|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Schismatics and Episcopi neo-vagantes
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
What heresy?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D
quote:
What heresy?
too long to answer tonight...
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
I don't think that follows at all.
But I also think that present-day establishment is more or less irrelevant. It's a historical artifact. Or are you claiming that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are really that different?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
What heresy?
too long to answer tonight...
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
Some individuals may, but I very much doubt that any of the churches in the Communion other than the C of E have given it even a moment's thought since it became an impossibility in the then Australian colonies by around 1845-1850.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
What heresy?
too long to answer tonight...
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
Can't speak for anywhere else, but Canadian Anglicans, having laboured for over a century with the notion that they were somehow in someway still established, have pretty well given up on it. Indeed, I think that many Canadian Anglicans are not aware that Anglicanism was once established (sort of) in several provinces.
I think the only real vestige of it is for state funerals, where we are the default facility for non-RCs. Friends of mine in the country club circuit inform me that our former dominance is no longer remembered.
I cannot ever recall hearing anyone defend the idea for religious or missiological reasons. Perhaps other shipmates might have, as I move in louche and semi-artistic circles, and could contribute more.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What heresy?
Erastianism? [You could also argue that Article 37 is Romans 1 taken to an extreme].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you are over-simplifying and caricaturing things Steve Langton with the claim that the RCs and Orthodox think that the Bible isn't 'enough' ...
It's not that they don't think that the Bible is 'enough' but they don't think that the Bible stands 'alone'.
The Bible never has stood 'alone'. It emerged from within a tradition in order to serve the needs of that tradition and to help develop and propagate that tradition's particular faith position.
So what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever to anyone outside of a Protestant paradigm.
Even within a Protestant paradigm it would only make sense if there were a single set of interpretations that everyone agreed on.
The Bible is never 'alone.' It can't possibly be. We can't approach it outside of the context of whatever traditions have shaped and moulded us.
The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and doesn't exist in a vacuum.
But there's no point in pursuing that point as you clearly don't understand it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
I don't think that follows at all.
But I also think that present-day establishment is more or less irrelevant. It's a historical artifact. Or are you claiming that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are really that different?
1) I don't believe that it necessarily follows - but in asking "what heresy?" Gee D was rather suggesting it might. That is, that the Anglicans in Australia might regard it as a case of establishment being impractical at present but not actually unChristian and so perhaps still possible in future if the practicalities in their opinion changed.
2) I agree that the establishment is a shadow of its former self and increasingly ineffective at its supposed/claimed purpose. Unfortunately it still exists and that actually creates real present day problems - the Jesmond Parish Church situation being just one - which problems don't just affect the Anglicans themselves. Most seriously at the moment it confuses and compromises how Christianity looks to Islam, and our efforts to preach a better Christian alternative. And with Islam itself offering a non-Christian 'establishment', it also affects how Christianity looks to English people.
3) The trouble with the CofE/CiW thing is that the two bodies are still pretty intertwined - a recent ABC, Rowan Williams, was from the CiW - and I suspect you'd find most people aren't even much aware of the difference. Another confusion that helps nobody, basically.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
I don't think that follows at all.
But I also think that present-day establishment is more or less irrelevant. It's a historical artifact. Or are you claiming that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are really that different?
Quick note: the CinW isn't established- indeed it was disestablishment in 1920 that caused us to erect a separate Province. That said, there are certain vestiges of establishment- the right of to be married in the parish church, a duty to maintain churchyards, and prisons in Wales have to have a CinW chaplain (they can have others too, but that's the one they have to have). But the CinW has if anything regained ground as a 'national' church, especially under the last Archbishop, who was a major civic figure.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It's not that they don't think that the Bible is 'enough' but they don't think that the Bible stands 'alone'.
I don't think Protestants see the Bible standing 'alone' in the very isolated from everything sense that you seem to be implying.
I've read enough Reformers and Puritans to be aware that they bring wide scholarship and knowledge to their interpretations. As per my Tyndale quote, they read the Bible in an 'ordinary' way which means very much not 'alone/in isolation'.
The 'alone' in 'Sola Scriptura' refers rather to the Bible's position of authority. It is the ONLY ultimate authority to which the Church and its traditions are emphatically subject. This is about the Word of God in opposition to the 'traditions of men' which may risk making the word 'void', obscuring and controverting its actual meaning by dubious claims to 'Tradition'.
To say
quote:
The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and doesn't exist in a vacuum.
is clearly right. The point is very much that it exists out here in the real world to be used and interpreted by real ordinary people. It very nearly was 'in a vaccuum' in a different sense during the medieval RCC which kept it from the people and left the people with little chance to 'test the spirits' of the RCC by checking it against what the Bible said. And that 'checking' by the people, and trusting the people to do that, in opposition to self-serving institutions claiming quasi-magical privileged interpretative competence, is the real meaning of 'Sola scriptura'. When I interpret, as I've said, it is always on the proviso "check it out for yourself". And of course the checking isn't done in a vacuum.
