- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,417
- 5,524
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Recently Fr Gavin Ashenden announced his resignation from the Church of England. I think he has done so with a great deal of integrity, and I mean no criticism, however we don't necessarily agree on all things, that does not detract from the respect I have for him.
In a carefully reserved You Tube Video he has expressed some of his thinking that has drawn him to the action he has now taken. He puts the position as the difference between revelation and revolution. I think he expressed this well, however I wonder if profoundly we don't find that revelation and revolution are not critically connected, and may indeed be in harmony.
One the one hand I agree absolutely that the nature and character of God can only be understood by revelation. God who is before the beginning and in existence before existence exists, can only be understood in terms of what is revealed. Hence we, who have apprehended something of the vision splendid, value revelation and the places where that revelation can be established. Preeminently for us, as Christians, is in the person of Jesus Christ and the record of his life among us. John tells us 'No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known' John 1:18.
There are of course a number of things in the Jesus account that points us to a revolution. Perhaps if we look at John chapter 4 we see something of this revolution. Jesus is returning to Galilee through Samaria. They stop at the well which happens to be Jacob's well, the place of great importance until David united the Kingdoms and moved the capital to Jerusalem. The Samaritans for most of Israel were regarded as the lowest of the low, and walking through Samaria on your way to the temple was enough to defile you. So now we have Jesus and the Samaritan woman who has come to draw water and Jesus initiates a conversation. There is a revolution going on here, and the woman recognises it immediately as asks, 'how is it you a Jew are speaking to me, a Samaritan woman?'. Of course we then go on to establish that the woman does not even have pristine credentials, and her current living arrangements may not pass muster either. The Samaritans were expecting someone to return and restore the law given by Moses, and thew believed that a sign would be buckets of water by his side. This little detail, that the woman rushes back to town to tell them about the man, leaving the water bucket. The passage ultimately concludes with the proclamation that Jesus is the Saviour of the World, though perhaps better translated as the Saviour of the Cosmos. This is no longer a Jewish Messiah, now a Samaritan Redeemer, but a universal Saviour. I think there is something fundamentally revolutionary here.
In Chapter 1 of John, John the Baptiser is baptising in the water of the River Jordan. In Chapter 2 we have the narrative of the jars of water (for the old cleansing ritual) turned into wine (the celebration of a new covenant). In Chapter 3 we have the discussion about living water, which most of us understand to be talking about baptism and new birth by water and spirit. In chapter 4 we have the well of the Old times and the Samaritans, and Jesus offering living water. It is interesting that water is discussed 24 times in John's Gospel. It seems that water, not sword is a major part of this new revolution as revealed in the fourth gospel.
There do seem to be two ways to look at how the Church should behave and this is very much related. On the one hand the Church sees a role as the guardians of the tradition, the sacred deposit of faith, the faith that was once delivered to the saints. On the other hand is the idea of the Church as the mission of Jesus carried forward into new ground, new times, new places, and discovering what it means to live the Jesus life in new circumstances. And we ask ourselves in company with the writer of Psalm 138 'How shall we sing the Lord's son in a strange land?'.
For a great part of our history the Church has been a leader in social reform, in terms of hospitals, education, social welfare, social justice, and a range of important issues. It seems that somewhere in the last 150 years or so we have become a little more conservative and less given to be at the forefront. Fr Gavin Ashenden discussed helpfully the role of the Church of England as Chaplain to the Nation perhaps reminding us of the careful relationship that is often referred to as the deal struck often called the Elizabeth Settlement, whereby the Church had a responsibility of care for everyone in the nation, and the Nation sought to defend and protect the Church and uphold Christian values. There clearly have been a number of issues he confronted including the reading from the Koran rather than the Bible in the liturgy on Epiphany Sunday, which he regarded as in breach. He argues that the Churches role as chaplain is not simply to comfort the secular state whatever it does, but the challenge and present to Gospel as a call to a new and better way.
Whilst a I agree with a lot of the force and measure of Fr Gavin Ashenden, I do not believe that we should lock the Church in a fixed position as we move forward. I think we do need to tead with care, and there are some things where we must just recognise that we are not going to go there. For him and for many, they would see the Ordination of Women to the sacred ministry as one of those areas. I think Jesus did much to lift the status of women in a male dominated society and I see the Ordination of Women as is not part of Anglican life in many parts of the communion as being a natural extension in the ministry and mission of Jesus.
I think that the Church of England has lost a very good person in the loss of Fr Gavin Ashenden. I have been working with the 12 Homily from the First Book of Homilies of late, and I feel that it is very apposite even 475 years down the track.
One short extract
What would Paul say, if he heard the contentious words which now are almost in everyone’s mouth? They are pharisees, they are true believers, they born again, they are of the old faith, they are separated brethren, they are good catholics, they are papists, they are heretics. How the Church is divided? How are the cities so cut and mangled? How is the coat of Christ, once without seam, now rent and torn? O mystical Body of Christ, where is that holy and happy unity, outside of which we are not in Christ? If one member be pulled from another, where is the body? If the body be drawn from the head, where is the life of the body? We cannot be joined to Christ our head, except we be glued with concord and charity one to another. For those who are not of this unity, are not of Christ’s Church, a congregation or unity together, and not a division. Saint Paul says, “For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?” (1 Corinthians 3:3).
