davidould.net

Like it says. Enjoy...

We've started a sermon series in Nehemiah and this week I'm preaching on chapters 3-4.

As with any other Old Testament text, one of the key questions is that of the hermeneutic that we use. Here in the 21st Century we are not living in the Israeli city of Jerusalem, trying to fend off attacks from our opponents. How, then, do we apply these events of almost 2,500 years ago? What are the walls that we're meant to be building? Are we even meant to be building walls?

Australians have been building walls for a long time. Home ownership (and construction) is deeply embedded in the Australia psyche, as a recent SBS Documentary "The Australian Dream" clearly shows. One of Australia's cult films also shows us how fundamental this "value" is to Australian self-definition...

Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, ²³ to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,

Hands up everyone who's had that one happen to them. Usually, not even a hint of panic, nor reference of the actual facts of the matter.

h/t Sacred Sandwich

It strikes me that the main problem in Christian churches today, where they have gone astray, is that they have failed to both understand and proclaim what the real crisis is.

So, what is the real crisis in the Scriptures? It is not so much that man is "lonely" or just that his relationship with God is "broken". It is far deeper than that.

The crisis in the Scriptures, from almost the first page, is that God hates sin. Without this in place any remedy that we offer is as useless as a doctor who has misdiagnosed cancer as a "passing tummy bug - it will all feel better in a few days".

The Church has always known this. Perhaps nowhere is the great tension of sin and judgement seen more clearly than in the medieval and later Requiem masses. For all the erroneous additions, at the core of the Sequentia Dies Irae lies a clear theology of the dilemma that a returning Holy God brings to the people of the World.

Verdi captured it perfectly...

 

Dies iræ! dies illa
Solvet sæclum in favilla:
Teste David cum Sibylla!

 

Quantus tremor est futurus,
Quando iudex est venturus,
Cuncta stricte discussurus!

 

The day of wrath, that day
Will dissolve the world in ashes
As foretold by David and the sibyl!

 

How much tremor there will be,
when the judge will come,
investigating everything strictly!

Saturday 10 July 2010 saw probably the most tense voting yet on this thorny subject at the Church of England General Synod.

Over the course of the day, Synod voted to note the report of the Revision Committee which we have written about previously. The Committe, remember, were unable to agree on legislation to provide statutory protection for dissenters and ended up recommending a Code of Practice - a solution which both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals had pointed out (on numerous occassions) were simply insufficient and reneged on previous guarantees and promises made by General Synod.

Next, debate and voting moved to 3 amendments put forward by various parties. In some senses these provided a range of choices for Synod.

The first (512a), advocating for seperate dioceses, was defeated; 134 in favour, 285 against and 8 abstentions. The vote for was, perhaps, higher than had been expected and caused renewed interest.

The second amendment (513a), called for an equivalent of TEA (Transfer of Episcopal Authority) - ie a woman diocesan bishop would, at request of a parish, transfer her authority to a male bishop suitable to the parish. This was defeated in houses Bishops 10-28-2 (aye-no-abst), Clergy 52-124-3, Lay 73-118-4.

Finally, amendment 514a was put forward by Canterbury and York. This was seen as a middle ground, essentially providing for a "sharing" of authority between diocesan and alternate bishop. The mood in the chamber was, some have reported, conciliatory - on both sides, it might be noted. However the amendment was defeated in houses with Bishops (25-15-0) and Lay (106-86-4) voting in favour, but clergy voting against 85-90-5.

Further amendments lapsed through lack of the 40 members needed to call a discussion and vote.

One major sentiment in the Synod was shock that the Archbishops' amendment had been defeated. Certainly the coming days will be interesting.

As expected, various parties have already released statements.

Women and the Church (WATCH):

Full Steam Ahead for Women Bishops
Church can Move Forward at Last

WATCH is delighted that the Church has today affirmed its wish to appoint women as bishops on the same basis as men.

The General Synod, meeting in York, re-iterated its decision of July 2008 that when women are appointed bishops they will be in charge of their entire Diocese. Amendments suggesting that there should be separate dioceses for those opposed, or permanent flying bishops, or that parishes should automatically be transferred to another bishop, were all rejected by the Synod.

Hilary Cotton, Vice-Chair of WATCH, said, ‘We are absolutely delighted that Synod has stuck with its decision of two years ago and wants women to be bishops with full authority. This is good news for all women, not just women in the Church.’

