Saturday, 28 February 2009
New Theology & Ethics Website
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
C.S. Lews & Narnia
I’ve always enjoyed the Narnia books and am fascinated to see the publication of a new book on them - Planet Narnia by Michael Ward, an Anglican clergyman - which comes with glowing commendations for his hypothesis about the coherence of the seven volumes. To find out more, there is this short article by Ward introducing his theory with special reference to The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and a whole website and blog devoted to his book and its intriguing hypothesis that there is a secret imaginative scheme to the books based on the imagery of the seven heavens.
More widely there is also a new C.S. Lewis blog with some distinguished authors and interesting articles already online.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
AM on Advent Letter - Intro
It is now almost a month since the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter was published. Among many responses, one of the most recent is that of Anglican Mainstream which appeared earlier this week. It is important both because of the groups comprising AM (eg Reform, CEEC, New Wine and Crosslinks) and their significance among evangelical Anglicans in the Church of England and other Anglican churches in the British Isles and also because of the wider Communion influence of Chris Sugden, AM’s Executive Secretary.
Issued by Chris Sugden and Philip Giddings on behalf of Anglican Mainstream it opens with a self-identification (“We identify ourselves as those who, with orthodox Anglicans worldwide, are committed to the life-transforming call to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and therefore to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all he has commanded us”) which appears also to be offered as a means of discerning the true body of Christ within the Anglican Communion (“We understand ourselves to be brothers and sisters with them in the faith once delivered to the saints”).
Reaffirming they are ‘gladly members’ of the Communion, the authors highlight the primary issue as they see it – whether ‘the instruments of the Anglican Communion… would be able to affirm that this biblical faith is central to the Communion’s life, teaching and behaviour…affirming the biblical teaching and recommending protection for those who seek to proclaim and demonstrate the transforming power of the biblical gospel for all’.
While they believe earlier actions – Windsor Report and Primates’ Meetings – “pointed to this end” and “recognise with gratitude positive aspects of the Archbishop’s letter” (commending John Richardson’s discussion) they imply that the Advent Letter represents a failure to follow through these earlier successes and “respectfully seek to differ with the Archbishop on the following five points”
Each of these is worth stating, examining and evaluating.
AM on Advent Letter - 1st Critique
AM interpret the Archbishop’s words that “we need to honour the hard work done by the bishops of TEC… and determine a way forward” as meaning that “he accepts that TEC is not going to change and therefore, apparently, should not be required to change”.It is, however, unclear what exactly they mean by this.
It is not so much that “he accepts that TEC is not going to change” as that it has changed (certainly since GC 2003) in certain respects but that it remains unclear how much it has changed. He “accepts” where TEC is now (and so that it “is not going to change” further) only in the sense that he sees no point in once more pressing TEC either to change more or to clarify the extent of their change.
I am unclear in what sense AM therefore thinks that he apparently accepts TEC “should not be required to change”. The obvious question is “required by whom and required in what manner?”. The Archbishop is clear – and has provided the evidence in his support – that there is no current consensus in the Communion as a whole as to whether or not TEC has changed enough. The nature of the Communion is such that there is no mechanism by which the Communion can “require” a member church to change. This in part explains the importance of the covenant process (which AM – as in their response to Dar – again fails to mention!)
The next line in the argument – It follows that, if the rest of the Communion are to be able to continue to receive TEC in some way as part of their Christian fellowship, it is the rest of the Communion who will have to change” – is similarly unclear. For example, nothing in the letter or any of the Archbishop’s statements state or imply that the rest of the Communion is going to have to change its teaching. In fact quite the contrary, in a clear aim at those violating Windsor and the mind of the Communion, the Archbishop states
At the moment, the question of ’who speaks for the Communion?’ is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded….Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship.
It would appear that the “change” that AM believes the Communion “will have to” undergo in the light of the Advent letter is “to accept those who promote immoral behaviour”. This “acceptance” is expressed by refusing to withhold fellowship or to instruct them “for the purpose of repentance and restoration to fellowship”. Such a “change”, it is said, “would not be acceptable” as it “is contrary to biblical teaching and practice”. However, no justification is offered for this and no explanation is given of how past practice in this area is being changed.
This issue is perhaps becoming the heart of the matter at the moment (not least in relation to GAFCON, supported by both Chris Sugden and Bishop Wallace Benn who is on the AM Steering Committee). There are important questions here about relating to those Christians with whom one is in a serious moral disagreement. These need to be a matter of urgent and careful theological discussion among those opposed to TEC’s behaviour but they risk getting lost in political manoeuvres and party polemics. Four questions in particular need to be considered –
1.“what is biblical teaching and practice on this matter?”
2.“how would it relate to the current situation and homosexuality?”,
3.“how could it be implemented given the current structures of the Communion?”
4.“what should the response be if the Communion’s structures fail and so act contrary to Scripture?”.
