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.
This morning we will dedicate a new Pulpit Bible – King James Version – which has been kindly donated by Bev & Jacoba Morash! This article by Fr. David Curry calls attention to the significance and importance of the King James Version of the Bible.
A raft of books dealing with the King James Version of the Bible – Alistair McGrath’s In the Beginning, Benson Bobrick’s Wide as the Waters, and Adam Nicolson’s God’s Secretaries, for instance – all witness to a revival of interest and scholarly appreciation for the remarkable achievement of the King James Bible. Among publishers’ phantasmagoria of biblical translations available in bookstores, it is still possible to find the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures. But is it being read? Is it being heard?
The Pocket Canons is another project that calls attention to the significance of the King James Bible. A publishing initiative by Grove Press, New York, books of the King James Version of the Bible are published individually in small volumes, each 4 1/8” by 5 5/8” in size. They can also be purchased in box sets; thus far two sets are available covering a range of Old and New Testament books. But what is really outstanding and of interest is the way this initiative undertakes to engage contemporary culture in all its diversity. Each volume is provided with an introduction by a contemporary writer.
The range of writers is remarkable. They include such figures as P.D. James writing on The Acts of the Apostles – an interesting twist on the genre of the whodunit; Charles Frazier of the novel Cold Mountain, now a movie, writing about another struggle of epic proportions, the struggles of Job; the novelist, non-fiction and short-story writer Doris Lessing on Ecclesiastes; the author, poet, journalist and literary critic par excellence of The Spectator and the Sunday Times, Peter Ackroyd on the Book of Isaiah; the Dalai Lama on the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude; novelist Joanna Trollope on the books of Ruth and Esther; the mystery writer Ruth Rendell on The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans; Karen Armstrong, famed for, among other things, The History of God, writing on The Letter to the Hebrews; Thomas Cahill, author of such books as The Gift of the Jews, The Desire of the Everlasting Hills, How the Irish Saved Civilisation, and Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter writing on The Gospel according to John; and without exhausting the list of writers but bringing it to some sort of finale, last but not least, singer and writer, humanitarian and activist and sometime court jester at the coronation of Paul Martin, Paul David Hewson, better known as Bono of the rock-band U2 writing, appropriately enough, on the Psalms!
Intrigued? You should be for what is on offer through these writers is more than Oprah fluff and puff. Here are some pretty high-powered writers engaging in a lively, serious and reflective manner with the most formative translation of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament in the English speaking world. What is amazing is the depth of the engagement. They are not biblical scholars, mercifully, but they more than do the job of providing informative and satisfactory introductions to the often very complex texts that are before them. Along the way they reveal, if not a yearning, then at least, an openness to the sacred and a profound respect for the language of revelation and its formative power that reaches, thankfully, beyond institutional religion to literature and the arts. Paradoxically, that reach of the transforming Word is often through exposure to the Word proclaimed in the life of the Church.
Rector David Curry delivered this address to the West Hants Historical Society on 4 March 2010.
Sorrow and loss, pride and gain are part and parcel of the Scottish Legacy in the land which we call Nova Scotia, New Scotland.
I have been told on good authority – it appears on bumper-stickers – that “God made the Scots a wee bit better,” a sentiment with which some might agree, whether with or without té Breag, a wee dram of the creature, while others might take exception. But we cannot overlook the role of the Scots/Irish in our Maritime and local history.
We meet in the town of Windsor, acknowledged as “The Home of Sam Slick,” if we are to believe the bill-boards on our highways, and we meet, of course, in the gateway to the Valley also celebrated on the bill-boards and in the tourist literature as “The Land of Evangeline.”
With respect to the first, “The Home of Sam Slick,” we have to say, no, not so, either fictionally or in reality. The literary creation of Thomas Chandler Haliburton, who rightly may claim Windsor as his home, Sam Slick is the fictional “Yankee peddler”, who provides an amusingly satiric and not always complimentary view of the pioneer realities of early nineteenth century Maritime society and culture with all of its pretentions and follies, prejudices and biases. A source of amusement, especially to the literate and chattering classes of England, Sam Slick is certainly not of Windsor born.
Just as fictitious, but with a greater degree of romantic interest, is the heroine of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem Evangeline, a poem which has caught the imagination and continues to exercise a power upon all who imagine themselves as displaced and disenfranchised by the ubiquitous and imperious decree of whatever “powers-that-be.” But it is altogether a fiction, pleasing and heart-rending as it may be.
Both are the creations of the nineteenth literary imagination, the one local and earlier in the century, the other mid-century and out of New England; both embued with a sense for the power of a story and the ability to tell it well and poetically with all of the license of a poet and a novelist. But the reality?
To some extent, the reality lies in the fiction and the power of fiction, the power of a well-told story, the power of sympathetic character and the power of wit and humour. But over and against such fictional identities, important as such things are, stands another story, a real story about a real heroine, and one whose name has somehow managed to escape our notice almost entirely. Certainly, it adorns no bill-board; a forlorn plaque alone speaks to its poignant reality; the odd notice and passing remark appear in some of the historical literature. There is, too, a paucity of historical evidence and yet what we have is sure. Flora was here!
Windsor is, quite literally, the winter stopping-place of Flora MacDonald (1722-1790). Now it would be a bit of a romantic stretch or a satiric comment, more akin to Longfellow’s Evangeline and Haliburton’s Sam Slick, to call Windsor, the winter-castle of Flora MacDonald! And, yet, what a story it is! A story that illumines so much of the story of the Scots, and their contribution to our Maritime and Canadian identity.
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
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. (more…)
The Fall 2009 issue of Christ Church Chronicles can be downloaded here as a pdf document. (Previous issues can be downloaded via this page.)
The Rev’d David Curry delivered this address to the Open Door Conference (organised by Anglican Essentials Canada), Toronto, in June 2005.
“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.
The Trinity 2009 issue of the parish newsletter, Christ Church Chronicles, can be downloaded here as a pdf document. (Previous issues can be downloaded via this page.)
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