It is hard to imagine the claim that the Bishop of Rochester was the most liberal “sounding” speaker at GAFCON (Church Times, 27 June 2008). That gathering must have been terrifying! But then, who says that liberal sounding priests, bishops and theologians are really “converted” and “open”? For, among liberal sounding people one can find some of the most contradictory and un-deconstructed individuals, with the operative word here being “sounding”, more than actually being liberal. Scratch hard and what you find is one hell-bent conservative!
Just following the excerpts as reported in the piece in Church Times one can already sense a number of contradictions in a conservative Anglican leader. The views, for instance, that inculturation should not mean “capitulation to culture”, that change and development must be principled, diversity needs to be legitimate, the church should be conciliar, have a healthy view of apostolic teaching, and the need for a detailed study of the bible are all revealing sound-bites.
What does the Bishop of Rochester actually mean? I wonder if he is aware of how much of what he has received as Anglicanism is wholly steeped in Englishness (including the English good manners quoted in the article) and English white identity. He should do some postcolonial reading of the history of the bishopric of Rochester and take a good look at his mirror the next time he dresses up for an ordination service. Capitulation to culture? Certainly nothing Pakistani here! Such is the un-deconstructed hypocrisy, for which Jesus had a word: whitewashed tombs. What the good bishop needs to learn is that every form of inculturation is already a compromise – even the way that God revealed Godself to the world!
What about this matter of a conciliar? This is commendable indeed, but why a separate gathering and non-attendance at Lambeth – especially since he is making a case for unity as a precious thing (even with diversity). One cannot help but think that what the bishop means is “authoritative uniformity.” Perhaps what the Anglican Church needs is a conciliar system to discern when to fire bishops who wield power illegitimately and bring shame to the “fullness of life agenda” of Jesus!
And furthermore, who will be the ones to determine what legitimate diversity is? Any good student of church history and the development of theology could see that what we have received as apostolic tradition and canons are not value free, falling out of Cloud 9, but shaped and steeped in the culture and power of a white male world that gave agency to uniformity, stifling and shutting out diverse voices.
Indeed, there is a need to study the bible. But more than what the bishop is suggesting is the need to see the imperial contexts of the bible, the colonial schools of interpretations that have shaped the Anglican ecclesial tradition and how these very inspired texts are in fact the conundrum. Certainly, words about God - not from God!
Perhaps honest conversations and free space for God’s Spirit to move unimpeded by Bishops and Church will bring the renewal that the Bishop seeks. The only catch is that it will be unpredictable, for not even what we have received as the Apostolic tradition can bring closure on the Divine.
Just following the excerpts as reported in the piece in Church Times one can already sense a number of contradictions in a conservative Anglican leader. The views, for instance, that inculturation should not mean “capitulation to culture”, that change and development must be principled, diversity needs to be legitimate, the church should be conciliar, have a healthy view of apostolic teaching, and the need for a detailed study of the bible are all revealing sound-bites.
What does the Bishop of Rochester actually mean? I wonder if he is aware of how much of what he has received as Anglicanism is wholly steeped in Englishness (including the English good manners quoted in the article) and English white identity. He should do some postcolonial reading of the history of the bishopric of Rochester and take a good look at his mirror the next time he dresses up for an ordination service. Capitulation to culture? Certainly nothing Pakistani here! Such is the un-deconstructed hypocrisy, for which Jesus had a word: whitewashed tombs. What the good bishop needs to learn is that every form of inculturation is already a compromise – even the way that God revealed Godself to the world!
What about this matter of a conciliar? This is commendable indeed, but why a separate gathering and non-attendance at Lambeth – especially since he is making a case for unity as a precious thing (even with diversity). One cannot help but think that what the bishop means is “authoritative uniformity.” Perhaps what the Anglican Church needs is a conciliar system to discern when to fire bishops who wield power illegitimately and bring shame to the “fullness of life agenda” of Jesus!
And furthermore, who will be the ones to determine what legitimate diversity is? Any good student of church history and the development of theology could see that what we have received as apostolic tradition and canons are not value free, falling out of Cloud 9, but shaped and steeped in the culture and power of a white male world that gave agency to uniformity, stifling and shutting out diverse voices.
Indeed, there is a need to study the bible. But more than what the bishop is suggesting is the need to see the imperial contexts of the bible, the colonial schools of interpretations that have shaped the Anglican ecclesial tradition and how these very inspired texts are in fact the conundrum. Certainly, words about God - not from God!
Perhaps honest conversations and free space for God’s Spirit to move unimpeded by Bishops and Church will bring the renewal that the Bishop seeks. The only catch is that it will be unpredictable, for not even what we have received as the Apostolic tradition can bring closure on the Divine.
© copyright Jagessar July 1, 2008
Image Credit:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/451898.stm
