A Servant in Word and Deed

Several weeks ago I was ordained as a deacon in the Anglican Church of Australia. It was in many ways a curious occasion, baffling as much to some who were there as it was to those who watched via the immediacy of social media: 27 men and women dressed in long, flowing robes on a warm, Sydney summers day; a formality in a service amidst a city which does not handle gravitas very well; a seriousness of commitment and vocation from members of a generation who easily default to irony, sarcasm, and cynicism. For all these contradictions it was for me the culmination of 15 years of prayer and discernment, a reminder of God grace calling me out of darkness and into his light, and a delight to share the day with my family and friends.

The office of deacon is an ancient one, originating in the days of the Apostles, with a particular charge to care for the welfare of the church. Whilst the record of the early church testifies to attention of the deacon towards widows and orphans, the rise in prominence of the mass obscured the once prominent role of aid and care in a deacons vocation. One of the recoveries during the reformation in the English Church was to return this purpose to the diaconate. The is was reflected for instance in Book of Common Prayer 1662, whilst deacons where to be placed in local churches to assist in preaching, reading, catechizing, and distributing the Lord's Supper, their peculiar task where applicable was 'to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the Parish' that they might be relieved through the parish alms. In many ways this represented the thinking of reformer Martin Bucer, whose presence in England in 1549-1551 left a lasting impact on Cranmer and the production of the second Book of Common Prayer in 1552. Bucer believed that the priority of a deacons work was in the care for the poor of the parish. This formed an integral part of the church's work, rather than a periphery activity, bestowed upon the church by divine right and commandment. This was reflected in the the service for Holy Communion, during which the deacons were to collect alms not for the needs of the church, but the welfare of the poor.

For the Reformers like Bucer and Cranmer, this was in many ways a recovery of the apostolic church's commitment to the gospel, and the priority to preach the gospel in word and deed. The Apostles of course had taught that true faith and a right grasp of Holy Scripture would evidence itself through deeds of mercy (James 2.1-23). Materialism was condemned as a grievous sin (1 Timothy 6.17–19; James 5.1–6), whilst the church would gain a reputation for its love of and care for the poor. A special class of officers—deacons—were established to coordinate the church’s ministry of mercy. We should not be surprised then that the first two sets of church leaders were word-leaders (apostles) and deed-leaders (the diakonoi of Acts 6).

The Acts of the Apostles is a case in point. One way to summarize Acts is as the triumph of the word, as the gospel spreads from Jerusalem outwards into the world, unbound and unhindered even under the nose of Caesar in Rome (Acts 28.30-31). In Acts evangelism is the basic and foundational form of ministry, as the eternal, objective, reality of Christ's Lordship is extended to people's hearts. Nevertheless, in Acts ministries of mercy are inseparably connected to evangelism. So much so that Acts draws a close connection between the sharing of possessions and the multiplication of converts through the preaching of the word. The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the explosive growth in numbers (Acts 2.41) were connected to radical sharing with the needy (2.44–45). After the ministry of the Seven diakonia was firmly established, 'the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly' (Acts 6.7).

Ministry of the word is the most basic as it is the ministry which most fully remedies the roots of 'the human condition'. Whilst God while redeem both our souls and our bodies, it is the ministry of the word and prayer which cuts to the heart, killing the root of sin and death. However, the Acts of the Apostles teaches that ministries of word and deed are both necessary, inseparable, and interdependent.

Whilst there is always a danger within the threefold order that word will overwhelm deed, it is fitting that within the present arrangements the office of deacon should seek to combine the priority of these three principles; that is the unity of word and deed. The first deacons, Stephen and Philip, are exemplars of this.Thus, the priority of the deacon's vocation within the church is to embody God's provision to the church of ministries both in word and deed.

ALMIGHTY God, who by thy divine providence hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, and didst inspire thine Apostles to choose into the Order of Deacons the first Martyr Saint Stephen, with others: Mercifully behold these thy servants now called to the like office and administration; replenish them so with the truth of thy doctrine, and adorn them with innocency of life, that, both by word and good example, they may faithfully serve thee in this office, to the glory of thy Name, and the edification of thy Church; through the merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and for ever. Amen.
       - Collect from the Ordering of Deacons, Book of Common Prayer.

Parish Matters

Geography and Creation

At heart, the decline of the parish system is a neo-Platonic view of the world that has shadowed Christianity for two millennia. The modernist project of reducing humans to their mind and reason jettisoned Christianity’s anthropological conviction that we are embodied creatures, leaving in its wake a church with nothing to say about the emotions, about beauty, and about place. This is part of what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor refers to as the excarnation; a disembodied Christianity that seperated the "physical" from the "spiritual".

