Monteverdi: Teatro d'Amore, L'Arpeggiata, directed by harpist and lutenist Christina Pluhar with countertenor Philippe Jaroussky, soprano Núria Rial and others. Virgin Classics, 2009.

On the theory of the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe

I.
What banged?

II.
Before banging
how did it get there?

III.
When it got there
where was it?

— Wendell Berry. Leavings: poems. Berkeley: Counterpoint, 2010, p.5.

With a hat tip to Louie Crew, I must post this performance by the choir of King's College, Cambridge, of the 1911 setting by Harold Darke of In the Bleak Midwinter, by English poet Christina Rossetti, c.1872, published in her Poetic Works in 1904 — considered by some to be world's best Christmas carol.

In the bleak midwinter Frosty wind made moan, Earth stood hard as iron, Water like a stone; Snow had fallen, snow on snow, Snow on snow, In the bleak midwinter, Long ago. Our God, heaven cannot hold him, Nor earth sustain; Heaven and earth shall flee away When he comes to reign; In the bleak midwinter A stable place sufficed The Lord God Almighty, Jesus Christ. Enough for him, whom Cherubim Worship night and day A breast full of milk And a manger full of hay. Enough for him, whom angels Fall down before, The ox and ass and camel which adore.

Angels and archangels May have gathered there, Cherubim and seraphim Thronged the air; But his mother only, In her maiden bliss, Worshipped the Beloved With a kiss. What can I give him, Poor as I am? If I were a shepherd I would bring a lamb, If I were a wise man I would do my part, Yet what I can I give Him— Give my heart.

In Pope Benedict's address to those gathered in St. Peter's Square for the feast of the Epiphany, he spoke of the wise men who came from the East to adore the King of the Jews as "models of genuine seekers of truth."

They were wise men, who scrutinized the stars and knew the history of peoples. They were men of science in a broad sense, who observed the cosmos regarding it almost as a great book full of divine signs and messages for man. Their learning, however, far from making them self-sufficient, was open to further divine revelations and appeals. In fact, they were not ashamed to ask for instructions from the religious leaders of the Jews. They could have said: We can do it alone, we have no need of anyone, avoiding, according to our mentality today, every "contamination" between science and the Word of God.

Instead, the Magi listened to the prophecies and welcomed them and, no sooner were they on the way to Bethlehem, than they again saw the star, almost as a confirmation of the perfect harmony between human seeking and divine Truth, a harmony that filled the hearts of these genuine wise men with joy (cf. Matthew 2:10). The culmination of their search was when they found themselves before "the Child with Mary, his Mother" (Matthew 2:11).

This is a long way from the silencing of Gallileo, centuries ago. Benedict acknowledges good science as a source of truth. Yet, too often, he issues judgments based neither on good theology or good science, but on metaphysical critique of social, religious and ethical theories that themselves are ill-founded.

In an often laudable in-house address (not published in English) to the theologically savvy staff at the Curia before Christmas, the Pope made what many angrily (but probably wrongly) took to be an attack on homosexuality. Informed commentators, such as Paul Valley in The Independent (24 Dec 09) understood the Pope to be criticising, not homosexuality as such, but gender theory, "the idea that gender is not something entirely to do with what we inherit from nature, but something which is also socially constructed . . . This the Pope sees as part of a wider malaise in which human beings want to control every aspect of life, sometimes paying no respect to the natural God-given order of things."

Trouble for the Pope begins when his understanding of the natural God-given order of things errs from the relationship between science and theology that he praised in his Epiphany address. By being obscure and rather less than scientific, the Pope was in hot water again. Another writer the Independent, Debora Orr, comments that "Benedict believes that "gender studies" encourages people to "choose" homosexuality because it justifies activity that they may otherwise not have been chosen."

And there's the unscientific rub. Is gender or sexuality a choice? Some social theorists say so, which is what the Pope opposes. But this has nothing at all to do with the well-being of creation. On the other hand if, as the Pope maintains the gender theorists are wrong, such that gender and sexual orientation are neither socially formed nor chosen, the Pope must accept that to be homosexual is not a moral choice. To advance his ideas the Pope is resorting to making unscientific criticisms in the name of science of a non-scientific theory. That is as foolish as what the church of his day did to Galileo.

The Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia knows there is a large pink elephant in the room of the proposed Anglican Covennant. Responding to the draft before the now-released final text, it said that some respondents within New Zealand felt that the Communion had

committed a vast amount of time and resources into the search for covenantal wording that would be acceptable to the whole Church and yet it has not addressed the insurmountable problem of the complete intransigence of some Dioceses to any process that would accept certain 'debated categories' of people as full members of the Church. These categories might be episcopally ordained women or people of differing sexual orientation. (In a footnote the New Zealand church commented that, "An interesting test case would be if a question was raised suggesting that the failure of a Church / Province to episcopally ordain women was ‘a controversial action'.")
It is feared that those opposed will not proceed on any Covenant, regardless of wording, which remotely allows for inclusion of such groups. This type of response could lead to theological retrenchment. If a policing group were to insist on inclusion of a 'debated category', the concern is that dissenting groups will either disobey the finding of the policing group or argue that the decision is an innovation that should not be accepted across the Communion. Further faction is likely to be the result.
—The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. A submission on the Ridley Cambridge Draft.

And Australia? On the earlier 'St Andrews' draft, provinces were asked "Is it possible to give some indication of any synodical process which would have to be undertaken in order to adopt the Covenant in the fullness of time?"

The Australian Church replied:

There are three synodical processes by which the Anglican Church of Australia could, in the fullness of time, adopt the Anglican Communion covenant.
(i) Constitutional amendment
The covenant could be adopted by amendment of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. It is anticipated, however, that any attempt to adopt the covenant through this process would be likely to fail because of the onerous requirements for constitutional amendment.
(ii) Adoption by canon
The covenant could be adopted by canon of the General Synod. However, it is anticipated that an attempt to adopt the covenant by this method would also be likely to fail because of the constitutional requirements for making certain types of canon.
(iii) Adoption by Resolution
The covenant could be adopted by resolution of the General Synod. Unlike adoption by constitutional amendment or by canon, adoption of the covenant by this means would not have the effect of incorporating the text of the covenant into the law of the Anglican Church of Australia. However, the prospects of success by this method are greater than those for adoption by either of the methods outlined above.

In other words, sufficient Dioceses are likely to disagree—for a variety of reasons—with adoption of the Covenant to make it impossible for the Covenant to be adopted in an binding fashion by the Australian church. (And a good thing too!)

The massive earthquake that struck the the Caribbean nation of Haiti on 13 January 2010 killed around 100,000 people and hugely destroyed infrastructure such as hospitals and roads. Possibly 3 million people — one third of Haiti's population — have been affected. Thousands need urgent medical attention, but without hospitals and medical supplies, the situation is grim.

We pray for all people in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere's poorest country. We pray for the injured, for those in distress, for those who have lost loved ones and for the rescuers and aid workers.

Australia's Anglican Board of Mission is accepting donations that will be sent to Haiti through the Episcopal Relief and Development Agency (ERD) of the Episcopal Church of the United States. The ERD is already working in Haiti including through the relief work of the Anglican Diocese of Haiti. Our Anglican partners in Haiti are "committed to a long-term response and recovery effort" and the local Anglican church is "one of the largest and perhaps most socially engaged diocese of the Episcopal Church". (ERD Haiti Disaster Response) Donate online by selecting Haiti Earthquake Appeal from ABM's drop-down campaign list or contact the ABM office on 1300 302663 or email info@abm.asn.au.

Alternatively, it's a good idea to donate to a member agency of the Australian Council for International Development that is responding to the Haiti earthquake.
Act for Peace - National Council of Churches Australia, phone 1800 025 101
Adventist Development Relief Agency (ADRA), phone 1800 242 372
CARE Australia , phone 1800 020 046
Caritas Australia, phone 1800 024 413
Oxfam Australia, phone 1800 088 110
Plan International Australia, phone 13 7526
Save the Children Australia, phone 1800 760 011
World Vision Australia, phone 13 32 40

A widely quoted report in Canada's Anglican journal (9 Jan 10) describes the observation by representatives of the Archbishop of Canterbury of pessimism among bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada about resolution of questions on sexuality at the church's upcoming General Synod in Halifax this June—particularly the blessing of same-sex relationships, which has been long debated in Canada. Any outcome is possible—from anarchy to acceptance. The visitors noted an encouraging "infectious enthusiasm for the Gospel and the Kingdom." If Canadian Anglicans can find a way to break through the impasse over sexuality "it could well become a vibrant model of the kind of renewed Christian community that has much to teach the wider church," they said.

The visitors also noted "a widespread sense of weariness with the whole business of same-sex blessings," as well as a "palpable desire to get on with the business of mission." One bishop said, "We have no heart for any more arguing and certainly have no more energy left; we just wish it would all go away!"

Just so. Sigh.

It might "go away", if we could (a) agree on how to decide what is right and true on a matter that is not essential to the faith and the Gospel, (b) decide accordingly, and (c) all abide by the decision in good conscience. It's not possible, at least not this millenium.

So the sooner we agree that debates about sexuality are not so important that we can't live with disagreement and difference of practice, the better it will be for ourselves and for God's service. Otherwise these tediously endless debates will not go away. If we cannot agree to differ on sexuality (and other things), we risk permanent distraction from the work of the Gospel and from God's presence.