Time and space prevent them being considered here – the article by Craig Uffman on the Covenant site offers an alternative perspective to that of AM and has engendered some debate on various blogs.The complexity of the issues is illustrated simply with reference to the first of the six New Testament passages which AM cites (John 8:7; 1 Cor 5: 9-13; 2 Cor 7: 8-11; 2 Timothy 2.25; Titus 1. 9-11; 2 John 10-11). [Addition: Note comment below on subsequent changes to this list on AM site]. It is not immediately obvious how the story of the woman caught in adultery, and in particular the words of Jesus in John 8:7 ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”) help AM’s case. How does Jesus’ refusal to condemn someone caught in the immoral behaviour of adultery and to apply the Mosaic penalty against her (and there are numerous other similar examples in the gospels of similar responses by Jesus) show that “to accept those who promote immoral behaviour is contrary to biblical teaching and practice which withholds fellowship and commends instruction for the purpose of repentance and restoration to fellowship”?
AM on Advent Letter - 2nd Critique
For AM, the focus of the problem in terms of people is then defined as “those who consecrated Gene Robinson to be a bishop” and the refusal to withhold fellowship is focussed on the fact that “the Archbishop accepts” that they “will be present at the Lambeth Conference”.
This is most likely true as the Archbishop certainly has not withdrawn the invitations. However, it must also be stated that the invitation list is still open to change and AM does not acknowledge this. The Letter states that
I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant….I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference’s agenda.
The letter also includes in the remit of the proposed advisory group –
to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies.
While these commitments may not now be able to influence Lambeth invitations it certainly shows that the issue of “withholding fellowship” is not being rejected by the Archbishop as starkly as suggested by AM.
With colleagues in the Anglican Communion Institute I have argued for some time that non-invitation to Lambeth should be implemented as a form of discipline. ACI proposed in a major submission to the Lambeth Commission (Communion and Discipline) that this should be applied, at that time to those who consented to Gene Robinson’s election in 2003. I therefore share AM’s concerns here and wish the Archbishop had been able to withdraw invitations. However, I believe that their appeal to Windsor here is flawed.
AM claim that the fact that the Archbishop “accepts that those who consecrated Gene Robinson to be a bishop will be present at the Lambeth Conference” is “in contradiction to the clear assertion of the Windsor Report (para 134), that those who took part in the consecration of Gene Robinson should withdraw from representative functions”. The reality is in fact much more nuanced. Para 134 – which AM cites – reads
pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This paragraph clearly fails to support their claim that the Archbishop has contradicted Windsor. This is so on two grounds. First, the call for consecrators to withdraw is ‘pending such expression of regret’, a reference to the previous part of para 134 calling on TEC ‘to express its regret’ for its actions at GC 2003. An expression of regret was offered by GC 2006 and, although I and others argued it was not quite what Windsor sought, the Primates at Dar clearly accepted it. It could therefore be argued that this part of 134 no longer has force as the consecrators are embraced personally within the corporate regret offered by TEC and the acceptance of this by Dar. Second, AM omit the key final sentence of para 134 – “We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions”. This strictly means that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be acting contrary to Windsor if he did not respect the consecrators’ conscientious decisions and simply withdrew his invitations if they conscientiously decide to accept.
Where AM is (almost) right, however, is that Windsor clearly thought it best that the consecrators should not participate in Communion life “in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion” and it does appear that their participating is frustrating rather than enabling healing and is not for “the common good of the Anglican Communion”.
Windsor urged the consecrators to “seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury”. As a result, while it is false to say the Advent Letter is “in contradiction to the clear assertion of the Windsor Report”, the spirit of the Windsor Report is probably best implemented if the Archbishop includes all the consecrators in those with whom he is in direct (and appropriately private) contact to “clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference’s agenda”. As part of that he could encourage them to show their commitment to “implementing the recommendations of Windsor” by seeking his advice about their participation at Lambeth. If they insist on coming he could (although the tension with respecting conscientious decisions noted above remains) be urged to consider using the authority he has which is acknowledged in para 110 (not para 134) and “invite participants to the Lambeth Conference on restricted terms at his sole discretion” as “full voting membership of the Conference is perceived to be an undesirable status” which “would militate against the greater unity of the Communion”. It remains the case, however, that this must finally be his judgment and there is strong evidence that non-invitation would also militate against the greater unity of the Communion.
AM on Advent Letter - 3rd Critique
AM also express a concern that “the Archbishop accepts that TEC should remain part of the Anglican Communion fellowship”. The obvious problem here is that there is currently no mechanism by which TEC can be removed from the Anglican Communion – hence again the importance of the covenant.
The following statements about the Archbishop’s view of TEC also appear confused. It is claimed that “because TEC is not “a monochrome body” in its current approach” the Archbishop believes that “external interventions are not justified” and it is argued that this is paradoxical. The argument here appears to be that the orthodox, by staying in TEC, create the situation which then makes external intervention on their behalf unjustified.
The problem is that the Archbishop does not hold that external interventions are unjustified because TEC is not uniform – he says ‘I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA’. He does raise numerous concerns about this practice but none of these is the one claimed here about TEC as a mixed body. That TEC is indeed a mixed body is rather a statement of fact which, when read alongside the parable of the wheat and the tares, warns against precipitate radical action against TEC. Once again, though, it must be recalled that the Archbishop has clearly accepted that the covenant - once agreed - may lead to distinguishing constituent and associate Anglican bodies.
