I Promise

After midterms, I'll get back in the habit of writing here.

The Pope on Being 'Saved in Hope'

The Bishop of Rome asks a pertinent question in his encyclical Spe Salvi or Saved in Hope:

How could the idea have developed that Jesus's message is narrowly individualistic and aimed only at each person singly? How did we arrive at this interpretation of the “salvation of the soul” as a flight from responsibility for the whole, and how did we come to conceive the Christian project as a selfish search for salvation which rejects the idea of serving others?

I also found his explanation of the nature of freedom to be interesting:

Since man always remains free and since his freedom is always fragile, the kingdom of good will never be definitively established in this world. Anyone who promises the better world that is guaranteed to last for ever is making a false promise; he is overlooking human freedom. Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined—good—state of the world, man's freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all.

More to come.

Rene Girard on American Fundamentalists

I found this interview the other day. Rene Girard is an interesting thinker and his work on violence is amazing. He was asked what he thought of the religious right in America and responded:

What we see in America today is more the rise of the Republican Party than the religious right. I don't think there are more Christian fundamentalists in America today than 30 years ago; it is just that they have become politicized. Republicans have focused on issues that bring them to the ballot box. And that is a big change indeed.

The problem with the Christian fundamentalists, though not as much as with the Muslims, is their view of the violence of God. They often talk these days about the Apocalypse. And there is certainly reason to be concerned about where the world is headed. But the violence will not come, as they suggest, from God. I find that incredible. It is we humans who are responsible. That, in many ways, is one of the key messages of the Gospels.

The whole point of the Incarnation is to say that the human and divine are interrelated in a way that is unique to Christian theology, unthinkable in any other religion and, in my view, absolutely superior.

Whether in the case of Muslims focused on martyrdom or the fundamentalist Christians focused on the Apocalypse, the old Greek conception of a God apart from man is not enough. That is really the meaning of all my work.

Anglican Ecclesiology

The Rt Revd Pierre Whalon, the bishop of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe does a beautiful job trying to work towards an Anglican Ecclesiology. He notes that the Anglican communion was born as a unique via media. Have a read:

A number of scholars recently have been focusing on the question, is there, in fact, an ecclesiology proper to Anglicans? We have never defined one, per se. But in fact, I would argue that we do in fact have a distinct ecclesiology of our own. The conundrum that Anglicans have had to face since the first intimations of the break with Rome is how to be the One Church when unity is no longer available. Of the four “notes” of the Church, “one, holy, catholic and apostolic,” unity is first. “Is Christ divided?” Paul sarcastically asked the Corinthians (I Cor. 1:13). That would be obviously absurd. Yet unity has been broken. The Reformed way of solving this conundrum—that the true Church had disappeared for centuries and has now only re-appeared—did not convince the first Anglicans. The Roman Catholic solution, submitting everything to the papacy—was of course not acceptable to them. They were the Catholic Church in England. They knew in their bones that their church was no sect.

Canterbury Responds

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.

However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed. A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.

Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.

The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

Readings from Kierkegaard

A quick snippet from The Sickness Unto Death:

God and man are two qualities separated by an infinite qualitative difference. Humanly speaking, any teaching that disregards the difference is demented-divinely understood, it is blasphemy. In paganism, man made god a man (the man-god); in Christianity God makes himself man (the God-man). But in this infinite love of his merciful grace he nevertheless makes one condition: he cannot do otherwise.

When reading Kierkegaard, I'm always impressed that I'm reading a writer who seems to be completely about God. He never takes the simple way out of a dilemma. In The Sickness Unto Death, he argues that God will make you miserable. No prosperity theology here. In Fear and Trembling, he argues that true faith requires belief in God, not a moral canon.

Father John Neuhaus wrote a great article in First Things back in 2004 called "Kierkegaard for Grownups". I recommend you check it out.

Belief and Relationship

I picked up Marcus Borg's book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time yesterday at the library. I've only read the first chapter, but I found part of it intriguing. Borg gives his spiritual autobiography and concludes that he has reached a new place:

Now I no longer see the Christian life as being primarily about believing. The experiences of my mid-thirties led me to realize that God is and that the central issue of the Christian life is not believing in God or believing in the Bible or believing in the Christian tradition. Rather, the Christian life is about entering into a relationship with that to which the Christian tradition points, which may be spoken of as God, the risen living Christ, or the Spirit. And a Christian is one who lives out his or her relationship to God within the framework of the Christian tradition.

