as its been prepared.

The Standing Committee heard, too, of other efforts to prepare for next year’s Windsor debate at General Synod: at a special meeting next week the Bishops will consider how they can best prepare for a fruitful and constructive debate.

And there were efforts too, to get traction for The Listening Process first advocated by Lambeth Resolution 10:1 in 1998, which committed the Provinces “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” who are within the church.

The new General Secretary, Jackie Pearse, was asked to write to the bishops, inviting them to report to the November meeting of the Standing Committee on the progress their units have made, and the insights that have been gained from their own listening

FULL REPORT

Anglican Church - Media Office
March 3, 2007

The following is a report of some highlights of the meeting of the Standing Committee of the General Synod, which convened in Rotorua on February 27 and 28, 2007.

Crunch time: The 2008 General Synod is shaping as a decisive event for this church’s grappling with the Windsor Report and the issues it deals with.

And if this week’s Rotorua meeting of the Standing Committee has anything to do with it, that General Synod debate will be as constructive and informed as possible.

The Standing Committee, which met on February 27 and 28 at the Kingsgate Hotel, heard a report from Archbishop Brown Turei about the recent Primates’ meeting in Tanzania.

It then devoted much of its first morning to considering the ramifications of that meeting, and debating how best it could promote church discussion about the key developments to emerge from that meeting.

Those developments, of course, include the release of the much-anticipated draft covenant for the Anglican Communion – one of the key Windsor Recommendations – and the Primates’ Communiqué which, among other things, gives the Primates reading of the state of the wider communion’s relationship with The Episcopal Church.

The Standing Committee seemed satisfied with our own Province’s contribution to efforts to find a way out of the impasse triggered by Bishop Gene Robinson’s ordination.

In particular, the members seemed pleased with the inclusion of clause 8 of the Primates’ communiqué – in which the Primates declare their commitment to what they’ve called: The Hermeneutics Project.

That’s the brainchild of our own Archbishop David Moxon, whose proposal for this had been presented to the Primates by the Australia’s Philip Aspinall.

Archbishop David told the Standing Committee that he hoped such a study would “enrich and rationalize the debate about sexuality.”

The outgoing General Secretary, Robin Nairn, was one who gave a thumbs-up to Archbishop David’s work on this.

The committee seemed to feel that the particular value of the hermeneutics project was that it proposed stepping back and asking fundamental questions about how Anglicans use, read and understand the Bible in its entirety – rather than focusing first on specific texts about which there is contention.

The aim of the hermeneutics project is to seek a consensus – or at least to attempt to find a range of ways that are acceptable to most – for using, reading and understanding the Bible.

If that emerges, commented one member, then the church has a new basis for actually debating what the specific texts mean.

The outcome of the Rotorua discussions? The 18 members of the Standing Committee (including our three Archbishops) have been formally requested to ask their episcopal units to pray about, debate and discuss the draft covenant and primates’ communiqué at their respective synods, and to report back to next May’s General Synod.

The Standing Committee was also brought up to speed on plans for our own Hui on Hermeneutics, which is to be held in Wellington on August 28, 29 and 30, at the Loaves and Fishes café attached to Wellington’s Cathedral.

All interested Anglicans are invited to take part, although they will have to meet their own expenses. Archbishop David said an agenda for the hui would be circulated as soon as its been prepared.

The Standing Committee heard, too, of other efforts to prepare for next year’s Windsor debate at General Synod: at a special meeting next week the Bishops will consider how they can best prepare for a fruitful and constructive debate.

And there were efforts too, to get traction for The Listening Process first advocated by Lambeth Resolution 10:1 in 1998, which committed the Provinces “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” who are within the church.

The new General Secretary, Jackie Pearse, was asked to write to the bishops, inviting them to report to the November meeting of the Standing Committee on the progress their units have made, and the insights that have been gained from their own listening.

Tikanga reports

Archbishop Jabez Bryce gave an account of life in Fiji post the December 5 coup, and a report on this will be carried in the next issue of Anglican Taonga.

He also gave a report on the flooding which struck the northern Fiji island of Vanua Levu in mid February – and which wreaked havoc at Labasa, and caused considerable damage to Anglican property and mission in that city. All Saint’s Secondary School; St Mary’s Primary School; St Thomas’ church and a number of church houses and the homes of many parishioners have all been severely affected.

A week after the floods had receded all the school properties were still closed, and the church homes – including the one occupied by Bishop Api Qiliho – were still uninhabitable.

The report on damage done to the St Mary’s Hostel and church compound paints a bleak picture: At the height of the flood the warden and caretaker’s quarters, the hostel chapel and main dining hall were four feet under water, and when the waters receded workers and staff faced the task of removing hundreds of cubic metres of stinking silt.

The damage to Anglican property and plant here has been estimated at more than F$110,000. The magnitude of the disaster becomes clearer given the standard hourly rates paid to labourers hired to clean up the mess – F$1.75.

Meanwhile, at All Saints Secondary School, the flood damage has been costed at more than F$155,000.

For Tikanga Maori, Hone Kaa reported that he’d been one of 300 who had gathered at Whareponga Marae at Ruatoria on 11am on Saturday February 17 to witness Pane Kawhia’s ordination to the priesthood by the present and 14th Bishop of Waiapu, The Rt Rev John Bluck.

Pane is the great granddaughter of Raniera Kawhia – who, in 1860, at the same hour of the day, on the same day of the month, had been ordained a priest by the first and new Bishop of Waiapu, William Williams.

Hone also reported the ordination of the Rev Betty Reid, who is the sister of Bishop Muru Walters and the sixth person from the Walters/Ihaka whanau to be priested.

A radical earlier constitution

The Standing Committee also discussed the significance of an anniversary that’s soon to be commemorated in Auckland – on June 13, the 150th anniversary of the signing of the constitution of the Anglican church in New Zealand will be celebrated.

That first constitution had its deficiencies – Maori had no voice in its creation, and neither did women. Even so, the 1857 constitution was, for its day, perhaps as radical as the one adopted in 1992.

In the first place, it was the first constitution in the world to recognize that lay people had an equal place in the decision-making of the Anglican Church, alongside the clergy and the bishops.

In the second place, it affirmed that the Anglican Church was a voluntary organization in this country – and not the established state church.

The sesquicentennial will be marked with a commemoration at the tiny St Steven’s Church in Judge’s Bay, Parnell, where the 1857 signing took place – and it will followed by an evening gathering at Auckland’s Holy Trinity Cathedral.

Progress report 1: Relocating the General Synod office to Auckland

Confirmed: The General Synod Office will be relocated to the Dean’s Lodge on the St John’s College campus in Meadowbank, and Jackie Pearse, the new General Secretary, will work from there from the end of March.

The Lodge will also be the office for the permanent secretary to Te Kotahitanga.

There are, however, some zoning difficulties. The Auckland District Plan that relates to the college property doesn’t allow the Lodge to be used solely as an office, and resource consent is now being sought to permit this.

In the meantime, however, the district plan does give the OK for the lodge to be used as a home office. So Jackie and her husband have been asked, on an interim basis, to live above the new office.

There was some discussion, too, about giving the Dean’s Lodge a new name to identify its new function.

One suggestion: Tui Tuia: The office of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.

There was also discussion, about sharing facilities on the St John’s College campus with the Methodist Church’s Trinity College.

The Methodists have indicated they would like to consolidate and expand their presence at St John’s. A small working group will report back on developments in the wider Anglican-Methodist relationship, and the relationship between St John’s and Trinity College in particular.

Progress report 2: Preparing for The Charities Act

Professor Richard Sutton gave an update on the church’s preparations to be fully compliant with the 2005 Charities Act.

A small Anglican working group has been set up to advise and assist the church with registration and compliance – and episcopal units are encouraged to await the advice of that group before proceeding with any registration under the Act.

Next year’s General Synod – and the ones to follow?

The Standing Committee heard a verbal report from Robin Nairn about preparations for next year’s General Synod in the Diocese of Wellington – and it was warned that the costs of a synod held in the capital were likely to be considerably higher than the 2005 Christchurch event.

That final bill for that had been around $120,000 – and a similar event held next year in the Wellington CBD could tally $150,000. The committee members considered this, plus various options for pruning these costs – including finishing the synod a day early, on the Thursday afternoon, or changing the venue.

The Standing Committee will revisit this issue at its July meeting, once it has firm costings for a Wellington synod.

The committee also had some preliminary discussion about suggestions made in Robin Nairn’s final report that the whole business of how General Synods are run could be rethought.

Robin is concerned that general synods are becoming increasingly expensive, while the perhaps half those who attend don’t speak. Moreover, most of the representatives who go to Synod have taken five days of precious annual leave to do so. He encouraged the Standing Committee to examine the membership and timing of the synods.

Robin also floated the idea of an extended hui “where our people can articulate their visions and wishes concerning the mission of their church – leaving the legislative ‘tidy-up’ to an elected few, with written reports available for those who wish…”

The Standing Committee said its farewells to Robin on the Tuesday evening, and Bishop Kito Pikaahu arrived to pay tribute on behalf of Te Kotahitanga.

Posted by latimer at 01:46 PM | Comments (0)

UNCSW delegates proclaim a women's way forward in broken times

06.03.07 ... Jenny Te Paa, an Anglican UNCSW delegate and ahorangi, or dean, of Te Rau Kahikatea, the College of St. John the Evangelist in Auckland, New Zealand said "The women of the Communion have, I believe, moved from bewilderment to outrage at the ways in which a small cabal of leaders have continued to insist that the issues exercising them alone over human sexuality are inevitably to preoccupy us as well,"

Listening: Anglican women, pledging communion with one another, seek to model reconciliation
UNCSW delegates proclaim a women's way forward in broken times

By K. Jeanne Person and Matthew Davies
Monday, March 05, 2007
www.dfms.org/3577_83098_ENG_HTM.htm

[Episcopal News Service] As the Anglican women delegates to the 2007 United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) conclude their work this week in New York City, they are pledging to take their commitment "to remaining always in 'communion' with and for one another" to the wider Anglican Communion, and especially the 38 Primates, as a model for reconciliation.

The Anglican delegation of more than 80 women, representing 34 countries in the worldwide Anglican Communion, issued a statement March 3 vowing "to remain resolute in our solidarity with one another and in our commitment, above all else, to pursue and fulfill God's mission in all we say and do."

Acknowledging the "global tensions so evident in our church today," the women delegates "do not accept that there is any one issue of difference or contention which can, or indeed would, every cause us to break the unity as represented by our common baptism. Neither would we ever consider severing the deep and abiding bonds of affection which characterize our relationships as Anglican women."

By their statement, the Anglican delegates believe they are offering a women's way forward for reconciliation within the Anglican Communion at a time when theological differences regarding issues of human sexuality are causing tensions.

On February 19, at the conclusion of a meeting near Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the Primates issued a communiqué the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops to "make an unequivocal common covenant" by September 30 not to authorize same-gender blessings within their dioceses and to confirm that Resolution B033, passed at the 75th General Convention last summer, means that a candidate for bishop who is living in a same-gender relationship "shall not receive the necessary consent unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion."

"If the reassurances ... cannot in good conscience be given," the communiqué says, "the relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

In the view of the Anglican women, the Primates' warning is inconsistent with the Christian mission of reconciliation and compassionate ministry, and a decidedly male approach to struggling with difference. All of the Primates are men of power, they note, except for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

"The women of the Communion have, I believe, moved from bewilderment to outrage at the ways in which a small cabal of leaders have continued to insist that the issues exercising them alone over human sexuality are inevitably to preoccupy us as well," said Jenny Te Paa, an Anglican UNCSW delegate and ahorangi, or dean, of Te Rau Kahikatea, the College of St. John the Evangelist in Auckland, New Zealand.

"The arguments are all a male ancient power play for territory and ownership of space, be it physical or theological," agreed Phoebe Griswold, a UNCSW delegate from the United States. "The women's ways forward have to do with working for the welfare of creation and the full flourishing of humankind."

Griswold is a founding member of Anglican Women's Empowerment (AWE), an international grassroots movement founded in 2003 to promote gender equality and to use the power of women to promote a humane agenda worldwide. The effort to bring Anglican women from all provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion to the UNCSW is that of AWE and the Office of Anglican Observer at the United Nations.

The Anglican delegation is the largest non-governmental representation at UNCSW, an annual gathering at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, at which member nations and thousands of women from around the world seek to create policies promoting gender equality. In 2007, the UNCSW is meeting from February 26 to March 9 with the purpose of "ending all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child." The delegates are addressing issues such as inadequate education for girls, early marriage, the greater effect of poverty on girls, and violence.

What the Primates have failed to realize, Te Paa said, is that "the priority focus for Anglican women always has been the pressing issues of life and death, which are daily facing too many of the women and children of God's world. How can we compare the needless horrific suffering of women and girls being brutally raped when collecting firewood or water with the endless hysteria of male leaders wanting to debate whether gay men have full humanity or not?"

For the Anglican women, the mission to work together to heal God's world takes precedent over their theological differences. In their statement, they pledge to live out reconciliation for the sake of a suffering world.

"This sisterhood of suffering is at the heart of our theology and our commitment to transforming the whole world through peace with justice," the statement says. "Rebuilding and reconciling the world is central to our faith."

Among the delegates signing the statement are women with different perspectives on the issues of the blessings of same-gender unions and the consecration of bishops who live in openly gay relationships.