AM states they “stand with these orthodox Anglicans” and criticises the Archbishop for saying that “they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion” but then not doing anything - he “offers them no protection” when “TEC not only deposes many of these orthodox pastors but also pursues them and their congregations in the courts”.
Here again the question has to be asked – “what protection in practice could the Archbishop offer?”. He has no authority to prevent TEC taking court action beyond his moral authority. He again strongly exercises this in the letter when he writes about “complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts”, reiterates that “serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué expressed profound disquiet on this matter, addressed to all parties” and says “I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding”.
Furthermore, the Archbishop has not – much to the annoyance and anger of many - taken any action against those within the Communion who have offered protection to these parishes. This makes it very difficult to justify AM’s further claim that the Archbishop “regards those who have offered protection by welcoming them under their oversight as equal transgressors of appropriate Christian behaviour” and that this is “to equate emergency measures with the immoral behaviour which precipitated them”. Nothing in the letter is cited in support of this claim, probably because such a departure from the Windsor analysis is not present. The only possible line of argument I can see is in relation to the non-invitation of AMiA, CANA and other ‘missionary bishops’ to Lambeth. These consecrations, however, go beyond protection by welcoming people under existing oversight to the creation of new ministries of oversight. Even here those who have offered such radical measures – Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda - have not be regarded as equal transgressors along with Gene Robinson as they have been invited to Lambeth, although paradoxically they may refuse to attend. The rationale for this non-invitation is not some calculus of “equal transgression” or “moral equivalence”. It is that the conference is a meeting of bishops of the Communion and they – like Gene Robinson – have been consecrated against the counsel of the Instruments and – in line with Windsor para 110 – their full voting membership of the Conference is perceived to be an undesirable status” which “would militate against the greater unity of the Communion”.
AM on Advent Letter - 4th Critique
AM believes that the Archbishop - in maintaining that “genuine ministry and mission can survive even where the reading of Scripture is so defective that other parts of the Communion find it to be no longer recognisably ‘Christian’” – does not make sense.
I share AM’s concern here about allowing authentic ministry even where there is departure from Scripture. This – like the four points noted above (in section I) - is another key area where there needs to be urgent and careful theological discussion among those opposed to TEC’s behaviour before gut reactions are set in stone and lines drawn in the sand.Nevertheless, I think the Archbishop’s position is rather more nuanced than AM allows and that his distinctions as a way of interpreting and responding to the current crisis are much more valuable than AM suggests. The Archbishop’s primary concern here is that there needs to be a Communion discernment about whether “the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible”. This is not – if we are committed to being a Communion within the church catholic - something that should be decided unilaterally and then acted upon by individual Christians, congregations or even provinces. There is some evidence in the letter that such discernment will be part of the work of the Lambeth conference, hence the importance of attendance at it.
AM further claims, “and thus that serious difference in views on the interpretation of scripture on first order issues does not affect shared fellowship in Christian mission”. Leaving aside whether there is the necessary connection implied by ‘thus’, there are two major problems here. First, it seems to assume that the current dispute is one in which we see “serious difference in views on the interpretation of scripture on first order issues” but the Communion has never used the language of “first order issue” (and it is unlikely the Archbishop classes it in these terms) and such a phrase needs more unpacking. (I hope at some point to return to my earlier blogging on this subject). Second, the Archbishop has said quite the opposite to what AM claim – not that differences here do not affect shared fellowship in Christian mission but that “there must be ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed”. It is perhaps AM’s reading of the letter rather than the letter itself which “does not make sense”.
AM on Advent Letter - 5th critique
Finally, AM protest that
instead of calling the Primates, who are representative leaders of their provinces to meet to consider TEC’s response to Dar-es-Salaam, the Archbishop has himself decided not to meet them and has substituted a hand-picked team of supposed specialists to determine the future life of the Communion in all its representative bodies. He is acting alone in this.
Once again I find myself both in much sympathy with AM but also ultimately unconvinced by their critique.I too believe it would have been best if all the Primates met to evaluate TEC’s response. However, it cannot be denied that there were clearly serious problems – financial, logistical, political - with that way forward. Indeed, a case can be made that to call such a meeting at this time would have been to put on this Instrument more pressure than it could be expected to bear and be action damaging to the Communion.It is ultimately the Archbishop’s decision whether to call an emergency meeting and he clearly took advice from the Primates about whether this was needed. The consultation with the Primates showed limited support for this way forward. Apparently only 3 of the 26 Primates who replied requested such a meeting! For the Archbishop to call an unscheduled meeting when there was such limited demand would probably be irresponsible, especially if, as claimed, several primates were very hostile to the idea. [See comments below for more on this point]
The proposed alternative is one AM describes as the creation of a “hand-picked team of supposed specialists to determine the future life of the Communion in all its representative bodies”. In addition to its rather cynical tone, this description seriously distorts the role of that group according to the letter.