And to be blunt, the record of those institutions which have claimed any kind of special competence is a pretty bad record. Which, Gamaliel, you ought to understand but too often don't seem to.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
) I don't believe that it necessarily follows - but in asking "what heresy?" Gee D was rather suggesting it might. That is, that the Anglicans in Australia might regard it as a case of establishment being impractical at present but not actually unChristian and so perhaps still possible in future if the practicalities in their opinion changed.
I was suggesting nothing at all, "rather" or otherwise. You'd asserted a heresy and I was challenging you to say what that heresy was. You still have not.
Nor did I say anything which could lead you think that Anglican Australians consider that establishment is simply impractical at present but may be possible in the future. What I said and what I repeat is that they do not think at all about the establishment of Anglicanism in Australia either at the present time or some time in the future. Much the same in every other church in the Communion save the C of E.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I suppose I deserved the riposte that I 'don't understand' something when I had earlier accused Steve Langton of a lack of understanding of another issue.
But please, Steve, don't presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. Of course I bloody well understand the poor track record of those historic Churches that have, historically allied themselves too closely to the state. I've never said otherwise.
Equally, I recognise that 'sola scriptura' differs from 'SOLO scriptura'.
At the risk of making assumptions, I'm not always convinced that you do.
However ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D
quote:
I was suggesting nothing at all, "rather" or otherwise. You'd asserted a heresy and I was challenging you to say what that heresy was. You still have not.
I first wanted clarification on your/your church's position on establishment. But OK, as another Shipmate has pointed out, the technical name for the CofE's heresy is 'Erastianism', combining church and state in such a way that at least originally the state governs the church - and as I understand it there are still areas where the state, though no longer the nominally Christian state originally assumed, is needed for the CofE to do some things.
From my viewpoint the CofE's position is just part of a wider heresy which goes back to the 4th Century CE, and which manifests in all kinds and degrees of combining church and state, from the totalitarian position going back to Theodosius through to more modern positions which seek at least a special privilege for Christianity in the state, as per Rev Holloway and the Christian Institute. The heresy consists in defying Jesus' statement that his kingdom is 'not of this world' and trying to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus.
One of the big reasons it's a heresy is that if you consider John 18 where Jesus describes that kingdom 'not of this world', it is pretty clear that if Jesus had instead said he did indeed intend any of these versions of a 'Christian state' Pilate would have had to find him guilty in Roman terms and would not have gone to all that effort to try and release Jesus. And a Jesus dying a deserved death in that way would at the very least considerably muddy the idea of his innocent/undeserved death for our sins.
There's more to it. But I'll await comment on that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Equally, I recognise that 'sola scriptura' differs from 'SOLO scriptura'.
Trouble is, in terms of authority it pretty much is 'solo Scriptura' - there is no credible alternative on offer.
The only Christian institutions with any such claim are the Orthodox and the RCC - and they have pretty much self-discredited by the 'poor track record' of their alliance with the state which they're now largely backtracking from. And of course they themselves affirm the Bible as word of God....
And bluster about Jesus as the ultimate authority tends to neglect the simple fact that basically we know him through the Scriptures. Any other Jesus is basically making him up to suit what you want - the 'our Jesus' phenomenon I've previously referred to in 'Liberal' theologians.
Whether you use the language of 'Tradition' or 'paradigm', you're back to "They can't all be right" - so where do you go to judge between them?
We've had above the standard bluster about there being different interpretations of the Bible. True up to a point but there's still massive common ground - CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" with some differences in emphasis but little in substance.
The 'big' differences between the mainstream churches, at least until the 19th-20thC growth of the 'liberal theology' movement, are actually in a small area ultimately relating to the problems of the church and state isssue. Issues of Church and state as such, issues of church government, and the issue of credobaptism v paedobaptism. When we're dealing with the 'Mere Christianity' stuff we work together a lot even over those differences.
So how do we sort those differences - well, back to the Bible, basically. As I say, what other credible authority is there really for what Christianity is supposed to be? Not that we are 'confined to' the Bible - but that the Bible is the test of whether we're going in the right direction with things.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I was about to stop reading this thread as its repetition is becoming dead-horsey in my eyes, but I began to wonder if any ordinations carried out by episcopus vagans would be recognized by the CoE. It appears that the consecration itself was not by CESA/REACH-SA rules so the bishop is truly vagans, not part of any disciplining or supportive province or college of bishops, no diocese, and no responsibility.
This might put a deacon or priest made under this arrangement in an ambiguous situation should they seek to be hired by a CoE parish.
EV ordinations have generally _not_ been recognized in the CoE, although I recall reading of an instance between the wars where a conditional ordination was used to regularize a candidate. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the House of Bishops in 1982 took a position that no ordination by a separating church would be recognized.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I believe that Augustine is right regarding EV ordinations being generally not recognised. The whole subject is fascinating (if rather obscure, and, perhaps, nerdy!).
Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church by Fr. Henry R. T. Brandreth (first published in 1947 by SPCK) gives details of many of these chaps, and their conspicuous lack of success in being anything other than general nuisances to the Church as a whole. It will be interesting, in this context, to see how 'Bishop' Pryke's episcopal ministry develops.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
I was suggesting nothing at all, "rather" or otherwise. You'd asserted a heresy and I was challenging you to say what that heresy was. You still have not.
I first wanted clarification on your/your church's position on establishment. But OK, as another Shipmate has pointed out, the technical name for the CofE's heresy is 'Erastianism', combining church and state in such a way that at least originally the state governs the church - and as I understand it there are still areas where the state, though no longer the nominally Christian state originally assumed, is needed for the CofE to do some things.
From my viewpoint the CofE's position is just part of a wider heresy which goes back to the 4th Century CE, and which manifests in all kinds and degrees of combining church and state, from the totalitarian position going back to Theodosius through to more modern positions which seek at least a special privilege for Christianity in the state, as per Rev Holloway and the Christian Institute. The heresy consists in defying Jesus' statement that his kingdom is 'not of this world' and trying to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus.
One of the big reasons it's a heresy is that if you consider John 18 where Jesus describes that kingdom 'not of this world', it is pretty clear that if Jesus had instead said he did indeed intend any of these versions of a 'Christian state' Pilate would have had to find him guilty in Roman terms and would not have gone to all that effort to try and release Jesus. And a Jesus dying a deserved death in that way would at the very least considerably muddy the idea of his innocent/undeserved death for our sins.
There's more to it. But I'll await comment on that....
I doubt that the present C of E is in fact Erastian, although there were occasions in the 17th and 18th centuries when it came very close, most notably after the Glorious Revolution.
Your interpretation of "my kingdom is not of this world" is, to put it mildly, idiosyncratic.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Idiosyncratic and, I would say, dualistic. On previous discussions Steve Langton has gone almost as far to suggest that Christians shouldn't get involved with local or community politics or serve in the police force.
To be fair, he conceded with a 'don't know' when I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate for me as a Christian to be involved in our town council.
But the fact that he even had to umm and ah about it shows the extent that this fixation of his has in his imagination.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Gamaliel: quote:
Idiosyncratic and, I would say, dualistic. On previous discussions Steve Langton has gone almost as far to suggest that Christians shouldn't get involved with local or community politics or serve in the police force.
As I understand it, this is the traditional position of Anabaptists. They have believed that secular politics is "of this world" and under the influence of Satan. So as Christians we should be concentrating on serving the Kingdom sacrificially, not getting involved in any kind of politics that wields power over others.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
... The whole subject is fascinating (if rather obscure, and, perhaps, nerdy!). ...
Agreed as regards all three adjectives. The only thing wrong with that sentence is that the word 'perhaps' should have been omitted
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Gamaliel: quote:
Idiosyncratic and, I would say, dualistic. On previous discussions Steve Langton has gone almost as far to suggest that Christians shouldn't get involved with local or community politics or serve in the police force.
As I understand it, this is the traditional position of Anabaptists. They have believed that secular politics is "of this world" and under the influence of Satan. So as Christians we should be concentrating on serving the Kingdom sacrificially, not getting involved in any kind of politics that wields power over others.
Well yes, but as a town councillor I'm hardly wielding power over others ...
I don't get paid for it and whilst I'm not whipping out my violin, it can be 'sacrificial' having to sit through purgatorial committee meetings or deal with people's problems ... which is what we are supposed to be there to do.
That's the whole 'dualistic' aspect of the (extreme) Anabaptist position that gets my goat.
It can lead to isolation and also to a pietistic holier-than-thou attitude which is singularly unattractive.
Of course, not all Anabaptists are like that and I have a lot of time for the principles behind the whole thing ... if not for the way it has tended to be worked out in practice.
But then, the same applies to all other Christian traditions of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems to me that the non-cooperation with earthly powers thing makes a lot of sense in certain circumstances.
But is a miserable failure in many others - if you don't like war or the decisions that a government is making, then the solution in a democracy is to vote them out and to make a stand against them. Refusing to co-operate is counter-productive in the kinds of situation where pacifist and pro-peace voices are rarely heard and where the loudest voices are those promoting violence.
To sit down and shut up whilst one sits on your hands in many situations is tantamount to allowing them to do it without any visible opposition.
