Middle Anglicanism (Part 1)

I grew up in what I call Middle Adelaide Anglicanism. This church is what I call Middle Adelaide Anglicanism. There are still lots of churches like this. And not just in Adelaide, all over Australia Anglican churches and Anglicans would see themselves as in the middle, or perhaps moderate. 

'Middle' doesn't mean grey, doesn't mean wishy-washy. The middle isn't defined particularly by the content of the belief held. You can find the exact content of belief in the middle as you can on the edges and extremes. This is very important: the middle isn't defined particularly by the content of its belief. I can hold the same beliefs as a sectarian on the edge of Anglicanism, and yet still be counted as Middle Adelaide Anglican. 

What puts a church like this in the middle and not on the edge or the extremes is humility and patience with our failings, combined with a willingness to be with those who might hold differing views within the recognisable Anglican Church. We seek our unity beyond particular views of purity. Our unity lies in Christ, and we negotiate that in faith knowing that our knowledge is partial, and this changes how we interact with each other. Discussion and argument, as well as listening, occur in the middle. And the middle can resist the sectarians, with all the force of persuasive speech and theology, and a good dose of common sense. 

 So if we can't distinguish the extreme by content, then what distinguishes the edge from the middle? Here are my suggestions of characteristics of the extremes no matter the content. 

 1. A tendency toward name-calling of all kinds against those who are not pure enough. 

2. The strengthening of the 'tribe' via the rejection of others and, therefore, a tendency toward fragmentation. 

3. An intolerance toward dissent and a willingness to silence opponents. 

 4. A lack of imagination to be able to see nuance and complexity, and a preference for 'you are either for us or against us.' In a similar way, sectarians tend to use universals (terms and phrases applying to more people than just their group), define these universals in their own exclusive manner, then exclude everyone else from being included in the universal. (It's a an old trick.)

5. A lack of humility coupled with self-righteousness, often cloaked in the particular language of morality used by that particular tribe. 

 Notice there is nothing in the list that is content of belief. It's a list about sectarianism that crosses all lines of particular beliefs. I say this because of the news this week, picked up by newspapers and inflamed by commentators of the other extreme, that a formal avenue of fragmentation has now been constituted called The Diocese of the Southern Cross. As I understand it, it will provide for those who consider themselves situated in an impure geographical diocese, a means to align themselves with the self-proclaimed purity of the self-designated Diocese of the Southern Cross. It is, as the Primate has said, the beginnings of a new denomination. The issues have been simmering for decades now. The break has come over the issue of same-sex marriage and the blessing of such.

The trigger, it would seem, was the recent General Synod where insufficient purity was displayed for those intent on breaking away. Mind you, the definition of marriage remains unchanged for the Anglican Church of Australia. Marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman. And yet, here we are. 

However, I wouldn't want anyone to think that I believe the sectarian puritans are to be found in only a single manifestation. In the way these things always operate, puritans are to be found opposing each other. Holding diametrically opposing views in terms of content but united in their dismissal of each other. This is how this works, with both sides gaining oxygen from their opposition to the other side. And you could be forgiven for thinking that the identity of each is to be found in that opposition, despite denials to the contrary. Of course, both extremes will say that they are the faithful ones. That's the point for them. They will use different language, of course. One side will talk about being 'godly' in a way that (ironically) fractures the Body of Christ, while the other side will talk about 'inclusion' and 'justice' in a way that (ironically) excludes those who are not pure enough. Neither side seems to notice the irony in both their positions. 

 When I was ordained the factions in the church were seen (mostly) as helpful because they provided a balance within the church. A grudging acceptance that the particular focus of a faction could benefit us all. But that seems to have passed us by, at least for the moment. 

