Thursday, 2 April 2009

A curious concept of Easter?

A curious illustration that this country still has some residual Christian memory comes with this advert from Lastminute.com:
To celebrate Easter season we have made it our challenge to feed 5,000 people on fish and to help whet your appetite we have some of the most fantastic seafood establishments in the UK. Some have designed exclusive menus for you to try like Marco Pierre White at Lanes restaurant and many have pulled together exclusive prices. Booking is open until the end of Easter so let's make the goal a reality and fill our belly's with lot's of our floating friends.
Theologically, though, I can't help wondering if it shouldn't have been on Confused.com. (And gramatically, the copy-writer might like to look at this on apostrophes, or indeed this on commas.)

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

Gene Robinson - a theological 'Rip Van Winkle'?

The latest pronouncements of Bishop Gene Robinson on the Bible and homosexuality suggest to my mind that he is a kind of theological ‘Rip Van Winkle’.

Van Winkle, a character created by Washington Irving, was a lazy American of Dutch descent living near the Catskill mountains, who wandered off one day to get away from his nagging wife. Meeting with the ghosts of Henry Hudson and his crew, he drank a magical elixir and fell asleep for twenty years. When he awoke, his wife had died and his children had grown up. More importantly, but unknown to him, the American War of Independence had been and gone, and so Van Winkle got into trouble when he declared himself a loyal subject of King George III.

Van Winkle’s problems stemmed from acting as if history were not history, and from being ignorant of facts of which everyone else was aware.

In the same way, there are those in the Church who act as if an awareness of the tension between Old Testament Law and New Testament gospel were new — indeed, as if the Church had never held the Council at Jerusalem described in Acts 15, or as if Paul had never written Galatians 3:19.

Robinson is thus reported to have observed that the Old Testament forbids eating pork and wearing clothes woven from two kinds of cloth, as well as homosexual acts, as if he is the first to notice it and as if it is a knock-down argument. Nor is this the first time he has done so. When he visited these shores in July last year, he was using the same arguments then.

The trouble is, many of those listening to him are just as much ‘Rip Van Winkles’ as he seems to be, and therefore may easily be impressed. It reminds me of the tragic story of triple-jumper Jonathan Edwards’ loss of faith, which seems to have begun when someone observed that Paul’s Damascus Road experience might have been the result of an epileptic fit. I don’t know where that suggestion first originated, but it has been around long enough to have grown a long white beard of its own. Yet for some people, the novelty of a suggestion seems to increase its veracity.

So there will be those whose response to Bishop Robinson’s pronouncements will be amazement at his wisdom, not bewilderment about where he’s been for the last twenty-plus years.

The fact that the Articles of the Anglican Church, from which Robinson’s TEC sprang, have already dealt with this issue, will be unknown to them. So will be the efforts of Martin Luther in the same direction. Instead, they will be listening to these ‘revelations’ in complete ignorance of the fact that there is nothing new being said.

Yet I can’t help wondering if Robinson is quite as naive as he sounds (or if he is, how he got to be a bishop). Can it be he has never worked out that if a passage says we should not steal, or lie, or deceive others, or mock the disabled, or pervert justice, or seek revenge, and that we should not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material, as Leviticus 19 does, we cannot dismiss the last instruction out of hand without similarly questioning the former? Or does he conceal from his hearers that these same instructions are also in the passages he wants us to ignore?

Whatever the case, Robinson must surely have worked out an approach to this which goes beyond the kind of mockery once disgracefully displayed by a Canon of our church in the Chelmsford Diocesan Synod when addressing the same topic. It was in response to this that I wrote my own What God has made clean — what became known as the ‘gay prawn’ book, now sadly out of print in this country, but still available in Australia (cheaper from Koorong!).

The task of a bishop, in common with the task of all clergy, is to teach what is in accordance with sound doctrine. Even if one believes what the Church has not for 2,000 years, that should surely require something more profound than playing to the ignorance of the audience — unless one has indeed not understood these things oneself.