Of course it is complicated and of course these are difficult times and difficult choices. But simply using an old principle developed in particular circumstances to refrain from political activities in all times and in all places seems pretty stupid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I have previously said that in some respects I'm still working out the details of Christian involvement with the state, particularly in a modern democratic situation. It remains however emphatically the case that the state should not be formally Christian or the Church in an established or otherwise privileged position in the state.
One of the problems from the 4thC onwards has been that instead of a straightforward Church/World dichotomy we have had a three-way situation with Christians having to deal with 'the World' both in Christian and non-Christian states, and also with a nominal Christianity in some states which is involved with the world in the wrong way altogether, and even in the modern world is often unhelpfully trying to hang on to the rags of former questionable power and influence. This putting it mildly 'muddies the waters' for the attempt to being God's message to the world, especially in a non-Christian land which happens to see your 'Christian' state as 'the enemy'.
My current position is that I believe Christians need to be careful in their worldly involvements until this is sorted out, and also that where this is really clear Christians can be quite considerably 'in the world' - but not to be what Peter called 'allotriepiskopoi', roughly translated as 'bossy-boots in other people's affairs'.
I do in fact still vote, though increasingly disillusioned about how much use it is. And the point, mr cheesy, is very much not to 'sit on one's hands' but to be making other useful contributions to the world.
'Holier than thou'? We are as Christians meant to be holier than those around; but not in a 'superior' attitude. People who make that accusation need to be careful that it's not just an excuse to avoid being holy themselves. And it's worth saying that realistically, the claim to an established or privileged position for the church in the state is a rather spectacular claim to be 'holier than thou' - especially when that privileged position leads to Inquisitions, holy wars and other persecutions....
Early Anabaptists were quite involved in affairs - much of the later isolation of Mennonites and Amish was precisely because they were persecuted by the worldly churches.
My interpretation of Jesus' "kingdom not of this world" is based on the realities of the situation where he first said it. It is only 'idiosyncratic' in the sense that later people running state churches have had to ignore those realities and come up with vaguer and more 'airy fairy' interpretations which blunt the effect of Jesus' words. But Why else do you think Pilate - of all people - went to so much trouble to try and release Jesus? A Messiah who wanted to set up a 'this world' kingdom for his religion was exactly what Pilate was supposed to prevent....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Steve, I've a lot of sympathy with your suspicion of the dread embrace of the church of God by worldly powers that be. I also have zilch belief in the notion that setting up a godly state has anything to do with building the kingdom. I think that has always been, and remains a tempting delusion. If that had been what the kingdom was about, that is what Jesus would have done. Either he would have seized power without going to the cross, or would have done so immediately after the Resurrection in stead of ascending to heaven, as a righteous king, who would never die and would be alive today ruling the world from Jerusalem.
He didn't. Therefore we have to accept that embracing earthly powers is not the way to incarnate the kingdom of heaven.
However pure it might be, your Anabaptist 'don't touch them with a barge pole' approach is not the only answer to the dilemma of how to relate to earthly polities.
Has it occurred to you that what is not good for the church, may be better for the state than the alternative? That the price may be either a valid bargain or even be unavoidable? Have you considered what some of the alternatives are?
Until very recently, the choices have never been between an established church and a wholly secular state. The choices have been between a state that has chosen to link itself with some sort of Christianity, and one that has linked itself with some other religion, civic heathenism like Imperial Rome, Islam like Ottoman Turkey and almost all the Middle East now, the aggressively Hindu BJP Party in India, or militantly persecuting atheism as in post 1917 Russia.
Given that choice, has it occurred to you that having an established form of Christianity, for all that it can be bad for the church, might be less bad than the alternatives? And wouldn't you prefer to live in a state that aspired to respect some sort of Christian ethic, rather than one that had no such aspiration? And has it occurred to you what the implications of an official apostasy might be?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Enoch;
quote:
However pure it might be, your Anabaptist 'don't touch them with a barge pole' approach is not the only answer to the dilemma of how to relate to earthly polities.
Actually there is no "'MY' Anabaptist 'don't touch them with a barge pole' approach". There are some on the Ship who persistently try to paint me as the worst kind of backwoods Amish separatist or UK-style 'Exclusive Brethren' type, and I'm not that at all. And as for 'purity' that's definitely Gamaliel's hang-up, not mine....
I'm so 'pure' and 'exclusive' that I attend a Methodist Church based railway club, regularly help out at an Anglican Church's annual 'Railway Extravaganza', and only a few nights ago was involved with my Baptist Church in a joint effort for "Thy Kingdom Come" with a local Anglican Church.
I'm much with the way Mennonites have done the UK - not establishing lots of formally Mennonite Churches, but working with many similarly minded churches and organisations and running a centre formerly in London but now based in Birmingham which makes key Mennonite/Anabaptist ideas avauilable. It is implicit in that style of mission to be recognising fellow-Christians in other denominations, and also to be willing to look at various Anabaptist traditions and lifestyles developed in the past and consider their continuing usefulness. Anabaptists have never exactly been a bunch of clones anyway....