Admittedly there are mitigating circumstances for this development. The transitions of cities from the original space you could move around by foot to suburbia, not only allowed for the sprawl of mountains beyond mountains of suburbs with no end in sight, but also gave people for the first time freedom to chose where they work, live and play. At the same time as the 20^th century saw the construction of countless miles of freeways, customary geographical loyalties began to breakdown. No more were you bound to buy bread from the shop around the corner. No more were you bound to play sport for the team of your local area, let alone support them. I grew up supporting the Balmain Tigers in Rugby League, without ever living within traditional Tiger territory.

Churches adjusted to this commuter consumption, competing against each other to have the better preaching, the better children’s ministry, the better whatever itch I want scratched. And in the process they frequently severed the connections with the local community, drawing upon an ever expanding area to draw members from. One consequence of this was the emergence of homogenous congregations based around age, culture, or occupation. 

The result was that at a time in Western history when the church was becoming increasingly marginalised from society, individual churches sat in an uneasy relationship with their local community. And whether intentionally or unintentionally, what this mode of church communicated was a disinterest in space, in place, in locality. As if life in the Christian community and mission could be conducted without any reference to these three things. It exhibits a staggeringly unreflective attitude towards matter, having more to do with a disembodied dualism that one would struggle to find in Scripture: the Christian is focused upon the God who is named as the maker of all things, the same God who took on flesh and blood, becoming incarnate when his creation was placed in bondage. This same God triumphed over his enemies that had sought to oppress and destroy his good creation, rising from the grave and sending his church out into all the world, making disciples of all gentiles. And the Christian hope is firmly fixed on the day when God will come and dwell amongst his people and creation is set free from sin, death and evil once and for all. Thus New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham can describe the Christian narrative as driven towards the universal realization of God's kingdom in all creation.

“God identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Israel and Jesus in order to be the God of all people and the Lord of all things. Moreover, in the narrative world of the Bible the people of God is also given its identity in this movement from the particular to the universal, an identity whose God-given dynamic we commonly sum up in the word 'mission'. God, God's people and God's world are related to each other primarily in a narrative that mediates constantly the particular and the universal."

The often heard objection to the parish system is that locality is irrelevant. The argument is made that in today’s mobile and transaction world, people are more closely tied to social and professional networks beyond their local neighbourhood. However this is a highly contested assertion amongst sociologists and demographers; researchers have found that in contemporary western societies social networks are still significantly embedded in local places.^[1] Geography is a massively important feature of people's experience of life (cf. Bauckham). The local neighbourhood remains a central space for community. 

The Parish and Creation

Stanley Hauerwas has recently stated that “The parish is the ecclesial form that has tied the church to place.” The assumption behind the parish system was the belief that “There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, ‘This is mine! This belongs to me!’” Working from this assumption, the whole world was organised into dioceses and parishes. The purpose behind this was not territorialism or factionalism; that was be a disaster. Christ's victory includes a victory of the principalities and powers, the elementary forces of the world that divide and enthral humans. The parish system was neither about dividing up the world for the sake of drawing boundaries on a map. The intent of the parish system was that in every part of the world, there would be a church responsible for proclaiming the gospel in that area and ministering to local the community – the cure of souls as it was once described. 

There have many problems with the parish system over the years. This has been particularly true when (the sometimes arbitrary) lines on a map are treated as sacrosanct for all time, like the law of the Medes. But even then, this problem is symptomatic of the failure of churches to trust one another and work together. Nevertheless, the parish system was a design intended to point the church outwards to the world. It has stood as a reminder that churches do not exist for themselves, but are a part of God’s mission to bring all things under the lordship of Christ. It is a design that reminds us that salvation is for all people; that, at least in the Anglican context in which I come from, we are not attempting to reach only the rich, the poor, the cool, the young, the old, the professional, the tradie, the culturally homogenous etc. The diversity of any particular parish church would reflect the diversity of the church universal, and in doing so reflect the unity of both the universal and local church that confesses on Lord and one God. Reflecting on the Sydney Diocese's Connect09 campaign, Andrew Nixon had this to say:

"I know the parish system (or more accurately parochialism) presents many difficulties for our diocese. Whenever you form people into tribes and draw lines on maps you just know that sin will be crouching at the door. Yes, there are problems. But I pray that we can address and overcome them together...What is wonderful about the parish structure is that it is suited to local mission; it covers everyone. It says that together, we will take responsibility for every soul in our area, every square inch of our city. Even the hard places."