Rachel Weir Chair of WATCH said, ”This has been an agonisingly slow journey and the Church has rightly wanted to do all it could for those who find this difficult, but we are delighted that Synod has made the right decision in the end”. Now at last the Church can move forward and accept the wonderful gifts of leadership that our women bring.”

On Monday the Synod will decide what minor amendments to make. It will also be given the opportunity to vote for the simplest possible legislation, in other words that ‘the Church will appoint male and female bishops’. Arrangements for those opposed would then be entrusted to individual bishops under a Code of Practice that will be drawn up in the near future.

This is not the end of the journey. The wider Church will now be invited to debate the proposals and if approved General Synod will have a final vote on them in about eighteen months time.

(This via Thinking Anglicans - original not yet on WATCH website.)

Anglican Mainstream, claiming to represent both evangelicals and catholics, have this:

ANGLO- CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS SEEK ‘URGENT’ MEETING WITH ARCHBISHOPS FOLLOWING THIS AFTERNOON’S DEBATE ON WOMEN BISHOPS

ANGLO-CATHOLIC and Evangelical members of the Church of England’s General Synod, meeting in York this weekend, have asked for an “urgent” meeting following Synod’s defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment on the Measure which would allow Women to be Bishops in the Church of England.

The Archbishops’ put forward an unprecedented amendment to the Women Bishops Revision Committee’s recommendations , which they felt would help maintain unity within the church and be pastorally sensitive to those who, from theological and conscience issues, cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of women.

Despite a majority of synod voting FOR the Archbishops’’ amendment, it failed on a “procedural device” of requiring a two-thirds majority in all three houses: Bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Clergy, the vote was split 50/50.

The subsequent crisis in the CofE, and its Synodical and Episcopal leadership has led senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders this evening to request and urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes its Women Bishop debates on the issue on Monday morning.

In the meantime, leaders of the two groups within the CofE are asking parishes to pray earnestly this weekend for grace and wisdom for the General Synod as they seek God’s will for His church.

and this:

Just a quick note...

Commenting policy on this blog is set out above the comment box:

Please note: anonymous comments without a valid email address will not be published.

I have, today, deleted a comment that came with an obviously fake email address. Shame, because the commentor asked a really good question.

I'll publish pretty much every comment made here, whether hostile/disagreeing or not (as recent comments will attest). You just have to let me know who you are by using a valid email address. Your email address is not published - I'm the only person who knows who you are.

So if that commentor wants to resubmit their question I would be delighted to approve it and continue the conversation. I welcome all points of view here - disagreement is the heart of lively and productive discussion.

So, the 10-week trial of an ethics class for year 5-6 students, timetabled in the same slot as SRE (Special Religious Education - "Scripture") has come to an end. The smh reports that the evaluation phase is to begin:

THE future of the ethics classes in NSW public schools rests with a little-known South Australian academic.

Dr Sue Knight, a philosophy lecturer at the University of South Australia, has been appointed to evaluate the ethics trial, which finished last week.

Dr Knight's speciality is the teaching of philosophy and ethical inquiry in primary and secondary schools.

Indeed, Dr Knight appears to be eminently qualified...

My initial academic training was in Philosophy, with the award of a PhD from the University of Adelaide in 1978. I wrote on the problem of universals, a fundamental problem within Metaphysics, and was examined by Professors J.J.C. Smart and David Armstrong. I subsequently turned to the field of Education, convinced that all students should have the opportunity to experience the intellectual growth that Philosophy brings. I completed a BEd in 1981 , at the same time becoming aware of the work of U.S. Professor Mathew Lipman, who, through his Philosophy for Children program, was engaging students of all ages (from kindergarten to the senior secondary) in philosophical inquiry. Having attended an advanced training workshop in Philosophy for Children in Montclair, N.J., I returned to Australia and sought an academic position within Education, working for a number of years at the University of Adelaide, and then at the (now) University of South Australia. My academic work is based on the view that it is through the development of well reasoned and ethically grounded thinking that education fulfils its individual and social goals, and my publications include both theoretical and curriculum-based work. For many years I have worked with teacher-educators, practising teachers and principals, as well as pre-service teachers and doctoral students, to embed Philosophy in the Learning Areas at both Primary/Junior Primary and Secondary levels of schooling. Much of this work has been in conjunction with a colleague, Dr. Carol Collins. I was involved in writing S.A.’s Senior Secondary Philosophy curriculum, and served as inaugural Chair of the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia’s Philosophy Subject Advisory Committee. In relation to Primary and Middle school Philosophy, I established, and held the inaugural Chair of, the South Australian Association for Philosophy in the Classroom and have conducted much of the Association’s professional development. I have held the editorship (jointly with Dr Carol Collins) of Critical and Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education, since July, 2006 I have researched (with recent support from the Ethics Centre of South Australia) and written extensively on Values Education, and engaged in public dialogue around the Howard government’s Values Education initiative. My current research centres on the inclusion of Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Mathematics into Science and Mathematic s curricula respectively at Primary, Secondary and Tertiary levels.