Olajumoke Florence Akinkoye is a lawyer and a UNCSW delegate from Nigeria, whose Primate, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, has been a leader of theological conservatives. Akinola advocates for a literal interpretation of Scripture with respect to homosexuality and has harshly criticized the Episcopal Church for consenting to the consecration of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion.

"Everybody is aware of the Nigerian position," Akinkoye said. "My understanding of the Bible is God made man and woman. The Bible also says to be compassionate to others around us."

Akinkoye signed the Anglican women's statement affirming the women delegates' ongoing relationship, she explained, because "it does not draw a line of finality." The Anglican Communion, she says, is a family. "Even in the family, sisters and brothers from the same womb, we disagree," she said. "But that does not stop us from being sisters and brothers. I say this as a mother, as a woman, as a wife, it can never be over."

From New York City, UNCSW delegate Constance Beavon, who supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the sacramental life of the Communion, agreed. "The women of the Communion are united in New York City right now and have no intention of dividing, no matter what the men decide to do."

The women's statement came after a "sacred space listening process," according to Nomfundo Walaza, a UNCSW delegate from South Africa and a member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Walaza has sent the women's statement to the Anglican Communion's secretary general, the Rev. Cannon Kenneth Kearon. In an email to Kearon, Walaza explained that, as the Anglican UNCSW delegates continued their learning and advocacy at the United Nations on behalf of girls, they also created space for listening to one another. "Women were given the opportunity to share their concerns about the consequences of the current tensions within the Communion and the effect that these have on their work and ministries."

From this "sacred space listening process" evolved the women's commitment to remain in communion. According to Walaza, the statement was "passionately received" by all of the Anglican UNCSW delegates at a working session on March 3.

Going forward, the delegates wish to offer their model of listening, abiding communion, and common mission as an example for the Communion's leaders. The statement "emerged with profound urgency for the work needing to be done and with deep love and respect for the Church to which we proudly belong -- a Church which in spite of its occasional faltering still enables us to be prophetic witnesses to Christ's love and compassion in and for the world," Te Paa said.

Te Paa will publicly present the statement at "Towards Effective Anglican Mission" (TEAM), a March 7-14 conference in Boksburg, South Africa, that will focus on the church's work to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Meanwhile, Walaza has asked Kearon to relay the statement to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, with a request that it be sent to the 38 Anglican Primates.

The women delegates, themselves, will also endeavor to share the statement with the Primates. "Some of the delegates are asking, 'Can I take it to my Primate?'" noted a smiling Ann Skamp, a UNCSW delegate from Australia and convener of the provincial delegates specifically chosen and sent by their Primates to UNCSW. "I said, 'As long as you stand in front of him and read it.'"

To proclaim to the highest levels of power within the Communion, a women's way forward will be a grace, said Margaret Rose, director of the Episcopal Church's Office of Women's Ministries. "Women have a different thing to offer, a new thing," she said. "Women have a gift to offer the Church today that insists true unity comes in diversity."

-- The Rev. K. Jeanne Person is associate rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity in New York City. Matthew Davies is international correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

Posted by latimer at 01:37 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2007

National Interfaith Forum NZ

19.02.07 The idea for a National Statement on Religious Diversity formed part of the recommendations of the New Zealand Interfaith Delegation upon its return from Yogyakarta in December 2004 in response to religious conflict in our region and around the world. The initial rationale was fourfold:

National Interfaith ForumHamilton, 19 February 2007

Towards a National Statement on Religious Diversity

Rationale and Background
The idea for a National Statement on Religious Diversity formed part of the recommendations of the New Zealand Interfaith Delegation upon its return from Yogyakarta in December 2004 in response to religious conflict in our region and around the world. The initial rationale was fourfold:

(1) The idea of a ‘National Statement’ was that it would not originate
from government and be mandated from above, as it were, rather
it would arise as a result of broad discussions among faith and interfaith groups and the wider New Zealand public.

(2) Around our region there are many instances of religious discrimination
and the religious rights of citizens are often not clear, particularly for minority groups. It was felt that our religious rights as New Zealanders, within the framework of democracy and the law, should be articulated alongside the associated responsibilities.

(3) That while religious diversity was not new in itself, there is a new
consciousness of the religious lives of others and religious diversity is increasingly part of our everyday lives in our communities, schools,
and workplaces. In many countries this increased diversity has led to conflict, discord and even violence. It was hoped that our responses to
New Zealand’s radically changing religious demography would be
more positive and provide a framework for different religious and
other communities to live together in a state of relatively peaceful coexistence.

(4) That when religious issues did arise (the ‘cartoon controversy’, the ‘Burqa affair, the wearing of the Hijab, requests for prayer times,’ religious holidays and the provision of services or facilities) the National Statement would provide a starting point for discussions and offer guidance.

Process
In August last year a draft National Statement was discussed at the Interfaith Forum in Wellington, as part of the Diversity Action Forum. There was wide support for the draft and a Reference Group was established to revise the Statement in the light of the responses and subsequent discussion. The Ministry of Social Development supported the work of this group. The Human Rights Commission undertook the process of consultation with responses called for from around the country by December 15, 2006. My purpose today is to report back on that consultation and to present an analysis of the responses.

Consultation
Public forums were held around the country, including in Christchurch, Dunedin, Levin, Hamilton, Porirua, Auckland, Wellington and Rotorua. I attended the very different Wellington and Levin meetings and many of you here were at the Wellington Diversity Forum and attended and helped organise these meetings around the country. The Wellington meeting included rationalists, humanists and a Sea of Faith Christian humanist; Buddhists and Baha’i; Hindus and Muslims; Jews and Sikhs; Maori, both Ratana and Anglican; Unificationists and Latter-Day Saints; and Exclusive Brethren and others.

It was a wonderful meeting with discussions and debates about the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in the document, whether New Zealand is or is not a Christian country, the content of school education about religion and what might constitute ‘reasonable steps’ in meeting religious demands at work. Other concerns voiced were religious coercion, women’s rights, and individual rights for members of faith groups. The meeting at Levin was very different with a variety of different Christians present – the mayor apologised for not being able to the rustle up a single non-Christian – again the debate was full on and focussed on immigration, relationships between the churches and between the churches and the state.

The Dunedin consultation included representatives from the Anglicans, the University chaplaincy, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Arya Samaj, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, Baha’i, Jews, Methodists, Combined Community Church, Hindus, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostal-Elim, Hare Krishnas, local Maori, the Brotherhood of Humanity, Quakers, Qi gong Taoists, Brahma Kumaris and Coptic Christians, along with the City Council and Problem Gambling, and Dunedin Multi-Ethnic Council. Their collective submission was supportive, thoughtful and made a number of useful suggestions that have found their way into the revised statement. Reading the reports and submissions the regional forums were successful and of value to those who attended as well as to the process as a whole.

The responses have been excellent both in terms of the numbers and the wide array of respondents and in terms of the generally high level of the submissions. The issues raised by the draft National Statement do resonate with the public and are of considerable concern and interest to many New Zealanders. They continue to arrive including two over this last weekend. The issue of religious rights, the religious nature of our country and our religious responsibilities are all too rarely debated and discussed and this became an opportunity to do so. The wide range of responses included the Catholics Bishops’ Conference, replies from representatives and members of all the major churches, including the Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Quakers. Then there were responses from Baha’i, Buddhists, Hindus, Jewish responses, Muslim submissions and groups such as the PPTA, the National School Trustees Association, the Council of Women, The Christian Education Commission, Vision Network New Zealand and Destiny Church. Some were short and confined themselves to a single point and others ran for pages and pages. Taken as a whole, the responses reflect the views of more than 600 people as well as a number of large national organisations.

There was also a meeting with officials from different government ministries and departments following their meeting to discuss the draft national Statement.

The process itself in bringing together different people to discuss these issues for what for many was the first time is so far its greatest success and in my view may well be as important as the National Statement itself. We often think that we are a secular country where there is little concern about religion but reading the submissions would dissuade you of this and instead make you think of New Zealand as a place where religion is debated in public in a serious fashion by informed and articulate atheists, agnostics and believers of all stripes.

Analysis
Generally speaking there was wide support for the Statement and for almost all of the content in the draft. Before looking at the responses in some details, it is clear that a number of the respondents and commentators did not grasp the nature of the draft statement. There were two principal misunderstandings. First, a minority were concerned that the National Statement on Religious Diversity was a new law to be enacted and binding on all New Zealanders. Of course, this is not the case but this was obviously not made as clear as it might have been and it should have been further stressed that the Statement is the beginning of a dialogue about religious diversity, a process rather than an end in itself. As you know the plan is to discuss the revised Statement here today with the aim of reporting back to the third Regional Interfaith Dialogue to be held in Waitangi in may this year. Associated with this first misunderstanding was the minority view that the NSRD was designed to somehow give the government new controls over religions in New Zealand.

Secondly, what I refer to as the new context for religious diversity was not appreciated or understood. I deliberately began today’s paper with this new context I consider that this view is supported by overseas examples and our own census (see below).

To the consultation itself: A small number of responses advocated dropping the whole process as the negative answer as to why we need it at all. A minority of respondents wanted to know what the NSRD would add to existing legislation, and again if nothing, then why proceed. Most respondents, in terms of the new context of religious diversity and some of the negative overseas models for dealing with religious diversity or failing to do, appreciated the point of the whole.

A large number of submissions argued that the normative and prescriptive tone of the draft was unhelpful and undermined what they understood as the potential importance of the document. They suggested that ‘shall’ should be replaced by ‘will’ and ‘should’ and thus the National Statement would have a more aspirational tone. I am fully persuaded by this argument and it was supported by the Reference Group. A number of responses questioned whether the terms, faith group, faith, belief, religious community and religion had different meanings or are simple synonyms or alternatives. We had used ‘belief’ as in United Nation’s documents in contrast to faith, as in ‘ethical belief’, referring to non-religious belief. The number of responses that raised this indicates that this terminology is not well known and we have changed this.

Submissions from the rationalist/humanist minority, in terms of the total responses, contended that the non-religious were not given equal place or significant as believers. The Reference Group discussed this concern and it was decided that the Statement should be inclusive of the non –religious although it was noted that this was a statement on religious diversity not on everyone and the focus was necessarily on the religious communities.

There were a number of suggestions for additional clauses. There was support for the right to religion to include the right to propagate one’s religious beliefs to others with some arguing that this was a fundamental religious right. Again, the RG were happy to include this. There was support for religious communities to have responsibilities as well as rights, in particular the responsibility ‘to build and maintain positive relationships’ with other faith communities and to promote ‘mutual respect and understanding’ and this has been included.

There were concerns from a number of respondents about ‘extreme’ religious ‘cults’ and the limits of tolerance or respect. We considered that this was addressed by the rubric, ‘under the law’ and this, of course, applies to all religious groups. Likewise, the issue of coercion and religious groups restricting the rights of members, especially women and children, falls under existing legislation.

It is impossible to meet all the demands and suggestions for changes, as many of them are mutually exclusive and some contradictory. We received responses that supported the use of ‘tolerance’ but not ‘respect’ on the grounds that, as one self-designated atheist put it, ‘I cannot respect irrational beliefs’. Another respondent argued exactly the opposite and considered that tolerance was offensive and that respect was required.

The Prologue was generally supported in particular the Treaty reference. A small number of Christian submissions considered that the paragraph on Christianity was not forceful enough and was too historical, many other expressed satisfaction at the recognition of the special role of Christianity in our history and national life. One submission included a list of forty examples of special Christian privilege.

The phrase, ‘reaffirmation of our national commitment to religious diversity’ was thought to be problematic by a small number of respondents and has been amended. It was advocated by a number of submissions that New Zealand legislation be included alongside the international treaties mentioned in the fifth paragraph. This has been done.

Finally, there were a very small number of people who were very suspicious of the term ‘diversity’. One person was anxious that it was an ideological term that masked an anti-religious viewpoint. In the document we use ‘diversity’ to simply refer to the fact of there being different faiths. This is consistent with the scholarly literature where ‘pluralism’ is sometimes uses to refer to a positive evaluation of the fact of religious diversity.

Let us now look briefly at each of the eight numbered ‘clauses’ in turn.
(1) The State and Religion
This clause was subjected to a great deal of comment. A number of minority religious groups objected to the claim that the State did in fact deal with all faiths equally and highlighted the ways in which Christianity plays a privileged role in our national life. The RG considered this and it was decided that this should be reworded as an aspiration. There were a small number of responses including Vision Network New Zealand and Destiny Church who understood Christianity to be the state religion of New Zealand. Most respondents supported the view expressed in the draft although some called for a stronger statement along the lines of referring to New Zealand as a ‘secular’ state. Suggestions included replacing ‘state religion’ with established religion. While it is clear that New Zealand does not have a state religion like the Scandinavian countries or a number of Muslim majority countries nor an established religion like Anglicanism in England, some argued that as the Queen of England is Head of the Church of England and Head of State and is as well Queen of New Zealand, Christianity is a state religion. One respondent propounded this case in relation to the Queen of England being the Head of the Commonwealth, which would make India, a country with more than one billion Hindus and over one hundred million Muslims a Christian country! Further, those that consider Christianity to be the state religion do not want it to be treated equally with other faiths, as this would undercut its especial status.