Surprisingly, the word parish has its origins in Koine Greek. The word as we have it today is first attested to in the thirteenth century, derived from medieval French paroisse, which in turn from Latin, paroecia. But there is good evidence that parish was first introduced into England during the late 600’s by eighth Archbishop of Canterbury Theodore of Tarsus. Theodore referred to Anglo-Saxon towns as paroikia, a term which comes directly from the Septuagint and the New Testament (πάροικος – adjective; Acts 7:6, 29; Ephesians 2:19; 1 Peter 2:11. παροικία – noun; Acts 13:17; 1 Peter 1:17). In the New Testament πάροικος and παροικία are both used by the Apostle Peter to describe the identity of Christians. They are aliens and strangers to those they live alongside, living as exiles in the world. This transient nature of Christian living feels as far removed from the sense to parish as you could get. Yet πάροικος carries with it a sense of permanence about it too. It is the word used in Acts to describe Israel's 400 year stay in sojourn in Egypt before entering the promised land. Likewise Peter’s description is not of temporary aliens; the Christians he writes too are long-term sojourners in a foreign land. That is how the term was used in early Christian literature, such as 1 Clement: 

“From the παροικοῦσα of the Church of God at Rome, to the παροικούσῃ of the Church of God as Corinth…”

The early Christians saw themselves as colonies (that is the word used for παροικοῦσα in the Stamforth translation) of heaven, living in the world in anticipation of the new creation. 

In fact, this is at the heart of classic Anglican missiology. Although unmentioned by the Articles of Religion and The Ordinal, and generally assumed by the Book of Common Prayer, the parish system remains the Anglican missiology – seeking to serve all people. This is part of Paul Barnett’s “Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism”, namely that "‘historic Anglicanism’ affirms both creation and society. It is concerned with the common good, for the ‘welfare of the city,’ to use Jeremiah’s words.” The parish system grounds the church’s mission in the creation that is groaning, awaiting the unveiling of the children of God. It stands as a reminder that churches do not exist for themselves, but are a part of God’s mission to bring all things under the lordship of Christ.

---

^[1] cf. Oldenburg (1999), The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of the community. On this point I am indebted to conversations with Alison Moffitt.

Equip Those Saints!

Rory Shiner, formerly of Frankly Mr Shankly, has started a new series of posts on his church website about "Forgotten Ministry Models". His first post captures an idea I've slowly been coming round too these past couple of years, what Rory describes as the "The Clergy-run church service".

The "priesthood of all believers" is a catch cry of those Christians who have had their worldview shaped by the reformation in some shape or form. But is church the place to express that? What if our church services are the place where believers are to be equipped for ministry, so that they can go out there and do it? You'll find Rory's answer here.

Rory ends by reflecting on the Anglican liturgy (the way to my heart...). He says:

"The Anglican service ends with the priest saying to the congregation: “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” Quite literally, the clergy told the people at the end of church, “now off you go to do ministry”. That is, they didn’t just serve the Lord in church; they came to be equipped at church to go in peace to love and serve the Lord. Their ministry almost began when they left church. And something about that is right. You might even call it missional."

40 Years worth of Education

Having commenced a formal theological study this year, I sometimes wonder what I've signed up for. Four years can feel like a long time, especially right now when I'm learning Hebrew verb paradigms:

קָֹטַל
קָטְלָה

קָטַלְתָּ

Anyway, I stumbled across a magazine in the college library today that was honouring the ministry of Oliver O'Donovan (he's retiring later in the year). There was a quote from a 2008 report on an Anglican catechism by the Global South Anglican Theological Formation and Education Task Force (which O'Donovan was apart of) that drove home one of the reasons why theological college is and should be a long and thoughtful process:

"The clergy must be ready to think theologically for themselves, and not only say just what their congregations (or bishops!) are expecting. All of them have to be able to go on thinking and preaching, faithfully to the Gospel, for perhaps forty years after they leave college. Some of them will have to take the lead in criticizing and interpreting movements of thought that have not yet even come on the horizon. And they have to be able to resource the theological needs of tomorrow’s church." - Anglican Catechism in Outline: A Common Home Between Us

Again, like Barth's advice for novice theologians, it is humbling to read this.

So it begins...II

You may have missed it. Amidst the hustle and bustle of Christmas, the Australian Church Record released issue 1901. And inside the ACR published two more editorials with advice for the next election for the Archbishop of Sydney. In 2013. Peter Bolt comments that:

"Rumour has it that groups of interested parties have begun gathering to discuss the next Archbishop, and shopping lists are being compiled."

Which isn't very surprising. There's been a buzz about the election for a couple of years now. According to the ACR, 'it has the potential to mark a turning-point in the story of Sydney Anglicanism.' What is remarkable is the openness with which these discussions are taking place, following the lead of the ACR when they first laid the issue before the public in May 2010.

The focus of the two editorials might be summarised as "It's Time." Time for generational change. Time to pass the leadership of the diocese from the baby boomers onto which ever generation comes next. With this call for change comes a warning that the next archbishop must be present in the diocese now. The election of someone from outside the Diocese of Sydney will stand, argues Peter Bolt, not only as a rejection of the past 30 years the diocese trajectory but also as a symbol of the failure of the Baby Boomer leadership to provide training and prepare for the changeover of leadership.

"If the leadership of the last 30 years has failed to train someone who can act as Archbishop for the next generation, then that ‘leadership’ has failed abysmally."