And here we enter the missionary ground for Middle Adelaide Anglicanism. We live in a sectarian age, and a church that can model and teach how to avoid sectarianism has a mission within the church and the world around. Plenty of people have seen through the sectarianism (wherever it is found, and there is plenty around, and not just in the church) but don't know what to do. Some join the edge because of similarity in belief. Some join one of the edge factions because they find some affinity but are alarmed by the perceived extremism of the opposing faction. Whether people join an edge group or align themselves with such a faction in some way, the point is to remain in the middle. (Remember, the middle is not about unanimity or purity of belief.) Let's not naively be pulled into the full agenda of the faction. (It's fine to do so, but let's all show a little more discrimination than that.) Let's practice grace toward those who disagree, even if (you believe) they don't. 

 As one approaches the edge, the stronger the characteristics of sectarianism appear. But extremes live in us all. There is a discipline that needs to be learned to heal the tribalism in us. There is a discipline that needs to be learned and practised to avoid being sucked deeper into the vortex of sectarianism, tribalism, and puritanism that is sweeping the Western world, including the Anglican Church. A traditional church knows this. It is what we have been doing for a long time. Come to a traditional church and expect to rub shoulders with people who hold different opinions than you. Come and learn to seek a higher unity than unanimity of opinion. So let us continue to practise this discipline of middle Anglicanism in humility and with a desire to live the truth of the Gospel in our lives, and through our discipleship offer a path different from the sectarianism of the age.

A New Imperialism?

Dr Mouneer Anis

It is hard to know what to make of this. On one level it makes a good deal of sense that Africa, with its burgeoning Christian population and energy, will change Christianity, including the Western Churches. However, as reported it sounds a little too triumphalistic, even imperialistic. The missionary activity of African Churches in other countries will, presumably, be working with the churches in those countries, wouldn't it? Well ... given the actions of some Anglican African dioceses, one could be excused for thinking not. Some might say that it would be poetic justice if the shoe were on the other foot after the centuries of western ecclesial imperialism in Africa. While this is true, it would also be a possible example of the way in which human sin is ingrained across the generations, races and cultures. Original Sin, in other words.

A more nuanced response came from the Archbishop of Canterbury when he says that "God raises up different countries and cultures in different seasons to bear witness to his purpose in a specially marked way, and it may be that this is indeed his will for Africa in the years ahead."

Hanging Together In Communion

James Tengatenga, Chair of Standing Committee

"A proposal from Dato' Stanley Isaacs that The Episcopal Church be separated from the Communion led to a discussion in which Committee members acknowledged the anxieties felt in parts of the Communion about sexuality issues. Nevertheless, the overwhelming opinion was that separation would inhibit dialogue on this and other issues among Communion Provinces, dioceses and individuals and would therefore be unhelpful. The proposal was not passed..." (Standing Committee, Anglican Consultative Council)

 Good for the Standing Committee. If individuals, parishes, dioceses, or provinces wish to separate themselves from the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) then they can stay away from ECUSA. The rest of us can stay connected. I don't want to separate from them; I quite like them. I visited USA in the late 90s, and was welcomed by the Diocese of Nevada. Just like any normal part of the Anglican Church they had a great deal of diversity of opinion on all sorts of issues. That's one reason why I like ECUSA : just like the US itself, despite its problems, ECUSA is diverse with interesting people and ideas.

Of course, it raises the question of what a formal separation would amount to in any event. It has been suggested that if ECUSA and the rest of us were formally separated ECUSA wouldn't be welcome at formal Anglican events around the globe. I imagine some ECUSANS who like the travel opportunities of the world-wide Anglican gravy-train may lament its end, but the other 99.9% of ECUSANS would get on with the business of being the Church, and that would include their international connections and work with those who are open to collaboration. Communion is a gift of the Spirit, and like all things of the Spirit is discerned not through human fiat, words or feelings, but by its fruit. People can separate themselves and break communion with others, but for those who wish to honour the Spirit's bonds of unity, we cannot be forced to give up the gift of communion. The Spirit will find a way to go around the barriers erected by some.

Idolatry Instead of Faithful Discipleship

Kyle Strobel, over at Theology Forum has an excellent post on being a healthy church movement. His criticism below should not be directed at evangelicalism exclusively. See here for the full post.

