Michael Nazir-Ali focused on the concept of inculturation. On this issue, see the Fulcrum Submission to the Lambeth Commission.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2004/20040528lambeth.cfm?doc=66

In the appendix to that submission, we quoted Philip Jenkins on the Global South and North and church expectations. Jenkins wrote in his article, 'After the Next Christendom', International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol 28, No 1, Jan 2004, pp. 20-22:

'I would make a caveat about what we might call the usefulness of the rising churches of the global South and their relevance to the ecclesiastical debates in the North. As I tried to argue repeatedly in the book [The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: OUP, 2002)], the Southern churches will define themselves according to their own needs and interests. In understanding recent rhetorical uses of the Solid South - for instance, within the Anglican Communion - I describe what I call the "two dreams" that have dominated Western Christian approaches over the past half century or so. One is the Liberation Dream, the idea that the new Third World Christianity would deploy the radical texts of the biblical tradition in the service of insurgent liberation theology. The other is the Conservative Dream, the more modern idea that the conservative churches of the South would cling to fundamentalist readings of the Bible and help restrain liberal trends in the North, especially in matters of gender and sexual orientation. My argument is that both expectations, liberal and conservative, are substantially wrong. Each in its different ways expects the Southern churches to reproduce Western obsessions and approaches, rather than evolving their own distinctive solutions to their own particular problems.'

Wise words worth pondering...

As his predecessor as General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society Bishop Harry Moore used to say 'so what?'

The point which is absolutely clear is that a single united and agreed message able to be applied in countries which are very different in their own cultural leanings is not going to exist - ever. Its more a case of having to accept difference and perhaps setting up structures that will mean all are somehow 'within' the communion but not accepting or recognising each other?

I think its a dogs dinner. A split would be far better - at least then everyone knows exactly where they stand and what they believe.

This is just more of the same - Britain is not going to suddenly adopt the mores and attitudes of Nigeria, and vice versa.

Looks to me like he is setting out a kind of intellectual case to renew structures and even remove old ones, for stronger control from a perceived centre.

It demonstrates that they have to produce change and that if the conference doesn't act as a launching board they will be like all the other evangelical efforts. I don't buy any of this idea that they are wobbling, or unsure or the rest. The Marxists and the Trots had their workers and the intellectuals, and he is performing as the latter.

"Each in its different ways expects the Southern churches to reproduce Western obsessions and approaches, rather than evolving their own distinctive solutions to their own particular problems.'"

Isn't it rather that Southern churches appear to be unable to let Northern churches be? The pressure to conform, the inability to accept that America may go a different way from Abuja, and the setting up of African Anglican churches within America has not been forced on the world by liberal Northern obsession with wanting the South to conform.

Although holding very firm views, Northern churches have generally been urging a peaceful living side by side within the Anglican Communion. It's the Southern churches who are finding it completely impossible even to take Communion with those who disagree with them.

Graham Kings: but Nazir-Ali's point about inculturation is a point against himself. You can't be pro- more inculturation in Africa and Asia, yet against inculturation in liberal pro-gay England, can you? He is saying that the C of E is embedded in English society at every level, but at the same time to exclude from it a substantial number of the decent members of English society (gay people). It doesn't make sense at all. If you believe in inculturation in Africa, you also need to believe in allowing gay blessings in England.

Thanks, Fr Mark. Being in favour of inculturation does not mean that there are not limits.

Using another subject completely to make my point, it was considered by most members of the European Council of Churches that the Serbian Orthodox Church had gone beyond the limits of inculturation in giving backing to Serbian Nationalism in the campaign for 'Greater Serbia'.

We wrote in the Fulcrum submission to the Lambeth Commission:

'The 'inculturation' of the Gospel is essential to its planting, growth and flourishing. The good news does need to be earthed deeply in local cultures, so that people feel at home and that they know that the good news comes from God, rather than from another country. However, there are key limits, and often these limits are best seen by outsiders. In engaging with gay cultures in the USA and Canada, it is appropriate that Anglicans from other cultures, as well as those from these countries, question whether these recent decisions go beyond the limits of inculturation. We consider that they do.'

The Windsor Report, of the Lambeth Commission, has specific paragraphs on inculturation: eg paras 67, 85, and 86 (mentioning 'limits to diversity').

But some scientists would work agaisnt this. Turning Christians into objects of scientific manipulation.

Can this be right ? Can it really be the way forward ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50&feature=related

Graham Kings: I am afraid that you haven't quite grasped that contemporary UK is no longer compatible with traditional Christianity in terms of its developing culture. How you deal with that is up to you, but I am afraid you have absolutely missed the boat if you want to try and turn the clock back,. Quite simply, we ain't gonna let you.

What is wrong is premodern, semi-primitive basket case nations run by dictators and with churches which appear to follow the same pattern. There is no place for that or the religions it spawns in progressive, liberal Britain. Whether it be Agaria law or conservative Christianityt, people do not want to be dominated by religionism. Church is fine for the odd wedding, christening or funeral - but other than those who attend, British people think religion is for private worship only.

Nazir-Ali is too late. What he hopes to retain has already departed. And for that we must be sincerely grateful.

"Being in favour of inculturation does not mean that there are not limits."

And around and around and around we go...

Lord have mercy!