Strong words from Peter Bolt. And we can only expect more over the next two years. Even Peter Jensen's Presidential address at CMS Summer School last week felt as though he was starting to establish his legacy - expect a post on this in the future. Do you agree with Bolt's assessment about the Baby Boomers? And is he missing anything from his Archbishops shopping list (which you'll find here)?

So it begins...

The next episcopal election for the Archbishop of Sydney is not until 2013. But there is already movement at the station, with the latest Australian Church Record not only containing two articles on leadership, but also a guide on what to look for in a future archbishop. Peter Bolt, besides suggesting that several of his colleagues at Moore College should be considered as potential candidates, offers several pieces of advice on how the next archbishop should be:

1. He must satisfy the basics (i.e. male, minister of the gospel with a character that matches the NT and BCP, etc.)
2. He must be under 57
3. He must be a local, already here with us in the Diocese
4. He must be capable of theological leadership
5. He must be psychologically robust, comfortable in his own skin
6. Must be committed to mission
7. He must be the people’s choice

So - it's on for young and old...except those over 57.

Quote of the Week by Lindsay Tanner

"[I'm] not really religious; I'm an Anglican.'' - Lindsay Tanner, Federal Finance Minister

h/t Alison

"Reports of My Demise..."

"Anglicans lack identity..."

"I expect the meetings in Rome have begun an inexorable reabsorption of the Anglican Church into the world's oldest institution. The church created by the charismatic King Henry VIII has found its current archbishop, an undertaker, appearing to see his mission as an orderly burial."

According to Ross Cameron, former Federal MP for Parramatta (and one of several devoted Roman Catholic Liberals who came to prominence during John Howard's premiership), "we must assume the Anglican idea is fast reaching its use-by date." Cameron is quite polite in his Op-Ed piece from last Saturday's SMH: "It has, however, been a great innings". Cameron is quite ready to assign Anglicanism as the origin of everything from religious tolerance to scientific discovery. But Cameron is ready to consign Anglicanism, if not to the dustbin of history, then at least the historical retirement village.

Which is because of a fundamental error in Cameron's thesis. Cameron's Anglicanism has no identity because hasn't developed since the turmoils of Henry VIII. And this is an error because Anglicanism hasn't been static, and has had significant developments in expression and identity in it's five centuries (which I have previously described here). According to Gerald Bray:

"Most people seem to believe that when Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1534, he invented the Church of England and made himself its head in order to legitimise his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and that since that time, his successors have all been bound to belong to this somewhat dubious creation, an obligation which is symbolised by the royal title ‘Defender of the Faith’. This is false." - Honi soit qui mal y pense (worth checking out for Bray's analysis on current moves to remove the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Monarchy).

Cameron's analysis of the early history of the Anglican church is somewhat erroneous. The average Anglican in the 16th and 17th centuries would have strongly aligned themselves to the Protestant cause. And to argue that England sat on the sidelines of the "religious wars" (which according to D.B. Hart had more to do than with the rise of the nation-state against empire and church) is to ignore most historical scholarship in the area for the past 20 years (such as Jonathan Scott).

Cameron's Op-Ed is also typical of most detractors of the Anglican Church from the western world. The Anglicanism they see and present is declining in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They present it as increasingly irrelevant and being run aground by "fundamentalists". What they neglect is the phenomenal growth Anglicanism has experienced in Africa, Asia and South America. The rise of the Global South has not revitalised Anglicanism, it's the future. Cameron's assertion that Anglicanism is entering her autumn years are greatly exaggerated. Which is why I'm looking forward to the Monday night of CMS Summer School when the President of CMS, Peter Jensen, will be speaking on the role of a mission agency in the Global South.

Photos from the GAFCON website.

Anglicanism's Mid Life Crisis

Has a denomination ever had as much trouble understanding it's identity as the Anglican church has? Every few months there seems to be a new book released either articulating what Anglicanism looks like (i.e. Tom Frame, Bruce Kaye), or commenting on the current crisis in the Anglican Communion (i.e. Oliver O'Donovan). One only needs to briefly scan one of the many blogs searching for an Anglican identity (such as hebel; also this and this) to see how widespread the quest is.

At the centre of the current crisis in the Anglican Communion is a question of scripture and authority. But what is at stake are opposing visions of what the Anglican Church should look like. The crisis, which has rages for several decades now (the main crisis vis-a-vis scripture and authority has stayed the same even the issues have changed, i.e. woman's ordination, homosexuality), can be interpreted as one front of the cultural wars that have raged since at least the end of the second world war. However, I want to suggest that there are several other reasons operating here.

