Christ Church

“How readest thou?”

Christ crucified, Lancelot Andrewes tells us in a marvellous sermon is “liber charitatis, the book of love, opened to us” to read. How do we read?

It is a pressing contemporary question. How do we read? There has been a virtual explosion of books about the marvel and the miracle of reading and about what reading means in the digital age. There is, in fact, a considerable climate of anxiety about books and reading. Does it mean the end of books? Does it mean the end of reading, itself? In the technological changes of the digital world, do the changes to reading mean changes to our thinking?

There is, for example, Alberto Manguel’s classic, History of Reading (1996), not to mention his A Reader on Reading (2010) and a collection of other writings. There is Maryanne Wolf’s remarkable and prescient book, Proust and the Squid (2008), Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010), Christopher Hedges The Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (2007), Mark Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardises Our Future (2008) – no prizes for guessing where he is coming from! There is the digital cheerleader, Clay Shirky, with Cognitive Surplus (2010) and, soon to come, Hello Avatar: Rise of the Networked Generation (2011).

There are the scholarly reflections of such figures as Anthony Grafton with his Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West (2009), and Ann Blair’s Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age (2010). And just as recently, there is Alan Jacobs useful overview and balanced reflection in his The Pleasures of Reading in An Age of Distraction (2011), who opens us out to a larger world past and present about the how, the what, and the why of reading. As he notes about Harold Bloom’s How to Read and Why (2000), it should really have been called ‘What to Read and What to Think about It’. There is always, it seems, a moral, even dogmatic, imperative that slips into the consideration of reading. And, finally, to end this eclectic romp about books about books and reading, Amazon alerted me just the other day about a book just released by Umberto Eco and Jean-Claude Carrière, entitled This is Not the End of the Book (2011)! I suspect that this is not “the end of the matter”, though I think the wisdom of Ecclesiastes will indeed be born out, namely that “of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

It might seem that along with the question, “how do we read?”, there is the equally important question, “what do we read?” To be sure. Yet, this may be one of those rare moments where the how sheds light on the what, the means upon the purpose. At the very least, it opens to view the necessary interrelation between how we read and what we read.

And what about worship and prayer? What about the reading of The Book of Common Prayer? How readest thou?

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been asked about the decisions of the recent Synod of the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as reported in the media. I can only offer the following observations in what is an attempt to explain what seems to be rather confusing.

The Politics of Confusion?
Some Reflections on the Recent Decisions
of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

Truth, it is often said, is the first casualty of war. More often than not, there is simply confusion. In the ‘sex-wars’ within the Anglican Communion, confusion reigns supreme. The recent Synod of the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provides a case in point.

The Synod discussed and debated a number of motions regarding the issue of same-sex blessings. The four motions were, one might say, aggressive in their zeal for providing some sort of arrangement, blessing, marriage, or otherwise for same-sex couples. Most remarkable is the degree of confusion about the word, ‘marriage’.

The motions included keeping a roster of parishes and clergy “amenable to the blessing of same-sex civilly married couples”; providing a liturgy for “blessing covenanted or committed unions outside marriage”; requiring clergy to “cease acting as agents of the civil government in performing marriages until such time as the clergy of the Diocese may officiate at the marriage of all legally eligible persons”; and a motion that, on the one hand, called for the Bishop’s Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality (2010) to become an Episcopal guideline, while, on the other hand, seeming to advocate the principle of local option.

Overall the motions are, well, intriguing, ranging from the blessings for those already civilly married, as if the Church were to bless whatever the state has allowed, to forcing parishes and priests to declare themselves on this matter as if such things lay within the purview of either. Not to mention the idea of the clergy going on strike and refusing to marry anybody until everybody in the Church is compliant with what the state has determined are legal marriages. Once again, in this view the church is seen as subservient to the state and not independent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to download the Rector’s Annual Report for 2010 (pdf document).

The Rector’s Annual Reports for 2003 through 2009 can be accessed via this page.

Fr David Curry recently delivered an address at Trinity Church, Saint John, New Brunswick, on the occasion of the 225th anniversary of the City of Saint John. His topic was “Beyond Nostalgia: Theological Aspects of the Anglican Loyalist Experience”. The full text is available for download as a pdf document; here are two brief excerpts:

The Anglican Loyalist story is a way of recovering the grand and great narrative of the Christian story, what [David Bentley] Hart calls “the Christian revolution.” Getting the Christian story right, means overcoming all the false forms of that story, the distortions and misunderstandings about the history of Christianity, particularly, in relation to the account of modernity and contemporary culture. It means getting beyond our nostalgia for some particular aspects of our history, the shards and fragments to which we cling so desperately, in order to embrace a deeper nostalgia, a longing for the absolute, for God, which underlies, shapes and informs the Anglican Loyalist story.
[…]
It is in the context of the larger Christian story that we can begin to understand the Anglican Loyalist experience here in the Maritimes. Our endeavour will be to identify certain predominant features of the Loyalists. They are: the sense of Divine Providence as undergirding the commitment to peace, order and good government; the intrinsic connection between public worship and public service; the commitment to a learned ministry and to education; and idea of the Churches as sacramental presences contributing to the sanctity and the civility of common life. Underlying these themes is the necessity and importance of the stable liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, the spiritual manifesto of the Anglican Loyalist experience.

Click here to download the address as a pdf document.

The Anglican Essentials Blog contained the following opinion piece from The Anglican Journal, which sparked some discussion to which I contributed. I have included the opinion piece, as the Anglican Essentials Blog frames it, and, then, have offered an edited version of my comments. This is for your interest, in the build-up to General Synod in Halifax in early June 2010.

Read the rest of this entry »

Several motions were presented at today’s Annual Meeting of the Parish of Christ Church, Windsor, including two motions, posted below, that may be of interest to Anglicans beyond our Parish.  Both of these motions passed unanimously.

Motion # 4

Preamble:  Parishes have been asked to send to the Diocese [of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island] a parochial Mission Statement. The following expresses the intent and purpose for the continuing existence of the Parish, captures the intent and purpose of the Covenant in Ministry between the Rector and Parish, and establishes the principles that define an Anglican identity and witness.

Re: Mission Statement of the Parish of Christ Church:

To be a visible witness, in the community of Windsor and beyond, to the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as faithful stewards of the mysteries of God in Christ and in his body, the Church, according to the principles of our Anglican spiritual identity expressed in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Solemn Declaration of 1893.

Motion # 5

Preamble: In the current distresses of the Anglican Communion and in the attempts to find a mechanism to hold the communion together, the Archbishop of Canterbury has sponsored an ‘Anglican Communion Covenant’.  The Covenant is attached in Appendix # 2 [and is posted online here].  The motion affirms the ‘Anglican Communion Covenant’ as consistent with the understanding of our identity, polity and life that the Parish has articulated from time-to-time as well as signaling our continued commitment tot eh Anglican Communion via the Archbishop of Canterbury regardless of the actions of local and national synods.

Re: Endorsement of the ‘Anglican Communion Covenant’

The Parish of Christ Church endorses the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ‘Anglican Communion Covenant’ as a mechanism for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion, in accord with the foundational principles of our Anglican identity expressed in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the Thirty-nine Articles and as consistent with the Solemn Declaration of 1893 in Canada.

Click here to download the Rector’s Annual Report for 2009 (pdf document).

The Rector’s Annual Reports for 2003 through 2008 can be accessed via this page.

In October Pope Benedict issued an Apostolic Constitution entitled Anglicanorum Coetibus dealing with the reception into the Roman Catholic Church of various Anglican groups and individuals. I have been asked about my views on this matter. Here is an article recently published in The Anglican Planet (TAP), for your interest. DC

On the recent Vatican statement (yeah, that one)

By David Curry

CLEAR AND PRECISE, gracious and considerate, Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus is, not surprisingly, a very Roman document. Juridical in its tone and approach, it is very firmly set within the established norms of Canon Law in the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church.

It makes, as the Vatican press release says, “a new provision” in response “to the many requests … from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful … who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church.” The document is a clear and precise statement about that pastoral response.

It is not really an “ecumenical” document. It is not about a further development in the relationships between various constituent ecclesiological communities, along the lines of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, for instance. And with respect to the question as to why the Archbishop of Canterbury was not consulted, why should he be about Anglican groups who are seeking accommodation within the Roman Catholic Church?

In other words, the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, along with its Complementary Norms, is an in-house response of the Roman See to Anglicans who have already embraced “the Roman Covenant,” to coin a phrase, out of dismay and disillusionment with the episcopal and synodical developments within the Anglican Communion which have compromised and betrayed “the Anglican Covenant.” “The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith professed by members of the Ordinariate”(I.5). Not the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal* and the Thirty-nine Articles. This provision is for Anglicans who have become thoroughly disillusioned with Anglicanism. Sad but true. And not without reason.

It is gracious and considerate, to an extent. Read the rest of this entry »

The Rev’d David Curry delivered this address to the Open Door Conference (organised by Anglican Essentials Canada), Toronto, in June 2005.

The Primacy of Doctrine

“How came we ashore”, asks Miranda in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest, having heard the litany of betrayal and deceit that exiled her and her father from Milan. “By Providence divine”, replies Prospero, himself the victim of the machinations of others but also aware of his own neglect of what belonged to his ducal office. Well, we have just heard powerfully and prophetically from David Short about the litany of betrayal and deceit, confusion and disarray, that brings us to this conference and this moment.

But I want to suggest that there is a wonderful providence, too, that brings us ashore, that brings us to this moment, a wonderful providence that is at work in the Anglican Communion. And it is not about who shouts the loudest, not about who holds the power cards, not about who has title and who has not. No. It is about the recovery of the doctrinal mind of the Anglican Communion. And if we are not part of that, make no mistake, we are nothing and nothing worth.

Doctrine, not praxis, though doctrine should shape and measure our actions. Doctrine, not process thinking, though doctrine should guide and direct our thinking. Doctrine, yeah! Just what you came to hear about, right? “These are a few of your favourite things” (I’ve always wanted to sing in Roy Thompson Hall!) But whether this is something which is your favourite thing or not, doctrine is the unum necessarium, the one thing necessary, without which we are nothing and nothing worth. The wonderful providence at work in the Anglican Communion is about the possibility of thinking again what belongs to our true and collective identity in the body of Christ. But we have to think it.

If we do not keep before us, front and centre, the teaching of the Church, the teaching which we have received through the witness of the Scriptures faithfully transmitted down through the centuries by the power of the Spirit in the ordered life of the Church, then we are nothing. If we do not hold ourselves accountable to the doctrines that define us, then we become the betrayers of Christ and his Church.

Read the rest of this entry »

Some Thoughts about the Listening Process on the Presenting Issue of Same-sex Blessings in the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

Inclusivity versus Comprehensiveness:

The first point to make about the question of same-sex blessings is that the debate reveals an interesting divide between the secular value of inclusivity and the sacred category of comprehensiveness. Anglican theology has often prided itself on the concept and idea of comprehensiveness, the ability to embrace a range of different but legitimate theological and liturgical positions. This is only possible on the strength and clarity about the foundational and creedal principles that define officially the Anglican approach to theology and ecclesiological unity. The secular principle of inclusivity derives from a more linear approach as distinct from the circular approach of comprehensiveness. This more linear approach is open-ended but in such a way as to be ultimately exclusive. As paradoxical as this seems, it remains the distinctive feature of the debate. The approach is open to an endless number of self-determinations of identity as asserted and claimed. God, however, is excluded from the consideration in principle. God can never be one more item in a list of items that are valued. This is a central principle of all the traditions of revealed religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Consensus of Discussion versus the Consensus Fidelium:

The second point to make about the question of same-sex blessings is that the debate presupposes a form of consensus that is false. However valuable and good the exchange of opinions and ideas, the sharing of emotions and experiences may be, such things are not determinative of matters of doctrine, whether we are talking about the essential doctrines of the faith such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Salvation and so forth, the things that are laid out in the creeds, or whether one is talking about moral doctrine and matters of polity. Questions of doctrine are explicitly outside of the authority of the Synods, locally or nationally. The second clause of the Constitution of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia makes this perfectly clear. One may discuss any number of things, from whether the moon is made of green cheese or whether the bishops’ knickers are purple, but such matters cannot be mandated to be believed. Synods have simply no authority over matters of doctrine essentially, morally or in terms of polity. To make the point even more directly, any attempt to coerce conscience and practice on the matter of same-sex blessings runs the risk of inviting constructive dismissal suits legally. The consensus fidelium is not something that each and every synod or parish or individual gets to decide on; we are already committed to a consensus fidelium expressed and embodied in our foundational documents. On this matter, there is a doctrine of Christian marriage to which we are committed, however much it has been compromised precisely by the overreach of Synodical and Episcopal authorities. This is leads to the third point.

The Archbishop of Canterbury as the Interpreter of the Mind of the Communion:

The third point is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in spite of his personal views, perhaps, on the issue at hand, has in his articulation of the problem in the Communion made it perfectly clear that it may be necessary to find, “ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed.” To which one must add, “and cannot agree and cannot be forced to agree.”

The Limits of the Terms of the Discourse:

There remains, perhaps, a fourth point which goes to the issue of the discourse itself. The categories in which the debate is conducted already constrain and limit the debate, removing it from the biblical and theological categories, on the one hand, (the Scriptures, Old and New, know nothing of orientation, just as there is confusion in the realm of biology about the clarity and adequacy of the category of “homosexuality”) and failing to recognize the essential social and political claim made by the more philosophically astute proponents of same-sex blessings that it is entirely and properly speaking a social construct, on the other hand. This would put the debate upon an entirely different footing, one far removed from the destructive polarities in which it is presently conducted.

Fr. David Curry
April 2009