Affirming Liberalism

Just found out - from Dave Walker’s wonderful cartoon blog - about yet another new grouping in the CofE and close to home for me - geographically, even if not theologically - as focussed here in Oxford diocese.

It’s called ’Affirming Liberalism’ and although its leadership is not clear it appears to be linked to St James’ Church, Finchampstead.

It is obviously an optimistic liberalism - the day conference for February has Keith Ward on "Why the future belongs to liberal religion" and Martyn Percy on "Why Liberal Churches are Growing", presumably related to the recent book he edited on the subject with Ian Markham.

It describes its vision in the following terms

On its website the Church of England describes itself as

“a Comprehensive Church… which has been enriched by the co-existence within it of three broad traditions, the Evangelical, the Catholic and the Liberal…”

It continues…

“The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.” www.cofe.co.uk

Affirming Liberalism seeks to enhance this ‘enrichment’ of the Christian faith and support ordained and lay Christians of the Liberal Anglican tradition by:

• Affirming faith in Jesus’ life, teaching, death and resurrection as revealing God’s limitless love for all humanity in this life and the next.
• Affirming the dynamic action of the Holy Spirit in the world in dispersing this divine love throughout the world.
• Affirming the positive impact of biblical, literary and historical criticism for our engagement with Scripture and Tradition.
• Affirming appreciation of the distinctive nature of religious language in vibrant worship which connects us to the divine.
• Affirming a philosophical approach to Christian faith and the search for truth through God-given reason.
• Affirming the positive insights of the natural sciences and mathematics in the formation of a Christian world-view and understanding of the universe.
• Affirming the positive impact of the social sciences for understanding human nature and society, and developing Christian ethics.
• Affirming the vitality of the performing and creative arts in shaping a dynamic Christian vision of life lived in relation to God.
• Affirming open, creative conversation with Evangelicals and Catholics as a means of enriching our understanding of the Christian gospel.
• Affirming open, creative conversation with other faith traditions and cultures as a way of deepening our understanding of God.

I’m thinking I might blog soon on a sort of ’who’s who’ of Anglican - particularly evangelical Anglican - groupings as there are now so many in the CofE it is all getting rather confusing who they all are and how they all relate to each other. As Walker comments

All we need now is an ‘Affirming Evangelicalism’ and we’ll have the set.

Defending Jesus' Rights

I have to confess that I’m a subscriber to Private Eye and regularly enjoy their "Funny Old World" column compiled by Victor Lewis-Smith with bizarre news stories submitted by readers.

The most recent to catch my eye (Eye 1196) came from the Daily Nation (Kenya) on 31st August. Checking online it appeared the day that the main headline was the consecration of two bishops for America! Private Eye quoted the following part of the report though you can apparently read the full report (headline ’Crucifixion suit not urgent’) if you can manage to subscribe (I failed!).

"Jesus was a man who advocated the rule of law", Humphrey Odanga told the Kenyan High Court in Nairobi, "yet he is repeatedly depicted as a criminal, even in the Bible. The crux of our case is that the arrest, torture, and punishment of Jesus was unlawful, and amounted to a violation of his human rights. Furthermore, crucifixion was a wrongful punishment for a trial based on charges of ’blaspheming the Holy Spirit’ for which the correct penalty was public stoning. We do not want to worship a convicted criminal, so we ask the court to declare Jesus Christ’s crucifixion null and void, and his crucifixion illegal. Jesus was innocent".

Odanga was speaking on behalf of Friends of Jesus, a group of wealthy Kenyan businessmen and lawyers who had brought the case. High Court spokesperson Dola Indindis agreed that the appellants "have a right in court, because the issues raised touch on human rights, and the High Court has unlimited powers in that area". But when Lady Justice Joyce Aluoch asked where the respondents were, lawyers for FOJ admitted that papers had not yet been served on Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas or King Herod.

Outside the court, legal opinion was divided. Some lawyers argued that FOJ’s petition was legitimate, but others said that "Kenyan courts do not have jurisdiction, because the ’course-of-action’ did not arise within its jurisdiction. They should have filed it in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has the mandate to hear the case".

A Google search uncovers another press report from the end of October and what looks like the formal legal documents (I have to confess I’ve not read them) stating their case.

What I found intriguing was the rationale stated - "Jesus was a man who advocated the rule of law...We do not want to worship a convicted criminal, so we ask the court to declare Jesus Christ’s crucifixion illegal". Here we see the problem with any ’law and order’ Jesus and the real scandal of the cross. While most Christians will find Odanga’s actions weird (some online are even saying blasphemous) I suspect many might share his outlook and that none of us ever really come to terms with the social and political implications of God making himself known in a crucified Messiah and what it might therefore mean to boast only in the cross of Christ.