Anglican identity has historically been in flux. Whilst there has always been a solid evangelical (reformed, protestant) core that has sought to define Anglicanism by the Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and Ordinals, and the Homilies (the Anglican Church League in Sydney was founded a century ago to persevere these things), there have always been other "factions" (i.e. Anglo-Catholics) that have nuanced the Anglican identity. The Tudor and Stuart periods are the classic example of this, where Anglican identity would vary according to how sat on the throne of England. The emergence of liberalism from the 18th Century has only increased the divergence of and competition for Anglican identity. The variegated historical experiences of Anglicanism since the 16th century continue to challenge our assumptions of Anglicanism today.

Naturally, related to this is the theological breadth of Anglicanism. It is often said that the genius (and frustration) of Anglicanism is that is both catholic and protestant, it holds the middle ground. But the challenge of walking the tight-rope of the via media is not to sway too far to one side or the other. Even then we have to realize that neither side is a homogeneous unit (i.e. the variances amongst contemporary Anglican evangelicals). "Anglican theology" has always had a polemic streak to it. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (a founding document for the formation of the Anglican Communion) aimed at restoring unity with other churches with the episcopacy (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy), whilst providing a stumbling block for protestant churches with other forms of church government.

The polemics in Anglican theology have become more and more pointed in the past 50 years: Evangelicals v Anglo-Catholics v Liberals (v Charismatics?). The spread of Anglicanism through mission has changed the face of Anglicanism forever. The Church of England may still be established in England and considered by some to be the "mother church" (with the Primate of All England being the symbolic head of Anglicanism worldwide). The American and Canadian Episcopal Churches may still be the wealthiest churches in the communion. But the spread of the gospel on the coat tails of the British Empire through mission agencies such as CMS has resulted in Africa, Asia and Latin America having the largest populations of Anglicans in the world. Although the traditional realms of Anglicanism (England and North America) are still quite influential, but Anglicanism today is being the defined by the churches in the Global South. As you may know, the churches of the Global South are closer to what I have described central core of Anglicanism (protestant, reformed, evangelical and catholic) than the Anglican Church in North America.

These three factors, history, theology and mission, have not caused the crisis in identify. But they are crucial in understanding the struggle to define Anglicanism. Already we are seeing some answers to question of scripture and authority. One proposal is to strengthen the organisational structures of the Anglican world, particularly the instruments of communion. At this stage the success of this approach seems quite unlikely. I feel as though to define Anglicanism structurally is to miss the point. The past century has provided several examples of valid forms of Anglicanism that are out of step with the communion (i.e. The Church of England in South Africa).

Long gone are the days when you could walk into any Anglican Church in world and roughly understand what was happening. But the end of a common liturgy etc. does not spell the end of Anglicanism.

I am not a prophet nor the son of prophet, but the future of Anglicanism would appear to lie with GAFCON. This is a difficult process. It is also tremendously exciting as it offers a reinvigorated Anglican identity that is built on the central core of Anglicanism I have previously identified (protestant, reformed, evangelical and catholic) that is also truly global. It is an expression of church that will, Lord willing, continue to proclaim his life, death and resurrection until he returns.

Photos from the GAFCON website.

Swimming Up The Tiber

The Roman Catholic church this week has announcemed that it has created a structure to welcome home 'traditional' Anglicans unhappy with the 'rampant liberalism' (ACL) in the Anglican church. Whether this will have the apocalyptic consequences for the Church of England that The Times says it does remains to be seen (Ruth Glendhill talks about this leading to the disestablisment of the CofE, and reclaiming of churches and cathedrals by Roma Catholics “'stolen' from them at the Reformation'). Oliver O'Donovan, commenting on the nineteenth article in the 39 Articles of Religon ("so also the Church of Rome hath erred..."), had this to say on ecumenism and institutional unity:

"Ecumenism is one of the ways in which the institutions of the church must be shaped and re-shaped to express the truth of the church itself more adequately than they do. But, of course, not any form of institutional unity will be appropriate. It must be a kind of unity which corresponds to the unity which the Holy Spirit gives, a unity which can comfortably embrace the diversities of gifts, operations and services within the united confession that 'Jesus is Lord'. Unity of the wrong kind will fail, just as disunity fails, to make the church institutions an effective sign of the gospel." - Oliver O'Donovan, On The Thirty Nine Articles - A Conversation With Tudor Christianity, 1986.

Why We're Still Talking About Calvin

In case you missed it, Michael Jensen had a great op-ed in yesterday's Australian on the decline of Calvin. The quote from Pulitzer prize-winning novelist Marilynne Robinson on Calvin's influence is worth repeating:

"Any reader of the Institutes must be struck by the great elegance, the gallantry, of its moral vision, which is more beautiful for the resolution with which its theology embraces sorrow and darkness.

...There are things for which we in this culture clearly are indebted to him, including relatively popular government, the relatively high status of women, the separation of church and state, what remains of universal schooling and, while it lasted, liberal higher education, education in the humanities. How easily we forget."