Revd John P Richardson
1 April 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

The Wire - finally

At last, we get to watch 'The Wire' in this country.

The measure of how long it has taken to get to our TV screens lies in its being in the old 14:9 format (like below), not the new widescreen 'letterbox'. I had to juggle with the settings on my TV to get a sensible sized picture.

So far - utterly brilliant, beginning with the opening scene of a slow dialogue about a murder victim who always used to steal the 'pot' in a street crap game. Asked by a detective why the others used to let him play if they knew this was what he would do, the answer was, "Y'got to. This is America, man."

Don't watch if you don't like swearing, though.

And why, why, was it on at 11.20pm?



When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Monday, 30 March 2009

Best Saturn yet


This time I managed to capture Saturn with the 'Barlow' magnifier which gives a bigger image.

It also makes it harder, however, to pick up in the viewfinder, so this took some capturing.

If you look very carefully, you can still see Titan, over on the left side of the picture, about a fifth of the way down, as a faint dot. I've cross-checked this with Redshift 5 to establish that is where Titan was at the time. Remember, it is orbiting Saturn, so it won't be where it was last time.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Saturday, 28 March 2009

Fulcrum leadership question inspectors' report on Wycliffe Hall

A member of the Open Evangelical group Fulcrum has challenged the assessment of Wycliffe Hall theological college presented by the Chair of the Church of England’s Ministry Division in a recent letter to the Church of England Newspaper.

Bishop Graham James had himself written to criticize the headline in the previous week’s CEN that Wycliffe had “failed” the inspection. This, Bishop James said, was “plainly wrong.” He continued,
On the contrary, the inspection team found Wycliffe Hall ‘fit for purpose’ displaying ‘a rich mosaic of evangelical traditions which come together in a community which shows respect for difference, and in which women are fully accepted and integrated’.
Now, however, Jody Stowell, one of the Fulcrum leadership team, has explicitly questioned that conclusion and the effectiveness of the inspection. Writing in a thread about the Bishop’s letter on the Fulcrum discussion forum, she stated,
i [sic] for one would be very interested to know the process by which it was determined that women are fully accepted and integrated.

which women were asked, if any? was this done in a way that the subtlety of power imbalance was avoided in order to get a true representation?
Read more

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Friday, 27 March 2009

No Pope - or not?

Is it me, or is there just a mad illogicality to the way our society is continuing to deconstruct itself?

I read in The Times today that Gordon Brown has been to the Palace to discuss the repeal of the 1701 Act of Settlement. The Times comments, “The bar on Catholics has long been regarded as a symbol of sectarian prejudice”, and no doubt it is by those such as Mr Brown.

But wait a minute. A Roman Catholic regards the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. And didn’t the Vicar of Christ just wind up a lot of people by announcing that condoms exacerbate the problem of Aids in Africa rather than reduce it? So wouldn’t this sort of thing put a monarch of Roman persuasion in rather an interesting position?

Now I know that a lot of Roman Catholics in England regard the Pope’s pronouncements as themselves mistaken and out of touch, but I would vouch that (a) this has much to do with what I am told is the Liberalism of much English Catholicism and (b) that if there were a Papal ‘Obama’, the enthusiasm for his pronouncements would be very much restored.

In other words, the true Catholic (or the Catholic true to a favoured Pope) would adopt precisely the attitude to Papal authority, and therefore to their own role within the English State, that the Act of Settlement was designed to avoid. Let us not forget that in the US, Roman Catholic politicians have been on the receiving end of harsh words from their bishops regarding their voting record.

The fact is that the drive behind the bid to abolish the Act of Settlement rests on the presumption not that Catholicism is true but that all religions are equally false. This has always been the basis of ‘multiculturalism’, and has little to do with overcoming ‘sectarian prejudice’.

On the other hand, if there were a serious chance of the heir to the throne being a radical Islamist (and why ever not?) I wonder if Brown, Times journalists, et al would be quite so sanguine.

