felix hominum

GAFCON's statement & +++Rowan's reply

The final statement from the Global Anglican Future Conference is now out and about. The text, along with preamble, can be read in its entirety here.  The statement is self-titled the Jerusalem Declaration.  Here's a snippet from the intro to the statement:

A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world.

Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

That second to last line is one of the more direct messages to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has released his own comments on the Jerusalem Declaration.  Here is a selection, and it as well is worth reading in its entirety:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.

However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed...

...It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part...If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

The Archbishop also had some comments, set in a different context, and directed to a different audience, which might as well shed some light on the matter for those who are interested in such things:

Anglicans have failed to think through primacy with any theological seriousness and so have become habituated to a not very coherent or effective international structure that lacks canonical seriousness and produces insupportable pluralism in more than one area of the church's practice.

via Diocese of Saskatchewan, full article here.

Note [A]:  Primate Hiltz' response can be seen here.  A bit of it quoted below:

The GAFCON statement is based on a premise that there is "acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different gospel which is contrary to the apostolic gospel." The statement specifically accuses Anglican churches in the Canada and the United States of proclaiming this "false gospel that has paralysed the Communion." I challenge and repudiate this charge.

Note [B]:  Just in case you don't have enough reading to do over the summer, peruse the Niagara Anglican June edition.  Dean Wall has a very good summary of why we should try combining services in "multi-congregation" parishes every once in a while.  "Many of our parish communities have very distinct ‘early’ and ‘late’ congregations, many of whom don’t know each other very well."  We did a joint service recently at St Tim's and got great feedback from the congregation - it was great to be able to worship together as a whole parish.

On the other hand, perhaps the Gafcon people are thinking of things like the statement made by the editor of the Niagara Anglican (Christopher Grabiec) , in an article in the same edition:

Let’s be honest for a moment. Who knows who was right in the Christological arguments of the 3rd century? We know who won, but who really knows who was right? More to the point, does it really matter?

Just to refresh your memory, the "Christological arguments" centered around things like:  Jesus is God/ Jesus is not God.  Jesus is co-eternal with the Father/ Jesus is a created being in a Neoplatonic chain, sort of like a man, but with a bit more pizazz.

So what then is our Church's answer to the questions:  who knows who was right?  And does it matter?  If you see anyone with authority in the ACoC, ask them.

In the sense of being creedal...

sermon notes Pentecost 7: Matthew 10: 40-42

Matthew 10:40-42

10:40 "Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.

10:41 Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous;

10:42 and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple -- truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward."

I want to try to convince you, gentle reader, that this is not a descending order.  It is an ascending order.  Let me put it this way.  I find it more likely that one might recognize and welcome a prophet or a righteous man, than go out of one's busy way to do such an insignificant task as offering water "to one of these little ones."  But I have a sneaking suspicion that in the upside down structure of the Kingdom, we have more difficulty realizing that such small acts actually have eternal significance.

A prophet, a righteous person, and a little one - sounds like the beginning of a joke.  I have sometimes wondered about this passage from Matthew's Gospel.  Is this a descending order?  Do these actions and people start at the top, as it were, and then work their way down?   Or are they on equal footing?   Or is this an inversion; building up to the point where you can see the glory in giving a cup of cold water to one the little ones as actually the highest point?

I think one of the inversions of the Kingdom of God is that the greatest glory is found in unexpected places.  You can perhaps easily recognize a prophet or a righteous person as someone whom God 'favours' (don't take that the wrong way).   But when do we stop to see the eternal value in offering the cup of water to the "little ones"?   We naturally seek the "great and the glorious" - because there is something in us that pulls us toward glory. I recall the buzz for tickets when Desmond Tutu came to speak at the U of A Human Rights Lectureship.  The same committee had a member who expressed "absolutely no interest"  in having Jean Vanier come and talk about, well, the little ones.  Our perception has been skewed, and mistake importance for glory.  But enough on that theme for now.

This section comes as part of the missional discourse in Matthew's gospel.  There are themes of "welcoming" and "sending".  Jesus has just finished talking about the sending part in last week's reading.  You know - some will like you and some will really, really, not like you.  So we have heard about sending, and we have heard about the negative welcomes, and now we are going to hear about the "positive welcomings".

It is a rather staggering claim that Jesus is making in v 40.  The welcome of a disciple in mission is a welcoming of Christ, which is a welcoming of the Father.  It is marvellous that Jesus puts us in the same position as himself so many times: as He has been sent, so He sends us.

Well, it's time to move on to other tasks; we'll pick it up again in a day or two.

The latte has now been ordered, so a few more thoughts will be posted in a while. For those who find such things helpful, some takes on the patron/client relationship of representation to which Jesus could be alluding.  This is nothing particular to the ancient culture in which Jesus is speaking - it is a widespread political norm.  As St Paul says,  "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us".[2 Cor 5:20]  To welcome the representative is to welcome the one represented.  And as the last part of the missionary discourse in Matthew, we are finally reminded that we are sent as representatives of Christ, and Christ of God.

That word "welcome" comes up so many times that it would also seem an obvious choice for the focus of a sermon.  I suspect their are two basic approaches:  welcoming others and welcoming Christ.  Various leanings in the church might tend to emphasize one over the other;  I think that the two are necessarily connected, like the two great commandments.  We love God and we love our neighbour.  We welcome Christ and we welcome even the "little ones" in his name.  A few of us were chatting earlier today about this passage, and we got around to that old topic of how welcoming we are as a church.  The passage speaks to the whole ministry of hospitality which Christians need to practice.  It also predicates this ministry upon our own "welcome" to Christ:  how do we invite Him into our lives?

One other thing which keeps coming back to my mind is the notion that the giving of the cup of cold water - the "small act" - is the stuff of which a holy life is made.  Growth in discipleship and holiness is not to be found in a few occasional spurts of encounters with prophets, but in the thousands of small acts and decisions which make up the bulk of our lives. These are the daily acts of "giving the cup of cold water" which , practiced over the course of a lifetime, make up Christian character.

Ecumenical dialogue with Hernán Cortés: Bernal Diaz and the Conquest of New Spain

They brought to us 8 Indian girls, all daughters of chiefs, in order to cement our friendship...

The girls, Cortes added, must become Christian before we could accept them, and the people must give up sodomy, for they had boys dressed as women who practised that accursed vice for profit.  Moreover every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols and whose blood was plastered on the walls.  The feet, arms and legs of their victims were cut of and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher's in our country.  I even believe that they sold it in the tinaguez or markets.  Cortes told them that if they gave up these wicked practices, not only would we be their friends, but we would vie them other provinces to rule.  The Caciques, papas and the dignitaries all replied that it would be wrong for them to give up their idols and sacrifices, for these gods of theirs brought them health and good harvests and all that they needed; but as for sodomy, measures would be taken to see that the practice was stopped.

This insolent reply was more than Cortes or any of us who had seen all their cruelties and obscenities could stand.  Reminding us of the doctrines of oru holy faith, Cortes asked us  "If we do not pay God so much honour as to stop them from making sacrifices to their idols, how can we ever accomplish anything worth doing?" 

He told us that we must overthrow their idols that very day, and be absolutely prepared to fight if they tried to prevent us.  We, as usual, were all armed and ready...

Bernal Diaz
The Conquest of New Spain

related post: Missional Christendom: Bernal Diaz and The Conquest of New Spain

A new blog in the 'sphere

Pop over and say hello on Bishop Greg's Blog. 

Bishop Greg Kerr-Wilson is the 11th Bishop of Qu'Appelle.

Missional Christendom: Bernal Diaz and The Conquest of New Spain

After the horsemen had dismounted beneath some trees beside which some houses stood, we returned thanks to God for granting us so complete a victory.  Then, as it was Lady Day, we named the town which was afterward founded here Santa Maria de la Victoria, on account of the fact that this great victory was won on her day.  This was the first battle that we fought under Cortes in New Spain.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo was a soldier who first sailed to the Americas in 1514, in the company of Pedrarias Dávila.  After two expeditions, Bernal Diaz set out under the command of Hernando Cortés in a campaign which would eventually see the fall of Aztec empire.  Díaz was present at the surrender of Mexico city in 1521.  In his later years he wrote a work entitled "Crónica de la Conquista de Nueva España".  It is a rough eye-witness account of one who served under the Spanish Crown in its conquest of the new lands.  The work itself was not published in his lifetime;  a manuscript was discovered in the 1600's in Madrid.  it is a remarkable portrait of the combination of religious sentiment and lust for wealth:  "for God and gold" was the rallying cry of the Conquistadores.

Diaz tells us that his company saw the corpses of more than 800 Aztec allies after that first battle.  The Spaniards buried then their 2 soldiers who had perished. 

I'll be posting more highlights from Diaz' work for the next little while.

Missional SynchroBlog

What is Missional?

I think it is time to make a bigger effort to reclaim the term, a term which describe what happens when you and I replace the “come to us” invitations with a “go to them” life. A life where “the way of Jesus” informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower.

To help reclaim it, I propose a synchronized blog for Monday, June 23rd on the topic, “What is Missional?”

There are any number of ways one could blog on this topic. You could illustrate what the term means, describe what it is not and how it is wrongly used, define the term, explore its misuses, explore its theological foundations, or you name it.

from the Blind Beggar via the Weary Pilgrim, who has a list of bloggers participating.

ps - Malcolm's post on the topic (which he refers to in the comments) can be found here.

Anglican Leaders Gather for Mideast Conference

As participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) began their gathering, a number of conference organizers and others sought to correct several published reports about the direction and purpose of the conference .

Approximately 1,000 attendees, including nearly 300 bishops, have registered for the conference, including a number of current and former Episcopalians.

“I’m not hearing anything about breaking up the Anglican Communion, or anything of the sort,” Bishop Martyn Minns told The Living Church. Bishop Minns, formerly rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, Va., is the founding Missionary Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), an outreach of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.