The revised version reads:
(1) The State seeks to treat all faith communities and those who
profess no religion equally before the law. New Zealand has
no state religion.

(2) The Right to Religion
There was widespread support from the religious communities and many individual respondents for this clause. Non-religious submissions called for the inclusion of non-religious belief too under this heading, including one who wanted an equal right to have no religion. Many respondents found it useful to have the right to religion clearly articulated. ‘Other belief’
refers to non-religious beliefs that have the same protection under the law.

The revised version read:
(2) New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and
belief and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds
of religious or other belief.

(3) The Right to Safety
The feedback on this third clause indicates a clear demarcation line between the migrant and minority religious communities and the mainstream church and Christian responses. Minority communities reported experience with vandalism and damage to places of worship and of issues concerned with personal safety. The clause has been extended to reflect these concerns with ‘security of person and property’. Other responses felt that existing laws covered this and every New Zealander has these rights but that no special rights should be accorded to communities. The RG discussed this issue and decided that ‘and their members be added’ to accommodate this individual right but to keep the clause as it reflects the concerns about safety and security of a number of religious communities.

The revised version read:
(3) Faith communities and their members have a right to the safety and security of their person and property.

(4) The Right of Freedom of Expression

Respondents were anxious about the policing of this and who would be in a position to determine ‘responsibility’. There was support for media freedom being balanced with a higher degree of media accountability. References were made to the South Park episode and the Danish cartoon controversy and their publication here. The clause was intended to cover the right of religious people to express themselves and of press freedom. A number of respondents considered that the framework of accountability should extend across a range of media. This was changed accordingly. The final sentence was shortened and rendered aspirational.

The revised version read:
(4) The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media are vital for democracy, but should be exercised with responsibility.

(5) Recognition and Accommodation
Respondents were concerned about requests for time off work or school, or expensive demands for special facilities or services and as to what constitutes ‘reasonable’. The ‘reasonable steps’ and ‘reasonable accommodation’ are taken from existing New Zealand legislation. There was an interesting exchange at the Wellington consultative meeting when a businessman and rationalist voiced his fears that much of the workday would be lost if people who wanted to pray five times were ‘accommodated’. A Muslim responded by reporting that he did have three eight minutes periods off each working shift in order to say his prayers and then returned the time by working part of his lunch break. This is clearly to be based on real demand and each case to be decided on its merits and context.

The revised version read:

(5) Reasonable steps should be taken in educational and work environments and in the delivery of public services to recognise and accommodate diverse religious beliefs and practices.

(6) Education
This clause caused difficulties in both religious and non-religious submissions. The difference between religious instruction as part of formation in faith and learning about religions in the context of the humanities and social sciences was not fully appreciated by a number of respondents. Religious Studies is compulsory in English schools but does not take the form of religious instruction within a particular faith. Even religious schools are required to teach about other faiths and the majority of English school pupils learn about the major religious traditions. Most respondents saw great value in students here learning about the faiths of their fellow New Zealanders and of the faiths of our nearest Asian neighbours. It is important that such teaching (it already takes place in six New Zealand universities) reflect accurately the faiths being taught and is unpartisan in relation to different denominations and tendencies within a faith. One person expressed the view that ‘religion had no more place in schools than any other casual subject such as tap dancing or train spotting’. This of course fails to understand the significance of religion to its adherents or its importance in the world we live in.

The point was made that in New Zealand’s integrated schools it would be inappropriate to learn about and understand other faiths, on the contrary it is just as vital if not more so in the integrated school sector than in state schools. Integrated schools would still have religious instruction for faith formation but this is quite different from religious studies. In fact, when I attended the NZQA advisory group meetings looking at religious studies syllabuses it was the Catholic and Anglican schools that had the best programmes of study about other faiths.

It is important as was indicated in a number of submissions that religious studies in a school should resonate and reflect the community of which the school is a part. Finally, in ‘an impartial manner’ caused a number of difficulties and it was decided by the RG to drop this.

A number of respondents refereed to the 1877 Education Act and understood this to prohibit teaching of religions in primary schools but it does not, of course, relate to teaching about religion at all.

The revised version read:
(6) Schools should teach an understanding of the diversity of religious and spiritual traditions in a manner that reflects the community of which the school is a part.

(7) Religious Differences
This was felt by some to be overly negative and it has been represented in a more positive way. Religious diversity is about real differences between people in terms of their values and what they hold to be most important. These deeply held differences will inevitably lead to further tensions within faith communities, between faith communities and between faith communities and those who hold non-religious values. If we cannot stop these differences from occurring it is vital that we do what we can to prevent the descent of disputes into violence and breaches of the law.

The revised version read:
(7) Debate and disagreement about religious beliefs within faith communities and beyond, will occur and should be exercised within the rule of law and without resort to violence.

(8) Cooperation and understanding
This clause was warmly received except by a minority who were concerned about the role of the government in relation to religious communities. There were submissions debating the merits of ‘tolerance’ over ‘mutual respect’ and it was here the RG considered was the appropriate place to delineate the responsibilities of faith communities in relation to government and each other.

The revised version read:
(8) Government and faith communities have a responsibility to build and maintain positive relationships with each other, and to promote mutual respect and understanding.

It is worth referring to the 2006 Census figures on religion as these appeared after the consultation had ended and serves to reinforce a number of the issues that were raised in relation to the National Statement. The figures recently released show that Christians form a majority at approximately 52% of the nation and this includes, of course, the full spectrum of churches and Christians from the most conservative to the most liberal. When taken as a whole, Christianity is still by far the largest faith. It is significant, however, that of the three largest churches only the Roman Catholics (14.3%) shows an increase in the last five years, 508,812 up from 486,015. Anglicans, now 15.7% of the population and Presbyterians (14.3%) have decreased by nearly 62,000 since 2001. Other Christians include 1.4% Ratana, 1.2% LDS, and 0.1% Exclusive Brethren. Hindus are now the largest and fastest growing non-Christian religious group (1.8%) up to 64,557 from 39,867, while Sikhs are up from 5,199 to 9507.Buddhists are up from 41,661 to 52,392. The Muslim community is now at 1% and numbers 36,150, up from a 2001 figure of 23,634. The total non-Christian sector numbers roughly 200,000 and 0.2% of the population is Jewish.

These figures must, of course, be seen alongside the 1.29 million or 37% of the population who have ‘no religion’. In summary, the Christian majority is shrinking and the non-Christian religions are increasing dramatically but not by as much as the loss in Christian numbers. Non-religious numbers are on the rise. The figures raise issues about the role of Christianity and the other religions in our national life and the trends perhaps reinforce the need for us to consider the questions that lie behind the National Statement.

The consultation has been a fascinating experience and unique insight into the religious ideas and concerns of New Zealanders. Most of us it seems are liberal in our orientation and exhibit openness to those of other faiths or none. A minority are less willing to follow this path and consider that either we err in being too liberal or are mistaken in taking faiths seriously at all. The underlying position of the Statement is a simple one. If we want to exercise our right to religion we need to afford that right equally to others. That is, our rights are dependent upon others having the same rights.

Finally, after reading the submissions it is important to note that this is not a theological document debating the relative or absolute merits of one religion over another although some of the respondents took this view. The document is pragmatically concerned with improving how we as different communities can and do live together peacefully. I believe that we can do this without compromising our integrity or unique religious identities. We can do it well or we can do it badly. We can think about it now or take our chances.

We, and our children, are going to have to live together in the future in an increasingly religiously diverse New Zealand. We can do this positively or we can mirror some of the difficulties that face other religiously diverse nations where a strict ideology of the separation of church and state or where members of minority faiths are marginalised has led to violent clashes, court cases and draconian legislation restriction the right to religion. We have an opportunity at this time to think forward and create a framework for a forward looking religiously diverse small nation in the South Pacific and I consider the National Statement on Religious Diversity to be a small but significant step forward in this positive direction. Finally, we have the opportunity of working together as the faith communities of New Zealand on a concrete project for all our futures.

Professor Paul Morris
19 February 2007

Posted by latimer at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

February 07, 2007

5 Reasons men hate church

Andrew Cameron, Moore College ethics lecturer, believes the major reason men struggle with church is that it is usually in a style of meeting alien to modern men. This can be summed up with four words: silence, sharing, sitting and singing.
your.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/articles/five_reasons_men_hate_church/

Posted by latimer at 11:50 AM | Comments (0)

Bishop Richard Ellena - Ordained in Diocese of Nelson

The Diocese of Nelson is today celebrating its new Bishop, Richard Ellena – ordained in Nelson’s Christ Church Cathedral yesterday before a crowd of hundreds of clergy, civic dignitaries and well-wishers.
04.02.07

All’s well that ends well
A precarious beginning to the ordaining of Nelson’s new bishop has a jubilant ending __________________________________________________________________

The Diocese of Nelson is today celebrating its new Bishop, Richard Ellena – ordained in Nelson’s Christ Church Cathedral yesterday before a crowd of hundreds of clergy, civic dignitaries and well-wishers.

But just 24 hours before that there was real doubt that someone considered rather pivotal to the proceedings – the Bishop-elect himself – would show up.

Not because he had cold feet, but because he couldn’t get to his feet.

Archdeacon Richard Ellena was, in fact, flat on his back in Christchurch Hospital, battling a serious case of blood poisoning.

The trouble started when Richard and his wife Hilary were lugging furniture into their new Nelson home. He’d scraped his knee doing so – but, like a good Kiwi bloke, he thought nothing more of it.

Richard then headed south for his ordination retreat, which was to be conducted by the Bishop of Christchurch, Dr David Coles.

Except on his retreat Richard began to feel unwell. Quite unwell. So unwell, in fact, that last Tuesday he had to be admitted to Christchurch Hospital suffering from a rocketing temperature, and raging infection.

He was still in the Christchurch hospital on the Friday, the eve of his ordination, while the other bishops, who were meeting in Nelson prior to the ordination, considered what to do.

They had no doubt about their ultimate benchmark: the wellbeing of their brother bishop-to-be. With this in mind they seriously contemplated postponing the ordination (for which many were already arriving by air); ordaining Richard at his hospital bedside; or truncating the ordination service from the normal two hours to around 20 minutes.

In the end, Richard flew from Christchurch to Nelson on the Friday afternoon – and was met by doctors and his wife Hilary, in whose hands the decision about his fitness to proceed was laid.

Their verdict? That he was sufficiently recovered to press ahead – provided he stayed in a wheelchair and kept his infected leg elevated at all times.

And so the service proceeded – and regardless of its touch’n go basis, it was a particularly cheerful and joyful celebration.

The Rev Mike Hawke, Vicar of St Christopher’s Avonhead, and Archdeacon of Selwyn-Tawera in the Diocese of Christchurch, preached the sermon on the theme: “This is the day the Lord has made.”

There were contributions from each of the three Tikanga of this church – Maori, Polynesian and Pakeha.

The three Archbishops of the Province, The Most Revs Brown Turei, David Moxon and Jabez Bryce, concelebrated the eucharist – and the music, classical, choral and contemporary, was particularly impressive. That’s hardly surprising, as Bishop Richard is a highly accomplished composer, musical producer and multi-instrumentalist.

In fact, the recessional hymn was his own composition: “May the light of Jesus shine through all the world” – which, for the final chorus, also featured the interwoven New Zealand anthem, “God Defend New Zealand.”

Archbishop David Moxon reminded those gathered of the rich precedents for Richard’s seated ordination. On the Day of Pentecost, he said, the apostles (the predecessors of the bishops) had gathered in the upper room – and were seated when the Holy Spirit came upon them.

Archbishop Moxon also reminded folk that history shows that those called to decisive ministries had often weathered physical or spiritual affliction before they were released into their calling: Jacob’s night-long wrestling with the angel being a case in point.

And Bishop Richard Ellena, the new and 10th Bishop of the Diocese of Nelson?

His consecration service over, the now elated and duly consecrated bishop headed to Nelson Hospital – where he’s expected to make a complete recovery from his affliction within a few days.

Lloyd Ashton
Media Officer to the Anglican Church
in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

From the Anglican Diocese of Nelson website:
www.nelsonanglican.org.nz/

Richard Ellena, the Archdeacon of Blenheim, has been elected as the next Anglican Bishop of Nelson.

Richard, who is 55, has been Bishop Derek Eaton’s Vicar General, or deputy, since 2002 – and he has pledged to continue to “hold high the flag of evangelical orthodoxy” during his term as the Diocese of Nelson’s 10th Bishop.

“Nelson,” he says, “is unique. It is, very strongly, an evangelical diocese. We believe in Biblical orthodoxy. I want to honour and affirm that. I also want to do that in a way that doesn’t isolate us. I want to be in warm communion with the other Anglican Bishops of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia – while saying, at the same time: ‘This is the truth that we hold to in this diocese.’ Bishop Derek has done this with so much grace, and I hope I can do the same.”

One of the defining characteristics of Derek Eaton’s episcopate has been the way he and his wife Alice have worked as a team in ministry – and it’s clear that this will continue with Richard and Hilary, his wife of 34 years.

Richard Ellena was born and grew up in Christchurch. His father, Vic Ellena, was the Bryndwr butcher until he became Head of Music at Burnside High School. He was also the organist and choirmaster at St Barnabas’, Fendalton, under Canon Bob Lowe.