John Richardson
27 March 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Thursday, 26 March 2009

A depatism letter to parents

Apparently there is growing interest in the practice of ‘debaptism’, reported here on the BBC website. The National Secular Society says that there have been over 100,000 downloads of its debaptism certificate. Then there is a deluxe version you can order online, which at £3 a pop shows there’s money to be made out of the gullible irreligious as well as the gullible religious.

And in all this, the churches are coming in for a fair amount of flak — especially the Church of England which is refusing to comply with people’s demands for an entry to be made in baptism registers noting the ‘debaptism’. (Though with the fee for a register search standing at £19 for the first hour, 100,000 inquiries could come in handy.)

The truth is, however, that the decision to have a baby baptized, at least in the Church of England, would have been made by the parents, not the Church. Indeed, clergy are not allowed to refuse baptism. Even a delay can only be justified on certain grounds.

Moreover, it is fair to say that in the vast majority of cases (as the NSS is keen to observe) this request will have made by people with little church affiliation themselves and who have rarely encouraged it in their children.

The blame should therefore clearly lie squarely on the parents, not the church. And so with that in mind, I offer here, free of charge, a ‘Debaptism Letter to My Parents’ for the dissatisfied victims of infant baptism to download and send to them at the same time as they obtain their debaptism certificates.

Fair’s fair, after all.

Revd John P Richardson

26 March 2009


Dear Mum and Dad (especially you, Mum),

This is just to let you know how much I didn’t want to be baptized, or Christened, or have my head ‘wetted’, or whatever you called it, when I was a baby, and how cross I am that you did this to me.

Oh, I’m sure you thought it was a good idea. Maybe Gran told you I’d grow up with one leg shorter than the other. Maybe you thought it would be a great opportunity for a slap-up celebration with all the friends and relatives. Maybe you just did it because everyone else did. Maybe, God forbid, you actually did it because you believed something.

But, hey — you weren’t thinking about me, were you?

So you phoned the poor old vicar, who knew that if he tried to put you off you’d tell everyone what an awful man he was (they were mostly men in those days, weren’t they). And anyway, he couldn’t refuse you — not without getting into trouble with his bishop if you wrote and complained.

And so although he may not have seen you before, and although he knew he’d probably never see you again, he went along with it, and he visited you, and he tried to encourage you to go to church. And you did a couple of times, but only until I’d been ‘done’, and then it kind of trailed off, didn’t it? Sure, you let me choose not to go to church — let’s face it, when did you go? But what happened to freedom of choice when I was too young to object?

What did you think you were doing? Why make ‘promises’ for me you weren’t intending to encourage me to keep? If church wasn’t good enough for you, why did you think it was good enough for me?

So anyway, I’ve bought myself one of those ‘Debaptism’ certificates, and I’ve written a cross letter to the (new) vicar demanding he remove my name from the baptism register, and I’ve told them I don’t want to have myself counted in their membership statistics.

But they weren’t the ones who asked for me to be baptized, were they? No, it was you! And its you I blame now.

Thanks a bunch.

Your loving offspring

(Signed)


PS: So far, you owe me £3.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Monday, 23 March 2009

Washington congregations seek to form new Anglican Diocese of Cascadia

At least seven congregations in western Washington state are seeking to form an Anglican diocese outside of the Episcopal Church but within its ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The congregations, calling themselves the Diocese of Cascadia, have sent a formal application for membership as a diocese to the newly formed Anglican Church in North America, said the Rev. Kevin Allen, rector of the recently formed St. Brendan's Anglican Church in Bellingham.

"We have various Anglican churches in the region that want to continue in mission and support what we share in common," Allen said in a telephone interview from his office March 18. "It seems very natural to come together and explore how to do that together under the eventual jurisdiction of a bishop."