That paragraph is full of themes to be dissected (positively and negatively). But I want to focus on Borg's notion that Christianity isn't about "belief". It reminded me of the account of Jesus and Peter in John's gospel. After Peter has denied Jesus, he is reinstituted not by his belief or knowledge, but by his love. I don't know enough Greek to understand the agape/phileo (maybe one of you can comment on it), but I suspect that John may be attempting to demonstrate that the love of Jesus transcends linguistic boundaries.

James also provides another commentary on the shortcomings of "belief". Demons believe in Jesus; they even fear Him. But they don't have relationship with Him. He doesn't intercede for them. Demons aren't in communion with God.

When God asks us to believe in Him, He isn't asking us to have knowledge of His existence. For a Christian, belief necessitates taking up a cross and following Jesus. Belief isn't a thought pattern, but a concrete action.

Wright on GAFCON

I came across this article and found it interesting. I'd encourage you to read the whole thing, it's well worth the time. Here is an excerpt:

THE DANGER of GAFCON is that the rhetoric — “the Communion’s finished” — could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the organisers actually seem to want a Lambeth Conference robbed of lively, orthodox bishops from around the world, so that they can point to the results and say: “There you are: told you so.”

If, instead, such bishops come, bringing their cheerful worship, their deep understanding of scripture, and their wide experience of mission among the world’s poorest, this could be a great moment of renewal. Dr Williams has made it clear that Windsor and the Covenant are the tools with which to forge our future. “Orthodox” bishops should celebrate that, and join in the task.

Our Communion has for the past five years been living through 2 Corinthians: the challenge to re-establish an authority based on the gospel alone and embodied in human weakness. Inevitably, “super-apostles” then emerge, declaring that such theology is for wimps.

To them I would say: Are they Evangelicals? So am I. Are they orthodox? So am I. Do they believe in the authority of scripture? So do I (including the bits they regularly downplay). Are they keen on mission? So am I, and on the full mission of God’s kingdom which an older Evangelicalism often ignores.

Those who want to be biblical should ponder what the Bible itself says about such things. There are many in the GAFCON movement whom I admire and long to see at Lambeth, but the movement itself is deeply flawed. It does not hold the moral, biblical, or Evangelical high ground.

An Encouraging Update

A report from The Times today brings welcome news. Here are some choice quotes:

The prospect of schism in the worldwide Anglican Church receded as African leaders meeting in Jerusalem stepped back from the brink and declared they are not seeking to start a new church. Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi, Primate of Kenya and leader of that country's four million Anglicans, and the Ugandan Primate Archbishop Henry Orombi confirmed last night that there will be no split.

And for my Australian friends:

The emerging figure that is crucial in the softening of the line on schism is the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, who has become the key player on the Anglican conservative wing, shifting the emphasis from the US and African conservatives to Australia.

GAFCON Press Conference

Thinking Anglicans has a transcript of a GAFCON press conference last night. Archbishop Peter Akinola responded to a question about violence against gays and lesbians in Africa:

OK. Every community, every society, has its own standards of life. In ancient African societies we had what are called “taboos”, things you should not do, and if you break the taboos there are consequences. Alright, so in your Western society many of these have arisen but in some of our African societies many things have not arisen and this happens to be one of them. In fact the word in our language does not exist in our language. So if the practice is now found to be in our society it is of service to be against it. Alright, and to that extent what my understanding is, is that those that are responsible for law and order will want to prevent wholesale importation of foreign practices and traditions, that are not consistent with native standards, native way of life.

I would have preferred a stronger condemnation of violence. Especially with Archbishop Akinola's past remarks that Muslims do "not have a monopoly on violence". Archbishop Henry Orombi fielded the next question and somehow still failed to condemn violence against homosexuals.

Finally, Archbishop Jensen of Australia stepped in:

I certainly have public condemned and will continue to publicly condemn any violence against any people and in particular gay and lesbian people. I am certain that this is, I understand, what Archbishop Orombi says and that is exactly the position and I am very glad that this opportunity has arisen for the question to be raised again because I thought it was not answered in the answers which were being given to the others side of the question. But I think I am right in speaking for all of us here and, indeed, if that were not the case I would certainly stand alone here and say it but I am sure I speak for all in saying that any such violence, any such behaviour within the prison system, for Christians of another variety, or whatever, is condemned by us.