Democracy is a recent thing - though owes quite a bit to non-conformist UK/US groups; and Anabaptists are to some extent still trying to work out the limits of how to properly involved. But the really basic ideas of no formal church-state involvement, and pacifism, are not likely to be changed. And I think we see 'influence' in a different way to Anglicans. I've just had a set of questions from an Anglican in the Midlands and I'm struggling to answer because it's making so many assumptions I wouldn't. I'm kind of having to ask him a different set of questions back in order to get my point across.
Will our 'influence' as this guy sees it confuse things like what the Church is, what being a Christian is? I'm increasingly worried by the fact that most people I hear these days talking about "Christian Britain" are right-wing racists opposing Islam and immigrants and refugees - and yet almost uninvolved in actual church life and fellowships apart from the proverbial 'baptisms weddings and funerals'.
I made the point somewhere a few threads ago that it is possible to discuss the basics of Church/State separation without going "the whole Anabaptist hog" and getting into every detail of every extreme thing any Anabaptist has ever done or believed. I hope on this thread we can do that and I'm rather annoyed that Gamaliel and mr cheesy raised such issues in their recent posts.
It's an important idea in Anabaptism that as 'resident aliens' we follow the idea of Isaiah's prophecy to the exiled Israelites that they seek the good of the nation they've been deported to and make lives as involved as possible with the society, while still putting loyalty to God first.
I see the temptation to join with the state to do good things; but in the long run I think it is better to keep church and gospel unconfused and to see the biggest good in terms of faithfulness to God, without which the worldly good is not worth so much anyway. I'll come back to this; for now, how do you react to what I've just said??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Going back to a couple of contributions on the previous page directly about the wandering bishop thing;
I don't believe Rev Holloway will succeed in his project. I've tried to draw attention to the part that seems to be played by his ideas of a privileged Church in the state, and I think that will also be his downfall.
Obviously the current tactics are very much against the odds, unlikely to succeed in ordinary terms. I think he expects to beat the odds because his biblical faithfulness will guarantee divine support and ultimate success even if perhaps initially via a semi-martyrdom. And the trouble is, his idea about the privileged church is biblically unfaithful. And the further trouble, as I read the 'signs of the times', is that this is the era in which God has finally run out of patience with those who keep defying his word in that particular way. In the past a generous God could tolerate it for the sake of other gains; but now the sums no longer add up.
Holloway's plan is to save the CofE, in effect - but realistically the CofE is already doomed. If it doesn't seek voluntary disestablishment before the accession of Charles III, I can't see it lasting long as an established church. It will either be involuntarily disestablished anyway or become so vague and wishy washy as to be risible.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You can be as annoyed as you bloody well like, Steve Langton but I stand by what I posted.
On the poor old, dear old CofE, though, I do think their position is unsustainable in the longer term. In some ways there's a lot more synergy between thee and me than you think.
But that's basically far as it goes.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can be as annoyed as you bloody well like, Steve Langton but I stand by what I posted.
My annoyance on this occasion is specifically about the way you and mr cheesy appeared to bring in a wider view of/opinions about Anabaptism to a discussion where they aren't really relevant. The case that there should not be 'established' Christian Churches or the lesser idea of a 'Christian country' can be made, as I said, without necessarily 'going the whole Anabaptist hog' and it's not necessary to discussion of the Jesmond situation. We can stop a long way short of a full Mennonite position, let alone that of the Amish or Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren, and still have a serious biblical as well as rationalist critique of what's happening in Newcastle.
Coming back briefly to the 'holier than thou' business. It is commonplace today to compare some aspects of the Anabaptists to the monastic movement and to some of the lay spiritual movements in Medieval Catholicism - simply an aspiration to live a more Christian life than a surrounding world which even when calling itself Christian visibly fell way short. Many Anabaptists would admire St Francis for the simplicity of his original intentions, or the Benedictine movement. And of course monasticism/friarism (is that a word?) could be subject to the temptation of the wrong kind of spiritual pride - but the aspiration wasn't all bad. At least one modern non-RCC 'monastic' movement is associated with the Anabaptist Network.
As I said, there's a need to be careful that raising the 'holier than thou' thing isn't just a way to avoid the challenge of being oneself holy.
And for a really bad case of 'holier than thou', try Mary Whitehouse....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I don't disagree with any of that, Steve Langton and my attitude towards both Anabaptists and monastics is that I'm glad they're around.
I don't know if you saw that BBC documentary about Franciscan friars in Bradford over Easter? I was impressed with those fellas.
I don't want to get into the 'Christian nation' thing again here - we've done that one to death and I'm surprised it's not a Dead Horse by now ...