He called it "a very positive move ahead in what we feel we have to offer among all the choices of ecumenical churches in the region. Our hope is to grow successfully in our church and mission and to welcome other congregations so they feel part of a larger community -- and that's the Good News proposition as well," he added. Read moreWhen posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Sunday, 22 March 2009

Jade Goody: a prayer request

I see from the news this morning (21st March) that reality TV star Jade Goody died in her sleep last night, (reminding us, incidentally, that although this is just one of the tens of thousands of deaths that will happen today, each person is an individual, and that even though the world won't notice, every single one of them matters.)

I notice also that the funeral and burial are to take place at St John the Baptist, Buckhurst Hill (see also here), one of the churches in my own Diocese of Chelmsford. Since the baptism of Jade and her sons was carried out by Revd Corinne Brixton, who is a minister there, I presume Corinne will also be taking the funeral.

It would be good for people to pray for Corinne and the people of St John's, as this is bound to be a very public event. We should also pray for Jade's children, partner and family as the limelight will be on them at an intensely difficult time.

JPR
21 March 2009 

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Saturday, 21 March 2009

Crescent Venus at last, and a better Saturn

With the scope up and running, I finally got a picture of the crescent Venus. It's a long way short of brilliant as the planet is now very low on the horizon - or at least, low enough to be behind the surrounding fences, trees and houses in my back garden. I had to set up without proper alignment and take a very short exposure. There are also a lot of problems with heat haze rising from roofs, etc.

However, I managed to get a much better shot of Saturn than previously (scroll down a bit and you can see the old one). In fact in this picture you can just make out Saturn's brightest moon, Titan. Technophiles may be interested to know that these are taken with a webcam stuck down the eyepiece of the telescope. The camera is a Philips SPC900NC, which uses a light-sensitive CCD chip instead of the normal CMOS. These are becoming quite rare!





When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

The scope is back - and here's Saturn




Thanks to the very nice man at Telescope House in Tunbridge Wells, the telescope is back and working! I managed to get a shot at Saturn last night. I think there was some dew on the lens, as the picture isn't as sharp as I would have hoped, but it was very cold!

Funnily enough, the last time I think I have been that cold was also when doing some astronomy, back at Keele University in the winter of early 1970.


BTW, you can't just wipe the dew off! That would ruin a very expensive piece of kit - you have to get a dew shield (mine is broken!!!) or a heating element to go round the telescope tube.

Update 20 March


I posted this on the Society for Popular Astronomy website, where I'm a member. You can now see the (much improved) pictures I took the next night, and also see a link to some truly astonishing work from the world-famous Pete Lawrence, who seems to have personal access to a spaceship.


When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

Wycliffe Hall inspection report available online

The 'long-awaited' inspectors' report on Wycliffe Hall Theological College may be found here as a pdf file - long-awaited because of the apparent shenanigans there that excited so much interest a year or so ago (can it be so long?).

Reading very, very briefly, there are a number of critical comments and recommendations as one would expect, but generally the report is positive, concluding,

136 Wycliffe Hall’s body of staff and students is united in the common purpose of forming ordinands, women as much as men, for leadership in the Church of England. Today, the Hall displays a rich mosaic of Evangelical traditions that come together in a community that shows respect for difference, and in which women are fully accepted and integrated.

137 It is the considered and prayerful judgment of the Inspection Team that Wycliffe Hall is, with the qualifications mentioned, fit for the purpose of preparing men and women for ordained ministry in the Church of England.

Praise the Lord, and if you want to read the report for St Stephen's House (also Oxford), that is available here.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

The Nigerian Legislation prohibiting Same-sex Marriages

Courtesy of the Thinking Anglicans website, I have copied (within the limitations of HTML) the legislation prohibiting same-sex marriages which appears to be behind the controversy over the stance of the Church of Nigeria. I have not had time yet to read the submission of the Church of Nigeria, but that is available from the same web-page.

I then discovered that someone else has made a far better job of the transcript here, but hey, I'd done the work, and you're reading this blog, so why go elsewhere? (Actually, the other guy has made a much better job of it.)