Those musical genes flow through Richard Ellena. He has a degree in music, majoring in composition, is a multi-instrumentalist and has played in orchestras, bands and brass bands, and he has composed for, and conducted and sung in choirs. His wife shares that musical gift.

On leaving Burnside High, Richard Ellena worked briefly for the Met Service before training as a teacher and studying at the University of Canterbury. He then taught music in high schools for 10 years – including two at St Bede’s in Christchurch, and eight at Rangiora High – before beginning training for the Anglican ministry at St John’s College in Auckland in 1983.

Richard Ellena was ordained an Anglican priest in 1985, served his curacy at Highfield-Marchwiel (in Timaru) and was vicar of Kensington-Otipua, in south Timaru, from 1986 to 1991. He had learned Maori at St John’s and, at the invitation of Ngai Tahu, he taught te reo at Aoraki Polytech in Timaru.

In 1991, he was asked by Bishop Derek Eaton – who’d also grown up in Christchurch, and, as a teenager, had been a babysitter for young Richard Ellena – to move to the Nelson Diocese, to begin ministry at the Church of the Nativity in Blenheim. He is now the longest-serving minister in Marlborough.

Richard and Hilary Ellena have a particular love of worship, and music in worship, and during their time at the Church of the Nativity, the Sunday congregation there has grown from around 150 to 450.

Richard and Hilary Ellena have also played an active part in the wider Marlborough community – for example, he was music director of a two-week production of Les Miserables in the mid 90s, and Hilary sang one of the lead roles.

They have played in a number of other shows since then, and Richard wrote and arranged the music for The Journey, a musical composed for the new millennium to celebrate the history of Marlborough.

Richard and Hilary have two children, and Richard is expected to be consecrated as the 10th Bishop of Nelson in February next year – around the time his predecessor, Derek Eaton, with his wife Alice, resume missionary service in North Africa.

Posted by latimer at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2006

US: Bishops develop proposal responding to 'Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury'

A group of bishops, including Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has developed a proposal responding to "An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury" addressing what other petitioning bishops and dioceses have termed "alternative primatial oversight" or "alternative primatial relationship." Full texts of the group's response and accompanying statement follow here.

Bishops develop proposal responding to 'Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury'

ENS/ACNS

A group of bishops, including Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has developed a proposal responding to "An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury" addressing what other petitioning bishops and dioceses have termed "alternative primatial oversight" or "alternative primatial relationship." Full texts of the group's response and accompanying statement follow here.

A Response to "An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury"

Some bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have requested that the Archbishop of Canterbury provide what they have variously called "alternative primatial oversight" or an "alternative primatial relationship." In consultation with the Presiding Bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that a number of bishops from the Episcopal Church meet to explore a way forward. A first meeting took place in September, and a second meeting in November developed the following proposal that seeks to address the concerns of those parishes and dioceses which for serious theological reasons feel a need for space, and to encourage them to remain within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Taking seriously the concerns of the petitioning bishops and dioceses, the Presiding Bishop, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, will appoint a Primatial Vicar in episcopal orders to serve as the Presiding Bishop's designated pastor in such dioceses. The Primatial Vicar could preside at consecrations of bishops in these dioceses. The Primatial Vicar could also serve the dioceses involved on any other appropriate matters either at the initiative of the Presiding Bishop or at the request of the petitioning dioceses.

The Primatial Vicar would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and would report to an Advisory Panel that would consist of the designee of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop's designee, a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the petitioning dioceses, and the President of the House of Deputies (or designee).

This arrangement for a Primatial Vicar does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate, when appropriate, some of those duties to the Primatial Vicar. The Primatial Vicar and the Advisory Panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

Individual congregations who dissent from the decisions of their diocesan leadership are reminded of the availability of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight and its process of appeal.

This arrangement is provisional in nature, in effect for three years, beginning January 1, 2007. During that time, the Presiding Bishop is asked to monitor its efficacy and to consult with the House of Bishops and the Executive Council regarding this arrangement and possible future developments.
Statement

A group of bishops, including the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, gathered at the initiative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has developed a proposal for the appointment of a Primatial Vicar in response to those bishops and dioceses that have requested what they termed "alternative primatial oversight" or an "alternative primatial relationship."

Those present at the September meeting, in addition to Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori, included Bishops Peter James Lee of Virginia, and Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, as co-conveners, and Bishops James Stanton of Dallas, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Jack Iker of Fort Worth, Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina, Robert O'Neill of Colorado, and Mark Sisk of New York. Bishop Don Wimberly of Texas was invited but did not attend. The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion was also present at the September meeting.

The same bishops and Canon Kearon were invited to the November meeting with the exception of Bishop Griswold who had completed his tenure as Presiding Bishop. Bishop Don Johnson of West Tennessee joined the group in November. Bishops Salmon, Stanton, Iker, Duncan and Wimberly did not attend the November meeting. Bishop Lipscomb, who had been involved in the planning of the meeting, was unexpectedly hospitalized at the time of the November meeting, sent his sincere regrets, and was briefed on the meeting at its conclusion.

The proposal provides for the appointment by the Presiding Bishop, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury of a Primatial Vicar as the Presiding Bishop's designated pastor to bishops and dioceses that have requested such oversight. The Primatial Vicar, in episcopal orders, could preside at consecrations of bishops in those dioceses.
ThePrimatial Vicar, accountable to the Presiding Bishop, would report to an advisory panel that would include the designees of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House of Deputies, and a bishop of the Episcopal Church selected by the dioceses petitioning for pastoral care by the Primatial Vicar.

The response makes clear that the arrangement does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate some of those duties to the Primatial Vicar. The response also specifies that the Primatial Vicar and the Advisory Panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

The response drafted at the New York November 27th meeting is provisional in nature, beginning January 1, 2007 and continuing for three years. The New York group asked the Presiding Bishop to monitor its efficacy, and to consult with the House of Bishops and the Executive Council regarding the arrangement and possible future developments.

The response has been submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the bishops of the petitioning dioceses.

Bishop Lee of Virginia, co-convenor of the meetings that drafted the response said: "The group was conscious of the need to respond quickly to the needs of parishes and dioceses which felt themselves to be under pressure and sought a proposal which could be put into place without delay. Accordingly, this is a provisional measure that is entirely within the discretion of the Presiding Bishop and requires no canonical change nor any action by the General Convention. It is intended to provide some space for dioceses and congregations that feel they need it while the Anglican Communion sorts out more lasting measures to deal with differences. Those of us who drafted it hope it will be received and used in good faith."

Episcopal News Service - http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/

___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around the world.

Posted by latimer at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2006

Preparing for the Lambeth Conference 2008

In addressing the seminar, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd and Rt Hon Rowan Williams, expressed his hope that the Lambeth Conference would lead to a recovery of structural self confidence in the Anglican Communion to make it a more effective agent of God's mission.

14 NOVEMBER 2006

Preparing for the Lambeth Conference 2008

A Message from the St Augustine's Seminar, 2006 - Lambeth Conference Press Release No. 4

As agreed by the Seminar on Friday 10 November at Lambeth Palace, London:

At the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and in the context of prayer and worship, we, the members of the St Augustine's Seminar gathered to prepare an agenda for consideration by the Design Group of the Lambeth Conference. We met in a spirit of openness where the views and opinions of each participant could be sympathetically heard.

In addressing the seminar, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd and Rt Hon Rowan Williams, expressed his hope that the Lambeth Conference would lead to a recovery of structural self confidence in the Anglican Communion to make it a more effective agent of God's mission.

We see the Lambeth Conference 2008 as a great opportunity where bishops of the Anglican Communion gather to celebrate their fellowship in Jesus Christ. We see it as an occasion when the bishops can listen to and discuss the challenges that are facing the Communion. By respectfully listening to each other in the spirit of reconciling love, bishops will be enabled to address controversial issues.

We pray that through the open sharing of their experiences and concerns, the bishops will return to their dioceses better informed and equipped for their role as leaders of the Church for God's mission to the world, and with a clearer understanding of the Communion today.

To ensure full participation and to enable each voice to be heard, the bishops will meet for prayer and Bible study in groups of eight, and, later, move to groups of forty for wider discussions. In addition there will be a number of plenary sessions and presentations.

Seeking a revitalised Communion, the Conference will help the bishops to develop their skills of leadership and their understanding of their ministry and to be newly inspired for God's mission as outlined in the Five Marks of Mission :

a.. proclaiming the Good news
b.. teaching, baptising and nurturing
c.. responding to human need by loving service
d.. seeking to transform the unjust structures of society
e.. striving to safeguard the integrity of creation

Lambeth is a very special time for bishops to meet together and share their concerns. There are a number of bishops on the Design Group which is officially responsible for setting the agenda for the Lambeth Conference and as they draw up a final agenda, they will take account of any relevant idea or suggestion. Bishops, especially, are invited to forward any ideas or suggestions to the Lambeth Conference Design Group sueparks@lambethconference.org Fax +44 (0)207 313 3999

We share with the Archbishop of Canterbury the prayer that the 2008 Lambeth Conference will lead to a reconciled Communion through renewed commitment to God's mission .

Notes for Editors

1. The Seminar was attended by participants from the following
provinces/churches/dioceses:
Aotearoa, Polynesia and New Zealand
Australia
Canada
Central Africa
Church of North India
Cyprus & the Gulf
Congo
Egypt
England
Indian Ocean
Jerusalem and the Middle East
Nigeria
Church of Pakistan
Southern Africa
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
USA
West Indies

2. The Design Group next meets in December 2006 for its next meeting with the Archbishop of Melanesia as the chair with an international membership.

3. Mrs Jane Williams met with a group of bishops' spouses in London and Canterbury 10-13 November, to look at the separate and unique Spouses Programme for 2008.

Photographs for this article are available here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/00/acns4211.cfm

___________________________________________________________________
ACNS: published by Anglican Communion News Service, London,

Posted by latimer at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2006

Archbishop to meet leaders seeking split from liberal Church

Conservative Anglican leaders are to flesh out plans for a formal split in the worldwide Church at a confidential meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, later this month.
By Jonathan Petre, Telegraph uk
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/02/nchurch02.xml

Traditionalists plan parallel anti-homosexual Church
Conservative Anglican leaders prepared for a formal split in the worldwide Church yesterday by announcing plans to create a parallel body for anti-gay dioceses
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/23/nchurch23.xml

Posted by latimer at 09:24 AM | Comments (0)

October 24, 2006

Evangelism Plus

John Stott for more than 35 years, has devoted three months of every year to traveling the globe, with a particular emphasis on churches in the majority world. He is ideally suited to comment on evangelicals' past, present, and future. John reflects on where we've been and where we're going. Interview by Tim Stafford, Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/october/32.94.html

Posted by latimer at 02:05 PM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2006

New Bishop of Nelson Elected

Richard Ellena, the Archdeacon of Blenheim, has been elected as the next Anglican Bishop of Nelson.

Richard, who is 55, has been Bishop Derek Eaton’s Vicar General, or deputy, since 2002 – and he has pledged to continue to “hold high the flag of evangelical orthodoxy” during his term as the Diocese of Nelson’s 10th Bishop. Read more on the Nelson Diocese website:
www.nelsonanglican.org.nz/

Posted by latimer at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI and Islam

The Islamic world is once again in uproar, this time at the Pope. On Tuesday, September 12, Benedict XVI returned to the University of Regensburg, Germany, where he had once been a member of the faculty, and there he addressed a gathered audience, presenting a paper that dealt with the relationship between faith and reason, with some personal reminiscences thrown in.
richardkew.blogspot.com/

Posted by latimer at 11:44 AM | Comments (0)

August 03, 2006

Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, on the current crisis in

For the past forty years we have been largely alone on this desert fighting a predator that not only has robbed us of all but a small piece of our historic homeland, but threatens the traditions and holy sites of Christianity. We are tired, weary, sick, and wounded. We need your help.

Dear Friends,

For the past forty years we have been largely alone on this desert fighting a predator that not only has robbed us of all but a small piece of our historic homeland, but threatens the traditions and holy sites of Christianity. We are tired, weary, sick, and wounded. We need your help.

We have seen and we have been the recipients of the generosity of our
American and British friends. We cherish the support of everyone
throughout the world who stands with us in solidarity. Daily, I hear
from many of them who express outrage at the arrogant and aggressive
positions of President Bush, Secretary Rice, Senator Clinton, and Prime Minister Blair. I am saddened to realise just how much the reserved prestige of the United States and Britain has declined as a result of politicians who seem to devalue human life and suffering. and, I am disturbed that the Zionist Christian community is damaging America's image as never before.

Little more than a week ago, we were focused on the plight of the
Palestinian people. In Gaza, four and five generations have been victims of Israeli racism, hate crimes, terror, violence, and murder. garbage and sewage have created a likely outbreak of cholera as Israeli strategies create the collapse of infrastructures. There is no milk. drinking water, food, and medicine are in serious short supply. Innocents are being killed and dying from lack of available emergency care. Children are paying the ultimate price. Even for those whose ives are spared, many of them are traumatised and will not grow to ive useful lives. Commerce between the West Bank and Gaza has been alted and humanitarian aid barely trickles into some of the neediest in the world.

Movement of residents of the West Bank is difficult or impossible as
"security measures" are heightened to break the backs of the Palestinian people and cut them off from their place of work, schools, hospitals, and families. It is family and community that has sustained these people during these hopeless times. For some, it is all that they had, but that too has been taken away with the continued building of he wall and check points. The strategy of ethnic cleansing on the art of the State of Israel continues.

