Representatives from the seven dioceses of New Zealand offered a cross section of views on the issues of human sexuality, which an official report described as having “varied considerably in their commitment to the Lambeth resolution on sexuality and the proposed covenant.”
However, there was consensus among the New Zealand dioceses that it should remain united in structure while divided over doctrine and discipline. Archbishop [Paul] Reeves noted the debates, which at times elicited strong language, were a symbol of the church’s health. A “sign of our bond of affection is the confidence to argue with each other,” he concluded.
“However, there was consensus among the New Zealand dioceses that it should remain united in structure…”
2 Corinthians 6:17: Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18: And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
So, you won’t separate yourself…well God has something special for you–Numbers 33:55: But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
56: Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.
The False Church…
Sir Paul Reeves is delusional in describing the debate in the NZ church as a “symbol of the church’s health.” Anyone who has been to NZ (and I have been many times) is well aware that the highly touted (at least in the US) NZ Prayer Book along with its radical leftist theology has driven most of it’s membership away. The famous phrase about Oakland, Ca is equally appropriate for the NZ Anglican Church…”there is no there there.”
Unlike wamark (#2), I’ve never been to New Zealand, and I can’t even claim to know any Kiwi’s personally. I’ll just venture a general comment that applies to Anglicanism in many parts of the western world. And that is this: It’s futile and even harmful to pretend that we Anglicans can “remain united in structure while divided over (truly fundamental differences of) doctrine and discipline.”
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Differences over matters of adiaphora can be tolerated. But fundamental differences over basic doctrine cannot and should not be tolerated. And that is plainly what we are dealing with today, fundamental differences in worldview and theological assumptions that are mutually exclusive. The main Global South are absolutely right in regarding the apostasy and duplicity of TEC’s leaders as a communion-breaking issue.
David Handy+
Gary E and wamark, Your comments about life here in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia are interesting, and wamark’s visits here are noted. The fact is that most of our membership has not been driven away. People have left for a variety of reasons – in my experience our prayer book scarcely figures among them, leftist theology may be a factor, but so is the encroachment of secularism. People also join us for a variety of reasons including dissatisfaction with ultra-conservative theology in some of our Pentecostal churches, the convenience in many rural regions of Anglican churches being the only church in town, and the beauty of liturgical worship according to our prayer book! And many people have neither left us nor joined us, having been faithful through their lives. By census data we remain one of the two largest churches in Aotearoa New Zealand.
We are a mixed church with thriving parishes and failing parishes, lively debate (as at our recent General Synod) and apathy, and a range of theology typical of many Anglican churches in the West. Gary E’s call to ‘separate’ has an air of biblical mandate for it. But past experience here (e.g. some separation when we ordained women 30 years ago which led to a now defunct version of Anglicanism) gives pause for thought. Besides which some of us in the conservative part of our church are unwilling to make homosexuality the issue over which we break communion, not least because of the implications that would have in making gay and lesbian Anglicans scapegoats for such schism.
Peter Carrell
Nelson, NZ
re #4 “…in my experience our prayer book scarcely figures among them, leftist theology may be a factor…”. Ecclesiastes 12:12: And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making [“many books”(pray books) there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13: Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
2 Timothy 3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I don’t think it says, that from a child thou hast known the pray books?
When you hear Ultra-Conservative–that means strict construtionist,or Jesus and God where Ultra-Conservatives. Strict interpretation of the Holly Bible is taboo in Socialist(Liberal) Establishments.
Peter #4…I applaud your commitment to your church and faith. I hope and pray that through people like you that your church can be renewed among the NZ Anglicans of European lineage. Through my travels through your stunningly beautiful nation and regular worship in your churches I would say you are right on target about the negative effects of secularism. Your prayer book, in many instances, unfortunately reflects that negative influence…hence its enormous popularity with liberals in the dying ML churches of North America. I have to add that I have met many Kiwi’s…former Anglicans… who share my assessment of the ill health of the NZ church. A common refrain I have heard in my journeys is this…”We used to be Anglicans but now we go to (fill in the blank)_______________. I wish that weren’t the case but, sadly, it is despite the rare successes that you have noted. I have been in numerous churches (both north and south) where, if they were Jewish synagogues, they wouldn’t even achieve a minion. I will pray for your success and your church’s renewal.
I live in Wellington — the city where this debate took place, and where the whole conference was held.
The Anglican church is of SUCH importance that I was unaware that it was happening. There was not a single report in our local newspaper. Even the Presbyterians were able to get national publicity when they debated and voted on the topic a couple of years ago.