Now here is my reaction to the legislation, not the Church of Nigeria's report.

A society may, for its own reasons, choose to legislate against same-sex marriage. It is worth bearing in mind that they are not legal in the UK, though civil partnerships are. If a thing is illegal, then there must, of necessity be penalties. If I've done the correct currency conversion, the group fine of N50,000 is equivalent to about £240. Over against this, the individual fine of N1,000 is a rather derisory £4.76, so I may have got this wrong!

The prison sentences may seem too severe. However, in this country maximum sentences are rarely imposed, and I wonder if the same is true in Nigeria. I simply don't know.

The legislation does also illustrate the problem of drafting laws in a language which is not your first.

The crucial question is, of course, whether such legislation should exist at all, but that is something which will obviously be debated.

Revd John P Richardson
16 March 2009


Be it Enacted by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as follows:

1.—
(1) Marriage Contract entered between persons of same Gender is hereby prohibited in Nigeria.


(2) Marriages Contract entered between persons of same gender are invalid
And shall not be recognized as entitled to the benefits of a valid marriage.

(3) Marriage Contract entered between persons of same gender by virtue a certificate issued by a foreign country shall be void in Nigeria, and any benefits accruing there from by virtue of the certificate shall not be enforced by any court of law in Nigeria.

2.
—(1) Marriage entered between persons of same Gender shall not be solemnized in any place of worship either Church or Mosque in Nigeria.

(2) No marriage certificate issued to parties of same sex marriage in Nigeria.

3. Only marriage contracted between a man and a woman either under Islamic Law, Customary Law and Marriage Act is recognized as valid in Nigeria.

4.—(1) Persons that entered into a same gender marriage contract commit
an offence and are jointly liable on conviction to a term of 3 years imprisonment each

(2) Any persons or group of persons that witness, abet and aids the solemnization of a same gender marriage contract commits an offence and liable on conviction to—

(a) if an individual to a term of 5 years imprisonment or a group of persons to a fine of N2,000 of both,

(b) if a group of persons to a fine of N50,000 only.

5. The High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to entertain matter arising from the breach of the provision of this Bill.

6. In this Bill, unless the context otherwise requires—

“Marriage” here relates to a legal union entered between persons of opposite sex in accordance with the Marriage Act, Islamic and Customary Laws.

High Court” to include High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

“Same Gender Marriage” means the coming together of persons of the same sex with the purpose of leaving (sic) together as husband and wife or for
other purposes of same sexual relationship.

7. This Bill may be cited as Same Gender Marriage (Prohibition) Bill, 2008.

Explanatory Note

This Bill seeks to prohibit marriage between persons of same gender, and witnessing same, and provide appropriate solemnization of the marriage penalties thereof.


When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Monday, 16 March 2009

Scots Psychologist: Government policy means schools will supplant role of family

At about ten to eight on this morning’s Today programme, there was an item which at first seemed to be about what was to me a rather abstract aspect of modern education. One of the things it particularly focused on was so-called SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) programmes, which I admit to knowing nothing about, and until this point, caring even less.

The two people being interviewed by James Naughtie were Carol Craig, the chief executive of the Centre for Confidence and Wellbeing who made the claim, and Ian Morris, head of philosophy and well-being at Wellington College. Craig argued that SEAL programmes would present real problems, whilst Morris was rather in favour.

If you follow this link, you can listen to the interview. Then move the slider to about 5' 30" in and you’ll get this revealing comment from Carol Craig, followed by Naughtie’s question to Ian Morris and his answer, which should have us all sitting up and taking notice:

CC: You see the SEAL thing isn’t really necessarily about self-esteem, although there is an ‘all about me’ strand to SEAL, which I think is one of the worrying things, because that is exactly the kind of thing that breeds far too much of a ‘self’ focus. But the point is we have to decide as a society do we think that schools should really about — be about emotional issues and well-being. This is what the government wants it to become. It’s almost like supplanting the role of the family. There’s a big, big change afoot that I think people are not aware of, that the Department of Education and Skills is now called the Department for Children, Schools and Family and its beginning to supplant the family as the provider of socialization and well-being, and I think this is a very worrying development that I think schools should be resisting. They shouldn’t be accepting this role, its not one that they will be able to fulfil.