It is not some separate “hand-picked team” doing its own thing but a group who will work ‘in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group’. The reason it is needed is because, far from “acting alone in this”, the Archbishop wishes to work collegially on ‘the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans’. Although clearly different, there are parallels in this way forward with Windsor’s proposed Council of Advice (paras 111 and 112). There is nothing at all to suggest that it will “determine the future life of the Communion”, it will simply “take certain issues forward to Lambeth”. Far from determining the future life “in all its representative bodies” it is, as noted, working closely with those bodies and “will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process” - a sign, once again, of the importance of attending Lambeth and supporting and shaping the Covenant process.
Finally, rather than being an initiative originating with Lambeth or ACO this idea appears to be based on the suggestion from one Primate and province that (as stated in the summary of responses to the Archbishop) ‘a representative group comprising the leadership from the four Instruments of Communion convenes to explore ways and means of resolving the present difficulties associated with full Windsor compliance across the Communion’.The wisdom and language (‘full Windsor compliance’) of such a suggestion suggest that it originates with an orthodox, Global South province and primate. It would therefore be interesting to know if AM sought the advice of their Primatial Advisor as to whether criticism of this proposal was wise.
AM on Advent Letter - Conclusion
Anglican Mainstream’s response helpfully highlights five areas where they “respectfully seek to differ from the Archbishop”. The five short statements, however, offer some serious misreadings of the letter and its proposals for finding a way forward, misrepresent aspects of the Windsor process and ignore the wider context of the covenant. In addition, AM’s critique takes certain definite theological stances concerning life together in a divided church which need much more unpacking and defence and which many who are naturally sympathetic with AM’s aims currently find difficult to accept. Perhaps more disconcerting still is that AM’s critique may be saying – or at least be understood to be saying – that they are working from the assumptions the Archbishop strongly rejects at the end of his letter
A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at present seems to presuppose that any change from our current deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined.I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as we think and pray our way through Advent.
The challenge in the months leading up to GAFCON and Lambeth is whether those who share AM’s concerns about the Advent letter will accept and act on the basis of these assumptions or whether there is room for serious discussion about the important issues AM raises and a common discernment together as to the way forward for the Communion as a whole.
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Who knows what about the Christmas Story?
A survey carried out by the public theology think tank, Theos, has been getting quite a bit of publicity with reports in the Telegraph, the Times, and on the BBC website which has an extensive discussion about the results.
The survey presented 4 multiple choice questions to a sample of 1015 people:
(1) According to the story in the Christian Bible, where was Jesus born?
Choice of: Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Jericho, None of these
(2) According to the story in the Christian Bible,who told Mary that she would give birth to a son?
Choice of: wise men, an angel, shepherds, Joseph, None of these
(3) According to the story in the Christian Bible, who was Jesus’ cousin?
Choice of: Peter, Luke, James, John the Baptist, None of these
(4) According to the story in the Christian Bible, where did Joseph, Mary and Jesus go to escape from King Herod when Jesus was a young child?
Choice of: Nazareth, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, None of these
While most of the press coverage has, understandably, focussed on the general ignorance of the British population, the break-down of the figures shows a fascinating and in many ways disturbing result in terms of the church’s teaching of its own members and the level of basic literacy among those who profess to be Christians and regular church attenders.
In addition to offering a break-down of the figures by age, class, gender and region, the full data includes a breakdown on the basis of how the respondent would describe their own beliefs.
The categories are:
- I am a Christian who regularly attends church
- I am a Christian who does not regularly attend church
- I am a Muslim
- I am a member of another religion
- I am a doubter - I’m not sure whether I believe in God or not
- I am an atheist - I don’t believe in the existence of God at all
- None of these
- Refused
- Don’t know
The first category only comprised 161 respondents in the weighted base and their answers were as follows (the correct answer is now listed first, in case you’re unsure!)
Q1 - Bethlehem (83%), Nazareth (11%), Jerusalem (3%), Jericho (1%), Don’t know (2%)
Q2 - An angel (83%), wise men (2%), shepherds (4%), Joseph (8%), Don’t know (2%), Refused (1%)
Q3 - John the Baptist (75%), Peter (9%), Luke (2%), James (3%), Don’t know (10%), Refused (1%), None (1%)
Q4 - Egypt (44%), Nazareth (46%), Babylon (3%), Rome (1%), Don’t know (6%), Refused (1%), None (1%)
How did they do over all?
Well 2% of the Christians who regularly attend church didn’t get any right.
10% got 1 right
25% got 2 right
27% got 3 right
36% got all 4 right (the next highest grouping for all right was those who said they were Christian but did not regularly attend church where only 11% managed to get all 4 correct).
In other words, under 2/3 (63%) got more than 50% in this basic test.
Interestingly, agnostics and atheists consistently did better than Muslims (29% of whom got none right and 22% only one right ie more than half could not answer more than one correctly) and those of other faiths (where 39% got 3 right) although both samples are small.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Revisiting the Anglican Communion map
The Fulcrum Newsletter I wrote and noted on the blog last week - entitled "The Anglican Communion: Mapping the Terrain" - led to a fascinating level of response, much of it critical.
As a result I’ve written two further pieces trying to engage with some of the issues raised. As they are rather too lengthy to put on the blog (though if there is demand then I can) I have posted them up online as PDFs.