Readers should also take the time to check out her many relevant publications. I'm not an expert in the field, but it appears that Dr. Knight certainly is.

So what will she be assessing? Back to the Herald story,

The Education Minister, Verity Firth, said the evaluation would canvass the views of major stakeholders, including the religious faiths, which have fiercely opposed the classes.

Neither the public nor the parents of participating children will be invited to make a submission.

Dr Knight will determine whether the management of the trial by the St James Ethics Centre is a viable model for wider implementation in NSW state schools. She also will examine the efficacy of the course for improving students' understanding and skills in ethical decision-making, as well as make any recommendations for improvements.

It strikes me that the scope of the assessment misses the point. The thrust of the protest against the Ethics Course has not been that the course is poor quality. Of course, questions should be raised about the philosophical assumptions embedded in the course (in particular, the notion that kids should, ultimately, decide for themselves what the right thing to do is is, on the face of it, a walk towards a Lord of the Flies scenario) and the secularising motives of many of those championing the course, but that was never the main dispute.

The main protest has been over the timetabling of a non-SRE class in SRE time, contrary to the express restrictions in the current legislation. The Ethics class is far better suited to GRE time and may very well fit beneficially into that curriculum. The question of Ethics/SRE, then, is not about whether the course is a good course. If the course were an excellent course the main issue would still remain - SRE is undermined and diluted by this course. This is, after all, the main thrust of the St. James Ethics Centre argument, which speaks of

...the injustice perpetrated against children who opt out of SRE and who are not allowed to undertake meaningful activity at this time.

But that is to miss the point. The proper and productive use of time by those children whose parents have opted them out of SRE is the responsibility of the school. The argument here should therefore be directed against lazy supervision. It has been pointed out many times that DEAR (Drop Everything and Read) time is compulsory in many schools and not seen as a "filler" or a waste. Many such options are available to children and SRE providers can hardly be blamed for that (presumably) small minority of schools who fail to use the time well.

These fundamental issues are outside the scope of Dr Knight's review, and yet they are the main issues that need to be decided. So more power to Sue Knight - I expect she will produce a comprehensive and illuminating report which all parties will benefit from. But it won't answer the main question - should SRE time remain protected? The ethics trial wasn't necessary to debate that issue, but it may turn out to be the Trojan Horse by which the question was sidelined. Let's hope and pray that the integrity of the NSW State Government holds up and the real issue is discussed.

Perhaps the most intriguing party in the ongoing bun fight in the CofE over Women Bishops are Fulcrum, who describe themselves as "Renewing the Evangelical Centre" while, it seems, consistently opposing positions that evangelicals have historically held. If they represent the "evangelical centre" of England then that centre is currently situated somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle.

As yet another piece of evidence, I submit their recently published "Commentary on the Fulcrum Press Statement: Women Bishops and the Church of England":

In our statement we support the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee as providing the best framework for a practical way forward. This is a commentary explaining our serious questions about the Archbishops’ proposed amendments.

This effectively revives a form of statutory transfer from a female bishop to a nominated male bishop who will have co-ordinate jurisdiction with the diocesan but it does so by means of the Measure and without legally divesting the diocesan bishop of any functions. The national code of practice and local diocesan schemes will specify arrangements for co-ordinating episcopal ministry between the diocesan and the nominated bishop.

In simple terms, they go with the Revision Committee in denying dissenters any statutory provision - rather, they favour a "code of practice". The Archbishops' amendment seeks to reintroduce a statutory provision, recognising that without it dissenters will not, in good conscience, be able to work with women bishops.

The commentary is fascinating, not least because behind the ever-conciliatory language that comes from Fulcrum, there is a real sense of digging heels in and, quite surprisingly, an almost direct challenge to York and Canterbury:

The Revision Committee had many months to work on their proposals. It took the option of vesting or transfer (rather than delegation) with the utmost seriousness but could not agree on how to proceed under this method after agreeing to adopt it. Does this intervention by the Archbishops (notwithstanding their seniority and leadership role in the church) not simply disregard and over-turn the committee’s careful work and short-circuit debate on its proposal?

Truly fascinating. The Revision Committee was, by all accounts, pretty well stymied on the issue and so the Archbishops have attempted to kick-start the issue. But Fulcrum, it appears, would rather go ahead with the watered-down proposals stonewalled into place by liberals than ensure that their (alleged) evangelical brethren get the necessary protections.

Ultimately, as the original press release makes clear, it's all or nothing for Fulcrum,

We believe the new legislation must not be framed to create what might be deemed to be a second class of bishops based on gender or a “Church within a Church”.

But, of course, the issue is not about "second-class bishops" but about what the church has longed recognised as "two integrities" - that both positions are held as valid and faithful. Now Fulcrum are joining the chorus of those who want to renege on this essential part of the original women's ordination legislation and, instead, effectively declare those opposed to women bishops as not proper members of the church. All of this, as we have noted many times, simply as a result of not having moved a muscle.

The Fulcrum commentary is full of "questions", so I have one for Fulcrum:

Where does your position leave a parish who oppose women bishops but whose new female bishop refuses to go along with the voluntary code of practice since she feels even that would undermine her position? What do you have to say to them?

It's not all doom and gloom, though. One regular contributor on the Fulcrum site gets it. In a very welcome piece, Andrew Goddard addresses the question "Evangelical opponents of women bishops: What is sought and required?"

It is, perhaps, the best analysis and description of the varied bases of opposition from both Catholic and Evangelical sides that I have yet read - and certainly stands in sharp contrast to the excruciatingly poor stuff normally pushed out. In particular, Goddard recognises some serious problems with the CofE as an institution:

...the question of what provision is to be made for those few clergy and parishes who find themselves with a woman bishop and theological objections to receiving her ministry, though important, is not the really significant challenge. Solving that particular problem is not going to get anywhere in addressing these more fundamental questions of preserving certain forms of evangelical teaching and ministry into the future within the Church of England. Seeking to widen the “problem” of women bishops in order to secure through it some significant structural change in the church that might also help address these deeper concerns is understandable, especially if this is the only way of drawing attention to these issues. However, it is ultimately an unconvincing and damaging path to follow. It is perceived by the wider church – including many evangelicals - to be making demands in relation to women bishops that are difficult to justify in terms of evangelical theology and to make women clergy the presenting issue for wider and deeper concerns.

What is needed here is the development of broad representative structures and networks among evangelicals that will support those who most experience these problems and do this in a way that is not simply critically reactive and keeps them constructively engaged with and committed to both wider evangelicalism and the Church of England as a whole. Serious thought must also be given as to how to challenge discrimination against certain evangelicals and ensure that their position as faithful Anglicans is recognised and supported by the wider church.

What, then can be done? First, evangelical opponents of women bishops have clearly and often articulated their grounds for opposing this development. Evangelicals committed to women bishops know these well but have not been convinced. What they have not done to the same extent and would help us now is if an evangelical account could be given of the nature of the problems they will face when the church has women bishops and why, theologically, current proposals are not sufficient. Second, evangelical supporters of women bishops need to engage more sympathetically with such an explanation and with the broader range of conservative evangelical concerns that are perhaps driving their demands for more provision in response to women bishops. If both of these can be done then perhaps a more creative way forward could be developed that can draw support from across a wide range of the evangelical spectrum in relation to this whole nexus of issues, including that of provision for opponents of women bishops which is facing Synod in this next week.

Yesterday and today I had my first play with an iPad.

Very pretty.

Here you can see it pushed to its full potential....

This especially for Owenphile David Clancey over in Kiwiland (with a new exciting venture reaching out to skiers on Mt Hutt).

Don't get the joke? This should help.

h/t Reclaimed Blogger via Against Heresies