Well, people are posting away furiously here there and everywhere about Saturday's NEAC5 consultation. Even Pluralist has had a couple of goes. But the Ugley vicar reduces his comments to a preamble to a wedding sermon that I dare not read for my blood pressure's sake.
As for me, well it was my first proper evangelical "assembly" (unless you count being in the student body at Wycliffe Hall), and my first impression was that there were too many grey haired gentlemen and not enough women or people under 45. The chair of the session, Canon Michael Walters, who otherwise did a very good job, betrayed the truth of my impression when, in inviting comments from the floor he could only invite men by name. The old boy network lives on!
The morning was fairly innocuous, and I was lifted by the opportunity to see face to face people I recognise 'cos they have their photo on Fulcrum, but have never met properly. It was also one of those occasions when one scans the room for familiar faces - there were a fair few, but not as many proportionally as I would find at New Wine. I guess that says something about my constituency.
Talks were OK - I like Paul Perkin and he genuinely seemed to be preaching a message of unity, but I wasn't really sure whether in wanting us to redefine inclusiveness he was talking about our attitude to ECUSA or the C of E evangelical movement. I suppose different people starting from different places may have found what they wanted to hear in his carefully (and no doubt prayerfully) chosen words. The Bishop of Birkenhead talked a lot of sense; I wish they'd given him longer as he was the only person who said anything in depth about Lambeth. Bishop Michael is a nice guy - he's the only Bishop whose house I've been to and heard New Wine worship on the stereo. I think he lost his place a bit at the lectern, and didn't really say much I hadn't already heard expressed elsewhere.
As for the afternoon, well Christina Baxter had me in tears in her plea to God (and CEEC) for more women on the platform. Pete Broadbent had some constructive things to say too, but Mike Ovey was talking way too fast for me to keep up, and I'm afraid Chris Sugden's slick powerpoint just put me to sleep.
I remember the NUS in the 80's, and it was like that a bit when it came to the motion - whether or not we would express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration - lots of people asked for the motion to be withdrawn, or for a procedural motion that it be "not put". The main force of the argument was that this was meant to be a consultation but we hadn't been consulted, and it was all a bit too sudden for some. I felt we needed to have spent more time talking about the thing before we voted on it, and as we saw there was not going to be the opportunity to amend the motion, well it had to go. The vote itself was very tense, and hard to judge - although I saw Colin Buchanan tidying up his papers so I knew we'd won the day - as if anyone can judge a vote from the floor, he can.
But it wasn't a pretty end. Richard Turnbull, about whom many column inches have been written over the last few years, refused to withdraw the motion, and seemed oblivious to the fact that he had been defeated as he closed proceedings. I suspect his claim that the CEEC will just vote on it anyway may mean he is in trouble with them too.
He gathered himself enough to have a pop at Graham Kings in his summing up, and much as I am sympathetic to Graham's analytical picture of evangelicalism (h/t Rachel) I now conclude that there are only two kinds of evangelical - those who agree with Richard Turnbull and those who do not!
For the record, I couldn't have voted to express support for the Jerusalem Declaration, so in a slightly cowardly way I guess I'm glad we didn't vote. It's not that I don't want to affirm the orthodox in the States and Canada - I signed the petition that Jim Packer is an authentic Anglican. It's just that I don't agree with paragraph 13 about rejecting the authority of churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith.
There are two reasons for my discomfort with that paragraph. First, who decides who "those churches and leaders" are? What if I end up being one one day? Sounds like something from the Cultural Revolution. We don't actually remove someone's authority just because we reject it - they still have it, and opinion counts for nothing in disabling it.
Second, and in a way related to that, Article 26 of the 39 Articles, from which GAFCON I guess got the force of para 13, speaks of "the discipline of the church" and "by just judgement" in relation to how the heterodox should be dealt with. Neither CEEC nor NEAC nor GAFCON are executive bodies of the Anglican Communion; they do not have the power or authority to hand down discipline of the type article 26 and para 13 imply (to my reading). This properly belongs in the Cof E to the processes of the clergy discipline measure, and I guess the buck stops with Rowan Williams when it comes to the wider communion. If he is reluctant to wade in (which I guess he mostly is), it is for the same reason that The Bishop of London didn't discipline Martin Dudley for blessing a civil partnership in his church - we are all just far too nice to each other! At least Richard Turnbull doesn't suffer from that!