The first is a general response on the challenges of mapping. This asks
-
Is mapping – particularly of this level of complexity - a helpful exercise - particularly at the present moment?
-
Is the map accurate and helpful?
-
Where am I/are we on the map?
-
What do we do with it?
The second has a focus on the main area of controversy in the mapping - the validity and usefulness of suggesting it is helpful to distinguish two approaches among conservatives on sexuality which I then labelled "rejectionist" and "reasserter".
This looks at
-
Is it accurate and helpful to distinguish two positions on sexuality among conservatives?
-
Are the names I gave accurate and helpful?
-
Was the quotation I used an unfair slur on the "rejectionist" group?
-
Are the distinguishing features I offered accurate and helpful?
-
Does the distinction help understand the current tensions within the Communion?
I look forward (I think) to any further responses and ongoing discussion either here or on other blogs.
Monday, 3 December 2007
T.F. Torrance (1913-2007)
Awoke this morning to find an email with the sad news that Professor T.F. Torrance died yesterday, Sunday, 2nd December 2007.
The first of doubtless many tributes to this theological giant is by George Hunsinger.
For those unaware of the greatness and significance of the man and his life and thought there is the T.F. Torrance Theological Fellowship and the works of Alister McGrath and Elmer Colyer
If you want to hear him lecture (back in the early 1980s) there is a set of MP3s online
Many will join in giving thanks to God for him and praying for his family - many of them of course distinguished theologians - that at this time of their loss they will know Advent hope and the joy of the resurrection.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Mapping The Anglican Communion
Fulcrum have just published a piece I’ve written on the current state of play in the Anglican Communion as their November newsletter (also available as PDF)
In summary, I develop my earlier ’four quadrant’ view of different stances and suggest that the spectrum of views on homosexuality can be divided into 4 broad approaches (rejectionist, reasserter, reassessor and reinterpreter) and different views on what it means to be a Communion into three (Windsor’s vision of ’communion catholicism’ and two alternatives of connectional confessionalism and autonomous inclusivism).
I then suggest how these might inter-relate, particularly focussing on Windsor’s response to sexuality in terms of listening and dialogue, constraints on action and good order.
After sketching four powerful agents in the current tensions (the Instruments, the provinces, coalitions of provinces and international networks) I try to show how this analysis helps explain some of the challenges at the current stage of the Windsor process by looking at 3 different levels of challenge to the conclusions offered by the Joint Standing Committee after TEC’s bishops met at New Orleans.
Some interesting articles relating to war
Just discovered some interesting articles from recent journals - relating to war, law and terrorism - that are good online resources and you don’t need to subscribe to the journal to read them in full -
From the Journal of Political Philosophy -
Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive? by Samuel Scheffler, Mar 2006
On Following Orders in an Unjust War by David Estlund (with links to most of his other writing), June 2007
From Journal of Supreme Court History
Civil Liberties in War Time by Geoffrey R. Stone (Nov 2003) who argues
I have a simple thesis: In time of war—or, more precisely, in time of national crisis—we respond too harshly in our restriction of civil liberties, and then later regret our behavior. To explore this thesis, I will briefly review our experience in 1798, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War and the Vietnam War. I will then offer some observations.
Friday, 23 November 2007
Inclusive Church - Drenched in Grace
Wright, Barclay, Bauckham, Milbank etc at AAR/SBL
Thanks to the Corpus Paulinum group I discovered there was an audio available of the session at SBL last week on Paul and Empire with John Barclay and Tom Wright -
Pauline Epistles 11/19/2007 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Theme: Paul and Empire
Papers by John M.G. Barclay, Durham University, and Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, with a response by Robert Jewett, University of Heidelberg Alexandra Brown, Washington and Lee University, Presiding
John M.G. Barclay, Durham University
Why the Roman Empire was Insignificant to Paul (40 min)
N. Thomas Wright, Church of England
Paul’s Counter-Imperial Theology (40 min)
Robert Jewett, University of Heidelberg, Respondent
Going to the linked website I not only found a very interesting looking blog from Andy Rowell (a Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) student at Duke Divinity School whose area of concentration is "Scripture and the Practice of Leading Christian Communities and Institutions") but also that he has recorded several other events which look interesting - Tom Wright on "God in Public? The Bible and Politics in Tomorrow’s World", Richard Bauckham responding to a panel on his recent book on eyewitnesses and the gospels, an emergent church forum, Charles Taylor, John Milbank - and they are all online as MP3s
Now just need to find time to listen....Tuesday, 20 November 2007
ETS & Evangelicals misunderstanding sola scriptura?
The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is not particularly well-known to most UK evangelicals. It describes itself as "a professional society of Biblical scholars, teachers, pastors and others involved in evangelical scholarship in order to serve Christ and His Church" which was founded in 1949 and "devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ". Its doctrinal basis is short and focussed - "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
The Society apparently has over 4,000 members, publishes a quarterly journal, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) - recent back copies are accesible online - and has an annual conference which is taking place at present.
ETS has been in the news in recent years due to attempts by certain conservative evangelicals to remove leading theologians such as Clark Pinnock who are seen as too progressive/liberal and because its President, Frank Beckwith, resigned last May on becoming a Roman Catholic.