Hopefully, Archbishop Jensen. But I'd still like to hear it from thier mouths.

Thoughts on Lambeth and GAFCON

Justin is right, I'm Barnabas.

Doctrinally, I find myself more in alignment with GAFCON, but the process that has been undertaken by this group is subversive and boldly arrogant. Call me skeptical, but I don't think there's anyway you can bill GAFCON as anything but an alternative to Lambeth, or, at the least, a loud protest before it.

The bishops of GAFCON are rightly concerned about recent developments in the Anglican Communion, but the key word here is recent. In the scope of church history, the current crisis is young. Try comparing it to combating Arianism. To make the claim that Anglicanism is at a crossroads never before seen is too set aside history and ignore the nature of the church. The church is always facing issues, but it seems as if this generation has the hubris to think it's experiencing something unique. Calm down, please. Pray for the ECUSA and attempt to bring them back into communion. Ten years is not enough time or effort to excommunicate a body.

If we believe that the Church is the bride of Christ, we should make every effort to avoid divorce. Avoiding any form of schism is worth the (admittedly frustrating) talking and persistence in faith.

The Moment of Truth

Honest Question

What is the point of boycotting Lambeth? Are they giving up on the church?

Wordle: Saint John of the Cross

I admit it. I'm addicted to wordle.

Strong Words from a Bishop

The Bishop of London has responded to the Rev. Dr. Dudley's recent actions and particpation in the wedding of two gay clergy:

Dear Martin,

You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.

I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.

You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.

At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.

The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.

The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”

St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.

Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA

Apostolic Succession: Giving Us a Genealogy

To begin his gospel, Matthew offers the reader a genealogy of Jesus. Matthew stakes his story about the Jewish Messiah in the dramatic history of Israel. He boldly proclaims that Jesus is the Son of the God of our forefathers.

Apostolic succession is the Church's participation in that history. It's the continuation of Matthew's account of the hope of God. By preserving a historical claim to episcopal polity, the Church is preserving the seed of Eve, the seed that will eventually crush the heel of the serpent.

If you dismiss apostolic succession, you have to adopt an unfortunately low view of Christian history. Histroically, however, many felt the need to react against a heavy handed version of apostolic succession. Calvin called the doctrine"frivolous and plainly ludicrous". And understandably, when apostolic succession is used as a violent trump card in a theological dispute. But there has to be space in the Church for a full doctrine of apostolic succession beyond the divide of Catholic/Protestant. Paul never tried to assert that he had a better historical claim to Jesus than Apollos.

(Saint Trivia: bonus points for the person who can name the Saint in the picture)

Lesson for N.T. Wright: Don't Be Like Bart

Best line from Colbert:

"So you're an agnostic? Isn't that just an atheist without the balls? 'Cause if I were an atheist, I'd be able to look at God and say, "Sorry, don't exist sir."

Interesting Mail

In my stack of mail the the other day was a pamphlet. The slogan of the institution that sponsored the mail-out caught my attention:

THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE WORD OF GOD

This might be nitpicking, but I couldn't help but think of John 1:14:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Was the Bible incarnated? Isn't Jesus also the Word of God? Actually, isn't Jesus the fullest expression of the Word?

The irony is a fundamentalist attitude about the Bible robs Jesus of the authority due Him. That kind of attitude is centered around a sacred text, not the Son of God.

How do you preach (or just explain) that Jesus is the "Word" of God? How do you define the "Word" concept to a modern audience? What are the applications to church life if "Jesus alone is the Word of God"?

N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report!

The Anglican Bishop of Durham and prominent New Testament scholar N.T. Wright will appear this Thursday on Comedy Central's popular show The Colbert Report. It promises to be good fun.

And for your enjoyment, Father James Martin, another man of the cloth, appearing on The Colbert Report:

Apostolic Succession

When combating the Gnostic heresy in the second century, Irenaeus appealed to an unbroken line of bishops to refute the idea that Jesus passed secret teachings onto his disciples.

Today, definitions and applications of apostolic succession are as wide and varied as the Christian tradition. In the next series of posts, I want to have a discussion about the nature of apostolic succession and its utility to the Church.

I want to present three reasons apostolic succession shouldn't be dismissed as an ancient concept with no modern application. I also want to spend a post on how apostolic succession should be applied.

How does your tradition utilize apostolic succession? Does it matter to you? Is it still relevant?