I think that says volumes about the role of the Anglican church in New Zealand society
You might also want to know that Bishop Robinson was interviewed at some length on our national radio today. The link is here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon
I don’t know how long the link will work because it looks like it is the current days broadcast. Given the interviewer Kathryn Ryan is not a religion reporter or any thing I think she did well with her coverage of the issues.
For those who can not be bothered listening main arguments are:
1. It is almost idolatrous to raise the issue of homosexuality above those of AIDS etc etc
2. The ordination of women didn’t split the church so this won’t.
3. Archbishop Akinola is just following his journey back to God as I am ….
4. The Bible passages don’t count because we don’t read the Bible literally. There are only seven verses —- and they were written when homosexuality was not known …
5. This is ONLY a cultural clash — the west has got to know gay and lesbian people and the people in Nigeria don’t know them.
6. I have had ENORMOUS support from South America — so the global south is split too.
7. His biggest disappointment with the ABC is that we must all stay at the table — and to exclude one person who represents the greatest issue of the moment is “unwise”.
8. Jesus was always seeking out the marginalised — to exclude ME when I am a witness was not helpful.
9. The interviewer quotes from an NBC interview in 2003 when VGR said he would step down if he was causing a rift — but he says he was misquoted and that he has no intent to step down.
10. The ABC is right in having a talkfest — he is right to have no resolutions etc. ….
11. I am getting “DEATH THREATS” so I need a civil union … bullet proof vest … FBI involved but they couldn’t find them … credible .. sob .. sob
12. “Whether the voice in my head is God’s voice or my own ego doing a magnificent impression of God’s voice” … when you finally determine it is God you have to go forward.
There is then a long part about his birth and upbringing and getting therapy for being gay, his marriage, and his coming out, his wonderful ongoing relationship with his ex-wife … which is not particularly new or interesting ….
13. parallels with slavery, people of colour, women etc ….
At least he is said to be in New Hampshire for once !!
“But past experience here (e.g. some separation when we ordained women 30 years ago which led to a now defunct version of Anglicanism) gives pause for thought.”
If I understand correctly, Anglo-Catholicism (once associated with St Michael & All Angels, Christchurch and St Paul’s Symonds Street, Auckland) has disappeared from NZ Anglicanism and has been replaced by an ever-morphing liberal (non) ‘catholicism’ (haberdashery without patristic doctrine) – not too different from Tec, in other words, but admixed with an uncritical fetishism about all things Maori (with Jenny Te Paa leading that charge). One of the unintended consequences of WO, I suspect, but also a reflection of a church (and national) culture that prizes pragmatism and semi-Pelagianism over theological and historical depth. The same might be said about a shallow kind of Pentecostalism which can drift into demagoguery.
Peter, I understand you don’t want to make homosexual Anglicans ‘scapegoats’, but isn’t the problem a lack of discipline already? And for this reason, will you not drift into precisely the same situation of Tec and ACC, with endless numbers of ‘facts on the ground’ (gay clerics in place) making any return to a biblically orthodox church politically impossible? I think you would agree that homosexuality itself is only a presenting issue of a far more extensive reconceptualization of apostolic Christianity in a neo-Gnostic direction. You only have to look at those English sites ‘Thinking Anglicans’ and ‘Fulcrum’ to see the trajectories ahead. The first one is largely peopled by liberal US gays, while the second asserts it is ‘the evangelical center’ but its constituency is becoming increasingly fuzzy (or so it seems to this puzzled reader), united only a by a repudiation of the conservative evangelicalism of Packer and Stott.
Of course, the enfant terrible who points out the Emperor’s nakedness will always be scolded for this, even (or especially) when the ‘adults’ know he is speaking the truth. And so the Diocese of Sydney gives evangelical Anglicans overseas a bad conscience. But you can’t gainsay the rigor and depth of their theological and biblical knowledge, or their grasp of Reformation principles. I do hope and pray that your endeavors in theological education will bring true depth as well as spiritual vitality to the leaders you raise up.
NZ Anglicanism is a strange mix. It has not actually lost Anglo-Catholicism, though in some places, compared with the past, it is a watered down version. I agree with The Gordian re influences of pragmatism, semi-Pelagianism, and liberal theology leading us in some instances in Gnostic directions. But I disagree about an uncritical fetishism for all things Maori. History may prove that we end up in a place like TEC (and the Lord knows we have many TEC admirers here), but as someone in friendly relationships with a wide number of Anglicans of all theological/liturgical shades and stripes, I have to reckon with the fact that some of our keener supporters of SSBs are actually very orthodox on the Trinity and the Resurrection.
Whether a large number of ‘facts on the ground’ are being created is also a matter for discussion. Our bishops seem generally alert to the fact that the future of our church is bound up in the maintaining of an alliance between the cultures and theological groupings which make up our church. Consequently they have not actually created many ‘facts on the ground’ (to use The Gordian’s phrase).
Although it has less to do with the main topic of this thread, for the record I take issue with casting Fulcrum as some kind of bad end to which the NZ Anglican or any other church might arrive at; and I would not completely sign up to the notion of the Diocese of Sydney as providing the perfect example of an alternative good end to which we might aspire.
Finally I appreciate MargaretG’s observations from not far from where I sit. (To her list of GR’s interview segments on NZ radio today could be added his very odd take on Scripture – but I don’t think Titus One Nine readers need reiteration of that!!).
I am grateful for the participation of New Zealanders Peter Carrell and MargaretG in this thread, and for wamark’s observations as someone who travels there often. Perhaps one or more of you, or another Kiwi, could comment on the role of +John Patterson in New Zealand Anglicanism. As the head of the ACC, he certainly has had a major leadership role in the AC as a whole, but I don’t know how much respect and influence he has in his own country.
But there are two other issues it might be relevant to discuss here.
The first is New Zealand’s rather unique nature as a national church that attempts to bridge the huge gap between English culture and the native culture, the Maori one. Has this led to “relativism” becoming even more central to the ideology of Anglicanism there in New Zealand than elsewhere? Or put another way, does it make the struggle to overcome the epidemic of the theological and moral relativism of western culture these days even harder to overcome?
And second, coming back to the article that launched this thread, I call attention again (as in my #3 above) to the crucial statement in the report that there was concensus among the leaders of the seven New Zealand dioceses that they ought to “remain united in structure while divided over doctrine and discipline.” My question is: ON WHAT GROUNDS? On what possible basis can it be reasonably argued that Anglicans in New Zealand, or elsewhere for that matter, should remain united in one ecclesial structure when they are divided over ESSENTIALS of doctrine and discipline? Obviously, by putting it that way, I’m openly showing my bias that the differences at stake in this dispute are indeed non-negotiable matters of core doctrine and discipline. And the chief one is the authority of Scripture as God’s Word written. Since there is absolutely no biblical justification for the “gay is OK” position, this is NOT a fight over biblical interpretation but rather over biblical authority. And that is not a matter of adiaphora. It is indeed a communion-breaking issue. The main Global South leaders are absolutely right about that (in my opinion, of course!).
Finally, perhaps some objective empirical data from New Zealand would be helpful. Many of us here at Titus One Nine are familiar with the dismal statistics documenting the steady decline of TEC over the last 40 years, and the even worse decline and demise of the C of E or the Anglican Church of Canada. Can anyone supply the stats for the decline of Anglicanism in Aotearoa New Zealand?
Thanks again to Peter and Margaret.
David Handy+
Stat istics are very well, David, but the reality is that the image of the Anglicans as accepting everyone under their big umbrella has gotten a strangle hold on what used to be called standards. When there is a vital issue – and homosexuality is vital – two sides can get along with each other only by coercion or by a bilateral admission that the issue is a matter of no consequence. In the Anglican church, this can be done only by doing what TEC has done, which is rule out scripture as a arbiter of such disputes. Without scripture, simple cowardice will keep one side from acting against the other. Where their is real belief, however, the two cannot live together under the same roof. And they shouldn’t. If New Zealand can, they care precious little about the standards that faith and knowledge usually require. But maybe the Kiwis are simply laid back, really cool, very sophisticated; and t hen the operative standard is laidback-ness. LM
OK, I exaggerated a bit for rhetorical effect. What I meant was:
1. PCness, romanticism and postcolonial guilt can make liberal white protestants rewrite the past, expunging some of the unpleasant details of the people they subdued.
2. ‘facts on the ground’ can happen ‘under the radar’.
3. it is less Fulcrum’s leadership that concerns me as the diffuse character of its ‘program’, its hostility to conservative evangelicals (even over penal substitution – what does Tom Wright actually believe on this?) and the liberal tilt of many of its contributors (for which the management must not be held responsible!).
4. Sydney Anglicanism is regarded with reserve in more liberal evangelical circles, I guess, partly because it is cool (in the old sense of the word) towards female headship and charismatic gifts. Maybe I share a bit of this reserve myself. But how prepared are we to be a bit self-critical on these issues ourselves? & how well do we understand the character and depth of their own theological rigor?