This week, war broke out on the Lebanon-Israeli border (near Banyas
where Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and earth). The Israeli
government's disproportionate reaction to provocation was consistent
with their opportunistic responses in which they destroy their perceived enemy.

In her recent article, "The Insane Brutality of the State of Israel,"
American, Kathleen Christison, a former CIA analyst says, "The state lashes out in a crazed effort, lacking any sense of proportion, to reassure itself of its strength." She continues, "A society that can rush off as unimportant an army officer's brutal murder of a thirteen year old girl on the claim that she threatened soldiers at a military
post (one of nearly seven hundred Palestinian children murdered by
Israelis since the Intifada began) is not a society with a conscience." The "situation" as it has come to be called, has deteriorated into a war without boundaries or limitations. It is a war with deadly potential beyond the imaginations of most civilized people.

As I write to you, I am preparing to leave with other bishops for Nablus with medical and other emergency supplies for five hundred families, and a pledge for one thousand families more.

On Saturday we will attempt to enter Gaza with medical aid for doctors
and nurses in our hospital there who struggle to serve the injured, the sick, and the dying.

My plan is that I will be able to go to Lebanon next week - where we are presently without a resident priest - to bury the dead, and comfort the victims of war. Perhaps as others have you will ask, "What can I do?" Certainly we encourage and appreciate your prayers. That is important, but it is not enough. If you find that you can no longer look away, take up your cross. It takes courage as we were promised.

Write every elected official you know. Write to your news media. Speak
to your congregation, friends, and colleagues about injustice and the
threat of global war. If Syria, Iran, the United States, Great Britain, China and others enter into this war - the consequence is incalculable. Participate in rallies and forums. Find ways that you and your churches can participate in humanitarian relief efforts for the region. Contact us and let us know if you stand with us. I urge you not to be like a disciple watching from afar.

2 Corinthians 6.11
" We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians, our heart is wide open to
you. There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In
return - I speak as to children - open wide your hearts also."

In, with, and through Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Riah H. Abu El-Assal
Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem

Posted by latimer at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)

July 27, 2006

Bishop Jefferts Schori: Open to the Spirit's Leading

The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected June 18 by the House of Bishops on the fifth ballot as the next Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church. She spoke recently with a reporter from The Living Church.
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=2232
www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=2007
www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=2010

Posted by latimer at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2006

Archbishop of Canterbury -'Challenge and hope' for the Anglican Communion

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has set out his thinking on the future of the Anglican Communion in the wake of the deliberations in the United States on the Windsor Report ... Dr Williams says that the strength of the Anglican tradition has been in maintaining a balance between the absolute priority of the Bible, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility:

27th June 2006

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has set out his thinking on the future of the Anglican Communion in the wake of the deliberations in the United States on the Windsor Report and the Anglican Communion at the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA). 'The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today, A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion', has been sent to Primates with a covering letter, published more widely and made available as audio on the internet. In it, Dr Williams says that the strength of the Anglican tradition has been in maintaining a balance between the absolute priority of the Bible, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility:

"To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices. The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic"

Dr Williams acknowledges that the debate following the consecration of a practising gay bishop has posed challenges for the unity of the church. He stresses that the key issue now for the church is not about the human rights of homosexual people, but about how the church makes decisions in a responsible way.

"It is imperative to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation."

The debate in the Anglican Communion had for many, he says, become much harder after the consecration in 2003 which could be seen to have pre-empted the outcome. The structures of the Communion had struggled to cope with the resulting effects:

". whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches."

Dr Williams says that the divisions run through as well as between the different Provinces of the Anglican Communion and this would make a solution difficult. He favours the exploration of a formal Covenant agreement between the Provinces of the Anglican Communion as providing a possible way forward. Under such a scheme, member provinces that chose to would make a formal but voluntary commitment to each other.

"Those churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness: some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion and not sharing the same constitutional structures".

Different views within a province might mean that local churches had to consider what kind of relationship they wanted with each other. This, though, might lead to a more positive understanding of unity:

"It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between constituent and associated elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but that of 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians."

Dr Williams stresses that the matter cannot be resolved by his decree:

" . the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may . outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion."

"That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition - and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony."

The Primates of the Anglican Communion will meet early next year to consider the matter. In the meantime, a group appointed by the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates will be assisting Dr Williams in considering the resolutions of the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) in response to the questions posed by the Windsor Report.

ENDS

The audio version can be found here at:

http://db.astream.com/cofe/060627%20Archbishop's%20reflection%20on%20communion.mp3

Archbishop's letter to Primates:
"Following last week's General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA), I have been preparing some personal reflections on the challenges that lie ahead for us within the Anglican Communion. I have addressed these reflections to a wide readership in the Anglican Communion and they are being made public today on my website. I wanted to bring them to your attention accordingly, for you to draw to the attention of members of your Province in whatever way you see fit.

These reflections are in no way intended to pre-empt the necessary process of careful assessment of the Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report. Rather they are intended to focus the question of what kind of Anglican Communion we wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.
I am also sending you a copy of the press statement I issued at the close of General Convention, which you will see mentions the Joint Standing Committee working party that will be assisting in evaluating the outcome of the 75th General Convention.

I shall be writing to you again later this week, to invite your own response to me to various questions as the Communion's discernment process moves ahead.

Rowan CANTUAR:

Text of reflection

The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?
What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It's about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against - and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).

It's true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes - which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society - there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Anglican Decision-Making
And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue 'in our own terms'? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn't help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn't. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of 'listening to the experience' of homosexual people hasn't advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.

There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into 'political' struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.

Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences - and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.

Truth and Unity
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you're right.

But let's suppose that there isn't that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth ('only the whole Church knows the whole Truth' as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple - and indeed desirable - to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.

First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don't run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn't just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone's interest - recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, 'let each local church go its own way'; but once you've lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?

Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each other's life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. 'You have not chosen me but I have chosen you', says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, 'Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?'

The Anglican Identity
The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies - a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word 'Communion' means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We're not. But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship - the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out - not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we're still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don't compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.

Future Directions
The idea of a 'covenant' between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an 'opt-in' matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The 'associated' Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the 'constituent' Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.

This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between 'constituent' and 'associated' elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.

There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of 'Catholic' church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place - to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices - with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

Conclusion
The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition - and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.

ENDS

© Rowan Williams 2006
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around
the world.

Posted by latimer at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2006

Williams angered by choice of Schori...Bible viewed as oppressive

"He is bitterly disappointed; he is working very hard for the unity of the Anglican Communion, and the Episcopal Church has thrown it back in his face," our source said.
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4314

Posted by latimer at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2006

The Choice Before ECUSA

June 2006 "... the only way forward which will command assent from the Communion and enable us to proceed together is to be careful and exact about what precisely Windsor said and meant. That is the aim of the present paper." An assessment of the ECUSA response to the Windsor Report by Tom Wright.

The Choice Before ECUSA
By the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright
June 2006

Introduction
1. There is already a burgeoning literature on the subject of the 61-page Report of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. As might be expected, comments, criticisms, suggestions and pleas have been flying around from and in all directions. Having tried to keep up with this over the last few weeks, I have reached the conclusion that the crucial issues are comparatively simple, and that attention must not be diverted from them by the plethora of sub-questions which will no doubt run this way and that in General Convention. What follows is in the spirit of what I said at the English House of Bishops nine days ago: that there are more or less equal and opposite dangers in (a) some people being eager for ECUSA to show its true liberal colours and go its own way, and therefore hinting that Windsor raised the bar higher than it in fact did, and (b) others being eager to paper over the cracks and to accept any expression of regret as Windsor-compliant even if it obviously isn’t. Faced with this situation, the only way forward which will command assent from the Communion and enable us to proceed together is to be careful and exact about what precisely Windsor said and meant. That is the aim of the present paper.

2. What follows now emerges both from my own prayers for ECUSA over the last years and months and, particularly, from my participation in the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor Report. I cannot stress too highly that this was a unanimous report produced by a Commission of widely differing views. The Windsor recommendations were not general, arm-waving aspirations; they were precisely focused, thoroughly thought through and carefully worded. Many on the Commission wanted to say more, many would have preferred to say less, but all were agreed that these recommendations were the essential requirements if ECUSA were to continue in full communion and fellowship with the rest of the Anglican Communion. I write not only as one of the authors of the Windsor Report but as one of those who discussed, prayed over and debated, phrase by phrase and line by line, the whole document, not least the specific recommendations. I then had the task of presenting the Report to the Church of England General Synod in February 2005, where it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority. I speak therefore, not as an Englishman telling my American cousins what to do (I am well aware of the dangers of that position!) but as a member of an international and multicultural team which produced a unanimous report for the benefit (we hope) of the whole Anglican Communion.

3. We cannot and must not forget (a) that the reason the Lambeth Commission was called into being was that the Primates (including the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA) had become convinced that if the consecration of Gene Robinson went ahead this ‘would tear the fabric of the Communion at the deepest level’; (b) that the Commission was thus the chosen way of discovering how to mend a tear that had already happened, an emergency measure for a specific purpose rather than a general ‘doctrine commission’ charged with musing on possible futures, and that the Commission’s recommendations were drafted with this specifically in mind; (c) that the Primates at Dromantine last spring, and ACC at Nottingham last summer (and, of course, the C of E General Synod in February 2005), specifically endorsed the Windsor Report and its recommendations, so that these very specific and particular recommendations now come before ECUSA with such weight as the whole Anglican Communion can muster. It is not, in other words, as though ECUSA has been asked to stand on stage and make a speech of its own choosing about some issues of general concern; it is, rather, that the rest of the Communion, having discovered in sorrow that one of its members has chosen to act specifically and knowingly against both the letter and the spirit of the instruments of communion which are the characteristically Anglican bonds that hold us together, has asked ECUSA to make certain statements which are the least that can be done that will restore the unity that has already been lost.

The Report of the Special Commission: Introduction
4. The Commission has produced a document which, in its opening, is solid and impressive. There are all kinds of signs of careful, prayerful and thoughtful work and drafting. In particular (references are to paragraphs of the Report), there is a strong note of sorrow for the way in which ECUSA has ‘contributed to division in the Body of Christ’ (7) and followed the pattern of America’s imperial actions in the world (10). But a careful reading of the opening section raises questions. It is surprising to see that in its account of the history of the current issue there is no mention of what the Primates said in October 2003 (15) and hence of the fact that the consecration of Gene Robinson had gone ahead in full knowledge of the consequences. (One response to this, of course, will be that since General Convention had already endorsed the New Hampshire election this was unstoppable. This raises, for the rest of the Communion, two further matters: (a) that the Presiding Bishop led the consecration having just signed the Primates’ report, and (b) that General Convention 2003 had already been told (e.g. by Archbishop Josiah of Kaduna), before endorsing the New Hampshire election, precisely what
consequences would follow.) It is also surprising that, in its summary of Windsor sections A and B (24-32), it makes no mention of the key interlocking themes of autonomy and subsidiarity, ‘adiaphora’ and ­ flowing from these ­ the all-important question of how the church can discern the difference, so to say, between those matters which make a difference and those matters which don’t make a difference. Since this is the point upon which the current problems turn, it is worrying that they are not mentioned, still less discussed.

5. The Commission then rightly turns its attention to the key questions, ‘expressing regret and repentance’ (33-44). This section is crucial as an introduction to the key recommendations. It focuses (34) on Windsor para 134, quoting its introductory sentence (‘Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion ­ the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ ­ we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together’). It does not, however, quote the next part of Windsor 134, but contents itself ­ vitally, as will emerge in a moment ­ with a summary in terms of ‘a statement of regret for breaching the bonds of affection’ and ‘moratoria on particular actions’ (34, end). It notes that ‘statements of regret have been made by the House of Bishops and the Executive Council’ (35), though without noting that these have not been the ‘statements of regret’ asked for by Windsor, but rather statements of regret that some people were hurt by ECUSA’s actions, and a statement (from the House of Bishops in March 2005, anticipating the phraseology now used in the Commission’s proposals) of regret for breaching the bonds of affection ‘by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions’, which as we shall presently see is clearly and specifically not what Windsor asked for.

6. The section continues to speak in general terms of ‘statements of regret’ without quoting, or addressing, the specific statements asked for in Windsor 134. Instead, para 38 says (at the end), ‘We also believe that the General Convention’s consideration of such expressions of regret and repentance will provide clear evidence of our desire to reaffirm the bonds of affection that unite us in the fellowship of the Anglican Communion.’ This is a puzzling statement, whose implications become clear in the resolutions that follow. Certainly the fact that General Convention will consider expressions of regret and repentance will demonstrate that most in ECUSA want to remain within the Anglican Communion. But the important question is whether that desire will lead to the specific and particular expressions of regret and repentance asked for by Windsor 134, or whether ECUSA will try to attain the goal of staying within the Communion without travelling by the only route that will get there, namely that of the road mapped by Windsor and endorsed by the Primates and ACC.