“We are not focusing all of our attention on human sexuality,” he added. “The workshops are designed to get us moving forward with emphasis on evangelism, church planting, the Bible, family and marriage, and also on developing a better understanding of our Anglican identity.”

Bishop Minns said a booklet titled “The Way, The Truth and the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future,” released by GAFCON organizers at a press conference June 19, has been mischaracterized in some reports as conference planners’ declaration of independence from the Anglican Communion. He noted that the booklet is a historical summary of the recent past, and does not contain specific recommendations for the future.

“The purpose of the conference is not to call people away from either the Lambeth Conference or the Anglican Communion,” he said. “Certain things of monumental importance have changed about Anglicanism within the past 10 years. Those things have irreversibly reshaped the landscape. We must get together and work out what to do about our future in light of the facts that have occurred.”

full article at The Living Church

As a bit of a side note, it is difficult to get a news article on this topic (the "Gafcon" gathering) which is not heavily invested in rhetoric and jockeying for position in the court of public opinion.  There is a related article at the Anglican Journal with the headline: Rival Anglican conference begins in Jerusalem.  I think one of the most helpful quotes is this:

Conference leaders on June 19 released a book, “The Way, The Truth and the Life” at a press conference in Jerusalem...

“At a time when the fabric of the communion has been torn apart, the entire drive of the book is to hold together what is meant by ‘Anglican.’ How can we claim this identity?” said Rev. Vinay Samuel, co-ordinator of the book. “This is not to exclude anyone but in a confused situation this says, ‘This is where we are’.”  (emphasis added)

 

Chora Mosaic - the wedding at Cana

Common Sense Gallery: two shows

The artists of the North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop are pleased to present two exhibits on one day (Saturday, June 21):

"Peter Hide @ the RAM"

Large-scale sculpture at the Royal Alberta Museum
12845-102 Avenue, Edmonton, AB
Public patio reception: 1-5pm, Saturday, June 21
Exhibition runs through October 5, 2008
More info here.

"Mitchel Smith: Paintings from 2008"

New paintings at Common Sense Gallery
10546-115 Street, Edmonton, AB
Public evening reception: 7-11pm, Saturday, June 21
Exhibition runs through August 9, 2008
Viewing by appointment: 482-2685
More info here.

sermon notes Pentecost 5, Matthew 9:35-10:8, (9-23)

I'll be updating through the day, as time and caffeine allow...

For those who see the assigned texts each week, it is interesting to note the parentheses.  Now without looking for trouble, it is worth just thinking for a moment about what part of the reading is "optional":  the part in which Jesus speaks about the difficulties and persecutions of those who are involved in the mission described in the first part of the reading, and of the judgment against those communities which decide against receiving the "kingdom" which "has come near".  It is certainly understandable why some would not want such sayings included in the reading.  They are difficult to stomach for many.  Yet it is worth thinking about:  are such things truly optional?  Can we conveniently place parentheses around such things, as if they either are relegated to the past (perhaps they are specifically contextual to the setting) or that such difficulties should no longer be expected on this side of the Resurrection?  There are a whole host of questions and thoughts simply around the themes of judgment against "that town" which rejects the mission of the kingdom, and the persecution of those who proclaim the kingdom.

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

‘See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

But back to the beginning of this week's reading. 

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.’

Then Jesus went about... - What's with the "then"?  What has just happened before this reading?  Well, he has just called Matthew, done a few healings, and had spent some time in his own home town.  So now he goes to "all the cities and villages".  Even though Jesus will instruct his followers to go first to the towns of the Jews, there is a sense here that the mission of Jesus is expanding outward:  from his own town to all the cities and villages.  And remember as well that at the end of Matthew we have the greater expansion, from Jerusalem outward to all the nations.  There are a few things worth noting:  the good news is the kingdom;  it is accompanied by signs (the cures and healings which we have already seen in Matthew).  Jesus' compassion on the crowds is understood in the context of the lack of good shepherds to guide them.  In fact, Matthew tells us that they were "harassed and helpless".  The one terms makes us think in the active sense, the other in the passive.  Who is harassing these sheep?  Is it the false shepherds?  Or is it that they are in this state because there is a lack of shepherds, hence the call to ask for more labourers?  Bit of a mixed metaphor, but we get the picture.  For those who see that last verse as primarily a "call to action" (which it undoubtedly is), I would suggest that the primary action is that of "asking".  That is, our first action, prior to mission, is prayer.

Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

Here we have a great pool of saints' names for various Anglican churches, although "Judas Iscariot" has gone out of style for some reason...  Oh yes, "the one who betrayed him", which Matthew adds just to make sure we know.  But perhaps he adds that line in anticipation of the  verses which end the reading:  betrayal, persecution, "brother handing over brother".  I think it is a rather subtle rendering on Matthew's part.  Why should we be surprised about the persecutions and betrayals in 10: 9 ff?  We have already been reminded that even one of the 12 is capable of betrayal.  Shows Matt's cohesion, thought and style as a writer.  On a more positive note, we see that Jesus gives authority to his 12 disciples (including, at this point, we must include Judas).  The disciples are equipped for the mission which Jesus gives.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near.”