Christianity Today’s blog reports what is apparently one of the most controversial papers at this year’s conference which was given by evangelical philosopher J.P. Moreland. He has responded to this report (and some of the comments on it) on his own blog where - contrary to the end of the CT report - he has also posted his paper which is entitled How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It
The reason it is controversial is clear from the opening paragraph:
In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ. And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.
While some evangelicals will find the idea of ’an over-commitment to Scripture’ as odd, in fact the argument of the paper will I think strike most English, certainly most Anglican, evangelicals as obvious (even if those of more Barthian sympathies may be cautious about his strong advocacy of natural theology and natural law). Its apparently contentious nature in a conference of evangelical scholars and church leaders appears from here as another sign of the difference in culture between UK and American evangelicalism (also evident in the ETS focus on ’inerrancy’, a term which has thankfully never become a shibboleth or gained a strong following in British evangelicalism). Having said that, there is perhaps the danger that in certain British conservative evangelical circles the error Moreland critiques is making an appearance. Two of the examples he cites - hostility to charismatic claims and an apparent belief that all that is really necessary for pastoral training, counselling etc is found in the Bible - do apparently have a following and can gain credibility as to their orthodoxy through appealing, however misleadingly, to the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.
Moreland’s basic argument, however, appears to me to be similar to that which I learned a couple of decades ago as an undergraduate from a book by the evangelical philosopher, Arthur Holmes - All truth is God’s truth. It follows from this conviction that evangelicals need not be frightened of engaging with other academic disciplines, even if the fruits of these disciplines sometimes challenge traditional evangelical interpretations of Scripture. There are, obviously, critiques to be made at times of idolatrous and ideological approaches in academic study but it is also sometimes through learning from those other disciplines that we are enabled to recognise our evangelical blind-spots and discover afresh that God has yet more light to shine from his Word.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Rowan Williams, Decision-making & Bonhoeffer
A comment piece by Andrew Brown on the travails of the Anglican Communion and Rowan Williams in particular refers to his address to the last Lambeth Conference (although I think a better analysis of the Archbishop’s position which also cites this paper is, I think, that of Marshall Montgomery on his blog back in August last year).
It is a piece worth reading in full and, thankfully, is online at the ACO site as part of the background papers to the Lambeth Commission -
The report at the time stated
In an address that prompted rousing applause and a standing ovation from participants, Bishop Rowan Williams (Monmouth, Wales) offered a concluding focus on how the Church could make moral decisions. He reminded his colleagues that making decisions is not as simple as “being faced with a series of clear alternatives, as if we were standing in front of the supermarket shelf". Decisions, instead, are “coloured” by the sort of decision-maker. “The choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way.” He referred to the writing of Welsh philosopher Rush Rhees and British Catholic theologian and moralist Herbert McCabe and summarised their points by stating “[it is] not that ethics is a matter of the individual’s likes or dislikes...On the contrary, it is a difficult discovering of something about yourself, a discovering of what has already shaped the person you are and is moulding you in this or that direction.”
The address is also available on the site of the Anglican Theological Review in which it appeared in Spring 1999 along with an interesting piece by my ACI colleague, Philip Turner, entitled "The "communion" of Anglicans after Lambeth ’98: A comment on the nature of communion and the state of the Church"
A version of it also appears in Robin Gill’s Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics from which I’ve used parts of it in teaching ethics to ordinands.
The Archbishop returned to some of these themes from Bonhoeffer in his Speech at the Opening of the International Bonhoeffer Conference in February 2006 and a sermon in his honour at the same time. In the former he said
‘Is church union and fellowship in the Word and Sacrament created by the Holy Spirit, or is it the union of all well-disposed, honourable, pious Christians whether their observances be German Christian, that of the church committees or that of the Confessing Church? Is church union founded only on the truth of the Gospel or on a love uncontrolled by the question of truth?’ (The Way to Freedom, 112) This is how Bonhoeffer phrases the challenge in 1936, in a paper in which he argues that the whole idea of ‘confession’, taking a stand for truth at the cost of visible unity, needs to be revisited by the Protestant churches in the context of a new threat to Christian integrity. The notion of a status confessionis in the Reformation era is precisely about letting the Church be judged by Scripture, about the Church’s radical readiness for self-criticism; thus the historic confessions cannot just be turned into timeless deposits of truth independent of the Scriptures to which they point. And the Scriptures in a new situation may demand of us a new determination of the Church’s limits. The principle of confession both requires us to recognise that there may be occasions when visible unity matters less than fidelity - and that the point at which this becomes a question will not necessarily be the same from age to age.
It is an uncomfortable message for anyone committed to ecumenism. Just as culture and piety are put into perspective by the immediacy of a threat to the very integrity of the gospel, so is church unity. Yet it is a very difficult discernment that is called for here. It is not that division in the Church is imperative for the sake of some abstract truth; Bonhoeffer is cautious about whether the Reformation disputes over the Eucharist are now quite what the churches should be giving priority to. The issue is whether the gospel of God’s action - and the reality of God’s action - can be manifest and effective. As with the questions about culture and piety, this challenge too requires us to think very carefully about what might constitute a ‘pseudo-church’ - not just a church that teaches erroneous doctrine but one that in its actions and words denies the grace of God.