In reading Michael's op-ed, I was reminded of something I've been intending to mention for a while now. My friend Angus Courtney submitted his honours thesis last year in history. Not only is it a superb piece of work on the 17th Century English Civil and republicanism, but it provides a paradigm shifting argument against the weight of recent historical scholarship. Angus argues that although the puritans (a label many historians have conveniently avoided using when describing the republicans) were well versed in classics, they lived and breathed the bible and Calvinist theology. Here is an excerpt:

"The defining mark of the historiography of English republicanism is its insistence on the classical basis of English republican ideas. Drawing on the theorists of Greece and Rome––the argument goes––a handful of English writers in the mid seventeenth century articulated a vision of republican government infused with classical ideas and values. It is not an unreasonable argument, particularly considering that a number of English republicanism’s central writers, like John Milton, were prolific classicists who were widely familiar with ancient political theorists and historians. Just as significantly, they lived in extraordinary times that sparked an immense body of political re-examination.2 The result was to be a rich tapestry of republican thinking that was unparalleled in the seventeenth century. It was a unique (if fleeting) moment in English political history, in which ideas were developed that would become essential to eighteenth century political thought in England, the Continent, and America...But this approach makes a serious category error. The essential character of English republicanism was not classical. Although English republicans were familiar with classical texts and referred to––as Sidney put it––the ‘great masters of human reason’, these writers were rarely their primary authority, nor was their example primarily the republics of Greece or Rome. If we are prepared to take Milton at his word (as historians have been), this point is unmistakable. According to Milton, ‘The English people…were not inflamed with the empty name of liberty by a false notion of virtue and glory, or senseless emulation of the ancients.’ Rather, they formulated their republican vision and waged war against the king because of their purity of life and blameless character, in an effort to defend law and religion, rooted in a firm trust in God. At its core, English republicanism was a religious republicanism: a Puritan vision of total reformation that extended not only through the church but also to government. It was a vision inspired by Biblical Scripture, directed towards the godliness of the nation and the glory of God.

The radical nature of this proposition warrants its restatement: English republicanism was religious republicanism. Its central thrust was not towards classical republican government, but the government of God. Its purpose was not civic glory, but the godliness of the community for the glory of God. Regarding English republicanism as primarily classical is to overlook the context in which republicanism developed, the explicit goals for which it was used, and the clear biblical arguments that were used to justify its imposition. To appropriate a biblical metaphor, this overlooking of such a critical aspect is akin to having ‘strain[ed] out a gnat but swallow[ed] a camel.’ My assertion is not that classical republican ideas were absent from the English republican vision. Rather, it is that a much more significant aspect has been overlooked. This is an error in need of correction. We must recover the essential religious component of the English republican vision.

No Fear in Love

...love casts out fear...

This verse has been running through my head for about a week and a half. I had the pleasure of hearing Bishop Josiah Fearon from Kaduna Diocese Nigeria, speak about Gospel Ministry in Areas of Strife: The Interface of Christianity and Islam. Kaduna is in northern Nigeria, and if you know anything about that country, you’ll know that the north has been the scene of religious tension for many years now between Muslims and Christians. Bishop Fearon explained that this goes back to the establishment of Nigeria as an independent nation in the 1960’s. At that time the population was made up quite sizable populations of Christians and Muslims, and a fair number of traditionalists at well. Southern Nigeria is the home for Christians, and northern Nigeria is the home for Muslims. But over the last 50 years the Christian population in the north has been steadily growing, so that in Kaduna Diocese today, Christians now slightly outnumber the Muslims. This change in demographics has only heightened the tension between the tow religious communities – the Muslims who want to enforce the constitutionally recognized sharia law; and the Christians who want to use their new found majority to free themselves for the yoke of Islam. This is the main tension in Kaduna. But Bishop Josiah helpfully explained that these tensions are often used to exploit local and tribal conflict. A religious crisis may begin when Muslim and Christian farmers have land next to each other, and the Muslim farmer’s cattle enter the Christian’s lands. This is then spun out as a religious conflict between the two religions. And 10 years ago this would have resulted in violent clashes throughout the diocese, often causing fatalities.

The result of all this is fear – fear of the religion, and fear of the people. Bishop Josiah said that this has led to a genuine hatred and resentment towards Muslims by Christians. However, his approach is to promote ‘friendship evangelism’. He engages in dialogue, and is not afraid to build friendships with Muslims. He sees himself as having been called by God to evangelize his Muslim neighbours. So he tries to love, rather than shouting them down with doctrine as some of his colleagues prefer to do. And he has copped flack for this from inside and outside his diocese. He shared the story that during the major sharia crisis around 2001, some young members of his clergy had really had enough of his evangelism approach. And so they planned to assassinate him and blame it on the Muslims! Miraculously they were stopped on the day they set out to do this dreadful deed. 

And so I was reminded that ‘there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear’. Sitting in a church hall in the Georges River Region of Sydney, with several mosques within walking distance, (within close proximity of several Anglican churches that 50 years ago were the largest in the diocese but are now empty), I was reminded again that Jesus is so powerful, so magnificent, that I do not have to be afraid with Muslims; out of love I can share with them the Lordship of Jesus in my deeds and words. 

