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.

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.

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

1. Is mapping – particularly of this level of complexity - a helpful exercise - particularly at the present moment?
2. Is the map accurate and helpful?
3. Where am I/are we on the map?
4. 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

1. Is it accurate and helpful to distinguish two positions on sexuality among conservatives?
2. Are the names I gave accurate and helpful?
3. Was the quotation I used an unfair slur on the "rejectionist" group?
4. Are the distinguishing features I offered accurate and helpful?
5. 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.

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.

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.