davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Anglican

Friday, May 09, 2008

Philippi or Corinth: Where is the Anglican Communion? A Response to Graham Kings

As I sit here at the beginning of May, one major question is facing all those who want to uphold the truth of the gospel in the Anglican Communion: should we go to Lambeth? Of course, for most of us that’s an academic question - we don’t have an invitation (although that’s not stopping some). Nevertheless we have an emotional investment in the issue, for the question of how much we associate with those that we disagree with is (or at least should be) a constant dilemma for those who take the Scripture seriously, especially where there is clear evidence of willful unrepentance in the matter of public sin.

That is, of course, one of the considerations that drives many of those clergy and laity who are attending GAFCON but staying away from Lambeth. They are convinced that they must seperate themselves from those who promote the various theological innovations (not just in doctrine but in practise) that are currently tearing our Communion apart. In the first part this is a theological conviction - they look to texts such as these:

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

What is interesting here is that we are called to disassociate with these sorts of people if they “bear the name of brother”. Or, put another way, if Gene Robinson were simply my atheistic bank manager then Scripture’s injunction would not stand. Rather, it is because he “bears the name of brother” and yet wilfully continues in sin that we are called to not associate with him. Division, then, comes about because certain people claim to be Christian.

In the second part, the decision not to attend Lambeth is more pragmatic. There are those that have held out to us a confidence that we can still turn the ship around if we handle Lambeth well. They, too, are concerned with the direction that TEC, the ACinC and others have steered the Communion over the past decades. Nevertheless, others have no such confidence anymore. We have seen the leaders of TEC throw and such attempts to rectify matters back in the Communion’s face. Why should Lambeth be any different? If the month-long conference were even to address these serious matters that now divide us (not that it is really planning to), if they even came up with serious resolutions - what good would it do? What real good did resolution 1.10 in 1998 do as we look back a decade later? It seems to many of us that all it has served to achieve is the crystallisation of our differences.

The orthodox, then, are faced with a difficult decision. To go or not to go.

One self-declared evangelical who recently addressed this question is Graham Kings at Fulcrum. Graham recently wrote an article entitled ”Faith and Fellowship in Crisis”. The Article seeks to make a case for orthodox attendance at Lambeth by framing the current divisions in the context of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. So, with constant reference to the letter to the Philippians, Kings reminds us:

Paul starts his letter with thanksgiving and prayer. Philippians 1:3-4, ‘I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for you all.’

and

In Philippians 1:5, Paul writes of their ‘sharing in the gospel’, which can also be translated ‘partnership’ or ‘communion’. The Greek word is ‘koinonia’ which has become very important in recent ecclesiological and ecumenical concerns.
...
In his video this week, Rowan Williams described the ‘middle sized groups’ of the conference:

We have given these the African name of indaba groups, groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it. This is how we approached it. This is what we heard.

and

In Philippians 1:12 Paul writes, ‘And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that on the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless.’
...
It seems to me, that we could refer this to the concept of core beliefs and to adiaphora which the Windsor Report defines as follows:

As the Church has explored the question of limits to diversity, it has frequently made use of the notion of adiaphora: things which do not make a difference, matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the Church.

and

In Philippians 1:15 -18 Paul writes, referring to his detractors, ‘Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill...What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice.’

In Philippians 2:2, he continues, ‘Make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.’

This is a powerful reminder for our concerns today and Paul uses it to introduce his famous christological hymn in verses 5-11, ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus…

In Philippines 4:2-3 he writes, echoing his earlier language, concerning specific people who are not united in the love of Christ, ‘I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel.’

It seems clear from Paul that humility and unity hang together, while pride and disunity hang down and drag others down with them.

and finally

People usually go to Romans and Galatians for Paul’s doctrine of ‘justification by faith’, but Philippians is also vital. Chapter 3:8-9 runs, ‘that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.’

People in the church at Philippi were probably mostly Gentile, not Jewish, Christians. It is worth remembering, in the context of Lambeth 2008, where nearly all the bishops and their spouses will be Gentile Christians, that justification by faith is crucial - literally - not because it is easier than by the law, not because it is more spiritual than by the law, but because it thereby includes the Gentiles, who do not have the law and only have faith in Jesus Christ.

For Kings, then, it seems that we are a “Philippian Communion”. We have disagreement, no doubt, but the letter to the Philippians shows us the beginnings of a framework by which we may yet come together and, in his estimation, Lambeth 08 fits that framework.

So the question before us must be “is the Communion Philippian, or something else?” Where is the Anglican Communion? Philippi, or somewhere else?