So that, as with our earlier categories, we have to recognise a question that unsettles both the liberal and the conservative, and which should prompt all engaged in interchurch dialogue to reflect on what it is that might make a pseudo-church. And to answer that, we need not a more exact calibration of the purity of other Christian groups but first a freedom for self-criticism in the presence of Scripture and secondly a keen eye for what is challenging the Church in the contemporary world and what menaces its integrity in this particular environment.
At Lambeth in 1988 he continued with words even more pertinent to where TEC and the Communion now stand
When I reluctantly continue to share the Church’s communion with someone whose moral judgement I deeply disagree with, I do so in the knowledge that for both of us part of the cost is that we have to sacrifice a straightforward confidence in our ’purity’. Being in the Body means that we are touched by one another’s commitments and thus by one another’s failures. If another Christian comes to a different conclusion and decides in different ways from myself, and if I can still recognise their discipline and practice as sufficiently like mine to sustain a conversation, this leaves my own decisions to some extent under question I cannot have absolute subjective certainty that this is the only imaginable reading of the tradition; I need to keep my reflections under critical review. This, I must emphasise again, is not a form of relativism; it is a recognition of the element of putting oneself at risk that is involved in any serious decision making or any serious exercise of discernment (as any pastor or confessor will know). But this is only part of the implication of recognising the differences and risks of decision-making in the Body of Christ. If I conclude that my Christian brother or sister is deeply and damagingly mistaken in their decision, I accept for myself the brokenness in the Body that this entails. These are my wounds; just as the one who disagrees with me is wounded by what they consider my failure or even betrayal. So long as we still have a language in common and the ’grammar of obedience’ in common, we have, I believe, to turn away from the temptation to seek the purity and assurance of a community speaking with only one voice and to embrace the reality of living in a communion that is fallible and divided. The communion’s need for health and mercy is inseparable from my own need for health and mercy. To remain in communion is to remain in solidarity with those who I believe are wounded as well as wounding the Church, in the trust that in the Body of Christ the confronting of wounds is part of opening ourselves to healing.
The implications of this are spelled out in words that doubtless are shaping his response to the current crisis and the issue of Lambeth invitations:
Unity at all costs is indeed not a Christian goal; our unity is Christ-shaped, or it is empty. Yet our first call, so long as we can think of ourselves as still speaking the same language, is to stay in engagement with those who decide differently. This, I have suggested, means living with the awareness that the Church, and I as part of it, share not only in grace but in failure; and thus staying alongside those on the other side, in the hope that we may still be exchanging gifts - the gift of Christ - in some ways, for one another’s healing.
The seriousness of the current situation, however, is clear from one of his other appeals to a common language or ’grammar of obedience’ - his contribution in 2005 to the General Synod debate on Windsor when, in reflections on unity and truth, he said
We all know that there are some moments when the church, or parts of the church, take risks. They speak for a church that which doesn’t yet exist, so they believe, out of a conscience informed by scripture and revelation. At the Reformation, our church and many others took that kind of risk. and we have to be candid, in our decision to ordain women to the priesthood we engage in something of that sort of risk. The trouble is, that risk really is risk. You don’t and you can’t know yet whether it’s justified. The church is capable of error and any local church is capable of error, as the Thirty-Nine Articles remind us forcibly. So if one portion of the church decides that it must take a conscientious risk, then there are inevitable results to that. There are consequences in hurt, misunderstanding, rupture and damage. It does us no good to pretend that the cost is not real. So I don’t think it will quite do say, if anyone does really say this, that a risky act ought to have or can have no consequences.
Of course it does and we are dealing with those consequences now. There is when such a risky act is taken that there is or there will be the church’s act or decision. We don’t know, and meanwhile the effects are serious and they are hurtful. And part of the cost involved in the repercussions of recent events is, I think, that it has weakened if not destroyed the sense that we are actually talking the same language within the Anglican Communion. Rightly or wrongly, and there will be very different views in this chamber on this subject, that has been what has happened. People are no longer confident that we are speaking the same language, appealing to the same criteria in out theological debates. And the deep lost-ness and confusion that arises from that and the anger that arises from that is something that does not in any sense help the long- term health of the body or our search for truth together in the Body.
That these connections between unity, Bonhoeffer and Lambeth 2008 are real is clear from his March 2006 interview with the Guardian which included the following exchange -
The guest list for the 2008 Lambeth Conference presents Williams with a very great headache. It is surely inconceivable that he would ban Bishop Gene Robinson (the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire) from attending while extending the warm hand of welcome to Messrs Akinola and Malango. At what point does Williams bump up against the irreducible core of his socially liberal values and decide there is something more valuable than unity?
He reaches for a rather startling historical parallel. "It’s a dangerous comparison, because it sort of ups the stakes a bit, but I’m very struck by what (the German theologian) Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes in the middle 30s about the division of the Church over the Aryan laws in Nazi Germany."
The reference is to the split in the German Church when the Confessing Church - a breakaway group of German Lutheran (Evangelical) Christians - split from the state Lutheran Church’s support of Hitler. The leaders were persecuted - Bonhoeffer was hanged - and in 1939 the movement was suppressed until the end of the war.
"Bonhoeffer says both that it’s extremely important not to try and work out in advance every circumstance in which it would be necessary for the church to break, and that it’s important to have the freedom and the clarity to know when the moment comes, and there just isn’t a formula for that, I think he’s saying.
"He felt in 1935 the moment had come, that he was faced with a context in which he just couldn’t see a common Christianity between himself and the German Christians who accepted the racial laws. He just couldn’t see what it meant for them to think they were a church at all. That’s pretty drastic, but he says you’ve got to have the ability to say that at some point ... I wrestle with that text constantly, I must say."
Williams recently took part in services to mark Bonhoeffer’s centenary in Germany and Poland and says these texts "were sort of pounding in my head". So there might come a moment when he decided the Anglican communion could no longer be held together? "There might come a moment where you say, ’We can’t continue, we can’t continue with this.’ I don’t know when or if."
It is a signal of the difficulty of reading Williams, that there is confusion about how the analogy plays out in his mind - ie, which side in the present near-schism mirrors the Confessing Church of Bonhoeffer? Liberals might assume that Williams would finally break with the Africans and conservative evangelicals. But close Rowan-watchers believe the reverse is true.
They point to a meeting at Lambeth in September 2003 between Williams and six American conservatives who were planning to split their church - plans now rather further advanced. In the course of this, Williams suggested that they call themselves "The Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes". One of the American delegation later claimed that Williams had not only suggested the name, but linked it explicitly to Bonhoeffer’s struggle.
If this interpretation is right, it suggests that Williams may be mentally preparing for the possibility of siding with the African churches and the conservative evangelicals rather than the liberals within the Anglican Communion. In any event, the time left for contemplation and constructive ambiguity may be short.
The Archbishop has had another 18 months since then for ’contemplation and constructive ambiguity’. There can be little doubt that there has been much of the former and that Bonhoeffer is one of the saints who will have guided his thinking and praying. The time now is very short and whatever is done will have to be constructive rather than marked by ambiguity. We can, however, probably be clear that whatever is said by the Archbishop in the next few weeks about Lambeth 2008 as we enter Advent it will not seek to be a final word which brings the tensions and the need for ongoing dialogue and listening to an end. As Humphrey Southern concludes in his interesting study of the Archbishop’s theology from back in 2003 - The Impossibility of the Last Word: The Theology of Rowan Williams -
"Oppression", wrote Archbishop Rowan in the essay entitled ‘Remorse’ in his book Lost Icons, "is a situation where people don’t talk to each other; where people don’t find each other difficult". We are certainly at a point in the history of our Communion when some of us are finding each other "difficult" (to say the least of it!) and it may be that some will feel that the only way out of the difficulty will be by closing down the conversation. I do not believe that Rowan Williams will be happy to see that "last word" moment arrive and I, for one, will be one of those praying earnestly that it does not.
Global Warming
As reported by the BBC and others, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has emphasised the need for government action on global warming in the light of latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Their fourth report (with helpful 23 page PDF summary for policymakers and various resources for press and others) is the ’synthesis report’ following earlier reports on the physical science basis (Feb 2007), impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (April 2007) and the mitigation of climate change (May 2007).
This is, thankfully, an area which is beginning to lead to action by Christians including serious theological analysis. Although I’ve yet to read them, there are two interesting looking volumes just published here in the UK -
Nick Spencer (who works for the important new think tank Theos) and Robert White have published Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living
Michael Northcott, Professor of Ethics at Edinburgh University has written the more heavyweight A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming (reviewed by Jo Rathbone of Eco-congregation at Ekklesia)
Michael Northcott’s work on the subject can be sampled online in
The Climate Narratives of Noah and Joseph
"As the Garden Withers, the Desert Grows"
To hear Nick Spencer and Bob Wright speak more about the subject you can watch these You Tube videos by the Jubilee Centre on
The Reality and Consequences of Global Warming (Professor Bob Wright)
Responding to Global Warming (Nick Spencer)
Why Christians Should Care for the Environment (Prof Bob Wright)
Sustainable Living (Nick Spencer)
Bob Wright also has the accessible Cambridge Paper - "A Burning Issues: Christian Care for the Environment" - while Christian Ecology Link has the helpful little leaflet - Climate Change: What Can Christians Do?
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Petitions on human non-human hybrids
I have just got an email originating from a leading Christian bioethicist relating to petitions responding to the new proposed legislation that would permit scientists to create ‘true hybrids’ ie embryos that would have a human parent and a nonhuman parent.
Although these embryos - like human embryos - would have to be destroyed at 14 days I really find it hard to understand what kind of creatures we would have made and how the law and ethics should think of something that is, say, a half human half pig embryo
As the author of the email says:
I believe that we are in danger of following Dr Moreau in the novel by HG Wells, who says of his animal-human creations, ‘I went on with this research just the way it led me… I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter.’
The petitions can be signed at
and