For me then the Jerusalem Declaration (sorry Jody, JD will always be Jack Daniels for me) is a case of nice missiology and morality, shame about the ecclesiology.
I asked two people last week who'd been to NEAC4 whether they wanted my spare ticket; they both said their experience at Blackpol had put them off ever attending again. I can't say I'm thrilled with the idea, but it may be necessary, if the bullying is going to be truly stopped.
To end on a positive note I have as a result of Saturday resolved to get more invovled in the diocesan evangelical association. Dunno where I'll find the time but there you go.
Who's this then?
- Tim Goodbody
- Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
- The occasional blog of an Anglican priest in rural Essex
Showing posts with label heresy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heresy. Show all posts
Monday, 17 November 2008
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Sometimes it's hard she said ...
This is my response to something that appeared on the Ugley Vicar blog recently. Post title relates to opening greeting ...
Dear John,
My invitation to join CDEA arrived today. If Stand Firm were the committee I don't think they'd let me in!
Nevertheless your thoughts on OE's have set me thinking again, as I prepare to go to All Souls for the NEAC day, about how we define ourselves within Anglicanism and within Evangelicalism.
I fully agree with you about Greenbelt, although we need to acknowledge that if the leaders shifted in theology in the mid 80's then the crowds are taking (or took) a little longer to shift. People were still experiencing conventional evangelical conversions there up to at least '85.
Stuff like Soul Survivor of course provided an alternative for charismatics from the early 90’s, which may have led to a drain of evangelicals going to GB.
But actually, only a very shallow approach to Evangelical identity would be based on "which festival do you go to?" so the whole New Wine/Spring Harvest/Word Alive thing just doesn't cut it for me because the people on the ground are not all making their choice on theological grounds - sometimes it's just when they are free!
Thinking about the atonement, a moment in my training comes to mind when Alister McGrath, lecturing on reformation theology, said that PSA was not a Biblical doctrine. The cat was definitely among the pigeons at college then.
I feel that conservatives frequently attract criticism for insisting that PSA is THE ONLY model that gives us a way to understand the cross, and that other approaches such as Christus Victor or moral example or “Cur Deus Homo” are in some way secondary or not worth including at all. In this I also feel there is not a little arrogance, as the thing about the atonement surely is that it is the most amazing gift that humanity has ever received from God, but our minds are not capable of fully comprehending its mechanics, so theologians down the ages, from Augustine to Anselm to Luther to NTW have written countless pages to help us grasp the enormity of its significance, and we still don’t fully get it.
To the person on the street or in the pew (especially those newly arrived in the pews), surely the most important thing is that there is an atonement – that we can be at one with God because of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. How it works is (for me as an OE anyway) secondary in importance to the (wonderful) fact that it does work. THIS IS THE GOOD NEWS.
Perhaps I can draw a comparison with the creation/evolution debate. Theologians across the spectrum refer to “theories of the atonement”, in the same way that Darwin formulated a “theory of evolution”. However, when one of these theories is taught as fact, you are bound to get conflict, in the same way that the presentation of Darwinism as fully factual and not just a theory creates conflicts with advocates of other approaches, whether Christian Creationists or advocates of intelligent design.
It is my impression, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this, that CE theology treats PSA in the same way as Dawkins treats Darwinism – the only way to do it. So if that is either rejected or put alongside other theories to help understand the cross, then that is not (Conservative) evangelicalism.
However, OE’s in my experience tend to be eclectic in their theology, looking at different schools or traditions to enrich understanding of doctrine and tradition. That eclecticism for me means that it is OK to interact with any of the mainstream atonement theories.
We should not try to define ourselves either, I feel, on the issue of women’s ordination, because it is impossible to draw a neat line through evangelicalism on this basis. You just can’t consistently predict who will be in favour and who will not. Many of us (who are in favour) made decisions early on and only latterly came to see the Biblical argument; others changed their minds post-Toronto, and still others accept women in orders but not in authority (Richard Turnbull, it would appear, is in that place).
Surely the way forward is to concentrate on what we do agree on; to emphasize the importance of mission to the unchurched, as being primary. The renewal of the church can only be done by co-operating with the Spirit within the church. This is why the institution is important to OE’s; not necessarily that we accept its behaviour unconditionally - you are perhaps accurate in your assertion that OE’s question everything – but (a bit like a wayward teenager) that we love it and want to see it come to its full potential as the vehicle for God’s work in this country and the world.
This has been a long post, so just to finish, when it comes to your comments about OE’s and Rome, yes there are a lot of differences, especially when it comes to gender roles, but there are more than enough things that we can be together on to make me assert that I am only a Protestant because that is the designation of my church. I protest more about the C of E than I do about Rome! Belligerance is a bit of a scary word!
Hope the CRB thing resolves itself for your wife
Cheers
Tim
Dear John,
My invitation to join CDEA arrived today. If Stand Firm were the committee I don't think they'd let me in!
Nevertheless your thoughts on OE's have set me thinking again, as I prepare to go to All Souls for the NEAC day, about how we define ourselves within Anglicanism and within Evangelicalism.
I fully agree with you about Greenbelt, although we need to acknowledge that if the leaders shifted in theology in the mid 80's then the crowds are taking (or took) a little longer to shift. People were still experiencing conventional evangelical conversions there up to at least '85.
Stuff like Soul Survivor of course provided an alternative for charismatics from the early 90’s, which may have led to a drain of evangelicals going to GB.
But actually, only a very shallow approach to Evangelical identity would be based on "which festival do you go to?" so the whole New Wine/Spring Harvest/Word Alive thing just doesn't cut it for me because the people on the ground are not all making their choice on theological grounds - sometimes it's just when they are free!
Thinking about the atonement, a moment in my training comes to mind when Alister McGrath, lecturing on reformation theology, said that PSA was not a Biblical doctrine. The cat was definitely among the pigeons at college then.
I feel that conservatives frequently attract criticism for insisting that PSA is THE ONLY model that gives us a way to understand the cross, and that other approaches such as Christus Victor or moral example or “Cur Deus Homo” are in some way secondary or not worth including at all. In this I also feel there is not a little arrogance, as the thing about the atonement surely is that it is the most amazing gift that humanity has ever received from God, but our minds are not capable of fully comprehending its mechanics, so theologians down the ages, from Augustine to Anselm to Luther to NTW have written countless pages to help us grasp the enormity of its significance, and we still don’t fully get it.
To the person on the street or in the pew (especially those newly arrived in the pews), surely the most important thing is that there is an atonement – that we can be at one with God because of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. How it works is (for me as an OE anyway) secondary in importance to the (wonderful) fact that it does work. THIS IS THE GOOD NEWS.
Perhaps I can draw a comparison with the creation/evolution debate. Theologians across the spectrum refer to “theories of the atonement”, in the same way that Darwin formulated a “theory of evolution”. However, when one of these theories is taught as fact, you are bound to get conflict, in the same way that the presentation of Darwinism as fully factual and not just a theory creates conflicts with advocates of other approaches, whether Christian Creationists or advocates of intelligent design.
It is my impression, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this, that CE theology treats PSA in the same way as Dawkins treats Darwinism – the only way to do it. So if that is either rejected or put alongside other theories to help understand the cross, then that is not (Conservative) evangelicalism.
However, OE’s in my experience tend to be eclectic in their theology, looking at different schools or traditions to enrich understanding of doctrine and tradition. That eclecticism for me means that it is OK to interact with any of the mainstream atonement theories.
We should not try to define ourselves either, I feel, on the issue of women’s ordination, because it is impossible to draw a neat line through evangelicalism on this basis. You just can’t consistently predict who will be in favour and who will not. Many of us (who are in favour) made decisions early on and only latterly came to see the Biblical argument; others changed their minds post-Toronto, and still others accept women in orders but not in authority (Richard Turnbull, it would appear, is in that place).
Surely the way forward is to concentrate on what we do agree on; to emphasize the importance of mission to the unchurched, as being primary. The renewal of the church can only be done by co-operating with the Spirit within the church. This is why the institution is important to OE’s; not necessarily that we accept its behaviour unconditionally - you are perhaps accurate in your assertion that OE’s question everything – but (a bit like a wayward teenager) that we love it and want to see it come to its full potential as the vehicle for God’s work in this country and the world.