In a carefully reserved You Tube Video he has expressed some of his thinking that has drawn him to the action he has now taken. He puts the position as the difference between revelation and revolution. I think he expressed this well, however I wonder if profoundly we don't find that revelation and revolution are not critically connected, and may indeed be in harmony.
One the one hand I agree absolutely that the nature and character of God can only be understood by revelation. God who is before the beginning and in existence before existence exists, can only be understood in terms of what is revealed. Hence we, who have apprehended something of the vision splendid, value revelation and the places where that revelation can be established. Preeminently for us, as Christians, is in the person of Jesus Christ and the record of his life among us. John tells us 'No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known' John 1:18.
There are of course a number of things in the Jesus account that points us to a revolution. Perhaps if we look at John chapter 4 we see something of this revolution. Jesus is returning to Galilee through Samaria. They stop at the well which happens to be Jacob's well, the place of great importance until David united the Kingdoms and moved the capital to Jerusalem. The Samaritans for most of Israel were regarded as the lowest of the low, and walking through Samaria on your way to the temple was enough to defile you. So now we have Jesus and the Samaritan woman who has come to draw water and Jesus initiates a conversation. There is a revolution going on here, and the woman recognises it immediately as asks, 'how is it you a Jew are speaking to me, a Samaritan woman?'. Of course we then go on to establish that the woman does not even have pristine credentials, and her current living arrangements may not pass muster either. The Samaritans were expecting someone to return and restore the law given by Moses, and thew believed that a sign would be buckets of water by his side. This little detail, that the woman rushes back to town to tell them about the man, leaving the water bucket. The passage ultimately concludes with the proclamation that Jesus is the Saviour of the World, though perhaps better translated as the Saviour of the Cosmos. This is no longer a Jewish Messiah, now a Samaritan Redeemer, but a universal Saviour. I think there is something fundamentally revolutionary here.
In Chapter 1 of John, John the Baptiser is baptising in the water of the River Jordan. In Chapter 2 we have the narrative of the jars of water (for the old cleansing ritual) turned into wine (the celebration of a new covenant). In Chapter 3 we have the discussion about living water, which most of us understand to be talking about baptism and new birth by water and spirit. In chapter 4 we have the well of the Old times and the Samaritans, and Jesus offering living water. It is interesting that water is discussed 24 times in John's Gospel. It seems that water, not sword is a major part of this new revolution as revealed in the fourth gospel.
There do seem to be two ways to look at how the Church should behave and this is very much related. On the one hand the Church sees a role as the guardians of the tradition, the sacred deposit of faith, the faith that was once delivered to the saints. On the other hand is the idea of the Church as the mission of Jesus carried forward into new ground, new times, new places, and discovering what it means to live the Jesus life in new circumstances. And we ask ourselves in company with the writer of Psalm 138 'How shall we sing the Lord's son in a strange land?'.
For a great part of our history the Church has been a leader in social reform, in terms of hospitals, education, social welfare, social justice, and a range of important issues. It seems that somewhere in the last 150 years or so we have become a little more conservative and less given to be at the forefront. Fr Gavin Ashenden discussed helpfully the role of the Church of England as Chaplain to the Nation perhaps reminding us of the careful relationship that is often referred to as the deal struck often called the Elizabeth Settlement, whereby the Church had a responsibility of care for everyone in the nation, and the Nation sought to defend and protect the Church and uphold Christian values. There clearly have been a number of issues he confronted including the reading from the Koran rather than the Bible in the liturgy on Epiphany Sunday, which he regarded as in breach. He argues that the Churches role as chaplain is not simply to comfort the secular state whatever it does, but the challenge and present to Gospel as a call to a new and better way.
Whilst a I agree with a lot of the force and measure of Fr Gavin Ashenden, I do not believe that we should lock the Church in a fixed position as we move forward. I think we do need to tead with care, and there are some things where we must just recognise that we are not going to go there. For him and for many, they would see the Ordination of Women to the sacred ministry as one of those areas. I think Jesus did much to lift the status of women in a male dominated society and I see the Ordination of Women as is not part of Anglican life in many parts of the communion as being a natural extension in the ministry and mission of Jesus.
I think that the Church of England has lost a very good person in the loss of Fr Gavin Ashenden. I have been working with the 12 Homily from the First Book of Homilies of late, and I feel that it is very apposite even 475 years down the track.
One short extract
What would Paul say, if he heard the contentious words which now are almost in everyone’s mouth? They are pharisees, they are true believers, they born again, they are of the old faith, they are separated brethren, they are good catholics, they are papists, they are heretics. How the Church is divided? How are the cities so cut and mangled? How is the coat of Christ, once without seam, now rent and torn? O mystical Body of Christ, where is that holy and happy unity, outside of which we are not in Christ? If one member be pulled from another, where is the body? If the body be drawn from the head, where is the life of the body? We cannot be joined to Christ our head, except we be glued with concord and charity one to another. For those who are not of this unity, are not of Christ’s Church, a congregation or unity together, and not a division. Saint Paul says, “For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?” (1 Corinthians 3:3).
Last edited:
