Thread: Why do the CofE and CinW still accept ordinands who are against the OofW? 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=030639
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
Obviously nailing my colours to the mast here...

but I don't understand how, with any integrity, these two churches still accept candidates who do not agree with the ordination of other candidates, whom the church has accepted.

I have sympathy for those who were ordained before 1994/1997. To them, the church changed around them.

But once a church has decided that it is right to ordain women, then ITSM that it should stick it its position. By accepting new ordinands who disagree, the church is essentially saying 'You might be right - we could be wrong.' In which case, the ordination of every woman is open to question by the very church that is supposed to have already accepted them, to say nothing of undermining their confidence and faith in their ordaining church.

Many other churches don't do this - in Britain the Methodist Church won't accept any candidates who aren't fully accepting of what that church does.

When the first black candidates were ordained, there were doubtless clerics and ordinands who disagreed that this was right, or the will of God. They weren't offered flying bishops for their tender sensibilities then.

It also suggests that these churches are so desperate for ordinands they'll take anyone who agrees with nine-tenths of what the church espouses.

No doubt there are plenty of folk here ready to disagree! Any thoughts?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Panda posts:
quote:
When the first black candidates were ordained, there were doubtless clerics and ordinands who disagreed that this was right, or the will of God. They weren't offered flying bishops for their tender sensibilities then.
There has never been, to my knowledge, in catholic churches, a colour bar. Indeed, in the Roman/Greek world of the patristic period, there seems to have been little colour-consciousness as we know it and I have never heard of any canon or rule preventing the ordination of non-white or minority candidates. There was a bar against the ordination of slaves, as a slave priest would never be in a position to rebuke or discipline pastorally his master, but this was from a period when slaves were of all shades.

While Panda is correct that the current situation is illogical, we need to recall that the Lambeth Conference statement on the topic indicated that those against and supportive of OWP were both loyal Anglicans. Perhaps the next Lambeth may wish to change this.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
How long is the 'period of reception' in which the CofE and the CiW discern whether the ordination of women to the priesthood is the work of the Holy Spirit? Some would argue that it is of indefinite length. Some would argue that when Rome or Constantinople (or Mount Athos) recognizes women's orders then that will determine it, which is much the same thing.

Some would argue that it is over already, and that the acceptance of the ordination of women to the priesthood is clear. The shock and anger felt around the country, in and out of churches, at the decision of the General Synod not to consecrate women to the episcopate is, I would argue, evidence of the acceptance of the ordination of women.

I do not think that the 'honoured place' for opponents to the ordination of women was meant to last longer than the 'period of reception.'

The promulgation of heterodox (and arguably heretical) theological arguments to support opposition to the ordination of women is one of the dangerous side-effects of the indefinite extension of the period of reception. These are badly distorting the teaching of theological anthropology--and even the Doctrine of the Trinity. Needless to say our theology of ministerial priesthood has been badly broken, as Catholics are fond of pointing out, by what we've done to the idea of a threefold order.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
But once a church has decided that it is right to ordain women, then ITSM that it should stick it its position.
When the church decided to ordain women it also decided that it was wrong to discriminate against candidates for the priesthood on the grounds of their views on the ordination of women. This was part of the deal for getting the ordination of women through.

The church is sticking to its position.

[edit to add: I do know how to spell priesthood.]

[ 27. December 2012, 09:18: Message edited by: balaam ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Because we are grown up and kind, because we said we would and have not changed our minds yet and because (despite the recent uproar) we are not a single-issue church.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
How long is the 'period of reception' in which the CofE and the CiW discern whether the ordination of women to the priesthood is the work of the Holy Spirit? Some would argue that it is of indefinite length. Some would argue that when Rome or Constantinople (or Mount Athos) recognizes women's orders then that will determine it, which is much the same thing.
There must be an almost infinite variety of answers to this question. Amongst the more persuasive, ISTM, are those that say that it ends the moment you complete the logic of the process and ordain women to the episcopate. At the other end of the timeline, I would argue that, since sacraments work ex opere operato and are the work of Christ enabled through the Holy Spirit, the period ended as soon as the CofE ordained as priest its first women ordinand. To argue otherwise would seem to suggest that the CofE did not know what happened on that day and isn't sure of the status of that woman and those who have followed in her wake. Anything else would seem to open the door to "taint".

quote:
Some would argue that it is over already, and that the acceptance of the ordination of women to the priesthood is clear.
I'd go with this. Finding an Anglican in a england who sees it differently requires not inconsiderable effort.

quote:
The shock and anger felt around the country, in and out of churches, at the decision of the General Synod not to consecrate women to the episcopate is, I would argue, evidence of the acceptance of the ordination of women.
I'm not so sure that it was particularly reliable evidence of that. It seemed to me to have about it a synthetic, manufactured, PR quality. Indeed, I have seldom seen the BBC adopt such a lazy partiality. Always, I think, evidence of cleverly designed and deployed PR strategies.

quote:
I do not think that the 'honoured place' for opponents to the ordination of women was meant to last longer than the 'period of reception.'
My views on the notion of dual integrities are well known on the Ship. I think you must be right. Any other suggestion is insulting to the views of both those pro and anti-OoW: implying that their respective beliefs aren't really that important. Either Caroline, in the village down the road, is a priest or she is not, either her sacramental ministry is a sacramental ministry or it is not. To suggest that a person should be free to deny that and still retain an honoured place in the CofE might well have been the price for getting the necessary votes back in 1992 but it is more than the usual Anglican fudge, it is an ecclesiology cal and sacramental nonsense and deeply insulting to Caroline. It insults the person who denies it too: it patronises his or her deeply held convictions.

quote:
The promulgation of heterodox (and arguably heretical) theological arguments to support opposition to the ordination of women is one of the dangerous side-effects of the indefinite extension of the period of reception. These are badly distorting the teaching of theological anthropology--and even the Doctrine of the Trinity. Needless to say our theology of ministerial priesthood has been badly broken, as Catholics are fond of pointing out, by what we've done to the idea of a threefold order.
Well, what Catholics think of your orders is really a second order issue. The views you identify as heretical or heterodox certainly seem so from an Anglican point of view. That they are nothing of the sort from a Catholic point of view is merely a worked example of the maxim that orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is your doxy. [Biased]
 
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
By accepting new ordinands who disagree, the church is essentially saying 'You might be right - we could be wrong.'
I think that here you have answered your own question.

EVERYTHING the church does or says should be under this proviso. We are called to have faith and then get on with life, not constantly be worried about whether what we do is wrong (in the sense of "incorrect").

It is not given to us to KNOW such things in life; we should always remember that we might be wrong.

Every eucharistic service contains prayers of penitence that make just this point.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
Yes, it goes without saying that we cannot know that what we do for God is ever, without doubt, right.

But when a church has accepted that the ordination of some of its members to serve as leaders is as right as it's able to discern, and then says that the ordinations of some of those members (ie the men) is probably more right than the ordinations of some other members (ie the women), there is no consistency, and some would say, a lack of honesty, in how it is responding to God.

Perhaps my example of a colour bar was unhelpful. Here's another: when the western church came to the conclusion that Christ was fully God and fully man, that no doubt left a few Arian potential ordinands out in the cold. How far would they have got if they'd said to their bishop, 'I'm completely on side with everything the church does and believes, exceot for this one point. Here, I think I'm right, all the other bishops are wrong, and I want a flying bishop who agrees with me.'?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Short of war issues of Justice do not change overnight.

And TBC the C of E has changed, is changing and will change more. What you are discussing is the pace of that change. One change will be on this issue, one of many to come.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I'm more puzzled by the opposite question. Why does anyone who believes women cannot be ordained, still seek ordination in the CofE? They consign themselves to a non-Juror like future, with a black spot against their name, and little possibility of serving in any ordinary parish, or obtaining preferment unless they make PEV.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm more puzzled by the opposite question. Why does anyone who believes women cannot be ordained, still seek ordination in the CofE? They consign themselves to a non-Juror like future, with a black spot against their name, and little possibility of serving in any ordinary parish, or obtaining preferment unless they make PEV.
Because they believe they are called? [Razz] Which of course is the only good reason for anyone to end up as an ordinand.

From a CE perspective, they really don't worry about what's happening at the CofE franchise down the road, CEs have long despaired of what the rest of the CofE is up to; for CEs doing the job that they have the opportunity to do is what matters. And given a low view of the magic stuff, they're not really concerned about whether she is 'validly ordained' or not.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
'You might be right - we could be wrong.'
This is however, in effect, the official position on all of the Church of England's (and therefore I would posit all of the Anglican Communion) doctrines since it is sworn to hold it's doctrines until such time as they can be ratified or rejected by a truly Ecumenicacl Church Council.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
'You might be right - we could be wrong.'
This is however, in effect, the official position on all of the Church of England's (and therefore I would posit all of the Anglican Communion) doctrines since it is sworn to hold it's doctrines until such time as they can be ratified or rejected by a truly Ecumenicacl Church Council.
No, certainly not "all of the Anglican communion". We stopped taking our time from the CofE decades ago. We have women bishops, without any provision for those who believe women cannot be ordained.

And I would love to see a reference for the assertion that the CofE "is sworn" to do anything, or not do anything, until there has been an Ecumenical Council. Given the number of things we do, and don't do, believe or reject, that have never been before a "truly Ecumenical Council" -- by which I take it you mean a council of a type not held since the first seven -- that would seem a hard point to prove.

John
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
While I would be interested to see the canons of the first seven councils applied with assiduity (our diocesan chancellors would have to brush up their Greek), I was not aware of any requirement of anybody anywhere to swear anything to the first seven.

John Holding is not entirely right about absence of provision by the Canadian Church for those opposed to OWP. The House of Bishops provided a conscience clause to the effect that those who objected would not suffer any impediment etc. However, they lifted it unilaterally in 1982 and no provision at all has existed since then (indeed, the only bishop who made formal provision for objectors in recent years was Victoria Matthews, then of Edmonton and now of Christchurch). Those who believe in Codes of Practice may wish to take note.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
As a complete outsider watching the turmoil here in the COE about OOW, SSM and herd of other ex-equines I wonder how much of this is an artifact of being the established national church.

If the church was disestabliehed would it simply fragment into smaller less contentious churches? Or would the desire to guide to church remain a continued struggle?

Any thoughts? I'm still not understanding the implicationks of an established church in modern society.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As a complete outsider watching the turmoil here in the COE about OOW, SSM and herd of other ex-equines I wonder how much of this is an artifact of being the established national church.

If the church was disestabliehed would it simply fragment into smaller less contentious churches? Or would the desire to guide to church remain a continued struggle?

Any thoughts? I'm still not understanding the implicationks of an established church in modern society.
The establishment creates a process issue, and provides the legislature with a mechanism for potential interference-- the original Act of Synod was a response to that. However, the tension between dynamics of division and of trying to guide a church can be seen to remain in non-established places-- the current TEC situation is a good example. In places such as Canada and most of Africa, there was no real push to division, in spite of contentiousness of issues, so perhaps other local circumstances are more important than the question of establishment (I can see an anthology of academic papers here!).
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No, certainly not "all of the Anglican communion". We stopped taking our time from the CofE decades ago. We have women bishops, without any provision for those who believe women cannot be ordained.

And I would love to see a reference for the assertion that the CofE "is sworn" to do anything, or not do anything, until there has been an Ecumenical Council. Given the number of things we do, and don't do, believe or reject, that have never been before a "truly Ecumenical Council" -- by which I take it you mean a council of a type not held since the first seven -- that would seem a hard point to prove.

John
Hi John,

sorry I may have over expressed myself with 'sworn to' etc., but I am just relaying what I was taught as a young man not so long ago that the Church of England creates it's doctrines and follows them faithfully, believing them true and honest interpretations and expressions of the Faith, but always holds to a point that at some future date it will be for an Ecumenical Church Council to decide on whether the doctrines it follows are valid or not.

I can't point to a specific piece of legislation or a document, as I say it was something taught to me, it may have no validity and might just be some invention of the Priest who taught me, but I would hope that all Christians would hold the view that when the time comes they would feel comfortable to the act of submitting their doctrines and practices to the whole Church of Christ for assent or repudiation... such an event may never happen, but it underlines the principles that at present we are divided and search out our own way to be faithful, but at somepoint we desire full-communion with one another and will, in the manner of old, set straight again what is and what isn't a valid interpretation of the Faith and Tradition of the Church.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm more puzzled by the opposite question. Why does anyone who believes women cannot be ordained, still seek ordination in the CofE? They consign themselves to a non-Juror like future, with a black spot against their name, and little possibility of serving in any ordinary parish, or obtaining preferment unless they make PEV.
Because they believe they are called? [Razz] Which of course is the only good reason for anyone to end up as an ordinand.
Yes, but why get ordained in the C of E as opposed to a church more congruent with their theological views?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
That's what puzzles me. Perhaps, at best, a certain bloody-minded 'this is my church and I'm not going to be forced out of it' attitude, which I can understand and even respect? Less creditably, maybe some combination of social status (yes, some does still attach to the CofE), decent pension scheme, and having bishops who you can get away with defying, even if you're not under that institutionalised bishop-defying mechanism known as alternative oversight? Not that any of these attractions are peculiar to the anti-OoW people, BTW.

[ 28. December 2012, 10:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm more puzzled by the opposite question. Why does anyone who believes women cannot be ordained, still seek ordination in the CofE? They consign themselves to a non-Juror like future, with a black spot against their name, and little possibility of serving in any ordinary parish, or obtaining preferment unless they make PEV.
Because they believe they are called? [Razz] Which of course is the only good reason for anyone to end up as an ordinand.
Yes, but why get ordained in the C of E as opposed to a church more congruent with their theological views?
Maybe there is something more that trumps the O/CoW?
 
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Yes, it goes without saying that we cannot know that what we do for God is ever, without doubt, right.

But when a church has accepted that the ordination of some of its members to serve as leaders is as right as it's able to discern, and then says that the ordinations of some of those members (ie the men) is probably more right than the ordinations of some other members (ie the women), there is no consistency, and some would say, a lack of honesty, in how it is responding to God.

Perhaps my example of a colour bar was unhelpful. Here's another: when the western church came to the conclusion that Christ was fully God and fully man, that no doubt left a few Arian potential ordinands out in the cold. How far would they have got if they'd said to their bishop, 'I'm completely on side with everything the church does and believes, exceot for this one point. Here, I think I'm right, all the other bishops are wrong, and I want a flying bishop who agrees with me.'?
Your mentioning of the Arian controversy as an example is I think helpful, as it is so long ago we can examine it dispassionately and so maybe learn something.

For a current controversy it is almost impossible to believe (or perhaps more correctly, to feel) that "I might be wrong".

Alas, the history of the church (and not least the church of England) is littered with people who we so convinced that they were right that they would go to any lengths to "deal with" those who the "knew" to be wrong.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Because they believe they are called? [Razz] Which of course is the only good reason for anyone to end up as an ordinand.
Possibly tangent alert

Is it? I accept it's a factor to be taken into account, but should a person's suitability to be ordained really be primarily dependent on their subjective statement that they believe they are called?

End of possible tangent alert
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And is God's call dependent upon their view of the possibility that women can be ordained?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's what puzzles me. Perhaps, at best, a certain bloody-minded 'this is my church and I'm not going to be forced out of it' attitude, which I can understand and even respect? Less creditably, maybe some combination of social status (yes, some does still attach to the CofE), decent pension scheme, and having bishops who you can get away with defying, even if you're not under that institutionalised bishop-defying mechanism known as alternative oversight? Not that any of these attractions are peculiar to the anti-OoW people, BTW.
Given that liberals have lived in a church that has resisted their blandishments on various issues over the years, and still clung onto the trappings of being an Anglican, it is reasonable for CEs to do likewise. To the extent that CEs believe that they have the truth, then it's as legitimate for them to stay in and fight for it as anyone else. Of course if liberals had done the decent thing and left the CofE over the issues that they've now 'won' on, these questions wouldn't be arising... [Biased]

CE ordinands have been promised that their attitude on OoW would have no effect on their progress. Of course the fact that the people who promised have proved to be liars is merely one of the more depressing aspects of this whole debacle. But they are clinging on to the promises that have been made. That's a major feature of Evangelical theology: God has promised 'X', so we trust God. The Evangelical ordinands of a certain strip have taken the CofE at its word. Are you telling them that they should treat all the promises of prelates as untrustworthy? Probably a valid approach to the CofE - which is why the CEs use patronage trusts to keep bishops at bay... [Mad] Just don't expect any generosity to diocesan funds.

And in general CEs have long resigned themselves to despair over the rest of the CofE. However they do believe that it offers substantial opportunities for effective ministry, so why not use it for such? And given that the alternative would be to raise vast sums of money to replace the plant that they get handed on a plate when they do make it to be an incumbent, why not use the inheritance from the past, to which they have equal claim?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm more puzzled by the opposite question. Why does anyone who believes women cannot be ordained, still seek ordination in the CofE? They consign themselves to a non-Juror like future, with a black spot against their name, and little possibility of serving in any ordinary parish, or obtaining preferment unless they make PEV.
Because they believe they are called? [Razz] Which of course is the only good reason for anyone to end up as an ordinand.
Yes, but why get ordained in the C of E as opposed to a church more congruent with their theological views?
There could be any range of reasons; 1) that the CoE is overall more congruent with their theological views than any other; 2) it is the church in which they were raised and desire to serve; and 3) they were informed by Lambeth that their opinion could be held by loyal Anglicans, and that the CoE committed itself to the concept of two integrities, both of which had their place in the life of the church.
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
The downside of using the C of E as a boat for conservative evangelicals to fish from (which is what I think Ender's Shadow is saying) is that there aren't a huge number of conservative evangelical C of E parishes that are opposed to the OofW. This will make finding titles and incumbent jobs harder than the normal run of things which is hard enough. If you go into selection and training knowing this then great; but don't be surprised when it becomes hard to find a title or post later.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
The downside of using the C of E as a boat for conservative evangelicals to fish from (which is what I think Ender's Shadow is saying) is that there aren't a huge number of conservative evangelical C of E parishes that are opposed to the OofW. This will make finding titles and incumbent jobs harder than the normal run of things which is hard enough. If you go into selection and training knowing this then great; but don't be surprised when it becomes hard to find a title or post later.
But an Evangelical opponent of the OoW isn't going to have a problem serving in a parish that isn't opposed to it as long as there isn't a woman incumbent. Otherwise it merely becomes an issue over which the incumbent and curate agree to disagree. So the shortage of title parishes isn't insoluable. And if the call is genuine, then it becomes God's responsibility to sort out those sorts of details [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
It isn't insoluable but it is very difficult if the potential curate discounts all the parishes with female incumbents. I presume that the con evo ordinand is not going to want to work in any of the churches in the central or in the catholic tradition which doesn't leave much to look at. The current list of title posts are here and I can only see one that is obviously con evo.

When looking at title posts we were advised by DDOs and tutors to be as flexible as possible. If you can only work in a minority tradition it is much, much harder. Not impossible, but harder.
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
but I don't understand how, with any integrity, these two churches still accept candidates who do not agree with the ordination of other candidates, whom the church has accepted.

I have sympathy for those who were ordained before 1994/1997. To them, the church changed around them.

But once a church has decided that it is right to ordain women, then ITSM that it should stick it its position. By accepting new ordinands who disagree, the church is essentially saying 'You might be right - we could be wrong.' In which case, the ordination of every woman is open to question by the very church that is supposed to have already accepted them, to say nothing of undermining their confidence and faith in their ordaining church.
But why is "we could be wrong" such a horrible attitude? I think it's actually a very mature and Christian one. If not ordaining women is such a horrible crime that that we cannot tolerate the slightest opposition, then we must condemn every single Anglican until the mid-twentieth century as a heretic.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But why is "we could be wrong" such a horrible attitude? I think it's actually a very mature and Christian one. If not ordaining women is such a horrible crime that that we cannot tolerate the slightest opposition, then we must condemn every single Anglican until the mid-twentieth century as a heretic.
I agree. I'm much more suspicious of a person who says or implies 'I think this and I must be right'. It seems to me to be a mark of maturity to acknowledge that whatever conclusion one has reached, one is not infallible.

Also, although I accept the OoW, I don't respect anyone who can assume that everyone throughout history before their own time was benighted, ignorant, or a bigot, or who doesn't respect the wisdom of the past. That seems to betoken a spectacular conceit.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To the extent that CEs believe that they have the truth, then it's as legitimate for them to stay in and fight for it as anyone else. Of course if liberals had done the decent thing and left the CofE over the issues that they've now 'won' on, these questions wouldn't be arising... [Biased]

[..]
And in general CEs have long resigned themselves to despair over the rest of the CofE. However they do believe that it offers substantial opportunities for effective ministry, so why not use it for such? And given that the alternative would be to raise vast sums of money to replace the plant that they get handed on a plate when they do make it to be an incumbent, why not use the inheritance from the past, to which they have equal claim?
I was once told on this website that evangelical Anglicans want to have their cake and eat it. They enjoy the privileged public status of their church, which gives them visibility and influence, yet they bemoan the theological elasticity and attitude of compromise that this status brings with it.

I can't see this contradiction being solved easily. Maybe only demographics will solve the problem, as evangelicals become a larger and larger proportion of all churchgoers and clergy.

As for the OofW, I can't speak for the CofE but evangelicals elsewhere have various views on the OofW. Perhaps it's less of a problem outside the CofE because many evangelicals belong to churches that organise themselves on congregational lines. Apparently, the Baptists mostly don't even have bishops, so it's not an issue on that level either. So perhaps the answer is for the CofE to become entirely congregational, and to banish bishops!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]... the Baptists mostly don't even have bishops, so it's not an issue on that level either. So perhaps the answer is for the CofE to become entirely congregational, and to banish bishops!
Baptists in the UK have Regional Ministers. There are several women serving in this capacity who perform the roles of a Bishop even if the BUGB doesn't see them as such. There is technically no bar to women at any stage of ministry in the BU, except that individual churches have liberty to chose their own position on this.

You'd have a very hard job getting ordained (or at least through a Baptist Training College), if you were openly anti OoW. Every college accepts women as well as men.

There are soem BUGB churches who will not allow a woman to preach but very few. Most Independant baptists (Grace Baptists eg) will not allow a woman to preach, in fact I can't think of one who does permit it.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was once told on this website that evangelical Anglicans want to have their cake and eat it. They enjoy the privileged public status of their church, which gives them visibility and influence, yet they bemoan the theological elasticity and attitude of compromise that this status brings with it.

I can't see this contradiction being solved easily. Maybe only demographics will solve the problem, as evangelicals become a larger and larger proportion of all churchgoers and clergy.
For my money, the success of Evangelicals over the years within the CofE is evidence that the compromise you're pointing to has been a legitimate one. The success of the Clapham Group (most visibly Wilberforce) in the early and mid 19th century was eased by the status of being in the established church. And the growth of Evangelicalism in the past 50 years has been less effort because we've taken over the plant of others. Of course we 'bemoan the theological elasticity and attitude of compromise that this status brings with it'; ALL proponents of a coherent theology will struggle with those issues, and the compromise we're struggling to find over the Women Bishops is an example of where this compromise is expected. That there is a strand among the proponents who aren't playing that game is an indicator that THEY shouldn't be in the CofE.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... Of course we 'bemoan the theological elasticity and attitude of compromise that this status brings with it'; ALL proponents of a coherent theology will struggle with those issues, and the compromise we're struggling to find over the Women Bishops is an example of where this compromise is expected. That there is a strand among the proponents who aren't playing that game is an indicator that THEY shouldn't be in the CofE.
That sounds a bit like 'When we do it, we're being as wily as serpents and innocent of doves, but they just are serpents'.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... Of course we 'bemoan the theological elasticity and attitude of compromise that this status brings with it'; ALL proponents of a coherent theology will struggle with those issues, and the compromise we're struggling to find over the Women Bishops is an example of where this compromise is expected. That there is a strand among the proponents who aren't playing that game is an indicator that THEY shouldn't be in the CofE.
That sounds a bit like 'When we do it, we're being as wily as serpents and innocent of doves, but they just are serpents'.
The real problem is that ConEvo anglicans won't play nicely with others, which is why they end up moaning about their lack of bishops etc. Contrast that with other flavours of evo (Open and Charismatic) who seem to simply everywhere - and in a position to greatly influence the direction of the CofE.

Of course, Open and Charismatic evos don't generally (if at all) have a problem with bishops-who-are-women, and are usually enthusiastic advocates of them. So ES's "growth of evangelicalism" can't be equated with "growth of opponents of women bishops". Quite the reverse in fact. The ConEvos will find themselves increasingly marginalised as this growth continues.

(also, they tend to view Open and Charismatic evangelicals as worse than liberals, quislings and fifth columnists. See above about not playing nicely with others)
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
To me, you're missing the point. There are two different things involved here: one is being part of the body of the church, but believing that it cannot entirely remain in its current position and that growth in a particular direction would lead it to better future. The other is creating a division in the body of the church by one's very presence, by appearing to be part of it without actually treating oneself as such, and therefore believing oneself to be utterly untouched by any of its pronouncements, debates or controversies. I would suggest personally that conservatives, both anglo-catholic and evangelical, are rather more guilty of the latter than liberals. The civil disobedience of liberals feels rather different to me because there is no underlying greater allegiance to an external body, whether the evangelical body politic or the greater catholic body politic.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]... the Baptists mostly don't even have bishops, so it's not an issue on that level either. So perhaps the answer is for the CofE to become entirely congregational, and to banish bishops!
Baptists in the UK have Regional Ministers. There are several women serving in this capacity who perform the roles of a Bishop even if the BUGB doesn't see them as such. There is technically no bar to women at any stage of ministry in the BU, except that individual churches have liberty to chose their own position on this.
This discussion paper may have missed everybody everywhere, even in Wales:

http://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22church+governance:+A+Discussion+Paper+2012%22&hl=en&tbo=d&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.& fp=51573931c0f5efbf&bpcl=40096503&biw=1229&bih=847

If you read the second of the two links that comes up (a Word doc.) there are interesting discussions in Wales on Bishops outside of the Anglican Church, might be of interest to people.

[ 31. December 2012, 11:27: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
The civil disobedience of liberals feels rather different to me because there is no underlying greater allegiance to an external body, whether the evangelical body politic or the greater catholic body politic.
Of course liberals have a greater allegiance - to the latest fashions of the day [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Can anyone get that last long link to work?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Yes, it works but it takes you to two Google search hits and you then need to download the document by clicking the relevant link on that page.
Cheers
L
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Yes, it works but it takes you to two Google search hits and you then need to download the document by clicking the relevant link on that page.
Cheers
L
Yeah, sorry about that. The computer I'm on wouldn't allow me the option to link to the actual http for the document so the closest I got to it was the google page find as I couldn't find it on the CYTUN website either... but it has to be there somehwere i guess.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Baptists in the UK have Regional Ministers. There are several women serving in this capacity who perform the roles of a Bishop even if the BUGB doesn't see them as such. There is technically no bar to women at any stage of ministry in the BU, except that individual churches have liberty to chose their own position on this.

You'd have a very hard job getting ordained (or at least through a Baptist Training College), if you were openly anti OoW. Every college accepts women as well as men.

There are soem BUGB churches who will not allow a woman to preach but very few. Most Independant baptists (Grace Baptists eg) will not allow a woman to preach, in fact I can't think of one who does permit it.
Thanks for the info.

It's interesting that the BUGB Baptists, who are surely more evangelical on the whole than Anglicans, have less of a problem with women clergy than the CofE.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but why get ordained in the C of E as opposed to a church more congruent with their theological views?
First, their particular church is almost certainly in agreement with their theological views, probably because they deliberately looked for one that was. The "Church of England" is not a church in any ecclesiological sense but a sort of connexion of churches. It is the individual parishes that are the churches.

Second, one of the few doctrinal positions that the CofE has committed itself to is the idea that this is not a theological issue but one of church goverment. And most evangelical opponents of the ordination of women on "headship" grounds would agree with that, in that they have no objection to women being ordained to this that or the other ministry in a church under the direction of a male minister, but they would object to such a woman being the main pastor or administrator of a local church.

Third, for almost all its existence as a separate polity, the Church of England made no doctrinal demands on its ordinands other than assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles. About two-thirds of those are re-statements of pretty mainstream small-o-orthodox creedal Christianity, and the rest are about local difficulties of the 16th and 17th centuries. And many of them are rather subtly written to allow get-outs if you read between the lines and interpret broadly. Those Articles say nothing about the ordination of women.

For the last few decades we've only been asking candidates for ordination to agree with a rather vague statement about scriptures and catholic creeds and historic formularies. There is no requirement to commit themselves to any position on ordination, or indeed any of many controversies that divide the churches. We don't demand they toe any party line on pacifism, or on remarriage, or on speaking in tongues, or on predestination, or on the Establishment, or on reservation of the Sacrament, or on singing hymns in worship, or on the Real Presence, or on any of dozens of controversies that have divided Anglicans in the past and probably will do again. What's so special about this one? Do we want a denomination that demands exact agreement with a long list of doctrinal statements before you can join it? There are plenty of them already.

Fourth, we do ask ordinands to agree to "accept the Holy Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ" (Yes, Virginia, the Church of England is officially committed to Sola Scriptura as carefully defined in Article Six). But most evangelicals will agree that honest readers of the Scriptures can be on either side of disputes on OOW. And if there are any anti-women evangelicals who don't agree with that, they will certainly believe that the Scriptures are against ordaining women. So they will have no problem with what they are being asked to agree to, and might even wonder how pro-women ordinands manage to make the promise.

And even then, I doubt if any evangelical is going to be so extreme as to think that a correct attitude to ordained women is one of the "things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ". So why exclude those who have an incorrect one?

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Is it? I accept it's a factor to be taken into account, but should a person's suitability to be ordained really be primarily dependent on their subjective statement that they believe they are called?
Why need it be subjective. Maybe they actually were called, by their church. Perhaps the vicar or other members of the congregation wanted them to be ordained. A literal calling: "come over here and do this".

I'm not ordained, but I do sometimes preach. And I feel quite confident that the church called me to that because people actually asked me to do it.

No need to be mystical and airy-fairy about it all.

[ 31. December 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Like usually, Ken, you're clear and sensible about the main issues, but you keep bringing up this idea that 'there is no such thing as the Church (except the local congregation)' Reminiscent, if I may say so, of Thatcher's mantra "there is no such thing as society, only families.'

I fail to see how a body like the Church of England could possibly teach this at the same time as maintaining the 'historic threefold ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon', and referring to its liturgy, on the title page of the BCP, as 'the public worship of the Church' (approximate quotation as the nearest BCP is up two flights of stairs). Like the search for the perfect and united society is likely to take some time, so the search for the perfect and united Church is too. But we should be willing to celebrate such glimpses of universality that we can find, like the unity of a diocese around its bishop.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But we should be willing to celebrate such glimpses of universality that we can find, like the unity of a diocese around its bishop.
[Killing me]

Yeah, right.You provide me with a single substantial theological statement that all Anglicans will agree on. A church that has failed to discipline the proponents of 'The Sea of Faith' doesn't have any meaningful unity.

And the articles specifically state: 'The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.' A 'diocese' is not a congregation where ANYTHING happens in reality.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Baptists in the UK have Regional Ministers. There are several women serving in this capacity who perform the roles of a Bishop even if the BUGB doesn't see them as such. There is technically no bar to women at any stage of ministry in the BU, except that individual churches have liberty to chose their own position on this.

You'd have a very hard job getting ordained (or at least through a Baptist Training College), if you were openly anti OoW. Every college accepts women as well as men.

There are soem BUGB churches who will not allow a woman to preach but very few. Most Independant baptists (Grace Baptists eg) will not allow a woman to preach, in fact I can't think of one who does permit it.
Thanks for the info.

It's interesting that the BUGB Baptists, who are surely more evangelical on the whole than Anglicans, have less of a problem with women clergy than the CofE.
The vast majority (probably more than 90% by number) of baptists in the BUGB would self identify as evangelical. The statement of faith that many churches have is an advowedly evangelical one.

I don't know ewhat the figures are for anglicans and/or methodists but IME there are a lot more non evangelicals in both camps. IME the anglican evangelical wing is growing and the methodist one declining. I don't know any methodisyt evangelicals except perhaps Martin whatisname (ex Cliff College).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Exclamation Mark

Your analysis matches my own experience. The Methodist Church Life Profile of 2001 shows that Methodists are less likely to identify as evangelical than churchgoers in certain other denominations, and they also have a lower score on those aspects of church culture and practice that are usually associated with evangelicalism today. Despite its Methodist heritage, Cliff College doesn't seem to represent mainstream Methodism. In fact, to judge from the website, I suspect that most of its students aren't even Methodists.

But what I was reflecting on in my previous post is that, for some reason, Baptist evangelicalism is more comfortable with women in leadership than its Anglican equivalent. I find this surprising, because Baptist evangelicalism presumably doesn't have to deal with compromise in the way that Anglican evangelicalism does. Also, I've read on these messageboards that the Baptists have been influenced in certain ways by newer church movements that are often unwilling to allow women to preach.

There are different types of evangelicalism, though, and perhaps Baptist evangelicalism remains distinctive from both the Anglican and the new church varieties, despite overlapping with both.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But what I was reflecting on in my previous post is that, for some reason, Baptist evangelicalism is more comfortable with women in leadership than its Anglican equivalent. I find this surprising, because Baptist evangelicalism presumably doesn't have to deal with compromise in the way that Anglican evangelicalism does. Also, I've read on these messageboards that the Baptists have been influenced in certain ways by newer church movements that are often unwilling to allow women to preach.

There are different types of evangelicalism, though, and perhaps Baptist evangelicalism remains distinctive from both the Anglican and the new church varieties, despite overlapping with both.
Far from it, though I can see how one might get that impression from outside, and only picking up the voices of those who shout loudest. Most of the more ordinary CofE evangelicals don't seem to have a problem with women either presiding or in leadership.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
As I said before, perhaps the CofE needs a new form of church structure, the better to reflect its own reality. Because it's pretty daft to have a tiny minority of unrepresentative lay people (as far as I understand it) making rules that extend far beyond themselves and their own congregations.

Yes, I'm outside the CofE, but the problem is that in a largely secular society, what the CofE decides to do reflects on other Christians. If you don't want outsiders to get the wrong idea, then you need to be disestablished, so that outsiders don't feel the need to pay any attention!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As I said before, perhaps the CofE needs a new form of church structure, the better to reflect its own reality. Because it's pretty daft to have a tiny minority of unrepresentative lay people (as far as I understand it) making rules that extend far beyond themselves and their own congregations.

Yes, I'm outside the CofE, but the problem is that in a largely secular society, what the CofE decides to do reflects on other Christians. If you don't want outsiders to get the wrong idea, then you need to be disestablished, so that outsiders don't feel the need to pay any attention!
SvetlanaV2, again I can see why you get that impression, but again, it isn't actually what normally happens.

The laity in General Synod are more or less totally unrepresentative of the laity in the pews. No one by the light of nature ever understood their franchise. Suffice to say, one can easily go ones entire life without ever having the chance to vote for them.

However, most of the time,
a. They don't have much influence in the Synod. The recent vote was a freak event, and
b. It's very rare, possibly about once in a generation, that the General Synod itself takes a decision that anyone even within the CofE, yet alone outside it, would ever need to notice.

Most of the time, it meets twice a year, passes resolutions that it thinks are changing the world, goes home, and the rest of us go our own sweet way.


Mind, I can't see why a person who isn't a member of the CofE would have any reason to have a view on this.

[ 01. January 2013, 19:23: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow
A church that has failed to discipline the proponents of 'The Sea of Faith' doesn't have any meaningful unity.
Proportion, proportion! How many 'proponents of the Sea of Faith' are active in the C of E, even compared to the small minorities that are Forward in Faith or Reform? If you are talking about clergy, the test is surely not what speculations people get up to in private (otherwise the bishops ought to be monitoring contributors to this website), but their preaching and pastoral care and conduct of the liturgy. I don't know any 'out' Sea of Faith priests, but the little I know about such suggests that they affirm the creeds and are happy to use traditional structures. Their own personal understanding of this is another matter. Are we getting too close to 'making windows into peoples' souls'?

[ 01. January 2013, 21:49: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Enoch writes:
quote:
Mind, I can't see why a person who isn't a member of the CofE would have any reason to have a view on this.
The CoE being an established church, presumably any English person has an interest, be they Muslim or Methodist. The rest of us, Scots and Welsh included, are just interested busybodies although a stray body might have some theological point to their interest.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


The laity in General Synod are more or less totally unrepresentative of the laity in the pews.
This doesn't strike me as a reasonable state of affairs, certainly not when important matters are under discussion.

quote:


Mind, I can't see why a person who isn't a member of the CofE would have any reason to have a view on this.
The CofE is the state church, and its leaders are happy to be the public face of Christianity in England. If you want other Christians to ignore you then the CofE needs to be distestablished. Then it will be as ignorable as all the other churches!
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, I'm outside the CofE, but the problem is that in a largely secular society, what the CofE decides to do reflects on other Christians. If you don't want outsiders to get the wrong idea, then you need to be disestablished, so that outsiders don't feel the need to pay any attention!
Given that Rome, Islam and Orthodox Judaism remain rigidly opposed to women in leadership positions, it is surely misleading for the media to suggest that the CofE decision is typical of 'Christians' or even 'religious' people. Only little Englanders, of the type that had the British parliament proposing in 1928 to set a fixed date for Easter.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The laity in General Synod are more or less totally unrepresentative of the laity in the pews. No one by the light of nature ever understood their franchise. Suffice to say, one can easily go ones entire life without ever having the chance to vote for them.
Or so everyone assumes, but I fail to see that there is any actual evidence for this claim. The liberal establishment WANT it to be true; it would be VERY amusing if a newly elected synod proved even more intransigent... A couple of my friends quietly expressed the opinion that they were personally mildly opposed to the consecration of women, but weren't prepared to go public about it. It wouldn't take a lot for such people to vote quietly in a way that would give the femminazis an unpleasant surprise.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
femminazis
You do realize that after you finish collecting all your C1-points, the result is a permanent banning, right? Not a suspension. Banning. With possible return based on email discussion (you might want to note our emails now)... but you probably should not put too much faith in your persuasive powers in that case.

-RooK
Admin
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Or so everyone assumes, but I fail to see that there is any actual evidence for this claim. The liberal establishment WANT it to be true; it would be VERY amusing if a newly elected synod proved even more intransigent... A couple of my friends quietly expressed the opinion that they were personally mildly opposed to the consecration of women, but weren't prepared to go public about it. It wouldn't take a lot for such people to vote quietly in a way that would give the femminazis an unpleasant surprise.
I've not encountered a member of the CofE who opposed the consecration of women for 20 years. I only know they exist because they keep popping up in the media. I'd be astonished if most of the laity had even been aware, given that they already accept female priests, that the same women could not be appointed Bishop.

It does seem to be a very conservative habit to claim that they speak for a "silent majority" even when they make up a tiny minority of those who have given an opinion - even the laity in opposition actually in synod were a minority.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or so everyone assumes, but I fail to see that there is any actual evidence for this claim. ...
The lay membership of the General Synod has been unrepresentative for years, and I've mocked the institution on these grounds since long before the vote on bishops. It's just that most other people haven't noticed because this is the first time in a generation that a General Synod vote has mattered to anyone. As I said earlier, normally, nobody needs to take any notice of it.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut but I'm really replying to SvitlanaV2
The CoE being an established church, presumably any English person has an interest, be they Muslim or Methodist. The rest of us, Scots and Welsh included, are just interested busybodies although a stray body might have some theological point to their interest.
I can see the argument that there is some legitimate public interest in what an established church does. However, there's a very strong argument that by belonging to a dissenting communion, whether by personal choice or birth, be it Methodist, Roman Catholic or whatever, one actually reduces one's title to comment on what the CofE does. If there is the option of conforming and one chooses not to, then how does one have an iron in this particular fire.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
femminazis
You do realize that after you finish collecting all your C1-points, the result is a permanent banning, right? Not a suspension. Banning. With possible return based on email discussion (you might want to note our emails now)... but you probably should not put too much faith in your persuasive powers in that case.

-RooK
Admin
Nope - had no idea that that phrase was a 'no-no'. I apologise.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nope - had no idea that that phrase was a 'no-no'.
Let's pretend that I'm not a cynical asshole who doesn't even slightly believe any aspect of your suggestion of blinking naiveté.

The phrase isn't really the problem, per se. The problem is your using disparaging language as a placeholder for anyone you disagree with. We grow weary of seeing it from you outside of Hell.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can see the argument that there is some legitimate public interest in what an established church does. However, there's a very strong argument that by belonging to a dissenting communion, whether by personal choice or birth, be it Methodist, Roman Catholic or whatever, one actually reduces one's title to comment on what the CofE does. If there is the option of conforming and one chooses not to, then how does one have an iron in this particular fire.
This argument is in tension with the view one sometimes comes across that the CofE speaks out on behalf of all English people of faith, especially all Christians. If its leaders withdraw from this stance (and perhaps establishment can be reconfigured as a matter of mere ceremonials) then perhaps the CofE will cease to be of interest to outsiders, who will then cease to comment. Whether the CofE will benefit from decreasing attention is another matter.

However, I'll take the hint.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Like usually, Ken, you're clear and sensible about the main issues, but you keep bringing up this idea that 'there is no such thing as the Church (except the local congregation)'
Not no such thing, but it is the main instance of the church on earth, the local reflection focus of the Church Eternal, the heavenly temple, where the LORD is continually adored - Jesus, and that eternal Church, is fully present in each local gathering.

Anyway, even if I'm wrong on that, the question I was trying to clarify was how conservative evangelicals who oppose the ordination of women can honestly put themselves forward for ordination in the Church of England. So its more about their views than mine.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can see the argument that there is some legitimate public interest in what an established church does. However, there's a very strong argument that by belonging to a dissenting communion, whether by personal choice or birth, be it Methodist, Roman Catholic or whatever, one actually reduces one's title to comment on what the CofE does. If there is the option of conforming and one chooses not to, then how does one have an iron in this particular fire.
This argument is in tension with the view one sometimes comes across that the CofE speaks out on behalf of all English people of faith, especially all Christians. If its leaders withdraw from this stance (and perhaps establishment can be reconfigured as a matter of mere ceremonials) then perhaps the CofE will cease to be of interest to outsiders, who will then cease to comment. Whether the CofE will benefit from decreasing attention is another matter.

However, I'll take the hint.
I will ignore the hint. As long as the CoE is established, it's fair game for comment and action from anyone in England, simply because they live there. I would think, however, if someone has left the CoE for another communion, it would be healthier for them not to focus on CoE issues for a considerable while.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Like usually, Ken, you're clear and sensible about the main issues, but you keep bringing up this idea that 'there is no such thing as the Church (except the local congregation)'
Not no such thing, but it is the main instance of the church on earth, the local reflection focus of the Church Eternal, the heavenly temple, where the LORD is continually adored - Jesus, and that eternal Church, is fully present in each local gathering.
That's a powerful picture and I can see that it's needed as a corrective to more bureaucratic ideas of the Church. However, the logical conclusion is that each local community worships God and interprets the Bible in its own way ('you worship God in your way, and we worship Him in His') There is no guarantee that this will maintain communion with other groups of Christians (and history has proved that it doesn't; protestantism is notoriously fissiparous.)

I'm quite happy to accept the protestant nature of the Church of England, provided it is balanced with a sense of catholic order. I suspect you agree with that, and I know you were attempting to describe the Con Evo view. But to my mind, the sort of evangelical who has no time for the wider church is not the sort of evangelical who belongs in the C of E.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0