"I have been thinking, as of late, about the various strategies in evangelicalism to navigate the marketplace of ideas. It seems to me that the typical evangelical strategy to “win” (sorry, I don’t mean this to be polemical (yet) but I can’t think of another word which is accurate), is simply to create something of a boys club. In other words, we surround ourselves with people who both agree with every word that comes our of our mouth and who won’t actually attack our views in any significant way. This is enough, in itself, to be idolatry, but it rarely stops there. The next step is to start a movement. A movement, in these terms, is nothing more than simply organizing leadership and adopting worldly strategies for kingdom building. Once teaching, leadership and dogma can be disseminated, there is a twofold turn outwards: First, a turn outwards to evangelize – not Christ as much as the movement itself - and, second, a turn outwards to attack anyone who thinks differently. The latter turn stems from the inherent fundamentalism in evangelicalism which equates difference with danger."

Getting Rid of the Dead Wood

I can't help thinking that the Pope's latest stab at church union by allowing dissident Anglicans to recognise his authority and cross the Tiber will, in reality, get rid of some of our dead wood. I know I shouldn't, but ...

Here is a very funny video (linked from Inhabitatio Dei) from a satirical US Show. It's very funny, and the points he makes are good. Like, how much sense it makes for the Pope to welcome into the Roman Church those who have trouble with their current authority structures. Someone is going to be in for a shock, either the ex-Anglicans (most likely) or the Pope (he'll just get annoyed and boot 'em out). Stay with the video even when the goosey Episcopalian priest comes on. The interviewer keeps on making the point.

And also from the same blog I picked up this comment by Hans Kung on Benedict's latest strategy for church union. Hans is not amused.

Stats on Child Sexual Abuse

Following a link on Ruth Gledhill's blog I came across a page of statistics with one statistic I don't think I have seen before. The statistics are for the UK, and look at her original post if you would like to follow up some other links, particularly from the three major insurers of US Protestant Churches and claims for sexual abuse. Anyway, on the link mentioned above, the last entry says:

Very few children (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust, for example a teacher, religious leader or care/social worker.

(Here is the link.)

Identity vs Intelligibility?

In an early journal article Jurgen Moltmann suggests a helpful continuum to understand the history of the church. He suggests that the church moves between the two poles of relevance and identity; in the world but not of the world, incarnated in the world with a citizenship in heaven. If it moves too far to one side there is a reaction the other way. Mission and evangelism follows this continuum. Think of those churches that focus on ‘personal faith’ as a gathered community to the extent that their sectarian nature makes them irrelevant to the world around. Of course, they would say that is the whole point! Calling people out of the world that is passing away. Or consider those churches for whom their Christian faith seems little more than an overlay upon existing views on society, human relationships, etc. So relevant that they have merged back into the world around them! Mission and evangelism requires both identity and relevance. We are a people called out, yet God sent the Son to save the world. Remove the admonitions concerning justice from the Bible and it would almost be readable in one session! The goal is to integrate the continuum, although, as Moltmann says, different ages reflect different emphases.

In the current turmoil in the Anglican Communion we can see this continuum and the conflict arising within it at work. Today we might use the term intelligibility rather than relevance. (I'm being kind here because deep down I think the temptation is to be relevant, which implies that irrelevance is just around the corner.) Of course, both poles in the current debate would claim that they are being both faithful to their Christian identity and intelligible, although in a candid moment the right would admit identity is more important to them and the left would admit that intelligibility is key for them. When a parish, diocese, Province or Communion holds together those from opposing poles then we have integrated the continuum. That is, communion prevents the narrowness that an emphasis on one pole or the other necessarily brings.

Thin Ice Needs More Than Personal Moral Courage

Bernhard Schlink says that the Holocaust is evidence of the thin ice that human culture rests on, and how easily we can descend into the depths of barbarity. It is tempting to think that Germany 1933 couldn't happen here. However, the way in which Australians were so easily turned against asylum seekers in recent history hardly fills one with confidence. Theologically, a doctrine of Original Sin would also suggest that we are always on thin ice. How do we stop our society falling through?

Schlink says we should learn from the experience of Germany during the Nazi years. His generation (born during or shortly after the war) criticized their parents for not showing individual moral courage. He says he and his colleagues were mistaken in their criticism because individual moral courage in the Nazi years ended up in pointless symbolic acts or extremely small victories of no lasting effect. (He cites the events depicted in Rosenstrasse as an example of the latter.) Personal moral courage is effective when it is practiced within a society with institutions that encourage and do not punish dissent, and where individual social and political views matter. When we allow such institutions (e.g. parliament, courts, churches, unions, political parties, universities) to be undermined and no longer reflect a culture of engaged disagreement the ice will, at some point, break.

It would seem to me that the Anglican Church of Australia has a role to play in this. We are diverse and have rules regulating the manner in which disagreement can be voiced and worked through. I wonder if the suggested solutions to our Communion's disagreements over sexuality are going to reinforce our credentials as the church that tolerates dissent or not? I can't see it myself, and I think that the increasing centralization across the Communion (including Australia) augurs badly for us as an institution that will not just tolerate dissent, but work it through fruitfully. After reading Schlink I see that the stakes are greater than just freedom in the church.

In as far as there was any resistance during the Third Reich and the Holocaust that had an effect beyond being symbolic gestures, its basis was found less in individual morality than in communist or socialist solidarity, Christian faith and ecclesiastic responsibility, and the honour code of officers or of the aristocracy. The lessons of the past pertain not just to individual morality, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to societal and state institutions in which individual morality must be preserved if it is to have the power to resist in the crucial moment. This applies to citizens' engagement within and on behalf of institutions to ensure their proper functioning. (Schlink, Guilt About the Past, p. 33)

Corruption, Corruption ...

In his new book Guilt about the Past, Bernhard Schlink speaks a little about corruption. He is not referring to the bribery variety of corruption, but the corruption that occurs when we work within systems that are unjust, turning a blind eye here, asking for favours there, re-interpreting the rules, keeping the 'authorities' from seeing what is really going on. He gives the example of some of the German universities before Hitler gained complete power. As the bureaucracy around them took on the Nationalist Socialist ideology, so the university professors and lecturers tried to work within the new, unjust rules that discriminated against Jewish staff. And for a few years they were able to work within this new system, asking favours, turning a blind eye, in public agreeing while within the faculties ignoring directives. Working within a system as best they could. But then Hitler arrived at the pinnacle of his power and all that maneuvering counted for nothing. Everything that had been built up by the professors to try and protect the Jewish staff was swept away, and the Jewish staff with it. They discovered that despite their early successes in manipulating the rules, they were vulnerable to their strict application. And once strictly enforced, the professors couldn't claim the rules were unjust. After all, they had been working within the rules for years. By agreeing to work within the rules in the first place and not oppose them the professors were compromised, and eventually failed in their aim of protecting Jewish staff.

The recent attempts across the Anglican Communion (including here in Australia) to bring a monochromatic and legalistic interpretation to sexual mores feels a little like the corruption Schlink is talking about. We agree to work within the new legalisms, but we know these rules are unworkable. Who is going to exclude from parish council a man in a stable, sexual, live-in relationship of 45 years duration, a relationship that has produced grandchildren, on the grounds that he is sexually immoral or a bad example of Christian faithfulness because he is not formally married. So we fudge it, turn a blind eye. We keep it a secret. The bishops and synods are complicit in this corruption by agreeing to this kind of system in the first place. We can't make human communities look like the legalists think it should without damaging it irreparably and unjustly. We, in the middle of Anglicanism, who know that life is not as regimented as the legalists would have us believe, have allowed the conversation and the legislation of our church be hijacked by the right. And we only have ourselves to blame.