7. Once more, in para 43, the key question seems to be avoided. The paragraph asks, ‘How, then, is the General Convention to express regret and repentance? What counts as an adequate response to the requests of WR?’ But, instead of quoting Windsor 134, which would seem to be the obvious answer to this double question, the paragraph refers to ‘a number of statements of regret’ that have already been made, for instance that ‘regret has been expressed that the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire was out of sequence’, given the unresolved question of the blessing of same-sex unions. Likewise, ‘moratoria have been effected, and these have been understood as expressions of repentance for decisions made without time for consultation’. It has to be said that, from a Windsor perspective, both of these sentences are bound to appear as ways of avoiding the issue. At no point in the Commission’s report is it even mentioned that the real problem is not that actions are ‘out of sequence’ or taken ‘without time for consultation’, but that the actions in question went exactly, explicitly and knowingly against the expressed mind of Lambeth, ACC, the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. There had, in fact, been plenty of consultation at several levels, and ECUSA chose to ignore the results of that consultation.

8. The report then says (44) that it will be for General Convention to determine ‘if and how to effect moratoria as a continued expression of the desire to live into the vision of the communion we share, described in WR’. It notes (45) that ECUSA ‘has been asked to respond to several requests in ways that would express our regret for having breached the bonds of affection’, but once more without saying what WR actually asked it to do. It mentions (46) ‘five specific requests’ that have come from WR, Dromantine, and ACC-13, of which the first two are for moratoria on elections to the episcopate of those living in same-gender unions and on public rites of blessing for such unions, but again doesn’t quote the specific request of WR 134. Instead, the report discusses these moratoria in para 48 in terms of the usefulness of such times of waiting in giving time for a new consensus to emerge, and instances gratefully the indications from various parts of the Communion of a ‘commitment to diversity and inclusivity with respect to current conversations about human sexuality’. I fear it is not cynical to decode para 48 to mean ‘moratoria can be helpful if they give time for the rest of the
Communion to catch up with what ECUSA has already decided to do’. In fact, it would be naive not to read it in that way. That does not give great hope for what is to come.

9. The report then says (51) ‘We acknowledge and regret that by action and inaction, we contributed to strains on communion and ‘œcaused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians’ as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. This quotes directly from Windsor 127, though it is not yet a statement of what Windsor 134 asked for in response. The paragraph then goes on, ‘Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strain on communion, until a broader consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges’. A footnote to the report states that some members of the Commission had wanted to say ‘refrain from’ rather than ‘exercise very considerable caution in’. Knowing how Commissions work (there is constant give and take about wording, but this doesn’t normally show up in footnotes), the fact that this discussion resulted in an explicit statement of dissent indicates
that some Commission members insisted on their minority view being expressed. It also shows that the Commission knew very well that its main statement, resulting in the Resolution A161, was not complying with the specific thing that Windsor had asked for (see below). (The Bishop of Exeter had also pointed this out when he spoke to the American House of Bishops just before their Commission reported.)
10. When it comes to public rites of blessing of same-sex unions, the Commission suggests (53) that its previous resolution (2003—C051) has been misunderstood. That resolution recognized that ‘local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions’; but the Commission denies that this means that such rites were ‘authorized’, since the only ‘authorized rites’ are those in the various prayer books. This then clears the hermeneutical space for paragraph 54 to recommend that no ‘authorization’ (in this rather narrow sense) of such liturgies should happen, which is then reflected in Resolution A162. From a Windsor perspective, this sounds like a straightforward attempt to have one’s cake and eat it, using a narrow definition of ‘authorized’ (= ‘printed in an official prayer book’) to deny that local liturgies come into that category, while explicitly encouraging their development and use. See (17) below for the outworking of this, where it becomes clear, as noted in Windsor 144, that General Convention is seen as ‘making provision’ for, and individual diocesan bishops can then ‘authorize’, such blessings.

11. There are several other matters dealt with in the Report. Some of these raise interesting and important issues in their own right, not least the questions of the care of dissenting minorities and the problem of episcopal border-crossing. But for the sake of brevity we must turn at once to the proposed Resolutions, and specifically to those which appear to address the central concerns of the Windsor Report.

The Key Resolutions
12. The benchmark against which the key resolutions must be measured is of course Windsor 134 (for Resolutions A160 and A161) and Windsor 144 (for A162). The report quotes the preamble to Windsor 134 (see (5) above), but never quotes the recommendations themselves. The reason for this, sadly, becomes all too clear: the Commission clearly had the Windsor Report before it throughout, and decided to decline Windsor’s request and to do something else instead, using some words and phrases which echo those of Windsor while not affirming the substance that was asked for. This, with real sadness, is my basic conclusion: that unless the relevant Resolutions are amended so that they clearly state what Windsor clearly requested, the rest of the Communion is bound to conclude that ECUSA has specifically chosen not to comply with Windsor.

13. Windsor 134 makes three recommendations. The second concerns the voluntary withdrawal of the consecrators of Gene Robinson from representative functions within the Anglican Communion; that has happened at ACC-13. It is the first and third recommendations which now concern us.

14. The first recommendation reads as follows: The Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion. The Commission, in their ‘explanation’ of Resolution A160, says that this Resolution ‘addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that ‘the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret’ for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection. It does not point out (and at this point, reading and re-reading what they wrote, I have to say with sadness that the word ‘duplicity’ comes unbidden to my mind) that while this Resolution does indeed address the invitation of the Windsor Report, what it basically says to this invitation is ‘No, thank you.’

15. Instead of expressing regret for breaching the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, the Resolution, following the alternative route already set out by the House of Bishops in March 2005, expresses regret ‘for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003’, and says that ‘we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking these actions.’ A comparison with the Windsor request shows what has happened. The Commission has specifically declined to recommend to General Convention a Resolution in which ECUSA would comply with Windsor by expressing regret that the bonds of affection were breached by what was done. Instead, (a) it has simply expressed regret that the bonds of affection were breached by non-consultation, which was not mentioned at this point in Windsor, and indeed is irrelevant since there was in fact widespread and public consultation throughout most of 2003, before, during and after General Convention that year, which resulted in the Primates’ clear statement that to go ahead with the consecration of Gene Robinson would tear the fabric of the Communion; and (b) it has not even affirmed that there was fault in that respect, since the wording ‘by any failure to consult’ seems to mean ‘we’re not sure that there was anything wrong, but if there was, we apologise’. Thus the appearance of Windsor-compliance, and the powerful impact of ‘apology and repentance’, are, alas, only skin deep. To put it bluntly: Resolution A160 is not, as it stands, Windsor-compliant, and the Commission must have known that only too well. Granted that, the statement in the ‘Explanation’ that this Resolution is ‘thus signalling our synodical intentions to remain within the Communion’ must, sadly, be seen as essentially cynical. Windsor said that ‘such an expression of regret’ ­ i.e. the one tthat Windsor requested, not the one that the Resolution offers ­ ‘would represent the desire of ECUSA to remain within the Communion.’ The fact that he ‘explanation’ quotes this latter phrase demonstrates a desire, not apparently to comply with Windsor, but to give the appearance of doing so to those who glance at the text but do not look carefully at what is
actually said.

16. The same is true, sadly, of the third recommendation of Windsor 134 in relation to Resolution A161. Windsor recommended (and the Primates and ACC endorsed the recommendation) that ‘the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.’ As we saw at (9) above, in line with the Commission’s Introduction para 51 and its tell-tale footnote, and as appears also in the ‘explanation’ to this Resolution, there were some on the Commission who clearly wanted to comply with this Windsor recommendation, but, equally clearly, a majority who did not. Instead of adopting the Windsor recommendation, Resolution A161 says ‘we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.’ At the risk of stating the obvious, this Resolution has done two things, both of which point away from Windsor: (a) it has only recommended ‘very considerable caution’, rather than a moratorium; (b) it has broadened the reference to persons in same-gender unions into a general statement about persons whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church ­ which, as various commentators have pointed out, and as the ‘explanation’ offered by the Commission itself indicates, could mean all sorts of things. Again, therefore, if Resolution A161 is passed without amendment, and still more if it is not even passed, it will be impossible to draw any other conclusion but that ECUSA has chosen not to comply with the Windsor recommendations.

17. Resolution A162, on Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions, looks at first sight as though it is more Windsor-compliant than A160 and A161. (The relevant section of the Windsor Report is paras 136-146.) It comes in three parts: first, a resolution affirming ‘the need to maintain a breadth of private responses to situations of individual pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians’, which presumably means that local churches can celebrate private and home-grown services of various kinds. Second, it concurs with Windsor’s call not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions (though it oddly says that this was an exhortation to ‘bishops of the Anglican Communion’, whereas Windsor 144 specifically referred to ECUSA; this presumably is in line with the double meaning noted above in (10), namely that ECUSA has chosen to interpret its own decision in General Convention 2003 not in terms of ‘authorization’ of such blessings but of ‘permission’). Third, it proposes to ‘advise those bishops who have authorized public diocesan rites that, ‘because of the serious repercussions in the Communion,’ they heed the invitation ‘to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization’. This is indeed much closer to the relevant Windsor paragraph than in the cases of A160 and A161. However, there is still some slippage, here as well, between what Windsor asked for and what the Resolution proposes. Windsor asked for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and did not mention at all the possibility of a new consensus emerging which would curtail this moratorium; the Resolution exhorts bishops to honor the Primates’ injunction, referred to in Windsor 143, ‘by not proceeding to authorize public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, until some broader consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges’. Windsor further recommended, though the Resolution does not mention this, that ‘pending such expression of regret, . . . such bishops be invited to consider whether . . . they should withdraw from representative functions in the Anglican Communion, and that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.’ As I say, there is not so much distance here between Windsor and the relevant Resolution, but still some sense that ECUSA is choosing to look at the matter from a different perspective. This in turn sends us back to the prior question which Windsor addresses throughout, namely the question of which matters can, and which can not, be decided locally; and that question (‘is this or is this not a matter which can be decided locally) is itself one which, logically, can not itself be decided locally, but only by the whole church.

Further Matters and Resolutions
18. The meaning, intention and spirit of the Commission’s report and the proposed Resolutions already discussed have to be seen in the light of other matters and resolutions. In particular, we note Resolution A167, whose second and third parts have been widely, and in my view rightly, seen as reaffirming previous ECUSA commitments to work in the opposite direction to the main thrust of Lambeth 1.10 (there is no controversy, I think, about the commitment of that resolution to the ‘listening process’). These resolutions, sadly, provide the context within which the puzzles of the earlier resolutions (why don’t they say what Windsor asked?) can be understood; in other words, they indicate that the reason why the Commission has not recommended actual compliance with Windsor’s recommendations is because some Commission members at least believe that to comply would prevent ECUSA developing further the policies of which the consecration of Gene Robinson and the authorizing of same-sex blessings were symptoms. In other words, it is bound to look to the rest of the Communion as though these agendas, which were not of course the explicit subject of the Windsor Report, are driving ECUSA’s attitude to questions of global ecclesiology.

Conclusion
19. It is very important not to let the plethora of material, in the official document and in all the various commentaries on it, detract attention from from the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed. If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor, and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157). My hope and earnest prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be avoided. May God bless the Bishops and Delegates of ECUSA in their praying, thinking and deciding.

Posted by latimer at 03:37 PM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2006

The Da Vinci Code: A statement from the NZ Anglican Bishops

6 June 06: “Some of us have been approached about our views on The Da Vinci Code novel and movie in recent weeks. We are also aware that a number of people believe that The Da Vinci Code story is real and that its description of Christian history is true.

“We therefore feel it is important to say publicly that

“Some of us have been approached about our views on The Da Vinci Code novel and movie in recent weeks. We are also aware that a number of people believe that The Da Vinci Code story is real and that its description of Christian history is true.

“We therefore feel it is important to say publicly that in 2005 a UK television archaeologist, Tony Robinson, edited and narrated a detailed rebuttal of the main arguments and facts of The Da Vinci Code, in the documentary The real Da Vinci Code. This documentary was shown on New Zealand television recently.

“We endorse the work of this documentary as well as the statements of Lyndsay Freer, The National Director of Catholic Communications, about the lack of historical substance in the Da Vinci Code.

“The Da Vinci Code novel was based on material from the 1982 book: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. Richard Leigh has stated on television that he and his co-authors only set out to offer a plausible hypothesis, but he never believed it to be true. Responses from mainstream historians and academics are nearly universally negative.

“The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, derived material in turn from a fictitious theory of Pierre Plantard, via a French journalist and author called Jean Luc Chameil. This material is now called the ‘Priory of Sion Hoax.’ Plantard confessed in 1993 that the ‘Priory of Sion’ was an elaborate construction without base in fact.

“Further, in his legal ruling about the novel The Da Vinci Code and its link to the work of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Judge Peter Smith said that The Da Vinci Code law suit was ‘based on a contrived and selective number of facts and ideas.’

“However, we do see the current public interest in the novel and movie The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity to discuss well substantiated Christian history in the light of good research about its reliability and credibility, rather than material partly derived from a hoax.

“We recognise that God is the source of all truth and therefore the Christian community has no need to fear good research which sheds light on the truth of history: the truth always sets us free and we have confidence that the truths of the Christian story speak for themselves.”