But I would say that there is a subtle difference between societies which might, by dint of critical-mass, consider themselves predominantly Christian and those where this is then enshrined in law with penalties or privileges involved ...
After all, what is a Hutterite community or a monastery, for that matter, if it isn't an attempt to set up an exclusively Christian community?
But that's another issue ...
On the holier than thou thing, one might suggest that you're entering into value judgements yourself as to who is or isn't living as holy a life as you think they should ...
One doesn't have to be like Mary Whitehouse to be holier than thou ...
Just as one doesn't have to be a full-on Anabaptist to entertain reservations about church-state 'establishment' links.
Again, hopefully without going over old ground, I may remind you that self-righteousness was identified by the very eirenic Puritan, Richard Baxter, as the besetting sin, if you like, of Anabaptism.
He identified other besetting sins for all the other churches and groups around in his day ... the RCs and the 'Greeks' as well as the various Protestant bodies.
Obviously, he didn't mention his own moderate form of presbyterianism as worthy of censure ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But the point isn't that any Christian tradition is free of its down-sides and propensities to topple over into error or extremism in some way - but that we live in a fallen world and as a human as a well as divine 'institution' the Christian Church is bound to fall short of the ideal - not that this is an excuse for complacency.
I'd certainly agree with you that there's an odd kind of 'Britain ought to be a Christian nation of the same stripe as our church ...' thing going on up at Jesmond.
But there are other factors and issues at work there too which make the whole thing problematic.
Such as expecting the wide Church/denomination it belongs to to dance to its particular tune just because they think it should.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but has anyone else noticed how often Steve Langton cites Mary Whitehouse?
As though she is some kind of paradigmatic example of the busy-bodiness that betokens 'state religion' ...
As if Mary Whitehouse too is a product of Constantinianism or Theodosianism ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
But what the heck ...
Yes, I think Mary Whitehouse did act in a holier than thou and less than helpful manner ...
But she isn't the first person to have done so, nor will she be the last ...
Get over her already. Move on, there's nothing to see ...
Tangent over. As you were ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'd certainly agree with you that there's an odd kind of 'Britain ought to be a Christian nation of the same stripe as our church ...' thing going on up at Jesmond. But there are other factors and issues at work there too which make the whole thing problematic. Such as expecting the wide Church/denomination it belongs to to dance to its particular tune just because they think it should.
It's not all that odd, it's actually just that Holloway takes the Church of England and its place in the state seriously and expects it to live up to its traditional teachings rather than living down to the morass of contradictions it currently represents. And that's rather the problem - he is expecting the CofE to dance to its own tune, not his....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There is an inherent contradiction in your position, Steve Langton, a blind spot.
I can see what you are getting at but you seem to have a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't approach to the CofE' which you don't apply to your own tradition.
If a Mary Whitehouse or a Jesmond parish act in a controlling or busy-body kind of way you blame the system rather than the individuals.
If an Anabaptist or some kind of independent Christian does so then it's clearly not systemic but an aberration and something to do with the individuals rather than their own context or system.
Also, it seems to me, that whilst Jesmond's approach to the CofE may still be stuck in the 17th or 18th centuries to some extent, so is yours.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not carrying a candle for the CofE necessarily, simply pointing out that the tune it's now playing is rather different to the one it played back then.
Of course, establishment is fraught with difficulties but it's just part of the problem here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
If a Mary Whitehouse or a Jesmond parish act in a controlling or busy-body kind of way you blame the system rather than the individuals. If an Anabaptist or some kind of independent Christian does so then it's clearly not systemic but an aberration and something to do with the individuals rather than their own context or system.
Not sure you're comparing like with like here. Look, any association like for example the FA does have coherent rules that the members are supposed to work to. That also applies to Churches of all kinds. So churches like other associations will be somewhat 'controlling' of their own members; and yes, being human means that sometimes that will be over-controlling/busy-body.
But 'establishment' pretty much implies that idea of 'allotriepiscopacy', controlling outside the church as well. And that part of their system needs to be challenged and is biblically simply wrong. It's not just a 'being human' aberration in a basically good system, it is a bad system which then aggravates the 'being human' into an even wider problem than it should be.
also by G;
quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not carrying a candle for the CofE necessarily, simply pointing out that the tune it's now playing is rather different to the one it played back then.
Not disagreeing. But that's like what the problem is for Holloway - it's as if the 'Vegetarian Society' has gone so far from its principles that it now holds meat-eating banquets, and seems unaware of the contradiction. And your comment
quote:
Such as expecting the wide Church/denomination it belongs to to dance to its particular tune just because they think it should.
pretty much translates as you being surprised that there are people who think the Vegetarian Society ought to live up to its name. As in, it's not just "because they think it should", they're actually asking the Society to dance to the tune it's supposed to dance to. Pretty much the same with Jesmond.
Of course the Christian faith isn't quite as 'single issue'/uncomplicated as vegetarianism. And the problem is that Jesmond/Holloway are calling for BOTH a return to basic biblical Christianity AND at the same time to continue the unbiblical policy of a privileged place for Christianity in the state. Precisely because he is calling for the CofE to live up to its principles, what he's doing suffers from the same conflicted position as the wider Anglican church.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
pretty much translates as you being surprised that there are people who think the Vegetarian Society ought to live up to its name. As in, it's not just "because they think it should", they're actually asking the Society to dance to the tune it's supposed to dance to. Pretty much the same with Jesmond.
On the assumption you picked that analogy out of somewhere that analogies don't usually emerge from, I looked up the Vegetarian Society's aims on their website.
And while their aim is that everyone becomes a vegetarian, there isn't a hint of denouncing meat-eaters as heretics, demanding that occasional meat-eaters are expelled from the organisation or creating a de facto 'shadow Vegetarian Society' from the inside, duplicating the functions and offices of the original.
In fact, the Vegetarian Society's mission statement reminds me a lot of the current CofE: seeking to explain, educate and persuade, rather than rendering apostates into mulch.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Delighted to hear that the Vegetarian Society is tolerant and non-coercive; but I still think they'd face considerable problems with their veggie members if they went in for
quote:
hold(ing) meat-eating banquets, and seem(ing) unaware of the contradiction.
And whatever it may look like to the typical woffly modern Anglican, if people are taking the Bible seriously a lot of the current Anglican Church could look rather like that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Delighted to hear that the Vegetarian Society is tolerant and non-coercive; but I still think they'd face considerable problems with their veggie members if they went in for
quote:
hold(ing) meat-eating banquets, and seem(ing) unaware of the contradiction.
And whatever it may look like to the typical woffly modern Anglican, if people are taking the Bible seriously a lot of the current Anglican Church could look rather like that....
The problem with crap analogies and using them to talk about the Thing, rather than just talking about the Thing, is that you end up tying yourself in knots.
Every Anglican church I've ever been to, and trust me, it's a lot, have always preached Christ. All you're doing is the 'taking the Bible seriously = what I believe' sum. Bluntly put, I don't believe you're an authority in what the Bible means.
So let's get back to talking about the Thing. That'd be great.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Every Anglican church I've ever been to, and trust me, it's a lot, have always preached Christ.
Yebbut - which Christ? My info is that at least some are preaching a Christ 'mistaken' in comments he made relevant to a DH subject; and to say that, they're either denying Jesus' divinity, or producing a theory of the Incarnation which pretty much makes Jesus fallible despite being God Incarnate. And of course their claim that Jesus was 'mistaken' boils down to a further claim that they know better than Jesus what he should have taught.... Can that really be 'preaching Christ' - or is it rather superficially taking Jesus' name to actually preach their own ideas against him?
And it has some problems for evangelism too. Those taking such a view are so busy being happy that they've found a way round Jesus to 'win' the DH argument, they don't realise that a religion whose leader is that unreliable, and whose God couldn't incarnate himself as a reliable teacher, is pretty much in the category of "Who in their right mind would put faith in that God/Jesus anyway?"
also by Doc Tor;
quote:
All you're doing is the 'taking the Bible seriously = what I believe' sum. Bluntly put, I don't believe you're an authority in what the Bible means.
I don't believe I'm that much of an authority in myself. The Bible is the authority. I expect people to check out my interpretations for themselves. That's how the Reformation worked - not because Martin Luther was "an authority" but because when people read the Bible for themselves they could see the RCC was wrong in all kinds of ways.
And as regards the 'Thing' here, clearly it's a major part of this 'Thing' that Jesmond/Holloway believes a particular view of Church and State. So here's an opportunity for you to try out using the Bible as an authority. Go to the Christian Institute website, check out the sections on how Christianity ought to be privileged in the state, and see whether you agree with Holloway that that position is 'biblical'. NOT because I or any other 'authority' tells you what the Bible says, but checking it out for yourself.
Of course if you find the Holloway version unbiblical you'll pretty much have to conclude that the CofE's own version of that idea is also unbiblical from square one in Tudor times right down to now....
PS - I'm not sure - though I strongly suspect - that the CI interpretation is Holloway's work; but even if not his own work, it's fairly clear he agrees with it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You're simply taking several hundred words to say what I've already said in a few, and believing that proves your point.
If they don't preach 'your' Christ, they're not preaching Christ. If they don't believe your interpretation of the Bible, they don't believe the Bible.
And if Holloway/Jesmond/Christian Institute don't agree with the Anabaptist position on church/state affairs, they're not being Biblical. Trust me, Holloway is very strong on the 'plain meaning of scripture', a phrase he's inordinately fond of repeating. He disagrees with you on what that is, and you're as guilty as he is on the 'every man a pope' charge.
It leaves the pair of you proof-texting your way to a stalemate. And at some point, the pair of you will need to acknowledge that the Bible has always been interpreted in a collegiate setting, whether that was formally or informally. And hopefully under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Steve, I've met this dialectic before, and I didn't regard it as valid then. Even if you are able to persuade me that the Xs or the Ys are wrong, it is neither rational nor persuasive then to say, 'I've persuaded you that X or Y is wrong. Therefore it follows that what I'm telling you must be right'.
However many people may try that one, in whatever context, it's still a non sequitur.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Steve, if you nust push your analogy, Holloway et al. are more like a militant vegan wing within the vegetarian society declaring ovo-lacto-vegetarianism to be contrary to the principle of avoiding animal cruelty, and therefore ovo-lacto-vegetarians not to be vegetarians at all and forming their own committee and officials in place of the compromising egg and cheese munchers.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I have checked your interpretation of the bible, Steve. It is bollocks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A better analogy might be the debate that's going on within CAMRA (Campaign for More Real Ale) as to whether 'craft beers' should be given consideration alongside traditional cask ales - or whether CAMRA should also look at traditional ciders and perry alongside ale ...
Steve Langton seems to think that because 'this Church of England by law established' was established in the 1550s it somehow has to remain shackled to the very different conditions and principles that operated back then ...
So Anglicans are damned if they adhere to the 39 Articles and some kind of Erastian understanding of the links between church and state - and damned if they don't ...
The only way they can 'win' in Steve's view is by not being Anglicans and being Anabaptists instead.
Because, as any fool knows, the Anabaptists are the most biblical people around on the planet ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Envo
Apprentice
# 18797
|
Posted
Apologies for coming late to this thread, but, as an occasional worshipper at JPC, permit me to clarify certain matters discussed in various postings earlier.
1. I have before me last Sunday's Order of Service at JPC, which includes the phrase "We believe in one holy catholic {Note - lower case initial letter} and apostolic Church."
2. Last time I took Communion there, not so long ago, I was given a piece of what looked like common or garden sliced, white bread.
3. ~£4 million assets - a look at the accounts of the Jesmond Trust on the Charity Commisioners website shows that almost all of this amount is categorised as 'Tangible Fixed Assets' (i.e. Plant, Equipment, Land and Buildings) and is thus presumably not available for day-to-day spending.
4. The accounts of the JPC PCC (Note 4) contain an item under 'Expenditure: Staff - Diocesan Contribution' of about £76K. Presumably this is the 'statutory' required contribution to higher authority?
I also note that the AMiE website has updated its refernce to Jonathan Pryke from 'Revd' to 'Rt Revd'.
I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of the above (scriptural, fiscal or otherwise), but merely seek to clear the air on these matters.
Posts: 1 | From: Tyne & Wear | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Welcome aboard, Envo, and thanks for the points raised.
Re your point 4, I think this might refer to the stipends of the clergy, which have to be met, rather than the Parish Share or Quota, which is voluntary (at least, it is in this southern Diocese).
Perhaps someone else in the Newcastle Diocese could clarify, as these things do vary from place to place.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The monies paid to the diocese represent the stipends for the three CofE clergy - David Holloway, Jonathan Pryke and Jonathan Redfern - plus 10%. That's all Jesmond have paid to the diocese since they declared 'impaired communion' with the bishop in, I think, 1997. So 20 years.
Also, the first I knew of the Jesmond Statement (as it was called) was on the radio. It wasn't discussed in church, or in home groups, and the PCC had rubber-stamped a resolution giving Holloway carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. So they didn't know either.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It appears that the pro-apartheid schismatic group formerly known as the Church of England in South Africa has taken it upon itself to consecrate a hardline conservative evangelical bishop in ++Sentamu Ebor's province of York. While not a GAFCON project it is clear that this is a consequence of Canterbury's appeasement of schismatics in North America, and that you can never be homophobic or sexist enough to satisfy this faction in the church.
Behold the man. what a boring old man - no eye contact and unable to speak clearly into a microphone - I don't think normal Anglicans have much to fear from him. He also mistranslates the 1 Cor passage.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
That's how the Reformation worked - not because Martin Luther was "an authority" but because when people read the Bible for themselves they could see the RCC was wrong in all kinds of ways.
Oh come on! That is a primary school level understanding of the Reformation. Granted, it is what many hard line Christians claim the Reformation was, but just like their reading of scripture, they will happily espouse the 'authority' of some aspects to the ignorance of others. To ignore the social and political aspects of the Reformation is ridiculous and the religious aspects do not solely sit where you suggest either. You're completely ignoring the understanding of where power rests in the church, individualism vs community, materialism vs sobriety etc etc etc. Reducing the Reformation to the authority of scripture is frankly a lie.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