Jesus was against legalism not just because of 'salvation by works'. ("I have done my bit God, now it is your turn to do your bit and save me.") He was against it because it corrupts whole communities. There are those who think they are holy, those who enforce the holiness code, those who administer it either in a legalistic way or in an arbitrary way, those who try to work in it as best they can, and those victimised by it. Oh, and I forgot to mention those who sit on their hands.

"Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites ... " (See Mark 7)

Anglican Covenant

I am one of those unsure of the worth of the proposed Anglican Covenant. In practical terms I have thought it would not make much difference because those who don't want to be part of it won't be. So we would have those Anglicans who are part of it (who think certain things about sex), and those who don't. Big deal. But a recent letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has made a (as usual) sensible contribution toward seeing its theological basis and practical utility. The covenant, if it comes into existence, will not necessarily be a new structure of separating the impure from the pure (I have my doubts on this though), but separate the Communion into two ways of being Anglican. The first way will be the 'covenanters', those who think that certain local level initiatives must be authorised on a Communion-wide level (or even wider). And there will be those who believe that local practice and pastoral need, and perhaps prophetic insight, overrides the absolute need for Communion-wide agreement. So two ways of being Anglican. I would contend that the second way of being Anglican is absolutely critical for our life together, for without this kind of prophetic voice churches descend into ordinary religion. So I would prefer not to separate the two ways of being Anglican.

My first intuition regarding the covenant was that it would have no practical effect. But the Archbishop has suggested a direction it might lead. Those parts of the existing Communion that choose not to join the covenant would not/should not represent the wider Communion in ecumenical gatherings because they are not representative of the whole. I can see the argument, although I wonder if we are making it all up as we go along given the existing variety within Anglicanism around the globe now. Moreover, representativeness requires a certain sensitivity to the whole, a whole that transcends any single person's particular beliefs or stance. So it seems a bit arbitrary to exclude those who don't sign up to the covenant. After all, those who don't sign the covenant will not be rejecting everything Anglican or Christian, but will remain Anglican according to the Archbishop, and with a suitable sensitivity to the whole, could represent all of us.

The Holy Innocents

Today, in the Anglican calendar here in Australia, we remember the Holy Innocents. Some other churches of the Holy Innocents:

Episcopalian
Church of England

Rowan Williams' Christmas Message

For the complete text of the Christmas Message from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, see here. An excellent example of the implications of the traditional faith of the church.

Study Notes For Rowan Williams, 'Tokens of Trust' Chapter 3

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

R. Williams, Tokens of Trust, Chapter 3 notes.

“What is seen in Jesus is what God is; what God is is the outpouring and returning of selfless love, which is the very essence of God’s definition, in so far as we can ever speak of a ‘definition’ of the mystery. The phrase in the Creed, ‘being of one substance with the Father’ or ‘of one being with the Father’ can sound a bit chilly and technical … Yet it ought to be one of the most exciting words in our vocabulary…” (71)

This chapter is a brilliant attempt to fill out the claim that Jesus is both human and divine by using all kinds of images, and by contrasting what the ancient Creeds say with what they are not saying. Extraordinary claims were made by his disciples very early on. These claims led inexorably to what we know as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In the totality of his life, we see in Jesus a movement within God, between Father and Jesus, which is expressing what is the case always in God. And this human life is God’s life without impediment, being God’s face directed to us, but also a human response to God, prefiguring our ultimate response to the Father as individuals, a human race and a cosmos. How is it that such extraordinary claims were made of Jesus, and from the earliest strata of the tradition? It is so un-Jewish!

Williams begins with Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God, which he understood to mean living under God’s presence and rule and no one else’s. But this kingdom was personalized in Jesus, for acceptance of this kingdom coincided with saying ‘yes’ to what Jesus was saying, trusting in Jesus and what he was saying to God and humankind. Jesus did not just make this kingdom visible (but he did do this) but made it possible. This citizenship through Jesus in God’s kingdom is about our freedom from all (natural and supernatural) powers that demand our allegiance, especially when this allegiance is contrary to God’s kingdom. Such a proclamation and person had (and still does) obvious political and social import, although it cannot be captured by social action alone.