+John Bluck +Te Kitohi Pikaahu
+Thomas Brown +Richard Randerson
+Jabez Bryce +Philip Richardson
+David Coles +Gabriel Sharma
+George Connor +Brown Turei
+Derek Eaton +Whakahuihui Vercoe
+John Gray +Muru Walters
+Winston Halapua
+David Moxon
+John Paterson

ends

Posted by latimer at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2006

ECUSA departures

14.02.06 It is not known who is responsible for this blog, but it seems to contain useful information. It lists parishes that have left the Episcopal Church USA. When a group of parishioners has left, and the parish itself remains in the ECUSA, it is not listed here.
Via Thinking Anglicans: www.ecusadepartures.blogspot.com/

Posted by latimer at 02:21 PM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2006

Orthodox Bishops see little hope for ECUSA's reform

Future Grim as General Convention Draws Closer: The Presiding Bishop and his fellow revisionist bishops have no intention of repenting of their actions in consecrating V. Gene Robinson to the episcopacy as the first homoerotic Bishop of New Hampshire, and secondly they will not step away voluntarily from the Anglican Communion unless forced to do so.
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3581

Posted by latimer at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2005

US Christian conservatives defend Christmas

To believe a growing band of Christian conservatives, Christmas is far from alive and well in the land of the free. by By Andrew Gumbel
NZ Herald: www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=500818&ObjectID=10359046

Posted by latimer at 09:44 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2005

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?

'We must determine to become people of the book in the Christian sense; people who are being remade, judged and remolded by the Spirit through scripture.'By Tom Wright: The Laing Lecture and Griffith Thomas Lecture 1989
www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Posted by latimer at 12:17 PM | Comments (0)

November 30, 2005

Canadian church remains "important part of the Communion"

"The Communion needs Canada and I believe Canada needs the Communion," he said, adding that he hopes that the "listening process" that has been put in place, will allow churches throughout the communion to appreciate each others' differences. NZ Bishop John Paterson - ACC Chair

"The Communion needs Canada and I believe Canada needs the Communion," he said, adding that he hopes that the "listening process" that has been put in place, will allow churches throughout the communion to appreciate each others' differences.

Bishop Paterson addressed CoGS during a two-day visit as the council gathered in Mississauga, Ont., Nov. 17-20.

The ACC chair apologised to the Canadian church for the treatment it received at the Consultative Council's meeting in Nottingham, Eng., last summer.

Bishop Paterson heard presentations to CoGS by Canadians who attended that meeting, and later told the council that those presentations "made me revisit the daily nightmares I had to face as chair of the ACC. . I did not enjoy the last meeting."

He said that if the "listening process" is going to happen, it must happen at several levels. "We have to talk to ourselves and to others."

The listening and study process is meant to monitor the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the worldwide Anglican Communion as defined by the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

Bishop Paterson noted that while a lot of attention is placed on Communion-wide divisions, not enough attention is placed on work done at the regional level.

"We need to revisit links like partners in mission and companion dioceses that allowed us to talk to each other," he said.

He commended both the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and the Anglican Church of Canada as "exemplary" in the attention they have given the Windsor Report and for meeting all the requests that are contained in the report.

Canadian Anglicans attended the last meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in response to a request by Anglican Primates that the church make a presentation on actions the church has taken in the area of same-sex blessings.

As well as four presenters, the Primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison and three elected representatives of the Canadian Church to the consultative council attended the meeting, although the members of the council were instructed by CoGs not to participate in the proceedings.

CoGS heard reports from several of the people who had attended the meeting.

Bishop Sue Moxley, one of the Canadian members, told CoGs that the decision to send members but not to allow them to participate was improperly understood by some. She said that while it was important for the Canadians to be in Nottingham, "we should never again allow ourselves to be bullied."

Canon Robert Falby, a presenter, noted with regret that after the Canadian and U.S. presentations, a scheduled sessions allowing members of the ACC to respond was cancelled. "I found that to be a very bad thing," he said.

Canon Falby also noted with concern that there was "a complete misrepresentation of what the position of the Anglican Church of Canada is on the issue of same-sex blessings. Our message was that we are still a church in discussion and that message was deliberately ignored," he noted.

Article from Anglican Church of Canada by Diana Mavunduse

Churches unlikely to pass motion adding primates to ACC, says chair

Speaking to members of the Council of General Synod (CoGS) at their meeting here on Nov. 19, Bishop Paterson said there was "a great deal of unease" expressed by ACC members at the possibility of the body being dominated by primates.

"What happened in Nottingham was that there was deep-seated anger from some members of the ACC of primates acting on their own towards ACC," said Bishop Paterson. "The primates decided on an action against two churches who are members of a body (ACC) mandated by the constitution to be consultative. How can it be consultative if two important churches are not able to take part?" He added that among ACC members "there's a feeling that perhaps we shouldn't allow the primates to meet alone ever again." His remark drew laughter from CoGS members.

The primates, during their meeting in February 2005, had requested that the Canadian and American churches "voluntarily withdraw" from the ACC meeting in Nottingham, England, last June as a step towards restoring unity within the Anglican Communion fractured by the issue of same-sex blessings in New Westminster and the ordination of a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

"There was a measure of resentment that the primates had acted precipitately and punitively to the ACC by saying that Canada and ECUSA (Episcopal Church in the United States of America) could not be members of the ACC," said Bishop Paterson in an interview with the Anglican Journal.

Bishop Paterson, who is a former primate of New Zealand, said that it would take about two to three years to complete the ratification process regarding the inclusion of primates to the ACC. The motion, passed during the ACC meeting in Nottingham, requires a two-thirds majority vote from member churches of the Anglican Communion.

"I don't think it will fly. I don't think it will be approved," he said in the interview, noting he was basing his assumption on "a great deal of unease" that he has picked up from a number of churches. "It will take a full two-to-three-year period for all the member churches to meet and engage in a process to find the answer. In that space of time the word will move around as to why people don't agree with it. I think that will gain momentum."

He said there are two views regarding the inclusion of primates. "The feeling was that if we brought them into the body where there is ... the only option for lay voice to be heard, that that would be better than allowing them to continue to act independently meeting on their own," he said. "The other view, which is gaining ascendancy, is the fear that clergy and lay people in the ACC would look to the primate to given them a lead as to how to decide to vote on any particular issue and that that would therefore destroy the importance of the ACC as a really consultative body, where the voices of those other than bishops are valued, followed and listened to."

Asked whether there would be a common mechanism for ensuring a consultative process regarding action on the motion, he said, "I'm assuming that it goes before the highest legislative body in each province because that's the way most of us work." He added that "the ACC requires that any changes to its constitution -- and this is one -- does have to be referred in due process to the General Synod or its equivalent in each member church."

In his speech, Bishop Paterson underscored that "the Anglican Church of Canada remains an important part of the Anglican Communion; the Communion needs Canada and I think Canada needs the Communion." Bishop Paterson was invited to attend the CoGS meeting, held Nov. 17-20, by Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

He said that both the Canadian and American churches have been "exemplary" in adhering to the recommendations of the Windsor Report, which had recommended, among others, moratoria on same-sex blessings and the ordination of gay bishops.

He also apologized for the way Canadians were treated at the ACC. Both Canadian and American churches had sent their ACC members to "attend but not participate" in the June 18-29 meeting. While there, the Canadian and American delegation said they had felt "exclusion" and "alienation."

"I deeply apologize," he said. "I've been to six ACC meetings for a period of 15 years and I really enjoyed and appreciated the chance to meet wonderful people around the Communion. But this last year, I cannot say all of those things. I did not enjoy this recent meeting ... The level of rhetoric, unpleasant language from some parts of our leadership in the Communion was distressing to me and I know as distressing to many Anglicans around the world."

In his speech, Bishop Paterson also said that:

a.. The idea of having a common covenant among members of the Anglican Communion, as proposed by the Lambeth Commission on Communion, "may be the last hope of finding something that helps us stay together;"
b.. The divisions within the Communion are now so "serious and it may be that unity, as opposed to communion, is now something that's in our past;"
c.. "I'm not a conspiracy theorist but some very good minds in the American church suggest that this (the trouble within the Communion) is indeed what it is (a conspiracy) and that really worries me."

Article from: Anglican Journal Canada by Marites N. Sison
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London

Posted by latimer at 12:08 PM | Comments (0)

November 16, 2005

Hope and a Future Conference

More than 3,200 Anglicans/Episcopalians met in the US to reaffirm their faith, reconnect with their Anglican heritage, and to state with absolute conviction that they had a faith to declare and that it was not they who had moved away from the 'faith once delivered to the saints.' says David Virtue
Bishop Duncan's opening remarks: www.anglicancommunionnetwork.org/news/dspnews.cfm?id=195
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3248
www.americananglican.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=675589&ct=1603749

Posted by latimer at 12:11 PM | Comments (0)

November 09, 2005

An Insider's View of Evangelicals

First of all, they are not fundamentalists. They're your neighbours who read, and try to live by, the Bible, but not to the point of absurdity. Some may see them as boring, but they're definitely not scary. By Michael Davenport, Christianity.ca
www.christianity.ca/news/commentary/2005/09.004.html

Posted by latimer at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2005

Why people reject the Gospel

The Bible tells us the human heart is very resistant to the message of Jesus. Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, gives some reasons why. We must recognise that it is absolutely normal for gospel work to be difficult. The Bible tells us that the human heart is very resistant to the message of Jesus.
tinyurl.com/ddvxo

Posted by latimer at 12:27 PM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2005

Staying together or walking together

What is driving the search for new relationships in the Anglican Communion? What is driving the realignment of the Communion? Why have people been leaving their current relationships in the Anglican Communion, with their parish, bishop, diocese or province? By Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/8Oct05.html

Posted by latimer at 02:54 PM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2005

Back to school -- with doubts about Jesus

Undergraduates at Canada's post-secondary Christian schools may have spent years in church before they arrive on campus, but a growing number of them are coming with questions that suggest they harbour some doubts about Christianity's core message. By Frank Stirk
www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050901school

Posted by latimer at 01:57 PM | Comments (0)

August 24, 2005

Anglicans in Communion: Reality or Rhetoric?

"If church is a marriage, the recent theological hui was about taking time to rediscover what’s special about that relationship." A Media Officer for the Anglican Church report on the hui held at St John’s College from August 15 to August 18.

“We are in this together” – reflections on the hui ____________________________________

If church is a marriage, the recent theological hui was about taking time to rediscover what’s special about that relationship.

That’s how Don Tamihere, the Director for the Centre of Youth Ministry Studies, sees the significance of the three day-hui: Anglicans in Communion: Reality or Rhetoric? which was held at St John’s College from August 15 to August 18.

“It’s easy to get distracted by the daily grind,” says Don. “Having to pay the bills, having to get up and go to work. You can soon lose the intimacy or the purpose of that relationship, if you don’t bother to make an effort to come together, to talk, to find out about each other. To get to know what’s important, what the dreams are, what the aspirations are.

“This hui was an opportunity to get to know each other afresh. It was the kind of effort that the church needs to make for itself.”

Among the 108 folk who had the privilege of being at the hui, that was a common response – that occasions like this are all too rare, and there’d been no opportunity, until the hui, to gather and discuss what a three tikanga church theology might look like.

Several commented that the hui met a need that General Synod doesn’t touch.

“General Synod,” said Dr Jenny Te Paa, “is an occasion where we transact the business of the church. That tends to end up being the perfunctory stuff… the administrative and managerial needs of the church. Whereas this was an occasion to talk about deeper relational concerns.”

The keynote addresses given by the Archbishop of Capetown, The Most Rev Njongonkulu Ndungane, and the Bishop of Malaita, in the Solomon Islands, The Rt Revd Dr Terry Brown, were a springboard for diving into these discussions.

The title of Dr Brown’s two-part address: Communion and Personhood gives a hint of the territory that the delegates explored in plenary sessions, workshops and around dinner tables.

Bishop John Bluck says that the two speakers gave insights into key words. In the light of the hui, he says, “koinonia takes on a new edge. Communion is inadequate if it doesn’t involve a real sharing of personhood and resources.”

“When you allow yourself to go deep into the koinonia experience, you change, and your definition of ‘I’ changes as a result of a new understanding of ‘we’. As a result,” he says, “the whole issue of resource-sharing is back on the table.”

While many expected sexuality to dominate the debate, perhaps that was shaded by the desire to examine the quality of relationships in the church – in the broadest sense – and the Maori delegates made their presence felt on this theme.

And that in itself, says Archdeacon Hone Kaa, is a triumph. Before the three-tikanga constitution was put in place, he said, Maori wouldn’t have said: ‘boo’.

“What I marvel at,” he says, “was the number of Maori there who were not afraid to contribute.

“Maori have got past the idea that Tikanga Pakeha is a threat, or frightening to them. They found themselves the intellectual and spiritual equal of their Pakeha counterparts.

“We have a very clearly identified base, out of which we can arise. Whereas I got the impression that many in Tikanga Pakeha were still struggling with their identity. They don’t know how to name it, and claim it.”

The hui also got a guarded thumbs-up from Peter Carrell, the Director of Studies at Nelson’s Bishopdale College, a delegate who’s identified with the evangelical movement of the church.

He noted that the backdrop to the hui were the “very strong disagreements” about human sexuality that have led to the writing of the Windsor Report.

And where a General Synod has a “Parliamentary-type atmosphere” which tends to allow only “snatched conversations”, he noted that the hui gave space for people from all theological positions “to talk about our differences, to get to know one another and relate to each other.”

That, he said, was a “sign of hope.”

“As evangelicals, we were pleased to have the opportunity to be present, to participate and to be heard, and to hear others. We didn’t feel a sense of coercion.”