Hello again from down under. One way into understanding the fullness of all church life in our islands would be to read a longish report [url=http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/images/state.doc]published by the Challenge Weekly[/url]. In this report we find all church life a mixture of growth and decline, liberal and conservative theology. In the particualar case of Anglicanism our census figures show a steady decline in ‘census Anglicans’. I am less familiar with church attendance figures as these are collated by dioceses but normally not published as a national figure. My impression is that attendance across most dioceses is not declining, but this involves some larger conservative urban parishes growing while some smaller rural parishes decline. Our bishops are aware that their strongest parishes are conservative and I think this keeps our bishops, for the most part, on a steady centrist course. And among those bishops John Paterson is no more or less influential than his colleagues.
Has our structure along cultural streams led to relativism? Possibly, but it would be a moot point whether we were not already there before that structural change! As a matter of fact there are many voices within each of our three cultural streams which speak for orthodoxy.
On the question of how we can “remain united in structure while divided over doctrine and discipline†perhaps the following could be said. (a) Please allow for some lack of nuance in reportage. (b) Though I was not at General Synod my sense of what happened is that we agreed to remain talking to each other (= remain united in structure) while acknowledging that some would wish to proceed with SSBs and ordination of gay and lesbian ordinands and some not only do not wish to do that but are against others doing so (= divided in doctrine and discipline). (c) At this time I do not detect great division over creedal doctrines so we have something doctrinal holding us together! (d) We are working together on a process of understanding Scripture (three conferences on hermeneutics projected over a seven year period, the first held in 2007) so the questions of ‘authority’ and ‘interpretation’ of Scripture are live rather than settled questions: another reason why we are not flying apart! (d) It’s possible that we have lived with so much difference and disagreement since the 1960s that we have a modus operandi which continues (whether it is our laidbackness or theological rigour or whatever, it is there as a fact of our life)! (e) But here, perhaps, is the most important observation: its my view that one thing which stays the hands of bishops who might want to ordain gay and lesbian candidates, and the feet of conservative leaders who might want to walk away, is the general attitude of Kiwi parishioners. Many do not like a hardline being taken “against” gays and lesbians so many conservative vicars just do not have enough support in their parishes to seriously contemplate the kind of departures/realignments we see taking place in North America. Conversely, its my hunch that not too many parishes actually want a gay or lesbian vicar (married person with young family to kick start the Sunday School back into life is the preferred option!!): bishops are not fools and they will not ordain people with no prospect of employment!!
Some comments have mentioned Kiwi pragmatism: it is indeed a strong feature in church and society!!!
For those with further interest in the New Zealand situation, you might like to read this article
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4468642a6000.html
which starts ..
[blockquote] A war of letters has erupted between an Anglican priest and a bishop, with the priest saying the bishop is reluctant to grant him a licence because he publicly questions the church’s “apartheid” model. [/blockquote]
I have been told off for describing the Anglican church here as practising apartheid — well I am just a poor lowly Presbyterian and don’t understand the subtly that means that a church divided by race does not constitute apartheid — and does not contravene Paul’s “neither Greek nor Jew” teaching. That takes Anglican Intellect — so I am told.
I did, however, like this dig at the Bishop (who by the way regular contributes opinion pieces to the paper that show a great level of disgust with traditional christianity)
[blockquote] Mr Davidson replied, saying he was “under the impression the Waiapu diocese welcomed diversity”. He said many people agreed with him and suggested the bishop use his column to explain his view. “My aim was to encourage open and honest public debate.” [/blockquote]
I should also have linked to this piece, where one of the more prominent Maori leaders opposes the proposed covenant because it would interfere with Maori sovereignty (often called Tino Rangitiratanga). It would be interesting to know whether he sees the Bible as imposing similar limitations but unfortunately he doesn’t say.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4525499a6000.html
Can there be any future for a church or diocese where a certain kind of conduct is grossly sinful in one place but deserving of God’s blessing in another?
The only extra thing I might comment on is this sense of where each Tikanga lies:
Pakeha do debate to some degree the theological issues surrounding homosexual behaviour, but the political dynamic of that debate is likely to be more influential re the outcome just as reference has already been made to “pragmatism” [ref +John P? It is also noteworthy that the Anglicans All web site has been deliberately and consistently sabotaged];
Maori are by and large more interested in cultural survival (which may or may not be tinged with matters “post-colonial”), and have yet to engage in the equivalent of the Early Church’s Gospel and Culture debates, just as their sense of mission is not exactly electric; there is also a largish gap between their laos and some more prominent intellectual leadership who are mostly Pakeha liberal clones;
Pacifica are definitely more concerned with financial survival amidst missionary outreach in a problematic 3rd world setting, while their leadership is evenly spread theologically.