This proclamation of the kingdom was, in fact, talking about being part of God’s people, and this was the central point of debate and conflict in the Jewish world of Jesus. The many Jewish sub-groups had their own particular ideas about who was in and who out. Jesus’ claims about himself found no easy home among these groups.

Remember that the Jews understood membership in the people of God to be dependent on God’s invitation. Jesus was making an implicit claim cutting across the assumption of the day. And he seemed to be suggesting that those everyone agreed were not included in God’s people, and were never likely to be able to meet the requirements of entry, were actually received into membership by believing in Jesus! (60) And this membership meant a new relationship with God and the grace of relating to God as Jesus did. (‘Our Father in heaven…’) without the complexities and intermediaries of the different Jewish systems.

There is remarkably little about Jesus as just a teacher in the NT, even in the early tradition when you would expect it. This is easily explained if we remember that Jesus is remembered not for what he taught alone, but for what he did. In and through him a new community was formed that claimed a new intimacy with God, and this led to questions about his authority to do this. The answer was not an angelic intermediary (hence the denial of this in Hebrews 1) but that there is simply no gap between Jesus and God. (62)

“Awkwardly and slowly and with much complication and even apparent contradiction, the New Testament moves towards the extraordinary notion that the Creator of the universe is at work without interruption in the life and work of Jesus – that it is God who is doing what Jesus is doing.” (62-63)

And given this extraordinary experience and claim, it is no wonder that his followers went out into the word around to preach him and his kingdom, no matter what ‘nationality’ or language the listeners were.

“They saw Jesus as a ‘man for all seasons’, a man for all climates and languages, capable of transforming any human situation by his presence. And when you put it like that, you can see how this echoes what is said about God’s all-powerful nature, capable of transforming any situation.” (65)

But notice how the Scriptures show a Jesus, he in whom God’s action is present without impediment, who is also humble and dependent on God, not just a powerful wonderworker. Jesus receives from God, and reflects back to God. Here is the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity! God is more than a solitary individual, but a movement of love between Father and Son. (66) But in this movement back to the Father Jesus embodies a perfect human response to God, foreshadowing our own complete response forever. This Trinitarian formulation sets Christianity apart from every other philosophy and religion. (Except those religions and philosophies that, although thoroughly saturated with our language, have claimed it for themselves.)

Williams suggests that a concerto performance is a good way of thinking of the Incarnation. The composer brings to life this music, pouring all that they are into it, yet it is the musician who is playing entirely. As Williams says, it would not be good for the musician to suddenly stop and say “Let me tell you how I feel about this.” (75) The composer and the musician coincide in the performance of the concerto. Here is the link to Jacqueline du Pre’s performance Williams cites as an example of God and humanity at work in Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5C99JyP2ns; “Two ‘sorts’ of life, but in practice lived in one flow of action.” (75)

And don’t miss the final section (pp. 76-77) on Mary.

Study Notes For R. Williams, 'Tokens of Trust' Chapter 2

The Risk of Love

R. Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Chapter 2 notes

1. Arguments for the existence of God have their place. (They can’t communicate a living relationship, and do not intend to do so, as can the diary of Etty Hilesum, for example.) Such arguments try to approach everything in creation as a single unit, and ask how to make sense of this whole. (Compare with the atheist who will say that there is no need to try and make sense of the whole because the individual clusters and bits make sense in themselves. No higher order of meaning is necessary.) Arguments for the existence of God also suppose God to be on a different level of explanation than everyday causation. So, the child asks, ‘If God made the world, who made God?’ This is thinking of God as just a bigger version of the things we already know within our world. Instead we are asked to stretch our theological imagination:”we’re trying to get our minds around the idea of an activity that is so utterly consistent with itself, so unaffected by any other activity, that it is, so to speak, its own explanation, its own ‘cause’, eternal and unchanging.” (34)

2. A Christian theology of creation affirms that God’s creativity is ongoing and continuous. This means that without God everything would cease to exist. Most non-believers have a watchmaker (deism) approach that has God ‘make’ everything and then let it go its independent way.

3. Creation is to be understood not just as ‘making’ stuff, but establishing a relationship with the stuff of creation. Indeed, the ‘making’ and the establishment of relationship are one and the same action of God. which is to say that God’s act of creation, while ‘making’ stuff (us, for instance) is also about establishing a relationship with us.

4. A theology of creation is therefore not to be understood as an alternative to science. God is not just one more causative force amongst a series of causes. Creation is about the ‘big picture’, the underlying reason and comprehensibility of all that is.

5. A Christian theology of creation is to be distinguished from pantheism. Pantheism makes the sum total of created reality into God (or at a minimum, God as a universal principle within everything). Christianity supposes a distinction between God and that which is created in dependence upon God. A theology of creation safeguards freedom, gives creation its own integrity, and funnily enough, was one of the principle ingredients in the rise of western science. This is because if creation has its own integrity then we can study it for its own sake; whereas pantheistic science will also be restricted by theological conceptions about what is possible, leading to the neglect of the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation.)

6. But what of the problem of pain? A world that is truly other than God is a risky world. Creation has its own integrity and freedom, and to deny this by requiring God not to take that risk is to imagine a different world than this one, and one incapable of true relationship with God. Yes, creation is complex and fragile, and very risky, but this is the nature of a real relationship with the possibilities of real growth and reciprocal movement.

7. What of miracles and prayer? Keeping in mind the meaning of ‘almighty’ from chapter 1, we can see that miracles and prayer are not examples of God’s arbitrary whim dis/agreeing to this or that prayer, or overriding the integrity of creation this time and not the next. Instead, Williams suggests the miraculous, including the miraculous in the life of Jesus, are grounded in “a robust idea of God’s action burning intensely in every moment of the world’s existence, always just around the corner of our perception.” (48) Sometimes (as in the case of Jesus) this intensity of God’s presence is closer to the surface than usual, allowing the interconnected whole of creation to come together in a more transparently God-directed manner. (pp. 44-46)

8. A comprehensive theology of creation also allows for creatures that are beyond our perception and instrumental use. Angels in the Bible and tradition, he says, are, at the very least, symbols of this other world that is beyond our usual perception. Creation is not just there for us to use and consume, and is a lot bigger than we usually allow.

9. Finally, to affirm God as creator of everything, visible and invisible, is to allow God to be God of every aspect of our lives, even the embarrassing bits we suppress. God knows who we are, and God can heal and bring every aspect of our lives into a coherent whole. (Again, touching on the idea of almighty as being able to rework creation into a future of life and fulfillment.) This is, ultimately, the meaning of resurrection. (55)

Study Notes For Rowan Williams, 'Tokens of Trust'

In a study group we are reading Rowan Williams' introduction to Christianity entitled Tokens of Trust. I am writing notes for each chapter for members of the study. I will post these notes each week in case you would like to read the book as well, or perhaps run a group in your church!

R. Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Chapter 1 notes

“Basic to everything here is the idea that Christian belief is really about knowing who and what to trust. (p. viii)”

1. The loss of trust generally felt in society, directed at all levels.

2. The “I/We believe” of the Creeds is not a statement about whether we believe “God” is possible, like someone saying “I believe in UFOs.”

3. Creedal “I/We believe” is more like “I/We trust…”, and indicate where we find the anchor, meaning and purpose of our lives. (p. 6) Which is potentially problematic given the general dissipation of trust within society generally. (On this idea of “believe” being more like trust Williams mentions on p. 5 John 9 which is worth looking up.)

4. So, how do we know we can trust God the Father almighty? The answer has two parts.

5. First, Jesus reveals the inner meaning and purpose of God the creator of everything. The incompleteness and darkness of our natural inclinations toward God are clarified and corrected in the revelation of God in Jesus. (pp.7-11)

6. Note this does not mean we now know everything there is to know about God!(p. 9) But the meaning and purpose that is the inner dynamic of our lives and of history is revealed. Note also that we do not receive this revelation in the abstract (just ideas cut off from life) but in a real human life, the life of the Jew named Jesus of Nazareth. (p.9)

7. The meaning and purpose is unselfish, self-giving love. (p. 10)

8. This section finishes with this beautiful quote: “At the heart of the desperate suffering there is in the world, suffering we can do nothing to resolve or remove for good, there is an indestructible energy making for love. If we have grasped what Jesus is about, we can trust that this is what lies at the foundation of everything.” (p. 10)

9. The second part to the answer as to how we know we can trust God, the Father almighty emanates from the Christian insight that God is love in Godself, and is not requiring anything of anyone/thing else. God is complete fullness. (pp. 11-14) This is important because it means that our creation does not come from God’s need, but out of unselfish love. If there were any kind of deficit at all in God, a deficit that the creation filled, then our meaning and purpose from God is not unselfish, self-giving love. There would be something in it for God, so to speak. (especially p. 12)

10. This is the theological foundation for the Christian claim that we are not forgiven because we are moral. God’s love makes us good. (p. 13)

11. The next section (pp. 15-20) is asking about the nature of God’s almighty power. It is not arbitrary power to do whatever one likes, so that God might choose to destroy just to show God’s almightiness! “Almighty” in the Greek means “ruler of everything” or “holder of everything”. (p. 16) This means God is not only everywhere, but can be relied upon in all situations, and can make good from all situations. God is never found wanting.

12. An interesting discussion of Genesis 18 and Exodus 32 where Abraham and Moses respectively persuade God not to act contrary to the nature of God revealed in the covenant. (pp. 17-19) Williams suggests that these passages, and others like them, function in the Bible as a tongue in cheek literary device to highlight the reliability of God; even in these extreme situations God can be relied upon to be faithful to the covenant (and new covenant).

13. The final sections (pp. 20-28) talk about living this life of love in the world, and being conduits of it, even in our imperfection. He uses a number of examples, including Etty Hillesum, to show that those who believe (that is, trust) are called to stroke the embers of that trust in others. He puts it boldly; we are to be those who take responsibility for God’s believability.

NT Wright's Concerns About GAFCONish Claims

When I hear Peter Jensen say that ‘we are not self-selected; we are God-selected, because we are based on the word of God’; when I hear beloved and respected Jim Packer say that the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’ should be the basis of a new covenant to which all English bishops will be required to sign up; when I hear Vinay Samuel, one of the sharpest minds in the whole GAFCON movement, saying (unless he was misreported) that ‘we are not breaking away from the Anglican Communion – we ARE the Anglican Communion’; and when I see Bishop John Rodgers of AMiA saying that ‘we are the true and faithful Anglicans . . . the true representatives of the Anglican Communion’ – then it is time for someone, and it might as well be an old-fashioned Bible-believing evangelical like me, to stand up and say, with usual English understatement, ‘hold on, this seems to be somewhat over the top’. Just as the ‘covenant for the Church of England’ bore all the marks of sloppy thinking and hasty drafting, so the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’, though affirming more or less the doctrines that I myself have spent my whole adult life affirming and teaching, bears all the marks of similar haste. In addition to its embarrassingly obvious weaknesses, it has smuggled in, alongside the doctrinal affirmations, various open-ended formulae which basically mean ‘We will decide who’s in this new club and who’s out of it, and if we decide you’re out we claim the right to plant new churches in your territory, “authorize” them, and send in bishops to look after them’. This is not a ‘suspicious’ reading; it is more or less exactly what the text says. And I say to my fellow evangelicals in the Church of England: do not be taken in by this. This is not the answer. There are good answers to such problems as we face and this is not among them. (NT Wright)

For the full text of his comments see Stephen Bloor's post here.

Rowan Williams and Consensus

Here is a good summary of Rowan Williams' strategy for the Anglican Communion, 'contrasted' with the GAFCONish type slurs we hear of him.

And Stephen reads him right here.