There was frequent exhortation during the hui to “keep talking” and to keep in communion.

For some evangelicals, says Peter, there’s suspicion about that kind of encouragement.

They’re anxious that this is “an intentional ploy… to wear us down so that we’ll eventually fall into step with the liberals on human sexuality.”

“I think the hui demonstrated that this encouragement to ‘keep talking’ is not necessarily about trying to wear down the other.

“It’s a genuine attempt to move forward. Perhaps the success of the hui is that we showed that neither side is expecting the other to change in the short term. Therefore, the issue is not how to convince the other that we are right, but whether we can we live with the other. The hui gave considerable hope that we can, providing we talk.”

That kind of “transcending” of positions was something that Jenny Te Paa took heart from, too.

“I think the big significance of the hui was that people ‘got over themselves!’

“People transcended the almost entrenched boundaries of tikanga, and found themselves easily able to engage in conversations about things of a theological nature – things that really matter.

“I can see that the quality of the conversations we’ve been having has been eroded in the last 10 years. This was an opportunity to say: ‘It’s OK. We can retrieve the situation’ – and get back to an engaged dialogue that lends itself far more to the original vision, as I see it, of the constitution of our Church, than where we were headed.”

There was some comment, during the hui, that Tikanga Polynesia were taking a low profile.

Amy Chambers, a Fijian priest who led one of the workshops, says the folk who made those assessments should have checked out her workshop.

But she acknowledges that Polynesian people can feel shy about speaking up when they’re in the presence of elders, or of people whom they feel have more authority than they do.

Like others, Amy felt the hui was long overdue. And she thinks that some may have needed assurance that the hui was “a safe place” for them.

Those fears, she says, would dissolve if people had a firmer conviction about the church as family.

“Some of us,” says Amy, “may have left from this place happy, some may feel a bit bruised, or lame, some will feel a sense of affirmation, or empowerment – but we are all in this together, because we are family.

“And family matter. And family need to bring up these things which may be painful, but which we need to talk about. The assurance for you and I is that we are family. We are in this together.”

“Sometimes we may be a bit further away, but still there’s that bond that binds you and I together. You are part of us. The ‘us’ bit is very, very important to me.”

Where to from here?

Partly, says Don Tamihere, that’ll depend on how well those who were there are able to share what went on during the three days.

And he’s afraid that because a number of the bishops and church leaders weren’t at the hui “they have yet to come on board” with what was advanced.

Even so, when Jenny Te Paa contemplates the future, she speaks for many who were at this event:

“My dream,” she says, “is that a national theological hui such as this one will be an embedded part of the church’s annual life.

“I was talking to some people who couldn’t remember doing this kind of thing for at least 20 years. That’s unacceptable, I think.”

The hui wound up its business by issuing a communiqué.

You can read this, plus Archbishop Ndungane’s keynote address, and his conference eucharist sermon – as well as Bishop Terry Brown’s two addresses, on the church website. Go to: //www.anglican.org.nz/news/Reflections.htm

ends
Lloyd Ashton
Media Officer for the Anglican Church
in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
Phone: (09) 521-0192
Fax: (09) 528-2219
Mob: (021) 348-470
Email: mediaofficer@ang.org.nz

Posted by latimer at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)

August 23, 2005

Reason to be cheerful

By The Rt Rev Dr Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham (UK)- "Reason is in short supply right now, and that is always dangerous. When someone says in a debate, "What I feel is ...", the chair ought to intervene. What people feel is neither here nor there in a debate. If someone says "I like salt" and someone else says "I like pepper", they are not having a debate."
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1529809,00.html

Posted by latimer at 04:02 PM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2005

Evangelism is not working - But it could be

When is the Church not the Church? When is a Christian not a Christian? When is a minister not a minister? When is the Holy Spirit not the Holy Spirit? The answer to all four questions is essentially the same – the workplace. by Mark Greene
www.licc.org.uk/articles/article.php/id/4

Clergy are failing to train their congregations in discipleship, leaving them lacking the training and confidence necessary to make a difference in society, according to a leading Christian commentator. Mark Greene, Director of the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity (LICC), said that churches are adopting a 'convert and retain' policy rather than encouraging people to share the Gospel. He described this as “warehousing people for heaven”.

One reason that many Christians struggle with talking about their faith is that they don't know how to live the message of the Gospel, research conducted by LICC found. Addressing the Keswick Convention, Mr Greene said that church leaders were spending least time on discipleship, which Jesus spent most time doing. “The Gospel of Jesus is not just a way in, it is a way on. The goal of the church is not to make converts but to make disciples. It is extremely rare to find a pastor who regularly meets with a group of people to disciple them for life in today's world.”

Clergy themselves were not being trained in disciple-making in their time at theological college or afterwards. He pointed to research that found that only 36 churches out of 1,000 had put on a course in the last five years to teach people how to evangelise, adding that a new church culture of whole-life Christianity needs to be created. Christians tend to feel they are a tiny minority and unable to make a difference, but Mr Greene argued that, with 4.5 million people going to church once a month or more, there were enough to reach the nation. “We need church communities where people are briefed, trained, supported and resourced for whole-life missionary engagement in the world.”

From the Church of England Newspaper: www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5780&title=Clergy%20'are%20failing%20on%20discipleship'

Posted by latimer at 03:57 PM | Comments (0)

August 02, 2005

Good Works v Mission : A 200 year story

1788-1930s From the earliest days of the Sydney colony, Anglicans have been involved in ‘good works’. Anglican Chaplain Samuel Marsden established schools for orphans and training institutions for convict mums. Some history and tips on how to start a 'good work' from Southern Cross:

http://tinyurl.com/7vsyv

Posted by latimer at 01:55 PM | Comments (0)

July 27, 2005

To Judge, or Not to Judge - Teaching on Tolerance

"Christ commanded us not to judge others, but aren't there times when common sense or prudence requires it?" Answered by: Roger E. Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, and author of The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/007/22.52.html

Posted by latimer at 12:38 PM | Comments (0)

Is repentance being preached and understood?

"When people who are evangelical are so similar to their society, you have to ask if repentance is being preached and understood." says Peter Maiden, International Director of Operation Mobilisation,

Christians are showing a "disturbing" tendency to follow the trends of society, according to one of the world’s leading evangelical figures. The divorce rate among Christians in America are similar to that of non-Christians, and those found to be most likely to complain about neighbours of other ethnic backgrounds are white evangelical Christians. While accepting that what is true for America is not necessarily true of Britain, said these figures are cause for concern.

"This is a frightening and truly disturbing situation," he told the Keswick Convention. "When people who are evangelical are so similar to their society, you have to ask if repentance is being preached and understood." In Charles Colson’s book, Salad bar Christianity, 20 per cent of American Christians are reported to believe in reincarnation and 26 per cent believe in astrology. "To what degree have these people, who consider themselves to be evangelical, really understood the gospel?" Mr Maiden asked. He urged British churches to avoid the danger of allowing the gospel to become "just another self-help programme," but rather to ensure that it is biblical. "Are we preaching Christ? Are we telling the gospel story?"

http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5778&title=Cumbrian%20life%20is%20being%20destroyed

Posted by latimer at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2005

Remarks from a Conflict - "What is right & fair?"

Anglicanism, as a part of the world wide church was, and is strongly affected by each of these events . . . but probably nothing has affected Anglicanism in the last 3 decades more then liberalism. Article by The Rev. Miguel Uchoa, Archdeacon of the South of the Anglican Diocese of Recife
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/news05052602.asp

Posted by latimer at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2005

Christian Aid at '60' sets sights on trade justice

Sixty years after it was founded at the end of the Second World War, the development agency Christian Aid received testimony to its success in a packed St Paul's Cathedral in London and praise from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
http://www.dfms.org/3577_61633_ENG_HTM.htm

Posted by latimer at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)

December 20, 2004

A Christmas Heresy Filter: How to Detect and Avoid Christmas Heresies

Maybe, like me, you are in the middle of preparing those Christmas sermons. You may also be wondering how on earth you are going to make your umpteenth Christmas message fresh and vital? Perhaps you have thought of some new angle? If you have, make sure we subject it to the Christmas Heresy filter.

Or you might be on the receiving end of a Christmas message. As an act of worship, the sermon invites us to reflect critically on what we hear. How will you look to distinguish the ‘gold’ from the ‘dross’. For there is a lot of the later about at this time of year. As is demonstrated by the numerous newspaper articles written by well-meaning Ministers who display a woefully inadequate theology.

For instance, The Press, in Christchurch has been running a daily ‘Perspectives’ column this week on the meaning of Christmas. One writer declared that Christmas was not for children, it is “really an adult story… It is the story of growing up to full maturity, refusing to take refuge in yesterday and in childish ways.” Dross!

Surprisingly, on another day a writer declared “the depth of the Christmas experience is to look into the face of a child and see God.” The “Bethlehem experience” he writes, is the “experience of returning to childhood.” Equal but opposition dross!

Please do not fall into their error by neglecting the uniqueness of the Bible’s narrative. For it concerns neither ‘a’ baby in the manger, nor even an example, par excellence, of ‘all’ babies. It is ‘the’ baby – Emmanuel, God with us. The error of the liberal writes I have just mentioned is that they make the identity of the Bethlehem baby incidental to their message. They are so entranced by their ‘universal’ theme of ‘adult maturity’ or ‘playful childhood’ that they ignore completely what I term the ‘particularity’ of the Christian narrative.

Both Matthew and Luke’s Gospel are insistent on this point (each in their own way, of course). Matthew refers to Isaiah 7 and the name ‘Emmanuel’ (Mat 1:23), while Luke calls Jesus, ‘Son of God’ (Luke 1:35). Though both wish to emphasis that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Messiah’ (Matthew 1:16 & 18; Luke 2:11 & 26).

So the Christmas Hersy filter is this. If the message that you have written (or heard) could be understood on its own terms without any need (apart from obligatory seasonal references) to refer to ‘Emmanuel, God with us’ (Matthew 1:23), then it is plain wrong. Sure, you might have a manger, and even a baby in the manger. The baby might even grow to become Jesus of Nazareth. But if it is not “the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:11) then go away and put the real baby back in the manger! For without it, your message will not be founded on the Christian Gospel.

It matters not how grand your theme concerning God’s inclusive love, or the depth of your insight into the existential human condition. If it is not founded on the revelation of Scripture, then it is just another Christmas Heresy.

Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 09:06 AM | Comments (0)

August 27, 2004

Destiny Church - Are They a Cult?

There were so many fascinating aspects to the march: the high percentage of
Maori and Polynesian; the prominent role given to men; the instinctive revulsion displayed by liberal New Zealand - based solely on the visual image, rather than the ideas themselves. However, why were other churches reluctant to join in this march? Do they not share similar views? Here is the real story behind the story.

Most newspaper editorials are taking a more sober view of the 'Enough is Enough' march on Parliament.

There were so many fascinating aspects to the march: the high percentage of
Maori and Polynesian; the promenient role given to men; the instinctive revulsion displayed by liberal New Zealand - based solely on the visual image, rather than the ideas themselves.

However, why were other churches reluctant to join in this march? Do they
not share similar views? Here is the real story behind the story. The Vision
Network of New Zealand www.vision.org.nz> , representing most New
Zealand evangelicals felt unable to participate due to the stance on unity that Brian Tamaki has taken. Glyn Carpenter is the National Director, he spoke to Challenge Weekly about the dilemma: "The difficulty is that when any individual or group calls for unity on a single issue, but operates outside of a wider unity movement that others have committed to, it is more likely to create division rather than the unity which is sought."www.challengeweekly.co.nz/Iss25-2004.htm - you have to scroll down a fair way to the article on 'Enough is Enough')

Why is Destiny working unilaterally and not within the established evangelical networks? This is uncovers the deeper concern that we must all share about Destiny: is it part of the "Super Apostles" movement? For if it is, then Vison New Zealand had every right to be cautious about joining in the 'Enough is Enough' campaign. For Destiny Church is displaying all the worring signs of a cult. Cultwatch.com (based in Auckland) are keeping a close eye on the "Super Apostles" movement and have not yet "named names" but Destiny Church is obviously in their sights.

Rev Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 09:08 AM | Comments (0)

July 09, 2004

Are Evangelicals Extremists?

That seems to be the prevailing opinion at the moment. And some New Zealand Bishops agree!

New proposed "hate laws", were introduced into the Bristish Parliament this week by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. In his speech to the house he linked conservative Evangelicals with Islamic Extremists who "would take our lives because they reject our faith”. Has Blunkett not noticed the tomb of William Wilberforce in Westminister Abbey? His ignorance of the social and religious history of his own country is astounding.

Bishop Desmond Tutu, meanwhile, links "homophobia" with "apartheid" and calls those who oppose the gay agenda as uttering the "ultimate basphemy".

I'm not sure what he means by "homophobia", but usually that is code for "anyone who disagrees with me!" I presume that in Tutu's opinion, such is the logic of his position, that only those who are somehow psychologically derranged (i.e. homophobic) could possibly disagree with him!

Finally Stephen Bates, Religious Report for the Guardian, in a new book entitled "A church at War" accuses evangelicals within the Anglican Church as having "Taliban tendency". The quote can be found on the Church Times website and has already been quoted with approval by one Diocesan Bishop here in New Zealand. An extract from the book can be found at the Guardian Book Website.

Rev Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 09:21 AM | Comments (0)