JN: Are you going to resist it, Ian Morris?

IM: Absolutely not, I think it’s a great move, I think it is very, very important and as long as we’ve got a very clear definition of what well-being is, I think schools are very much the right place to address well-being and I think it should be the primary focus of all educational establishments to promote well-being.

You can read more about the Centre for Confidence and Wellbeing here, and download their longer critique of SEAL here (112 pages!). You can read about Wellington College's 'happiness lessons' here.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Words not what they used to be in the post-Windsor Anglican Communion

There is a perceptive article by Andrew Carey doing the internet rounds, on how words are being twisted as part of the Windsor Process. You can read one posting of Carey's article here.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Nigeria: has no-one condemned you?

For the last couple of days, sections of the Anglican blogosphere have been agog with excitement over the apparent support by the Church of Nigeria for their government’s proposed legislation against homosexuality.

I admit to not yet having had time to digest either the legislation or the stance of that church.

Nevertheless, I am struck not only by the extent to which criticism is being directed at the Church of Nigeria (some of which qualifies as demonisation), but at Western Conservatives. “Where,” the questioning goes, “is your condemnation? Why are you silent?”

Now it may indeed be that condemnation is required. For all I know, it may already be happening, though not necessarily via blogs and ‘open letters’.

But I cannot help noticing, with regard to the spiritual dynamics of all this, the similarity with what happened in the case of the woman caught in adultery. When her accusers brought her to Jesus to ask what should be done with her we are told by the Evangelists, “They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.”

There was, of course, no doubt of the woman’s guilt. And it is worth reminding ourselves that if the Law of Moses has a Divine origin, then in God’s eyes adultery was then a capital offence, to be punished by the State.

But this was not about the guilt of the accused, and nor is reaction to the Nigerian situation simply about the Nigerians.

There is also a clear difference in that the question was put to Jesus — the Holy One in whom there was no sin. None of us can stand in that position (indeed, that is the point of what Jesus said in reply.)

But we must not forget that this was not a view shared by the accusers. In their eyes, Jesus was a charlatan, a spiritual usurper, a frustrating and dangerous opponent needing to be brought down.

And what did they feel in their hearts when one of their number first came up with the bright idea?

“Wait a minute! Don’t let’s stone her. Let’s take her to Jesus. He’s always condemning and accusing us. He’s got to agree to her being stoned. Let’s see him get out of this one!”

How different is this from the thoughts of those who have taken the Nigerian Church (brothers and sisters in Christ) to the Conservatives crying, “The gospel commands us to condemn such people — now what do you say?”

What do they hope to hear? A shared condemnation? Evasion? Silence?

Is it any wonder Jesus said to us, “Judge not, lest you be judged, condemn not, lest you stand condemned”?

Of course, as anyone will know who tries to put these words into practice, they are impossible for us. We must judge and we must condemn, because life is full of damnable things, and yet with every judgement we accuse ourselves.

But that is surely the point. We must know ourselves to be people under judgement, and keep this before us every time we see a fellow human being committing sin.

When Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” the lesson was not that adultery was suddenly allowable, nor that adulterers should no longer be condemned. Rather, it was that the accusers saw what Jesus saw in their hearts, and they were shamed by what they found.

As each day passes, we see the Anglican Church revealed not as a thing of beauty but an object of horror, suitable only for the world’s derision and God’s judgement — indeed, as a woman taken in adultery.

Revd John P Richardson
15 March 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Saturday, 14 March 2009

Kill the Wabbit - doing Bugs Bunny the Middle Eastern way



One of the organizations apparently criticized by Ben White in the ongoing spat between Fulcrum and the Barnabas Fund was MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute.

MEMRI could hardly be accused of being unbiased. On the other hand, if The Times is to be trusted, we must at least thank them for bringing us gems like 'The tragic martyrdom of the Hamas bunny', and some of the other clips to be found on Daniel Finkelstein's Comment Central.

Hold on - Finkelstein - do I smell a rat? Or in this case, a mouse?

Oh dear. I wonder if Richard Dawkins doesn't have a point after all.

John Richardson
14 March 2009

PS for the original 'Kill the Wabbit', see the brilliant pastiche on Wagner, What's Opera, Doc?, here. It just may restore your faith in human nature. Or maybe not.

PPS, I suppose there's a possibility that it is a 'viral' (if that's the right word), like this one showing Hitler discovering his BNP membership has been leaked. OK, it contains swearing, but which is more obscene, dead bunnies for Palestinian children, the way Christians treat one another, or a few swear words to make you laugh?

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Too late for Anglicanism?

Well, if there is one thing that Liberals and Traditionalists agree on in the Anglican Church, it is that we should ‘expel the immoral brother’. The trouble is, they disagree totally as to what qualifies as ‘immorality’.

Is it immoral for the Church of Nigeria to support the criminalizing of same-sex relationships (as used to be the case in all Western societies until very recently)? Or is it immoral for the Church in North America to sanctify those relationships (and at the same time to shift the boundaries of what may be believed doctrinally so as to threaten any connections with the church’s received faith)?

The truth is, it hardly matters any more as far as the Communion is concerned. St Paul’s warning has finally come true: “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

The sad truth is that, even if the Church of Nigeria might need to hear a word of correction, Western Anglicanism is hardly in a position to deliver it. Why should anyone listen to a Church which scarcely has any theological coherence whatsoever? And similarly, how can the Western Church expect to be listened to by the Church in Nigerian, given that it is unwilling to listen itself to a rebuke from that quarter?

In any case, a brief flick through the usual suspects in the blogosphere suggests to me that the last thing anyone wants is for the ‘enemy’ to act out of character. How terrible it would be for us if the opposition failed to live down to the expectations we have of them!

One of the striking things that has been said about the possibility of a resurgence of violence in Northern Ireland is that there are some people who miss the bloodshed and the hatred. The same is surely now true of Anglicanism. There are too many people now who relish the fight.

Love your enemies? Do good to them that hate you? Bless them that curse you? Of course we will. Provided they are not Christian enemies, provided they are not brothers and sisters that hate us or whom we hate, provided they are not fellow Anglicans that curse us or that we still haven't got round to cursing. For them, there can be no mercy, nor forgiveness, only judgement and condemnation - and don’t we love to judge and condemn?

For of course, they deserve it!

Well, I truly believe Jesus has a word for us:

Remember the height from which you have fallen!
Repent and do the things you did at first.
If you do not repent,
I will come to you
and remove your lampstand from its place.

Revd John P Richardson

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Not Anglicans but Episcopalians - a new clarity in the USA?

An article from The Durham News, USA, provides incidental endorsement of the lines along which the TEC has divided. In an article about students at the Anglican Episcopal House of Studies at Duke University the two sides are referred to as ‘Episcopalian’ (those remaining within TEC) and ‘Anglican’ (those who have left TEC).

Thus, the article refers to "[t]he approximately 50 Anglicans and Episcopalians at AEHS" (emphasis added), rather than simply "students". The article also quotes the Director of AEHS, Englishwoman and former Tutor in Old Testament at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, Jo Bailey Wells, referring to "Anglicans" on the one hand and "Episcopalians" on the other:

‘"The Anglicans assume that the Episcopalians are not disturbed by the split, [that] they’ll march forward with their new policies," she said. "And the Episcopalians assume that [American] Anglicans are not disturbed by the split because they’re marching on and creating new churches and building new buildings. There isn’t a great deal of communication or at least real understanding between the two."’

Thus it would seem that, within the United States at least, a new clarity is emerging, with ‘The Episcopal Church’ and ‘Anglicans’ becoming accepted labels for now-divergent approaches to Christian understanding.

Read the Durham News article here.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Monday, 9 March 2009

Suddenly it’s over for the Anglican Communion

Like a dam that has been under pressure for some time, the Anglican Communion has, I believe, suddenly and irrevocably broken. They think its all over? It is now.

As evidence of this, I would ask the reader to consider what happened at the last Primates’ meeting. Indeed, as a ‘starter for ten’, I would ask if you can recall when it was held and where. (Answers: February, Alexandria.) The key outcome was the appointment of a team of Pastoral Visitors to act, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as “consultants in situations of stress and conflict” across the Communion (as if we still can’t admit what that really means).

The verdict of traditionalists involved in the conflicts in North America, however, is “too little, too late.”

But in any case, who is interested? Who cares? Who is getting excited by these attempts to address the issues that first gave rise to what is still being called the Windsor Process?

Compared with Dromantine or Dar es Salaam, the Alexandria Primates’ Meeting was a ‘fizzle’. There were no boycotts, there were no fireworks and, most importantly, there were almost no press. That is to say, those with an instinct for a story realized that there was ‘nothing to see here’.

Meanwhile, despite warnings to the contrary from earlier meetings, legal actions continue unabated in the United States, and in both the US and Canada, plans for integrating same-sex relationships and blessings into the theology and liturgy of the Anglican churches continues almost unabated.

In short, at the structural level in North America, the revisionist ‘Liberals’ have won.

They have called the bluff of the Communion as a whole, and they have simply by-passed the reconciling posture of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Knowing that, in the end, they can do what they like and get away with it they are, unsurprisingly, pressing ahead. If the election of a Buddhism-practising bishop can be accepted without a whimper both within TEC and beyond, then clearly the end of the moratorium on consecrating those in active gay relationships cannot be far off.

Looking at the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website — a useful bellwether for these things — it is clear that no one really believes in the fight any longer. Not that the revisionists have given in, but rather that no one is really bothered. Eventually, and inevitably, TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada will resume ‘business as usual’ on the sexuality agenda. Indeed in my own view the Canadians are currently ahead of the Americans in this regard. Meanwhile, traditionalists have taken their own structural steps which mean that eventually their attention will have to return to the ‘mundane’ subjects of preaching, teaching and spreading the gospel. A church cannot live on controversy alone.

GAFCON was a great illustration of what global Anglicanism could have been, but there is no clear path ahead for the movement. The Nigerians want to get on with mission their own way, in their own backyard, as do those from Sydney, who are pressing ahead with their ambitious, but intensely demanding, outreach. Get-togethers are great, but they cannot provide the daily agenda.

And the truth is, since global Anglicanism is no longer the prize, there is nothing really left to fight over. And if there is nothing over which to fight, who will bother fighting? I don’t believe Dr Katharine Jefferts-Schori really gives a fig what Rowan Williams or anyone else thinks of her. In the end, TEC will become an increasingly independent body, at the centre of its own network. The global agenda for TEC will be the expansion of its influence in Africa, not the need to remain in Canterbury’s good books.

In North America, there will, for a time at least, be two competing ‘Anglicanisms’, one recognized by GAFCON/FCA, the other embraced by Canterbury and claiming the moral high-ground as the non-separatists. This will become a matter for sheer ‘economics’ — numbers and income deciding who is eventually left standing where. Much the same will happen in Canada.

The real question for us in these islands is what will happen here, and specifically what will happen in England. It is clear that Wales and Scotland are already realigning theologically with TEC/Canada. There are many who hope and expect that England will do the same.

The launch in this country later this year of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans therefore has an urgent question to address, which is how to deal with the new situation of realpolitik. We are no longer looking to ‘save the Communion’. It is lost. The urgent question is whether we can save ourselves.

Revd John P Richardson
9 March 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.