Those of us who are familiar with the Epistle will recognise that there were some serious problems bubbling away under the surface in that fledgling church. Paul’s injunctions to “let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1:27), “being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (2:2-4), “do all things without grumbling or questioning,” (2:14) etc. make sense when we finally see him address one of the relational breakdowns in the congregation:

Philippians 4:2 I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. ³ Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

There is some division, no doubt. But note how Paul makes his appeal for unity. Euodia and Syntyche (or “Odious and So-Touchy” as a former pastor of mine nicknamed them) have laboured side by side with Paul in the gospel. They are fellow workers and their names are in the book of life. Simply put, they are gospel people. They love the Lord Jesus Christ and are committed to the Gospel that Paul first taught the Philippians and which he reminds them of in the letter. They are, then, included amongst those of which Paul can say:

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, ⁴ always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, ⁵ because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. ⁶ And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. ⁷ It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

Such people, of course, exist in all our churches. Amongst us there are those who are equally committed to the Gospel and yet find it hard to get along. Some are envious of one another and seek to outdo their rivals in gospelling (1:15 ff.). They may be ambitious or conceited (2:3). Nevertheless they hold to the Gospel and are Gospel people. As Pastors and fellow believers we urge them to be reconciled on the basis of their shared gospel commitment.

And what is this gospel which Paul is convinced reconciles us both to God and to each other? It is centred around the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those great events provide not only the model for a Christian life of humility (2:5-11) but also the basis of Christian confidence itself. Our confidence is in what Jesus has done on our behalf, not what we might do:

Philippians 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- ¹⁰ that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ¹¹ that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is, first and foremost, a Gospel that brings righteousness - a right standing before God. That righteousness could never be attained by the law (and Paul knew, he had tried) but, rather, through faith in Christ.

And that was the Gospel that Euodia and Syntyche both believed and which would be the basis of their unity as, with the grace of God, they sought to overcome their differences.

There were, however, those in Philippi who did not believe this Gospel. They taught another Gospel that appears to have had Judaising tendencies. Paul had stern words for them:

Philippians 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh
...
¹⁸ For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. ¹⁹ Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

At the same time that Paul can call the rivals Euodia and Syntyche to unity, he also warns them to stay well clear of those who do not believe the Gospel that they share. It is interesting in Kings’ article that no mention is made of this injunction, despite the fact that it lays side by side with the calls to unity with other Christians.

So which city is the Anglican Communion? It might be tempting to turn to Corinth - the Scriptural home of sexual immorality. We have seen above the clear call that Paul gives to disassociate with the unrepentant sinners there. Who, either, could forget this stern warning:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? ¹⁵ What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ¹⁷ Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, ¹⁸ and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

It seems, then, that the Anglican Communion should better be expressed as being in Corinth, not Philippi, for the key issues that we are dividing over are remarkably similar to those that Corinth struggled with. The Devil’s playbook has a long provenance. In one sense that conclusion is unavoidable.

But Kings wants me to understand the Communion as being in Philippi.

Well, so be it. If he is calling for those of us who might be called “Conservative Evangelicals” to be reconciled to those such as he who might be known as “Open Evangelicals” then that is a noble call and I would long to join him in it. In his piece (as we have seen above) he affirms the Pauline gospel of justification by faith alone and so we may agree on the gospel that brings us unity. Euodia and Syntyche may, once again, work together.

But that is not the whole story. For amongst our fellowship there are also dogs, enemies of the gospel that he and I agree on, and the same Paul that calls us to unity tells us to watch out for those enemies. They are not welcome at the table.

If the Anglican Communion is to be “in Philippi”, and I agree with Kings that it is, then it is time to obey God fully and send the dogs, the enemies of the gospel, away from the table. The problem with Lambeth is that Euodia and Synthyche would have to share their Sunday roast with wolves despite the Philippian church being told that they should do no such thing.

There is, of course, an alternative. There is another gospel table where the dogs are not invited but Euodia and Syntyche sit side by side. At GAFCON evangelicals and anglo-catholics will set aside their rivalries for the service of a greater agreement. It would be great if Kings would join us, and he rightly notes that Paul would have it no other way. But if he wants to share his meal with wolves, our obedience to what Paul wrote to the Philippians will not allow us to come.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Manchester Report: Women Bishops in the CofE

The Church of England has released the long-awaited Manchester Report - it’s evaluation of what is required to move towards the consecration of women as bishops. At the moment the document is available as a series of word (.doc) files.

The big questions addressed are

What legislative changes are required?
What provisions are necessary for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops, nor those that they ordain?

Women bishops are all but inevitable in the CofE and so the report, in its own words…

seeks to move the debate on from the ‘whether’ to the ‘how’.

Readers can go check out the meat of the report here (.doc file). The legislative changes are pretty standard stuff. The really thorny question which the group has grappled with is how to deal with conscientious objectors. This, however, raises its own issues:

12 ...there was a great deal of perplexity over how this could be done in a way which (a) had ecclesiological integrity; (b) left space within the Church of England for those who in conscience could not accept the priestly or episcopal ministry of women; and (c) avoided any flavour of discrimination or half-heartedness on the part of the Church of England towards women priests and bishops.

And there is the rub. As the group recognised, any move to have special arrangements for those who object may, in some way, indicate that the Church is not wholly committed to the matter. It’s a critical issue for,

22 ... far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses.

As an evangelical who could not accept the ministry of a woman bishop, the question is “do I still have a place in the Church?” And, if so, what does that place look like? We are not a small minority by any means. As the report itself notes the General Synod of 2006 had large numbers disagreeing with the statement:

The view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.

22.5% of bishops, 23.9% of clergy and a whopping 35.6% of laity cannot agree with this move (para. 31, Manchester Report). What is to become of them? What place do they have?

I’m really grateful that the group recognised this massive issue and have made some steps towards solving it. Not least, they have recognised the need to have something for a lack of provision would provide great legal uncertainty (para. 60). Here’s what they suggest:

50. The three broad approaches are as follows:

the simplest possible statutory approach with no binding national arrangements;

legislation that would provide some basis for special arrangements for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops, such arrangements to be made within the present structures of the Church of England; and

legislation that would create new structures within the Church of England for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

...

90. [...] we have decided for the sake of simplicity to focus in this analysis on the structural solution that would involve the least innovation (though it would still involve quite a lot) in terms of the present structures of the Church of England. This is the approach that would involve the creation of a number of new, special dioceses, without a separate provincial structure.

Now, that quote obviously washes over a great deal of discussion of the alternates. The bottom line of the solution is this: not happy with your bishop? You can have another one. The advantage, the Report claims, is that this doesn’t require a new way of doing things, just a new diocese. That is certainly true and would cause the least disruption.

How would this work out for the dissenting portions? The Report makes some suggestions:

100. There are also some question marks arising from the differences between those who have difficulties over women’s ordination for reasons of sacramental theology and those whose position derives from a particular view of headship. For Catholics, issues concerning sacramental assurance and the collegiality of presbyters with their bishop are fundamental. As soon as the Church of England had admitted women to the College of Bishops many of them would find it necessary to be able to look to male bishops who had made it clear that they did not intend to ordain women to the presbyterate or participate in the consecration of women to the episcopate. If special dioceses had been created they would, therefore, petition to be part of it straight away.

101. For many Evangelicals, by contrast, the issues would be rather different. On headship grounds they might not be able to accept a female incumbent or direct oversight by a woman bishop. But, for so long as their incumbent was male, and the bishop providing oversight to them male, they would not necessarily see any compelling need to petition to move from the historic diocese, particularly if the special diocese was seen to have an ecclesial culture far removed from their own reformed convictions. It is perhaps partly for that reason that Conservative Evangelicals have put it to us that it would be crucial for one or more bishops within the new dioceses to be Evangelical. Whether that would in fact be sufficient to make the new structures stable is not entirely clear.

But this is not the whole of the matter. For how are clergy to relate to one another as women bishops begin to be ordained?

136. For many supporters of women’s ordination the crux of the current dilemma is whether any special arrangements for those who in conscience cannot receive the ministry of women bishops and priests would be tantamount to acknowledging a doubt on the part of the Church of England over the decision to ordain women as priests and bishops.

137. Moreover, since - irrespective of Canon A 4 - mutual recognition of orders has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of a Church, would it be tolerable to contemplate having within the Church of England people who retained doubts about each other’s orders? These have, of course, already been acute questions since 1994 in relation to women priests. They would assume even greater importance in relation to women bishops who would themselves be ordaining men and women to the priesthood.

This is, for me, the key issue. If I refuse to recognise the innovation then what will happen? Can I be considered truly Anglican? What will happen to my license, my orders?

138. This is undoubtedly one of the most difficult circles to square. Having pondered the matter carefully, we believe that any possible solution needs to incorporate the following elements:

a. A clear statement by the Church of England that, in admitting women into the episcopate, it is now fully committed to opening all orders of ministry to men and women;
b. An acceptance on the part of those who, theologically, cannot receive the ministry of women priests and bishops or those ordained by them that the Church of England has decided to admit men and women equally to holy orders and that those whom the Church has duly ordained and appointed to office are the lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and lawful obedience;
c. An acknowledgement by those in favour of women’s ordination that the theological convictions of those unable to receive the ordained ministry of women are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition and that those who hold them should, therefore, be able to receive pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with their convictions.

The Report goes on to be very clear what it means by “lawful”:

142. A formulation along these lines would go some way, we believe, to dispelling some of the confusion that currently exists in relation to the “validity of orders.” The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England does not admit any distinction between the lawfulness of an ordination and its validity. Thus, an ordination conducted fully in accordance with the various requirements of the Church of England as to matters such as qualifications of the candidate and of the ordaining minister and the rite employed, will take effect for all legal purposes.

143. It is not, therefore, open to any person, whether or not a member of the Church of England, to question the validity of the ordination in legal terms. The fact that some may doubt whether women may, sacramentally, be priests and bishops and/or exercise headship is a separate matter from calling into question whether, as a matter of law, the ordinations are valid.

Here, I think, is the great problem. The Report wishes me to recognise a distinction between the “lawful” and “sacramental” (whatever we understand by that word, and Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will have some disagreement). I’m not sure that I can. Rather, it seems to me that for an ordination or consecration to be “lawful” it must also be “sacramental”. We would not (and do not) agree to this distinction with respect to Gene Robinson’s consecration. It is a stretch to suggest that since it was carried out in good order and according to the laws that I must, even in a limited way, recognise it as valid.

Now, this does not mean that we cannot respect those persons. I can well imagine having a diocesan bishop who is a woman and being very happy to abide by her administrative requests and procedures, to have her round for a meal to get to know her better, and so on. But I could not recognise her as a “bishop” in any sense other than as a courtesy and, surely, the proposed canons will require more of me.

Now, granted, the Report would make a provision for me to become part of a new diocese. I would in effect, have 2 bishops, albeit with 2 different relationships. Nevertheless,

149. We believe that an essential part of the effort “to maintain the highest degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops” is to be accommodating on the subject of the duty and oath of canonical obedience and to provide for two separate duties, and possibly two oaths, one to each of the bishops in respect of that bishop’s functions.

150. We regard this dual allegiance as important both in substance and symbolically, and we recommend that if one of the approaches canvassed in this chapter is adopted, then work should proceed on the formulation of two distinct duties and oaths with consequential amendments to the relevant Canons.

So here is my dilemma. Even if I were to join a new diocese, what oath would I be required to swear in substance to my former diocesan? Surely not one that bent my conscience? But the Report, unless I have misread it, insists that I must recognise the canonical validity of the consecration.

And what if I don’t want to join a new diocese? What if I love the diocese that I’m currently in? Why must I move when others have changed? I don’t want to appear picky here but it really does seem that, ultimately, I will be forced to move in some way - once again finding that despite my theological position having not changed one iota, the playing field has and I am no longer on the centre spot where I thought I stood but somewhere near the touchline.

And there is another issue that the Report nodded to but didn’t address:

24 ...Full communion and collegiality within the House and College of Bishops has up to now been a central plank in Anglican ecclesiology. The prospect of a House of Bishops where there would no longer be full communion and collegiality between its members does, therefore, raise new and difficult issues.

As we noted above, almost a quarter of the House of Bishops could not agree to the measure. What is to become of them? Must they now be forced to acknowledge the validity of the consecration of their women colleagues? Collegiality is a big thing for the English House of Bishops, moreso certainly than TEC at this current time. Who do bishops go to for alternate arrangements? Will they be allowed to not recognise the place of the female bishop opposite them? There is certainly more work to be done here.

The Report closes:

165. Nevertheless, as will have been clear from this report, the Church of England now faces some very serious decisions. They go to the heart of what sort of Church it wishes to be. Far better that those issues are faced calmly, honestly and prayerfully now than that the Synod should set off down a road which may, ultimately, fail to command sufficient consensus.

The problem is that the Church of England does not have sufficient consensus. It is gratifying that the Report calls us all to take this very seriously but more than contemplation is required to make this work. It could be that those of us who protest are the main problem. But then, it could be that the real problem is requiring orthodox Christians to accept an unbiblical move. It may be that the innovation itself is what has brought us to this point of division.

click here to leave a comment

Friday, April 25, 2008

Women Bishops in Australia

They’re coming at a pace.

Last year, a church tribunal decided that there was no canonical bar to women becoming bishops (they are already ordained priest in many of our dioceses). Then, a few weeks ago, the bishops met up to agree a protocol to manage the consecration of women and protect the good consciences of those who were in disagreement.

Almost immediately Perth (long a bastion of liberal theology) announced the imminent consecration of Kay Goldsworthy. Conservative groups were dismayed. Here’s what the Anglican Church League had to say:

The ACL notes with sadness the decision of Archbishop Roger Herft and the Perth Diocesan Council to nominate Ms Kay Goldsworthy as an assistant bishop [pdf] within the Diocese of Perth.

While a deeply flawed Appellate Tribunal opinion in 2007 suggested there was no legal impediment to this move (and Archbishop Herft himself sat on that tribunal), it remains at odds with the Bible’s teaching on the appropriate relationship of men and women in and amongst the congregations of God’s people.

This action adds a new level of difficulty to the relationship between the various dioceses in the Anglican Church of Australia and raises a series of significant issues of conscience for those committed to living out the teaching of Scripture, rejoicing in that teaching as God’s good word to us. In a time of turmoil within the Anglican Communion we could have hoped for more restraint.

This morning I woke up to the news that Melbourne diocese have taken the same move.

What is shocking about this is that, unlike Perth, Melbourne has a very broad spectrum of views within it. Rather than a move that will alienate other dioceses, this is something that will cause further division. And that in a diocese still in great disagreement over the subject of abortion and the way that a report affirming the gradualist position was presented on their behalf to the Victoria Law Commission. Whether there are protocols or not, this is being rushed in on a denomination which are clearly not all in agreement. Not least, Sydney (which represents nigh on half the Anglicans in Australia) are clearly opposed to the move, and there are many throughout the nation’s Anglicans who are similarly unhappy.

One of the bodies representing them is ”Equal but Different” (EBD).

Equal but Different is committed to the historic and Biblical understanding of men and women as individuals created in the image of our loving Creator God, equally fallen in our human nature and equally able to be saved by our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we might honour him and serve each other in relationships of loving male leadership and intelligent, willing female submission in the family and the church.

This applies to single and married women alike in the life of our Christian community, although it has a special relevance to marriage and the raising of children. The church can model for all society the beauty of right relationships, as men and women cooperate within their distinctive roles as God intended.

We realise this is counter-cultural in our feminist society but believe the teaching of the Bible is clear and relevant to our day, despite the passage of time and cultural change.

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are currently interviewing Claire Smith (one of EBD’s Steering Committee on their blog. Here’s some of the first segment:

In the ACA as it now stands, women can be ordained as priests, and can preach and lead parishes in most dioceses. A recent controversial decision by the ACA Appellate Tribunal has ruled there is no constitutional barrier to women being consecrated as bishops. The appointment of a woman as bishop in Perth is a consequence of this decision.

In dioceses which have not accepted these innovations, however, the ministry of women who have been ordained as priests is not always welcome or recognized, and even within those dioceses where women are ordained, there are individual churches that do not believe women should have identical ministries with men and would resist the appointment of a female priest, and within individual churches, there are people who believe the same.

Acceptance has been far from uniform. At every level from the national church right down to the person in the pew, there are those who have remained faithful to the scriptural teaching of differing ministries for men and women and not departed from this biblical pattern or Anglican tradition.

The innovation of women in the priesthood, and now women in the episcopate, means we are a church divided, without a common ministry and more significantly, without a common understanding of the word of God.

That is, ultimately, why so many of us are up in arms about this. Not only is it a rejection of the word of God, but the way it has been carried out is, to be generous, “through the back door”. The Melbourne decision indicates that sensitivity to those who are opposed can be simply deferred to the existence of “protocols”. These will be a tough few months ahead. What might Australian conservatives learn from the history of TEC? Time will tell.

click here to leave a comment

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Priest tells actively homosexual judge to repent

A fascinating story here in Sydney, reported by the smh.

A SENIOR minister of a Sydney Anglican parish has made an extraordinary attack on the High Court judge Michael Kirby, warning he would face the wrath of God if he remained unrepentant as a gay man.

The rector of St Stephen’s Church in Bellevue Hill, the Reverend Richard Lane, denounced the judge for calling himself a Christian Anglican while living in an openly gay relationship and warned as a “messenger, watchman and steward of the Lord in the Anglican Church of Australia”, he faced God’s judgment.

To call himself a Christian Anglican was a “perversion of truth” and to continue to do so without changing his lifestyle would brand him, like Herod, a “coward, a liar, a deceiver” and a “lawless one”.

“I appeal to you to cast yourself on the mercy of Jesus … That is admit your sin, confess your wrongdoing and turn in humble repentance to the Lord Jesus, who alone can forgive you,” Mr Lane said.

The attack came in an exchange of letters between the priest and the judge which was cited during a forum organised by St James Institute on Tuesday night to encourage a “public conversation” about religious tolerance and homosexuality. Justice Kirby shared the stage with the Herald’s David Marr.

The letters prompted a complaint from Justice Kirby to the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, who also asserts that homosexual practices are sinful.

“The archbishop’s injunction to me, which was quite sensible I thought, was we’ll give this person the benefit of the doubt,” Justice Kirby told the audience. “He probably thinks he’s doing you a favour and you should just see whether there is any truth in what he says, and think about it.”

Mr Lane’s attack was provoked by Justice Kirby’s assertion on ABC Radio late last year that the Anglican and Catholic archbishops of Sydney, Peter Jensen and George Pell, had, via religious instruction, made it hard for people to adopt a more tolerant attitude to gays.

Urging the judge to open himself to “God’s healing of homosexuality”, Mr Lane said Justice Kirby was a hypocrite for choosing to remain inside the church but claiming that homosexual practice “or any other sin” was in accordance with God’s will.

Mr Lane proposed circulating the written exchange with fellow clergy to ask the question: “Am I wrong?” Justice Kirby has agreed to this.

In reply he argued Mr Lane’s interpretation of biblical injunctions against homosexuality was not a universal one, and the biblical quotations used were unreliable mid-19th century translations. Mr Lane appeared to have turned a blind eye to the “central loving message of Jesus of the gospels”.

“To defy modern knowledge and to stick to uninformed interpretations is truly irrational. To do so selectively is specially so. It is a reason why the churches are losing rational adherents.”

Mr Lane declined to comment yesterday. Dr Jensen said correspondence between Mr Lane and Justice Kirby needed to be read fully and in context. “I have a long-standing personal relationship with Justice Kirby and he and I have communicated about these letters in confidence,” he said.

I don’t know how you respond to this. First, it’s important to note that this was part of an ongoing dialogue between the Lane and Kirby that Kirby himself agreed should be circulated. Indeed, Kirby himself had promoted a public debate on this very subject and it would have been no surprise to him that Lane held the position that he did - albeit expressed in a stark way.

The ACL make an interesting observation:

This story raises the question – how should a minister understand his ordination vows? Here are the words of the Bishop to the Candidates in the 1662 Ordinal –

“Ye have heard, Brethren, as well in your private examination, as in the exhortation which was now made to you, and in the holy Lessons taken out of the Gospel, and the writings of the Apostles, of what dignity, and of how great importance this Office is, whereunto ye are called.
And now again we exhort you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye have in remembrance, into how high a Dignity, and to how weighty an Office and Charge ye are called: that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish [i.e. warn], to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad… that they may be saved through Christ for ever.

Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. …”

(Full Ordinal is available here.)

Indeed. We may not feel comfortable with how Lane fulfilled his duty, but we have to admire his integrity and loyalty to his vows. Which is, after all, really loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ.

click here to leave a comment

Friday, April 11, 2008

Australia’s first female bishop announced

ABC are reporting…

Australia is set to have its first female Anglican bishop.

The Venerable Kay Goldsworthy, 51, will be consecrated on May 22 at St George’s Cathedral in Perth.

Archdeacon Goldsworthy was one of the first women to be ordained in 1992 shortly after the order allowed women to become priests.

Last year, the Anglican appellate tribunal paved the way for the elevation of women to the position of bishop, saying nothing in the church’s constitution could stop such a move.

Archdeacon Goldsworthy has had extensive experience within the Perth diocese, including terms as school chaplain, canon of the cathedral and parish priest.

Archdeacon Goldsworthy says it is a hugely important day for the church as women take their place alongside men.

“We’ve been a while catching up in Australia,” she said.

“Twenty years ago we weren’t yet ordaining women as priests, but the time has come and I know that the great majority of Australian Anglicans warmly welcome this day, and the fact that there is no longer any discrimination against women in pastoral leadership.”

This is a tricky one for the orthodox in Australia. The question of whether women could be consecrated never went to the floor of General Synod and, rather, got fudged by a legal tribunal.

The final door was opened for this by a recent meeting of the Australian bishops…

Australia’s Anglican leaders have taken another step towards women bishops, agreeing on a protocol to deal with the contentious issue.

The move, which came out of this week’s Anglican bishops’ conference in the NSW city of Newcastle, followed last year’s ruling by the church’s peak law body that there were no legal hurdles to women becoming bishops.

The bishops said in a statement today the Women in the Episcopate protocol, which was adopted at the conference, would help deal with differences of opinion over female bishops.

“The bishops recognised the good faith of those in the church who support the new development of women bishops and of those who find that they cannot do so,” they said in a statement.

“They resolved to nurture the highest possible level of collegiality as bishops in the future.

“The bishops agreed to make special provision in situations where the ministry of a woman bishop would not be welcome.”

It is expected parishes that disagree with oversight from a female bishop would be able to receive some form of alternative oversight from a male bishop, either in the same region or a neighbouring diocese.

Anglican Primate, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, said he was pleased that “in the face of difference in strongly-held convictions” the bishops had reached agreement.

No other details about the agreement were available.

Archbishop Jensen of Sydney adds this comment:

“I’m pleased that there has been considerable goodwill during the formation of these protocols. Action was needed to protect the consciences of those who believe, as we do, that the consecration of women bishops is against biblical teaching. There are strongly-held convictions which separate us but we have endeavoured to find a way forward with courtesy and respect.”

And there it is. It’s a done deal. Charitably, we have “protocols” to protect those of us who have principled objections. I wonder, however, how long they will remain in force.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

A Very Special Tent - more audio!

Friday, April 04, 2008

Virginia dissenting parishes win first round of legal battle

judgement day Some great news just in from the States. A group of dissenting parishes in the Diocese of Virginia who have named themselves ”Anglican District of Virginia” (ADV) have won the first round of a legal battle with their former Diocese.

The Diocese, at the instigation of the Presiding Bishop of TEC, had sued the parishes for their property. The parishes had responded that they were entitled to split with their property under a law particular to Virginia called “57-9” that allowed such organisations to keep their property where there was a recognisable division in a religious body. The law case, then, hung on whether TEC and the Diocese of Virginia was such a religious body and whether such a division had occurred. TEC and the Diocese argued they weren’t and it hadn’t, ADV suggested that it was common sense that they were and it had.

We’ve got the full text of the judgement up [pdf] at Stand Firm and comments are picking up.

The judgement is excellent in that the judge (the magnificently named Randy I Bellows) is slightly incredulous at the position taken by the Diocese and TEC. Here’s what he says in his conclusion:

...it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude, especially given the involvement of numerous churches in states across the country, the participation of hundreds of church leaders, both lay and pastoral, who have found themselves “taking sides” against their brethren, the determination by thousands of church members in Virginia and elsewhere to “walk apart” in the language of the Church, the creation of new and substantial religious entities, such as CANA, with their own structures and disciplines, the rapidity with which the ECUSA’s problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world, and, perhaps most importantly, the creation of a level of distress among many church members so profound and wrenching as to lead them to cast votes in an attempt to disaffiliate from a church which has been their home and heritage throughout their lives, and often back for generations.

In laymans terms, he’s saying that the level of observable disruption and distress in ECUSA/TEC is so great that you’d have to be shutting your eyes not to see it. Which is, of course, what TEC have been doing since day one. Pretending it’s not there.

Now, of course, they’ll appeal and this will drag on but it’s great to have it on the record.

click here to leave a comment

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Peter Jensen on the ABC

Almost an hour’s conversation with ArchBishop Peter Jensen of Sydney on ABC Radio. This is great stuff and provides a useful insight into how Jensen thinks and communicates himself. Here he covers everything from his conversion, his children and the current Anglican crisis.

click here to leave a comment

Hounding the Heretics?

My recent post on the Dean of Perth’s Easter message raised a number of comments - most were in favour of the position that I had taken but 2 in particular were not.

I thought it might be good to set out an answer to the comments made.

First, Christopher Wortham writes:

I too am saddened, but by your intemperate response to the Dean’s sermon rather than by what he said. Fundamentalism of all colours--whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic--serves only to stir up hatred and division through intolerance and lack of understanding. I can readily accept your literal interpretation, but I would not presume to think it the only valid one. Please: a little less indignation and a little more humility before the fact that all our human perceptions are limited in various ways. I personally find John Shepherd a most delightful, inspiring and instructive person. Your orchestrated attack on him is deplorable.

I’m not quite sure why Christopher thinks my response is “intemperate”. There’s nothing that I’ve written that appears (at least to me) to be “unrestrained” or “unbridled” as dictionary.com defines the word. Rather I’m simply expressing my disagreement. Firmly, to be sure. But in an unrestrained way? Hardly.
Next we have the pejorative use of the word “fundamentalism”. Apparently we must all have a little more humility in our truth claims.

The question, then, is whether one can be certain about the things of God, particularly since “our human perceptions are limited in various ways”. Granted, we do not know everything. But surely we can know some things very well! I know, for example, that my 4 year old daughter loves me. I have more than enough evidence to be quite intolerant and fundamentalist in my claim. It is an unassailable truth and I’m sure Christopher would see no reason to disagree. Why then disagree with other matters?
Note that Christopher does not claim that God is unable to reveal Himself properly, just that we cannot understand. But does the Bible work on the same assumption? Does it recognise that we will never truly know or, alternatively, does it speak to a humanity on the assumption that they are able to understand sufficiently, even if not perfectly?

One example will suffice. At Church we have been working through John’s gospel. At the end of his account of the Resurrection John writes the following:

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹ But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Note a number of things:

John has written about a number of “miraculous signs”
John considers the recording of those signs to be sufficient grounds to respond in trusting faith to Jesus
The response of trusting faith in Jesus flows from the realisation that He is the Christ, the Son of God

Now, this is not, of course, an exhaustive account of Jesus but it is sufficient. It is also utterly comprehensible. Amongst those comprehensible things is that very real physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He shows His disciples the scars on his body. He cooks and eats a breakfast with them. It is a very real physical miraculous sign. John records the sign with confidence that we may understand it and act upon it.

There is, then, no “humility” on the part of John. He does not say “maybe”. He states the facts and calls us to respond to them. Christopher’s complaint of fundamentalism, then, should not be directed to me but to the Apostle John for it is John who insists upon those things that the Dean of Perth himself insists should be challenged. The Dean himself makes a fundamentalist claim - that another claim should be challenged. Why is it, Christopher, that the Dean may challenge John’s claim but we may not challenge his?

I’m sure that the Dean is delightful. Not delightful enough, of course, to have responded to my email, but delightful nevertheless. But that is not the point. He has denied what is in the Scriptures. As for an “orchestrated attack” - I think Christopher has a far higher view of my influence than is merited. Those who know me will, I’m sure, set him straight.

Now, onto the second complaint. This one from Richard Flanigan:

Ah. The arrogance of the ‘truth’ claim. If only human nature were that consistent. How many times have we heard the claim of truth made by persons of every religious persuasion on earth. Why should anyone accept the claim that religious fundamentalists in whatever forum or faith are exclusively privy to the ‘truth’ about the revelations of God. Do you honestly believe that the God of Love would be so intolerant of his creation in all its forms as to exclude 99% of the world population simply because they are either not members of the Christian faith or because they dare to exercise the free will breathed into us at birth and question the literalness of a bible the many translations of which have been the source of considerable scholarly debate and opinion over many, many centuries. What make the statement of bishops in the 16th century in the 39 Articles more ‘truthful’ than the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians down the ages including those of the late 20th and the 21st century? Do you honestly believe that God revealed his ‘interpretation’ of the ‘truth’ solely to Church in England, in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1562 and never before or again in Christendom. Chris Wortham is right when he says “Fundamentalism of all colours--whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic--serves only to stir up hatred and division through intolerance and lack of understanding.” This has nothing to do with the claim of ‘truth’!

Richard goes one step further than Christopher by questioning not only human perception of God but God’s actual self-revelation. What may we actually say about the “truth” of God? Well, here’s what Jesus says and what is said about Him, again from John’s gospel:

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ

John 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

These are, of course, just a few examples of how the theme of truth pervades the Gospel. Jesus is the one in whom the truth of God is found. To follow Him is to know the truth.

As with Christopher before him, Richard’s complaint is not really with me but with the one who spoke these words. It is Jesus’ claims to speak the truth about God that Richard is unhappy with. That is, I suggest, a very dangerous position to be in.

Now what of history? Richard asks a very valid question:

What make the statement of bishops in the 16th century in the 39 Articles more ‘truthful’ than the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians down the ages including those of the late 20th and the 21st century? Do you honestly believe that God revealed his ‘interpretation’ of the ‘truth’ solely to Church in England, in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1562 and never before or again in Christendom.

Well, in and of themselves there is nothing that makes the 39 Articles more “truthful” than “the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians”. Personally I believe they are a far better representation of what the Scriptures say than those other alleged authorities. Nor do the Articles themselves claim to be the “sole” interpretation of the truth. That is to attack a straw man. The point I wished to raise was that Dean Shepherd was publically attacking a position that he has sworn, in his ordination vows, to uphold.
The current Prayer Book of the Australian Church is ”An Australian Prayer Book” (AAPB). There are a number of promises that Shepherd made upon his ordination to the Priesthood, set out in the AAPB ordinal on pp.608-615. Here’s a key one:

Will you always faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded, and as this Church has received them, according to the commandments of God? Will you teach the people committed to your charge to keep and observe them diligently?

To which Shepherd would have answered:

I will do so, by the help of our Lord

Now, how would Dean Shepherd go about discerning how this Church has received that Doctrine? Well, he would go to the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, helpfully available online [pdf] wherein he would read:

it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard. (para. 4)

Now, the 39 Articles may or may not be a correct statement of true doctrine, but they are the statement that the Church into which both Shepherd and I are ordained have stated is their standard. Hence my original complaint that the Dean was teaching contrary to those Articles and, in particular, Article 4:

Article IV

Of the Resurrection of Christ

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

This really is simply a matter of integrity. If Shepherd doesn’t believe this stuff then fair enough - no-one is forcing him to believe it. I am quite happy that men and women in good conscience don’t believe it. I am desperately sad for them but recognise their need to believe freely and not under compulsion. As Richard puts it, it is right that he should “dare to exercise the free will breathed into us at birth”. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is integrity. Shepherd (and he is not the only one) has sworn to uphold the very things that he now denies. He is free to deny them but not free to maintain the position that he holds, namely a priest in the Anglican Church of Australia.

Of course, no-one is going to fire him, I don’t expect them to. But what I do look for is integrity! I look for men and women to step up to the plate and accept the consequences of what they believe in. Honourable men and women, surely, understand this. They don’t continue to take a salary and enjoy the trappings of an office when they themselves reject the constitution of their organisation! You wouldn’t expect the Chief Executive of PepsiCo to stay in their position if they publically announced that Coke was a better drink! It’s an outrageous idea. So why should clergy be any different?

As for Richard’s final charge of intolerance, I’m afraid I have nothing to add to what is already written above. He and Christopher will, no doubt, be unsatisfied with what I have written. I should, before finishing, thank them for writing comments on my site. I appreciate their candour and their willingness both to come into “enemy territory” and to identify themselves.

I trust, however, they and others will not be so intolerant themselves so as to not carefully consider (and hopefully even respond to) what I have written.

click here to leave a comment

Page 1 of 21 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Statistics

This page has been viewed 114648 times
Page rendered in 2.8477 seconds
Total Entries: 736
Total Comments: 3903
Total Trackbacks: 858
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2008 06:00 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/09/2008 09:47 pm
Total Members: 4
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 14
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/18/2008 05:36 am
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am