Ship of Fools: shoot ourselves in the foot

Thread: shoot ourselves in the foot Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029212

Posted by simwel (# 12214) on :

As a an Anglican why do we seem to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. As witness the views of Rev Tinker of Hull who confuses homosexuality with paedophilia. We always seem to be out of touch and at times slightly unpleasant. The reality in my experience is we try hard and wish to be relavent

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Maybe a large but usually silent proportion of Anglicans rely on the Daily Mail for information about the broader world?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Authority, by nature, is resistant to change. Religious authority generally more so.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I don't think that the views of those who are reported are representative, do you? I go so far as to suggest that they are only reported because they are not.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simwel:
As a an Anglican why do we seem to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. As witness the views of Rev Tinker of Hull who confuses homosexuality with paedophilia. We always seem to be out of touch and at times slightly unpleasant. The reality in my experience is we try hard and wish to be relavent

Tinker has undoubtedly shot a few people (and himself) by his remarks. There would, however, be those within and outside the CofE, who have significant reservations about the changing stance on human sexuality, especially over SSR's and SSM's. They feel that a change in policy has shot the church in the foot.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

DH alert

This thread already exists in Dead Horses.

If you want to discuss the specifics of Rev Tinker's comments, go to DH.

But if you want to discuss in general how the church often manages to "shoot itself in the foot", stay here.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 25. June 2015, 22:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Authority, by nature, is resistant to change. Religious authority generally more so.

Change to what exactly? When ever I sit in church and listen to the Christian teaching I find it no longer relevant to the way things are now.

The Anglican church might as well say secularism has made a whole new set of rules which seem to working just fine, so why not simply consign ourselves to the dust bin of history.

As for the point made in OP, myths presented as fact by the church only lead it to look even more silly and out of touch with reality.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think part of the problem is that the Anglican church is so "broad church" that it includes many with equal and opposite views on, well almost everything. Mix that with a theology that holds that the deity speaks directly to individuals, and then it is almost inevitable that you're going to have people telling others that God disapproves of them.

The "shooting in the foot" aspect here, I'd suggest (without getting into the DH area) is that the Anglican church is attempting to be one church rather than splitting into 5 or more daughter churches.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by LilBuddha:

quote:

Authority, by nature, is resistant to change. Religious authority generally more so.

You know, I think we have resigned ourselves to that view, but I don't know that it was always true. There have been times when Christianity has been right at the cutting edge in transforming and renewing society, which is kind of what you would expect seeing it's all about following a radical called Jesus.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

And Sharia in its original form was rewritten every 10 years to take account of changes in society.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... The "shooting in the foot" aspect here, I'd suggest (without getting into the DH area) is that the Anglican church is attempting to be one church rather than splitting into 5 or more daughter churches.

Another quote 1 Cor 1:13

quote:
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?

We are not called to divide into little sub-churches made up just of us, people like us and people we agree with. By no stretch of anyone's imagination can it be argued that it either is or should be an excommunicable offence to disagree with David Cameron on this particular Dead Horse. Indeed, without wishing to launch this particular rocket onto another board, from scripture, tradition etc it's actually easier to argue the other way.

Those we disagree with are just as much our brothers and sisters as those we don't, and that's a far more important piece of ground on which to make our stand, than an awful lot of other things - as well as this one - that people disagree on.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We are not called to divide into little sub-churches made up just of us, people like us and people we agree with. By no stretch of anyone's imagination can it be argued that it either is or should be an excommunicable offence to disagree with David Cameron on this particular Dead Horse. Indeed, without wishing to launch this particular rocket onto another board, from scripture, tradition etc it's actually easier to argue the other way.

Those we disagree with are just as much our brothers and sisters as those we don't, and that's a far more important piece of ground on which to make our stand, than an awful lot of other things - as well as this one - that people disagree on.

Well I think this is the cause of the problem. But do carry on trying to hold together impossible extremes if you think it is helping.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I think this is the cause of the problem. But do carry on trying to hold together impossible extremes if you think it is helping.

My point is that we are obliged to. It is our calling to do so.

It is also the calling of those who themselves hold impossible extreme position to hold together, to love the brothers and sisters more than the purity of their own doctrinal, ideological or whatever positions. Those who separate, those who force others to do so, and those who say 'we are better apart than together', are missing a point which is more important than the one they are making an issue of.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My point is that we are obliged to. It is our calling to do so.

Well certainly some think it is. Given that a very large percentage of Christendom (including the Anglican church) has a heritage which involves some kind of split, almost nobody else thinks it necessary to continue trying to fit together pieces that don't fit indefinitely.

quote:
It is also the calling of those who themselves hold impossible extreme position to hold together, to love the brothers and sisters more than the purity of their own doctrinal, ideological or whatever positions. Those who separate, those who force others to do so, and those who say 'we are better apart than together', are missing a point which is more important than the one they are making an issue of.

That's interesting. So explain to me how you are trying to hold things together with people you fundamentally disagree with (for example Unitarians). What is so special that the Anglican church has to attempt contortions to do this when almost nobody else has been able to do this since the Reformation? Seems like masochism to me.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... Given that a very large percentage of Christendom (including the Anglican church) has a heritage which involves some kind of split, almost nobody else thinks it necessary to continue trying to fit together pieces that don't fit indefinitely.

We all have a history of sin to live with. That we, or any other group, claim to be in schism for reasons of high principle doesn't stop it from being sin.

If we regard any others as 'separated brethren', even if 'misguided', rather than 'wolves in sheep clothing', 'serpents' or 'enemies of the kingdom', how do we really justify refusing to accept them or not being in communion with them?

I appreciate that sounds a bit black and white. Much of this is kept going by habit. Even so, if we think they are part of of the body of Christ, is it within our gift to divide that body?

quote:
That's interesting. So explain to me how you are trying to hold things together with people you fundamentally disagree with (for example Unitarians).

The Unitarians are both a special case and quite an interesting example.

As I've said on another thread, I don't know all that much about them. My impression, though, is that they don't normally claim to be Christians. They are usually self aware enough to accept that fundamental to their self identity is an emphatic negative. They don't believe key things about Jesus that are in the classic Creeds and that define what a Christian is. So they presumably don't want to belong to the household of faith.

However, if you scratch beneath the surface of what some people in most ecclesial communities really think, you're also likely to find enough confusion about Christian basics that it is difficult to tell them apart from a Unitarian. I wouldn't want to discourage them from sticking at it, in the hope their faith will grow and they'll come to believe more.

quote:
What is so special that the Anglican church has to attempt contortions to do this when almost nobody else has been able to do this since the Reformation? Seems like masochism to me.

There is nothing special about the CofE here. This responsibility rests on all of us, whether we are CofE, RC, CofS, Methodist, URC, Baptist, Brethren, Orthodox, Pentecostal or whatever. I'd also say that the RC Church carries its own big share of the sin involved in both the Great Schism and the Reformation.

For reasons of practical convenience, for the now, I suspect we have to live with the fragmented organisational structures we have. It would be difficult to argue that Jesus has refused to work with them - even if none of us can say how reluctant he is in this, or how he'd prefer us to organise ourselves in stead.

However, it seems to me that there are no arguments that even imply that it can be right to fragment his body further, or to claim that we are the true body, and that lot over there, who we used to be with, no longer are.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It seems to me that there are no arguments that even imply that it can be right to fragment his body further, or to claim that we are the true body, and that lot over there, who we used to be with, no longer are.

I don't think splitting has to be about hatred and one-upmanship. Not all splits occur as a result of doctrinal differences anyway. It may simply be that different groups have different callings, and a single administrative structure doesn't always provide the freedom and flexibility for different groups of people who feel they could be more useful if they did things differently.

As for me, I can't think of anything worse than one worldwide denomination with one structure, one hierarchy and one way of being and believing. Too much power concentrated in one massive institution doesn't breed humility. Nor, according to the supply-side theory of religion, is the 'One Church' idea a particularly effective or efficient way of spreading Christianity or maintaining Christian spiritual energy.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I haven't said that and am not arguing for it. I think the notion that there should be one universal hierarchy that can issue orders from the centre, is creating a human poor imitation of the sovereignty of God. It's the same wrong reason as inspired the Israelites to ask for a king so that they could be like other people. It's one of the reasons why I suspect we have for now to work with the divided church we have at the moment.

What I am saying though, is that we aren't entitled to say we disagree with the Xes - nor just that we don't get on with them - nor that we disagree with them as a pretence to fool ourselves - when the truth is that we want the freedom to do what we like and not have to fit in with other people. So we're going to break communion with them and go off and do our own thing.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

So can the church ever speak with authority on any subject? As a religion encompassing all our branches and strands, we have no common understanding of how we are saved; how Jesus is present, if at all, in the Eucharist; how we understand and interpret our holy scriptures. How can we expect to speak with any authority on worldly matters such as what rights a woman has over a foetus; what kinds of sexual relationship are healthy; what punishments are apt for murder, and so forth? Would it not be a good thing for Christians to influence those debates, if we could agree on which way we wanted to pull them?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, it can, and does, speak with authority about our parlous, internal and socially divided, state! And it can, and does, speak with authority about the real cure for that.

Actually, I think it also speaks with authority about the limitations of a rules-based approach to life. If what we are left with is following Christ as best we can, as best we understand that, then I think that illuminates the significance of corporate pilgrimage, despite our rows and differences. I don't think giving up on that, or giving up on one another, are options the church has been given in its foundation.

Nobody said it would be easy.

[ 28. June 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, it can, and does, speak with authority about our parlous, internal and socially divided, state

I think you might be surprised as to, outside its diminishing sphere of influence, how little of that self-assumed authority leaks through the walls of the religious bubble.

quote:
Originally posted by simwel:
As a an Anglican why do we seem to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. As witness the views of Rev Tinker of Hull who confuses homosexuality with paedophilia. We always seem to be out of touch and at times slightly unpleasant. The reality in my experience is we try hard and wish to be relavent

“As an Anglican” – this is important to you but not, I suspect, to the UK’s 50%+ who claim no religious affiliation. The question, perhaps, is not why Anglicans are seen as irrelevant but why religion is seen as irrelevant. Are you worrying about the brand when it’s the product’s life cycle that’s ending?

Religion is seen as a focal point for violence, arrogance, abuse and hypocrisy. The problem for believers is that, whilst it is only a part of the story, religious practice, historically and within recent experience, contains, indisputably, all these things. It isn’t even the “my religion good, all others bad” that used to pertain; name a major religion which has not been implicated in widely-publicised, institutionalised misbehaviour in the last ten years.

Religion, as a group, has thrown away any respect it could previously attract and as the increasing loosening of religions' controls over ordinary lives continues the lack of evidence for god(s) is exposed. People are no longer afraid to ask why an omnipotent, omnipresent and caring essential goodness is so conspicuous by its absence and, as the realisation that knowledge is too vast for any one of us to grasp more than a fraction of it extends, no longer assume automatically that things beyond their understanding constitute evidence for a deity.

As I see it - Religions have always got away with shooting themselves in the foot because they controlled the message – they don’t have that option now that they have to contend with 24 hour worldwide television news and the internet. Revulsion with the perceived wickedness associated with religion is probably not sustainable; it will subside, indeed to a large extent in the UK already has subsided, to that most dismissive of statuses; amusing, irrelevant tolerance for all but the most ardent core of believers.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, it can, and does, speak with authority about our parlous, internal and socially divided, state
I think you might be surprised as to, outside its diminishing sphere of influence, how little of that self-assumed authority leaks through the walls of the religious bubble.

This I know!

But speaking or writing with authority does not mean that you won't be ignored. The words will stand or fall in the long term, depending on what inherent authority they may contain. Even heaven and earth may pass away, but that's not the ultimate test of authoritative words.

Somebody said that once. I think he was right.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

There is a confusion here between what is the Church of England and what is Anglicanism.

Because the mother church of Anglicanism, the CofE, is in decline does not mean that Anglicanism is in decline.

Most seem to be talking specifically about the CofE, so will I.

The thing about being a broad church is the greatest danger. It is in danger of splitting, as it always has been. There is a danger that some groups will split away, as they have in the past (hello Methodists [Smile]

). This will continue to happen, and will generate bad publicity, especially in a society where bad news travels faster than good news.

But it is not only the greatest danger to the CofE. It is also the CofE's greatest asset. That it can, most of the time, hold together people with diverse views is a good thing. It keeps people talking who would otherwise stop acknowledging the other existed. The cost is that everything is painfully slow in terms of moving forward, how we deal with sometimes very small minorities can look like a small group is holding the church to ransom — until that is when the church moves on.

The media will continue to spin the news of the Church of England to its own ends. Much of the negative press of a church on the cusp of a fatal split could be spun the other was to show a church where people with with vastly different ideas of dogma and praxis still talk.

You can spin it one way — Look how these Christians argue among themselves.

I'm spinning the other way &mdash look at how people in the CofE love each other, despite big differences in style, politics and theology we continue to take the minority view seriously.

There are those who will speak out in views which are of a very small minority in the good old CofE, they will continue to get more column inches than the rest. (In ship terms, equine rigor mortis has set in to many of these topics.)

The death of the Church of England has been prophesied for a long time, wrongly. There is no reason to suspect the CofE is about to die now.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If the CofE split into different denominations there would probably still be one group that saw its job as continuing with the 'mainstream' role of the CofE. One of the groups would still have to conduct royal weddings and other civic religious events, and provide spokesmen to comment on topical issues, etc. In that sense, the CofE wouldn't 'die', it would just shed some of its people, probably the least mainstream ones. The CofE of the future will be a much smaller institution in any case, but I can't see the 'brand name' disappearing.

As for the Anglican churches around the world, they're not all in decline, but since they don't necessarily represent the sort of Anglicanism that many people here would like to see flourish, their continued growth is surely something of a double-edged sword. There may also come a point when they no longer see why they should take guidance from a much weakened mother church.

Regarding the Methodists, many of them would like their church to re-merge with the CofE, but the CofE doesn't seem terribly keen, from what I've been told. Local Ecumenical Partnerships seem to be taking priority over ideas of merging at the top. Maybe the churches should vigorously promote all the ecumenical work going on at grass roots level rather than grumbling about individual clergymen who go rogue.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As for the Anglican churches around the world, they're not all in decline, but since they don't necessarily represent the sort of Anglicanism that many people here would like to see flourish, their continued growth is surely something of a double-edged sword. There may also come a point when they no longer see why they should take guidance from a much weakened mother church.

Much to the surprise of many adherents of the CofE, Anglican churches throughout the world have not looked to the CofE for guidance for a number of decades. That ship sailed sometime in Donald Coggan's time at Canterbury. And any remaining dinghies left at the dock certainly set sail when George Carey was ABC.

John

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Fair enough. It's just that every now and then I hear about some plea from Canterbury that such and such a part of the Anglican Communion ought to rethink some decision or other. I don't know if anything comes of these interventions, but there does seem to be an expectation that advice will be given, if not taken.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Much to the surprise of many adherents of the CofE, Anglican churches throughout the world have not looked to the CofE for guidance for a number of decades. That ship sailed sometime in Donald Coggan's time at Canterbury. And any remaining dinghies left at the dock certainly set sail when George Carey was ABC.

As a matter of interest, why have you singled out those two particular archbishops to have it in for? It seems a bit unfair on them, And, from how the Anglican Communion looks from here it also seems a very odd choice.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Much to the surprise of many adherents of the CofE, Anglican churches throughout the world have not looked to the CofE for guidance for a number of decades. That ship sailed sometime in Donald Coggan's time at Canterbury. And any remaining dinghies left at the dock certainly set sail when George Carey was ABC.

John

I'm not sure it is that much of a surprise to most people in the CofE - the Anglican world is a divided place, with many conflicting loyalties. The national relationship with Canterbury is very different in different places, largely related to the make-up of congregations in recent decades. Those which are primarily ex-pat churches look more directly to England, those who have developed their own forms of local spirituality (wrong word, but maybe you know what I mean) less so.

Canterbury is the titular head of the Communion in a "first amongst equals" sense, but somehow I doubt that Rwanda, Nigeria and the Southern Cone particularly look to Canterbury for guidance.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think that the views of those who are reported are representative, do you? I go so far as to suggest that they are only reported because they are not.

Very true - but a strong, public, rebuttal from someone very high up would go a long way, would it not?

How about a well worded letter to him about discrimination too?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Much to the surprise of many adherents of the CofE, Anglican churches throughout the world have not looked to the CofE for guidance for a number of decades. That ship sailed sometime in Donald Coggan's time at Canterbury. And any remaining dinghies left at the dock certainly set sail when George Carey was ABC.
As a matter of interest, why have you singled out those two particular archbishops to have it in for? It seems a bit unfair on them, And, from how the Anglican Communion looks from here it also seems a very odd choice.

Coggan simply because in his time, the authority pretty much disappeared. Nothing to do with him in particular, just the way things worked out. That his predecessor,Ramsey, was a relatively charismatic person and Donald Coggan was not might have played a part, but may not have.

As for George Carey, he embodied a style of attempted leadership that was obviously out of sync with the rest of us.

John

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Fair enough. It's just that every now and then I hear about some plea from Canterbury that such and such a part of the Anglican Communion ought to rethink some decision or other. I don't know if anything comes of these interventions, but there does seem to be an expectation that advice will be given, if not taken.

Oh I think CAnterbury thinks non English Anglicans are listening -- Rowen WIlliams seemed to be under that illusion. And the apparatichiks (sp?) at Lambeth certainly think so.

THey haven't worked out that we don't really want their advice and don't pay attention to it.

Now if it were a matter of consultation -- all of us sitting together to talk as equals, that might be something else. And the opinion of the CofE would certainly be listened to as much as the opinion of anyone else at the table. But that's not on offer from the present ABC any more than it was from his predecessors.

John

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0