This has been a long post, so just to finish, when it comes to your comments about OE’s and Rome, yes there are a lot of differences, especially when it comes to gender roles, but there are more than enough things that we can be together on to make me assert that I am only a Protestant because that is the designation of my church. I protest more about the C of E than I do about Rome! Belligerance is a bit of a scary word!
Hope the CRB thing resolves itself for your wife
Cheers
Tim
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Hands across the water ...?
Got even crosser today when interacting with posters on the Stand Firm site which is based in America. How can they say that Tear Fund is not a Christian agency? OK, Desmond Tutu isn't exactly mainstream when it comes to matters of sexuality, but does that warrant calling him a heretic? Grrrrrrr!
At least they put "love your neighbour" under the comments box, to remind us to keep it friendly.
I suppose the climate in the US is rather rarefied, with all the depositions and secessions going on. Reform want to do that here, but I can't see how it'll work out - the ownership of church buildings is a lot more complex here than it is over there, for a start. Also, there are lots of team ministries and large benefices of a variety of traditions; what happens if one parish in such a team wants to opt out but not the others?
Makes you squirm and with you could just get on with the job!
At least they put "love your neighbour" under the comments box, to remind us to keep it friendly.
I suppose the climate in the US is rather rarefied, with all the depositions and secessions going on. Reform want to do that here, but I can't see how it'll work out - the ownership of church buildings is a lot more complex here than it is over there, for a start. Also, there are lots of team ministries and large benefices of a variety of traditions; what happens if one parish in such a team wants to opt out but not the others?
Makes you squirm and with you could just get on with the job!
Monday, 13 October 2008
Oh when will you ever learn, oh when will you ever learn?
Got very cross today about some stuff on Anglican Mainstream encouraging people to withdraw from association with Tear Fund because they invited Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at arecent conference, and of course he does not have a very conservative position on gays.
Below is most of a post I put on Fulcrum in response to this
William Booth of Salvation Army fame was once challenged about accepting donations from parties trying to attach strings, in an "I'll scratch your back ... " type thing, but he replied,
"I'll take every penny and wash it clean with the tears of widows and orphans".
While we are not actually talking about money here, I feel that quotation might help the discussion, as I guess AM & reform (CT quoted someone from them saying he would be writing to Matthew Frost on this issue, straight after the conference) are wanting to imply that ++Tutu may be seeking to gain some kind of foothold in British Evangelicalism through association with TF. TF on their part have not to my knowledge said anything to indicate a shift in policy, they just want to work with anyone who shares their vision.
Presumably TF has signed the EA mission statement (or whatever) which is the same document that led to calls for Joel Edwards to stand down from the Equality commission on grounds of discrimination against gays. As the Americans say, go figure!
I think it is more likely that ++Tutu has seen the effect of TF's ministry on the ground and so responded to their invitation in good heart, because he shares their vision.
It's just modern day Donatism - not wanting to be "tainted" by association. I'm not an expert but I do recall some rather key reformers had somewhat dubious opinions of the Jews, but you don't hear about that so much. These are the same people I guess who have decided to stop reading anything at all by Steve Chalke or Roy Clements because on one issue they have divergent opinions.
If this now happens to ++Tutu it would be very sad. At New Wine last summer every toilet had a flyer put up in it inviting people to apply to go on a home-building project sponsored by ++Tutu - no one tore them down so I conclude that TF's opinion of the man is at least the prevalent one in charismatic evangelicalism.
People I have known who worked for Tear Fund on the ground were usually more concerned with avoiding getting shot or abducted than with what Bishops (or anyone else) happen to think about gays.
Below is most of a post I put on Fulcrum in response to this
William Booth of Salvation Army fame was once challenged about accepting donations from parties trying to attach strings, in an "I'll scratch your back ... " type thing, but he replied,
"I'll take every penny and wash it clean with the tears of widows and orphans".
While we are not actually talking about money here, I feel that quotation might help the discussion, as I guess AM & reform (CT quoted someone from them saying he would be writing to Matthew Frost on this issue, straight after the conference) are wanting to imply that ++Tutu may be seeking to gain some kind of foothold in British Evangelicalism through association with TF. TF on their part have not to my knowledge said anything to indicate a shift in policy, they just want to work with anyone who shares their vision.
Presumably TF has signed the EA mission statement (or whatever) which is the same document that led to calls for Joel Edwards to stand down from the Equality commission on grounds of discrimination against gays. As the Americans say, go figure!
I think it is more likely that ++Tutu has seen the effect of TF's ministry on the ground and so responded to their invitation in good heart, because he shares their vision.
It's just modern day Donatism - not wanting to be "tainted" by association. I'm not an expert but I do recall some rather key reformers had somewhat dubious opinions of the Jews, but you don't hear about that so much. These are the same people I guess who have decided to stop reading anything at all by Steve Chalke or Roy Clements because on one issue they have divergent opinions.
If this now happens to ++Tutu it would be very sad. At New Wine last summer every toilet had a flyer put up in it inviting people to apply to go on a home-building project sponsored by ++Tutu - no one tore them down so I conclude that TF's opinion of the man is at least the prevalent one in charismatic evangelicalism.
People I have known who worked for Tear Fund on the ground were usually more concerned with avoiding getting shot or abducted than with what Bishops (or anyone else) happen to think about gays.
Monday, 1 September 2008
Well I just got back from a lovely trip ...
It wasn't across the milky way, but we did see some stars at the Cite de L'espace in Toulouse.
We were staying near Albi in the Tarn valley. A very hot and quite isolated place. It has a Cathedral which is the world's tallest free standing brick building (no rsj's in medieval times!)
The reason its so big was the architectural part of a power struggle between the Catholic church and the Albigensian sect (aka Cathars, because of their quest for purity). As well as sending in the inquisition (we had lunch next to a well where three inquisitors were drowned after having executed some villagers for heresy) and arranging "the Albigensian crusade" i.e. a number of massacres led by that well known thug Simon de Montfort (well known at least to heavy metal fans in Leicester because there is a gig venue there called the de Montfort hall), the church wanted to impose itself upon the heretics so they built this enormous edifice and decorated it with some groovy frescoes outlining the orthodox faith (although rather nicely the one depicting souls in torment in hell has had to be removed to accommodate an altar).
The heretics have been called there first protestants because they made a big fuss about the rotten state of the clergy at the time, whose moral life left a lot to be desired. So far so good we might say (especially if we are GAFCON) but unfortunately our potential pin up prots were in fact loony heretics who seem to have developed the idea that it was a good thing to starve to death as it showed how pure you were. they were very into purity of life and theology and knowledge - a bit like the gnostics I suppose. In a spooky preview of JW's, they also had two levels of believer - the pure ones and those who lived a normal life (i.e. did not starve themselves etc) but then received the laying on of hands for the baptism of the Spirit on their deathbeds. Weird.
Nice wine though!
We were staying near Albi in the Tarn valley. A very hot and quite isolated place. It has a Cathedral which is the world's tallest free standing brick building (no rsj's in medieval times!)
The reason its so big was the architectural part of a power struggle between the Catholic church and the Albigensian sect (aka Cathars, because of their quest for purity). As well as sending in the inquisition (we had lunch next to a well where three inquisitors were drowned after having executed some villagers for heresy) and arranging "the Albigensian crusade" i.e. a number of massacres led by that well known thug Simon de Montfort (well known at least to heavy metal fans in Leicester because there is a gig venue there called the de Montfort hall), the church wanted to impose itself upon the heretics so they built this enormous edifice and decorated it with some groovy frescoes outlining the orthodox faith (although rather nicely the one depicting souls in torment in hell has had to be removed to accommodate an altar).
The heretics have been called there first protestants because they made a big fuss about the rotten state of the clergy at the time, whose moral life left a lot to be desired. So far so good we might say (especially if we are GAFCON) but unfortunately our potential pin up prots were in fact loony heretics who seem to have developed the idea that it was a good thing to starve to death as it showed how pure you were. they were very into purity of life and theology and knowledge - a bit like the gnostics I suppose. In a spooky preview of JW's, they also had two levels of believer - the pure ones and those who lived a normal life (i.e. did not starve themselves etc) but then received the laying on of hands for the baptism of the Spirit on their deathbeds. Weird.
Nice wine though!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)