The talk was recorded, and if you would like a copy you can email me at work. CMS also interviewed Bishop Josiah earlier that day, and that will released soon – stay tuned. Josiah Fearon is an international expert on Islam. Besides his degrees in Nigeria, he has postgraduate studies in theology (Durham), Islamic Theology (Birmingham), Arabic (Jordan) and a Doctorate of Ministry (Hartford). He has recently completed his time as the Archbishop of the province of Kaduna, was on the Eames commission that produced the Windsor Report, and is a licensed preacher at Canterbury Cathedral.

PS This post by Byron is also relevant to this discussion - it's not just our African brethren who are afraid of Islam.

Sydney Parish Boundaries Continued

My project to map the parish boundaries in the Sydney Diocese is progressing, albeit ever so slowly.


View Sydney Diocese Parish Boundaries in a larger map

Although I have heard that Anglicare have been working on this project. If anyone is interested I also have a sketchy map outlining the regions of the Sydney diocese and most diocesan boundaries in NSW.


View CMS-NSW Regional Borders in a larger map

A Rant on the Current State of Church Services

Once upon a time, you could walk into any Anglican Church in the world and you would know exactly what was happening in the church service. For centuries the Anglican church around the world had followed the same pattern of liturgy and worship. All this changed in the twentieth century with the updating of language and customs - which was quite right given the great difference in language from the 1662 to the 1970's when the first modern Anglican prayer book was published in Australia. But since then the rate of revision had been rapid and astronomical. After three centuries of exclusive use of the Book of Common Prayer, the Diocese of Sydney (formally) went through 3 different prayer books in just 30 years. Besides this, many churches have moved to type of informalism for their services.

Many of these changes have been necessary to keep up with the development of Australian society over the past 50 years. But accompanying this has been a worrying tendency. It has become all to easy to throw out anything the is old, traditional or formal (i.e. the creeds, communion, confession) for the sake of informality. Informalism for the sheer sake of informalism is not a desirable thing. In fact, if anything, it has often resulted in church services that are half-baked, half-arsed, and run according to whim. In pursuit of the noble cause of being informal, our church services are reduced to cliche's and entertainment - the congregation has no idea what will come next and so are reduced to being an audience as they await the next move.

The other problem is that the pursuit of this highest ideal is that our informal services are often just as unintelligible and alienating as the liturgy that they replaced. I saw this problem in my old church. The theory was that no one in the town would step into church, but they would spend all their time in cafes. So turning the church service into a cafe seemed the obvious thing to do. Except that it was a poorly run cafe - why go to there when people go to a nice and comfortable cafe two doors up the road. Nor only did it fail misread to the culture, it also failed to serve the people actually at the church. And has been stated elsewhere:

'The reason we eschewed formality in church services was because that was what WE on the inside wanted (or some of us, anyway) - the missiological reason was in fact only a justification for it'

Of course formalism for the sake of formalism is also dangerous. One of the great strengths of Anglicanism has been it's quality to culturally contextualise it's form and identity to whatever situation it's in. The challenge we face in our contemporary liturgy is to provide church services that allow for spontaneity the relaxed felling that informal service provide, whilst not descending to pure laziness or rejecting good practices on the basis of how formal they are. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

See also: Missiological assumptions?

Anglicanism 7: What could have been

Diarmond MacCulloch dreams of the Church of England under Queen Jane Grey:

"What would the Church of England have looked like if, instead of Queen Mary's triumph, Queen Jane's quite reasonably hereditary claim to the throne had succeeded in establishing her regime? The Lady Mary would have had to have been effectively neutralized before Edward's death, and one fears that neutralizing before Edward's death, and one fears that her forr good would have involved the block, in a return to Henrician savagery. The Lady Elizabeth could have been married off to Lord Robert Dudley, a good catch for a royal bastard, and a good chance for them both of a happy love-match. Archbishop Cranmer, living his allotted three-score years and ten or beyond, could have produced the third version of his Prayer Book, in the light of friendly criticism from Continental reformers whom he respected, like Martyr, Bullinger and Calvin; he would have been succeeded as Archbishop by Nicholas Ridley or Robert Holgate, with energetic younger reformers like Edmund Grindal ready to make their mark and pick up good ideas from the best reformed churches of Europe. John Knox, mellowed by an increasingly successful career in the Church o Engkand, would have been appointed Bishop of Newcastle, benevolently taking no notice of the advanced congregations in his diocese who received congregation sitting; this was a practice in any case increasingly common throughout Jane's Church, despite Archbishop Cranmer's grumbles. The reform of canon law would have been achieved, the 1553 primer and catechism would have become the standard, the Forty-Two Article would have been unmodified by Elizabethan sacramentalist hesitations.
Out in the parishes, the meterical psalms in the style of Geneva would quickly have spread: these were the best secret weapon of the English Reformation making its public worship and private devotional practice genuinely popular throughout increasing areas of the kingdom. This congregational music would also have taken over in the cathedrals, now devoid of choirs or polyphony, and with their organs (where they survived) used mainly for entertaining for entertainmnet, in the Dutch fashion. The conservative nobility would have continued the sullen public compliance with religious change which they had shown under Edward VI, their private celebration of ceremonial worship tolerated ass eccentricity, like the Lady Elizabeth's patronage of choral music in her own chapel. The traditionalist higher clergy would have died off in senior Church offices and in the universities, with no possibility of like-minded replacement: since the universities produced no major haemorrahage of exiles in the 1560's, the Jesuits and other religious orders would have found it difficult to recruit potential clergy to train for their attempt to treat Jane's England as a mission field. England would have become the most powerful political player in the reformed camp, with Cranmer a cordial if geographically distant partner with John Calvin. There is a potent symbolism in the fact that it was Cranmer's son-in-law who translated Calvin's Institutes into English, and Cranmer's veteran printer who published it. With a Cranmer-Calvin axis, the profile of Reformed religion across the whole Continent would have been changed, and with the help and encouragement of Bishop Knox, the Reformation in Scotland might have followed a close path to that in the Reformed Church of England.
That is the history that never happened."

Anglicanism 5: Cranmer or Laud, or...part i

Well, having posted several quotes from the likes of Archbishop Williams and Bishop Ryle, and having re-read part of MacCulloch's work on Cranmer last night, I may have thought of a new way to look at the question of Anglican identity. It may just be that the answer lies, in part, in who we understand to be the true founders of "Anglicanism". From my own reflection, I think there are at least 3 possible sources for the legitimate Anglican identity.
Firstly, there is the 16th Century Anglicanism of Cranmer, Parker and Hooker. This is the Anglicanism of the Tudors, Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I (not so much Mary I, because she had a tendency to burn them). This source is most likely to be termed "Classical Anglicanism", associated as it is with the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and three orders, and the Articles of Religion. And it has been this source that has until recently influenced the direction of Anglicanism most.
Secondly, there is the Anglicanism of the early Stuart period - the Carolinian Church. This is where Archbishop Laud and his descendants in the High Church and Oxford Movements would feel most at home.
And thirdly, there is the Anglicanism influenced not so much by an English theologian or Lord of Cantur, but the Anglicanism imitating Calvin, and even Richard Baxter. Although not mutually exclusive form the first source, if not used well, this third source may ride rough shot of the first source.
There is potentially a fourth source in the various incarnations of liberal protestantism. And although this may claim to large (cashed up) sections of the Anglican Communion, I don't think it can hold a legitimate stake in Anglican identity.
Now all that is left to do is describe the three sources and try and determine which source is bona fide.

Anglicanism 4

To have a break from Rowan Williams, here is a warning to the "true church"
from JC Ryle.

"On this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18)

This is that Church to which belong the Lord's precious promises of
preservation, continuance, protection, and final glory.  "Whatsoever,"
says Hooker, "we read in Scripture, concerning the endless love and
saving mercy which God shows towards His Churches, the only proper
subject is this Church, which we properly term the mystical body of
Christ."  Small and despised as the true Church may be in this world, it
is precious and honorable in the sight of God.  The temple of Solomon in
all its glory was nothing, in comparison with that Church which is built
upon a rock.

Men and brethren, see that you hold sound doctrine on the subject of "the
Church."  A mistake here may lead to dangerous and soul-ruining errors.
The Church which is made up of true believers, is the Church for which
we, who are ministers, are specially ordained to preach.  The Church
which comprises all who repent and believe the Gospel, is the Church to
which we desire you to belong.  Our work is not done, and our hearts are
not satisfied, until you are made new creatures, and are members of the
one true Church.  Outside of this Church there can be no salvation."

I wonder how many of today's evangelicals would be uncomfortable with the last line and be tempted to change it to "Outside of this faith..."? mmm.

10 points if you can tell me how many people were bishop of Liverpool prior to Ryle.

Anglicanism 3

Williams once again on Anglican Identity:

"The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable."

I know one theo-blogger doesn't consider just posting quotes to be blogging, but here you go.

Charles I - Martyr or Tyrant

January 30, the anniversary of the execution of Charles I of England, Ireland, (Alba) Scotland (and France). A feast day in the Anglican communion, he was hailed as a saint and martyr throughout the English speaking world until the Victorian era, when the special "Feast of Charles I" homily and morning/evening prayer was removed from the BCP. Charles is the only person to have been canonized by the Church of England since the reformation.

But do you agree with the Carolingian Restoration propaganda? Or do you agree with the puritans accusation of him as a tyrant? Let me know.

Here are some of favourite Carolingian pictures: