|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Ooh! Aagh! Mrs McGrath!
quote:
Conservative Anglicans feel under threat these days.
I'm not sure that Mrs McGrath is reading it right here. Surely this whole thing can only blow up because Con-Evo Anglicans are getting more power?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Brilliant piece!
Encapsulates the last 2-3 years of my journey 'within' evangelicalism.
And so the debate continues...
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Turnball's remark only makes sense if you assume that most churches/Christians aren't preaching "the gospel".
Or if you assume that door-knocking, leafleting, and the occasional church service doesn't really count as "bringing the Gospel to people".
You mean Chick tracts aren't an effective evangelism tool! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm ashamed to admit this, but the whole Wycliffe saga is rather addictive...sort of like Big Brother for evangelicals
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
We're evangelicals. We don't have an ontological view of ordination, ...
I respect your view that ordination is not ontological. In fact I agree in many ways. Ontological Change is a picture of ordination that has good and bad aspects to it. The idea that ordained ministry is something to do with our very being can be both helpful and unhelpful. Personally I believe that humans are vocational creatures and that our vocation is part of who we essentially are. How that Vocation is expressed may vary however. Speaking as a Charismatic (haven't done that for a while) it is like the difference between the work of the spirit and how that work manifests. Ordination is a visible manifestation of a work of the Spirit of God. But isn't this a Cranmeran understanding of sacraments anyway?
However the claim that Evangelicals do not believe that ministry is ontological is not in line with my experience with the breadth of Evangelical thought. Regularly I have heard Romans 11:29 "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" NASB, used and misused as justification for a practically ontological and permanent view of ministry and leadership.
And ultimately Women being barred from leadership roles is about ontological vocation. However much people may claim it is about 'church order'. Because 'church order' in the New Testament frankly varies according to context.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Brilliant piece!
Encapsulates the last 2-3 years of my journey 'within' evangelicalism.
From the article:
quote:
The threat posed by Jesus was precisely that he was open, and that he was a "category violator" - a holy man who embraced the profane, a religious man who loved the secular.
Wow, that was good. Almost makes me want to put it under my avatar. Or on my tombstone. What's the Latin for "category violator"?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
Very good article I thought, and her description of Jesus was excellent. Helps to make the situation more understandable to others. I think that con evos do feel under threat within anglicanism, since a lot of the things they don't want are becoming more and more acceptable (eg womens ordination).
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Wow she is my new hero ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I found someone from Wycliffe Hall who has blogged a little.
He says
quote:
An extra dimension has been added to the college's life this year by an extensive falling-out among the staff. It has been rumbling on since before Christmas, came out into the open in January and hit new heights yesterday when it made p3 of the Guardian!
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Ooh! Aagh! Mrs McGrath!
That is fine piece of writing - and so much more impactful coming from someone who has been an 'insider'...
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I found someone from Wycliffe Hall
Ok cool. Wow - Richard has a blog. He's a friend of mine, though we're from very different church backgrounds.
It's good to see someone else put into writing some of what I've been thinking about this.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
I thought the article by Joanna McGrath was insightful - and would apply beyond Conservative Evangelicals...
Audry
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
- An attempt to have a conservative take over.
This is the one with no evidence whatsoever,
I think the video of Richard Turnbull at Reform is quite conclusive evidence.
He says
quote:
I am sometimes asked why I took the post of Principal of Wycliffe where I have been for only just over a year. Well there are all sorts of answers one could give to that but one of the answers is that I view the post as strategic because it will allow influence to be brought to bear upon generations of the ministry.
found here.
It seems that christian today agrees with my analysis of what Turnbull said.
quote:
He also talked of the "strategic importance" of making sure the senior posts in theological college were held by conservative evangelicals. "Capture the theological colleges, and you have captured the influence that is brought to bear," he said
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
He said it but why is it surprising? What would you expect him to say? It doesnlt seem to be worthy of as much comment as it has recieved.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
He said it but why is it surprising? What would you expect him to say? It doesnlt seem to be worthy of as much comment as it has recieved.
I think it is worth discussing because it shows a direct contrast between public and private statments as Oscar noted earlier. Custard said there is no attempt of a conservative take over and you are denial about the contradiction.
In case you forgot here Oscar's post that you couldn't deal with in a rational way earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What you still don't seem to have addressed is the clear gap between what Turnbull has said in "official" statements and what he said unofficially to Reform. And the latter has been supported by the anonymous comments also coming out of WH which Stephen Bates has referred to.
Now it seems to me that there are two options:
a) Turnbull's official statements are a true indication of his intent (which is what you are arguing). The problem with this is that not only does it run counter to the fears expressed to Bates, it means that Turnbull's talk at Reform was little more than a rather cynical sales pitch.
b) Turnbull's comments to Reform are a true indication of his intent, which means that his official statements are little more than window-dressing.
Part of the problem is that there is a great deal of opaqueness about what Turnbull means by certain key phrases
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Custard wrote earlier:
quote:
We're evangelicals. We don't have an ontological view of ordination, which is why the (very few) evangelical parishes seeking alternative episcopal oversight don't do it for reasons of OoW and don't do it through Resolution C.
Sorry to do this, but this just won't do.
1. First, the Church of England does not offer alternative episciopal oversight. What the Act of Synod offers is extended oversight. The diocesan is still the duiocesan and the PEV acts under his authority. The word 'alternative' is used by some as a Freudian slip (because that's what they'd really like!) - but I am sure that is not true in your case...
2. The only reason you can petition for EEO is on the grounds of opposition to the OoW. There are no other grounds legally available. One hears of parishes who petition because they want a bishop who is 'sound' on 'the gay issue' but who say they are doing it over OoW - such behaviour is morally dubious (truth telling and all that), but of course it's only hearsay that such things happen ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
3. Res. C is the only way to get a PEV - that's why e.g. the Southwark irregular ordinations aroused such ire.
Apart from these 3 major errors, I have no problem with your post, except that I think it is misleading to say that we evangelicals dfo no see ordination as ontological - it is true that we do not bwelieve in an ontological change in the person at the point of ordination, but if you were to be told that you were not going to be ordained and would not be allowed to be a Gospel minister, you'd be might upset - because you believe yourself called to be just that. You believe it so strongly you've signed up for 3 years at WH. The call is part of who you are in Christ - in that respect, it's ontological.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
3. Res. C is the only way to get a PEV - that's why e.g. the Southwark irregular ordinations aroused such ire.
Well the PEVs can and do act in non-petitioning parishes with the permission of the Diocesan - often they are made assistant bishops in the diocese to facilitate this. I know of ordinations by PEV in parishes that have passed no resolutions, because of the sensibilities of the ordinand.
[ 04. June 2007, 09:37: Message edited by: Stranger in a strange land ]
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Custard said there is no attempt of a conservative take over and you are denial about the contradiction.
In case you forgot here Oscar's post that you couldn't deal with in a rational way earlier.
I don't recall being offensive or insulting to you and I dont understand why you are being offensive about me. If you want to carry on like that its probably better in Hell where you could be answered without anyone getting slapped on the wrists by the hosts.
Back on topic, you are wrong. His is not unusual language from evangelicals, nor is it secret, nor is it new. Yes they really do want the CofE to be more, or entirely, evangelical. The main reason for that is that they actually beieve that evengelical Christianity has more chance of geting the Gospel over to the secualr majority than other forms do. They really do believe that evangelicalism is Christianity encultured for the society in whch we live. They really do believe that it is a natural descendent of the early Church and a better representative of Biblical Christianity than catholicsm is. Of course they do, it they didn't they wouldln't be evengelcials.
Yes they really do recognise that most people are not Christians. Yes they reaslly do think that it is better to be a Christian than not to be a Christian. At least some of them - among the conservative evangelicals probably the vast majority though its hard to be sure because there is an awful lot of closet universalism around - believe that those not saved in this life inevitably go to Hell. (To be honest most these days would mostly likely do the "we can be sure of the fate of believers but not of non-believers" sort of fudge). Turnbull's "95%" comment is probably not controversial amongst evangelicals though soem would want to shift the exact amount up or down a bit.
None of this is surprising, or new, or secret. Why not deal with what is actually happening? You are inventing bogeymen.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Ken, I don't believe that most Evangelicals are Evangelicals because they believe that Evangelicalism is the best way of spreading the Gospel, although they may well believe that. I believe they are Evangelicals (and you can generalise this) for one of the following reasons:
1. They believe Evangelicalism is truer than other forms of Christianity
2. They prefer Evangelical worship and teaching styles
3. They were converted or brought up in an Evangelical context and it's home.
There is no necessary connection between any of these things and desiring to convert the rest of the Church of England to Evangelicalism. To make that step, you have to be willing to say that you believe the other forms of Christianity within Anglicanism are so deficient that overall good would be achieved by their demise, and I can't see that as anything other than saying liberals, Anglo-Catholics, Middle-of-the-Roaders and so on are sub-Christian which is certainly not an Anglican doctrine.
Contrast this with the Evangelical view that has Evangelical doctrines as truer than the competition and Evangelical worship as better and more attractive than the competition, yet believes the other forms communicate the Gospel more effectively to some people to whom for one reason or another Evangelicalism doesn't speak and that the Church of England is enriched as a consequence. There's a vast gulf between these two.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Church mouse
Apprentice
# 12592
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Ken, I don't believe that most Evangelicals are Evangelicals because they believe that Evangelicalism is the best way of spreading the Gospel, although they may well believe that. I believe they are Evangelicals (and you can generalise this) for one of the following reasons:
1. They believe Evangelicalism is truer than other forms of Christianity
2. They prefer Evangelical worship and teaching styles
3. They were converted or brought up in an Evangelical context and it's home.
There is no necessary connection between any of these things and desiring to convert the rest of the Church of England to Evangelicalism. To make that step, you have to be willing to say that you believe the other forms of Christianity within Anglicanism are so deficient that overall good would be achieved by their demise, and I can't see that as anything other than saying liberals, Anglo-Catholics, Middle-of-the-Roaders and so on are sub-Christian which is certainly not an Anglican doctrine.
Contrast this with the Evangelical view that has Evangelical doctrines as truer than the competition and Evangelical worship as better and more attractive than the competition, yet believes the other forms communicate the Gospel more effectively to some people to whom for one reason or another Evangelicalism doesn't speak and that the Church of England is enriched as a consequence. There's a vast gulf between these two.
I think most, if not all, Anglican evangelicals would be in favour, if pushed on the subject, of the Church of England becoming, as Ken put it, 'more, or entirely, evangelical', it's just that only a small minority of them see it as a major priority or worth threatening the unity and integrity of the Church over. Frankly, most of us think it's of more urgency to reach out with the Gospel to those who aren't Christians than to waste too much time trying to bring those who already are closer to the precise, Biblically Sound Truth (TM) (assuming we're right on what that is). Better to rejoice in what God has done, and is doing, than picking holes in it.
Which isn't to say that we don't think evanglelicalism is truer than other forms of Christianity- if we didn't, then presumably we wouldn't be evangelicals. I would rather hope that others think their views are true too! And, as such, we would tend, ISTM, to think that everybody would be better off if their views were also truer. (Which isn't to say, for me at least, that evangelicals have got it all right or have nothing to learn from other groups). So, we talk, debate and argue, in synods, in the media and even on boards such as this. But all, hopefully, from a position of fellowship and shared committment to a common goal and a common church.
All this depends, of course, on considering that non- evangelicals are Christians at all, and that their 'Christianity' doesn't so misrepresent the Gospel that the Church (and society) really would be better off without it. Which may, perhaps, get to the nub of the issue for some, who I'm sure you don't need me to suggest.
Posts: 16 | From: Old York | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Well said, Church mouse. I believe it's entirely possible (and indeed, widely practiced) to value the individual contributions different people bring to Christianity from their own backgrounds and to hear their faith stories, while maintaining that there is one ultimately perfect way, and that you're closer to it than they are (along comes the proverbial 70/30 split of your opinion between right and wrong).
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I guess I'm more of a 'critical realist' when it comes to the 'one perfect way of being/doing Church'. i.e. I think that there is much that is weak within my evangelical notions of theology and so look to other traditions/styles to fill out what is lacking.
I'm one who is constantly seeking orthodoxy, whether it is to be found within self styled 'evangelical' churches or within other traditions. Certainly there is also some which is weak within Catholic/Orthodox notions of church, so I'm not just a catholic in 'evangelical' clothing!
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I am sorry that I offended you Ken but I thought you being deliberately obtuse but it seems that I am wrong. It seems to me that either you don't have a clue what Oscar and I are talking about or you think it is quite normal behaviour for a principal of an evangelical college to appear to be a hypocrite (if not actually to be one) and to use power politics to move a college in a very conservative direction. If it is the latter, there you are at odds with custard who says this is not happening at all.
Anyway on with the discussion the the telegraph has written about this
quote:
Pressure is mounting on Church of England authorities to take action against the principal of an Oxford theological college accused of alienating staff.
The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones, is being urged to withdraw his support for the Rev Richard Turnbull, the principal of Wycliffe Hall, who has been criticised for his allegedly abrasive management style and conservative brand of Christianity
Interestingly enough Ralph Wedgwood an Oxford lecturer seems to say it is mostly true.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
It seems to me that either you don't have a clue what Oscar and I are talking about or you think it is quite normal behaviour for a principal of an evangelical college to appear to be a hypocrite
He does not appear to be a hypocrite. He's saying what he thinks. There is no smoking gun here. Neither surprise nor contradiction.
quote:
and to use power politics to move a college in a very conservative direction.
Again, what else would you expect? If he actually belives this stuff presumably he's going to teach it. And its not as if the other side haven't been doing the same thing for decades.
I'm not saying there is not a problem. Maybe everything that Wycliffe is being accused of is true. And more. I don't know. Unlike Custard I've never set foot in the place. Almost all I know about it is what I've read here. What I am saying, and I am confident of, is that the supposed contradiction between that video and Mr Turnbull's other statements is not anywhere near as significant as some people make out.
It seems from where I'm sitting that some liberal Anglicans are so suspicions of evangelicals that they want the accusations to be true and are spinning up the evidence in their heads to help them believe it. Wishful thinking.
And I'm afraid that neither anonymous blogs, nor the generality of so-called "liberal" Anglican blogs from the USA, nor (sadly) the mainstream UK newspapers, really rate as sources of evidence about the Church of England. And we aren't being told anything else. All these articles seem to be the same two or three rumours recirculating and picking up an encrustation of attribution as they go on.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
It seems to me that either you don't have a clue what Oscar and I are talking about or you think it is quite normal behaviour for a principal of an evangelical college to appear to be a hypocrite
He does not appear to be a hypocrite. He's saying what he thinks. There is no smoking gun here. Neither surprise nor contradiction.
He says what he thinks to Reform as seen in the video but says something quite different in other theatres and that to me would seem to be hypocrisy. You seem to be calling it normal Christian practice.
As the situation stands now I expect Richard Turnbull will be in another job in about 18 months time but it could be sooner if something more substantive occurs.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Anyway on with the discussion the the telegraph has written about this
Oh come on! This is exactly the sort of pathetic recycled crap that all the other articles are peddling!
quote:
Mr McGrath, who is professor of historical theology at Oxford, declined to comment.
However, his friends said that he had severed his connections with the college and had privately made clear that his withdrawal from the Stuart Blanch lecture - named after a former Bishop of Liverpool - was linked to his concerns.
The Telegraph is usually a well-written paper. Would their journalists be allowed to sink to this third-hand anonymous innuendo about any other subject? It they wrote bollocks like that about a politican they'd be sued.
Thay are saying that somebody anonymous told them that McGrath asked Jones to intervene at Wycliffe but that McGrath refused to comment when they asked him. That passes for reporting these days?
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Interestingly enough Ralph Wedgwood an Oxford lecturer seems to say it is mostly true.
[/QUOTE]
But that blog is mainly about the status of the PPHs - which is a different matter entirely. And none of them are at Wycliffe. And at least one of them thinks Christianity is a disease.
This is fucking reds under the beds. Or evangelicals under whatever rhymes with evangelicals.
If one opr two of the ex-Wycliffe academics talked bout it in public we'd have something to go on. But as it is there is no substance here at all. Its nothiing but Chinese whispers. Rumour. Innuendo. And because the rumours fit with wehat the journalists would like to be true, they are suspending their normal critical approach.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qupe
Shipmate
# 12388
|
Posted
As an evangelical Anglican, I just want to say that I would be very dismayed if the CofE became entirely evangelical!
A while ago we had an experience of attending an evo Baptist church, which in our naivite we thought would be much the same as an evo CofE. How wrong we were! The time we spent with the Baptists (and it was an excellent Baptist church, with many things to commend it) made us appreciate the breadth of expression and theology within the CofE. (The Baptist church we attended was a lot more monolithic.) IMO it is such a powerful statement of unity that the CofE can remain one body despite such huge differences of opinion and expression, and it would be greatly damaging to that witness if the CofE were either to split, or to be dominated by one of the 'wings'.
We returned to the CofE partly because we believe in unity in variety, and I see my evo expression of faith as no more spiritual than my friends in the Anglo-Catholic church that I sneak into for Evensong. In fact I learn so much, and draw close to God when I worship with them.
So please don't think that "the evos are out to take over" because that's really not true. Labels such as evo / Ang-Cath or whatever are really not that important IMHO; "Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart."
--------------------
'Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.'
Posts: 802 | From: Down the road from the chocolate factory | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
The Telegraph is usually a well-written paper. Would their journalists be allowed to sink to this third-hand anonymous innuendo about any other subject? It they wrote bollocks like that about a politican they'd be sued.
I must of imagined all that stuff about how Tony's mates/ Gordon's mates were briefing against one another for the last ten years then.
For that matter most of the stuff about how Prince Charles and Princess Diana were not exactly seeing eye to eye prior to their divorce was rumour and speculation fuelled by sources close to "the Prince"/Diana"* and turned out to be on the money.
More people are prepared to diss their enemies to journalists than are prepared to go on the record as saying "Richard Turnbull/ My cabinet colleague/ My husband (delete as appropriate) is a git". Hence unattributable briefings, like the poor, ye have always with you.
*Regarded by the press as a slightly neurotic bimbo until August 1997 when she was elevated to the rank of "Her Supreme Immaculate Loveliness, The People's Princess Who Could Do No Wrong".
[ 09. June 2007, 17:41: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
More people are prepared to diss their enemies to journalists than are prepared to go on the record as saying "Richard Turnbull/ My cabinet colleague/ My husband (delete as appropriate) is a git". Hence unattributable briefings, like the poor, ye have always with you.
Ummh ... funny Callan ... I don't recall any posts from you arguing that Tom Butler was a drunk ... I'd better go and check that thread to make sure. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
simon vibert seems to have written this as a partial response to his appointment as Vice-principal of Wycliffe.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
simon vibert seems to have written this as a partial response to his appointment as Vice-principal of Wycliffe.
Ok, I've read it - and this is someone who is vice-principal at a theological college?? Stunning in how banal and thoughtless it is.
Now you might (just might) excuse this woeful lack of genuine theological insight if you knew that the person concerned was there to support a deeply theological principal by offering a more practical perspective. But Turnbull and Vibert together really don't seem to have much in the way of theological understanding, do they? Heaven help the C of E once ordinands under their care start to get ordained.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
My immediate thought was that he seems not to have read any studies on Judaism at the time of Jesus and to be basing his argument on stereotypes.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Mind you he has got a doctorate but it is safe to say it wasn't in the NT Judaism.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Mind you he has got a doctorate but it is safe to say it wasn't in the NT Judaism.
Or even in the teachings of Jesus.
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Some of the Telegraph article is hard fact.
Consider this:
"Dr Turnbull...said yesterday: "I have no further comment beyond the fact that there are continuing disciplinary and grievance procedures.""
So there are continuing disciplinary and grievance procedures.
The article says:
"One of Wycliffe's researchers, Elaine Storkey, a contributor to Radio 4's Thought for the Day, is facing disciplinary proceedings, reportedly after voicing her objections at an internal meeting."
I see not reason, especially in the absence of any denial from Turnbull, to doubt this.
Elaine Storkey being disciplined for voicing objections at an internal meeting?
It doesn't look good. In fact, it wouldn't look good if she was being disciplined for anything she said at an internal meeting. It sounds like intimidation.
I'm afraid that "We haven't commented so you shouldn't believe anything so you should assume there is nothing to see" doesn't quite meet the case.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Another exciting article by simon vibert is found here. He comes across as a warm fussy person towards all open evangelicals particularly here.
quote:
And for that reason, whilst labels can be misleading, I own the label "Conservative Evangelical". Whilst popularly referred to, the label "Open Evangelical" is misleading. Did not Jesus say: "Broad is the road that leads to destruction?" The danger of the open way is to do with boundaries. What are the outer edges? What will keep you on the straight road and the narrow way? Only the authentically Anglican narrow way offers that.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
The Ridley Hall Theological College (one of the +4 colleges in the now notorious Reform speech by Richard Turnbull, (see it here)), describes Open Evangelical in this way:
quote:
We are unashamedly evangelical in our commitment to the authority of Scripture, the need for personal faith, the uniqueness of Christ and the free gift of eternal life for humankind only through his death on the cross. We recognize the truth of orthodox Christian belief as expressed in the early Creeds of the Church. We are open in a number of ways:
Open to the world around us. If we are to communicate the Gospel effectively we must be engaged in a process of "double listening" to the Bible and to the world, hearing the questions and the insights of others around us, and working to hear the message of the scriptures in the light of this.
Open to God's work in other Christian traditions. Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and through partnership and dialogue we seek to be open to learn from what God has done and is doing in other parts of His Church. This refers to other Christians in our own Western setting, but must also increasingly include the voices of our fellow believers in the Two-Thirds World.
Open to playing our full part within the Church of England. Following the lead set by the National Evangelical Anglican Congresses at Keele in 1967 and Nottingham in 1977, Open Evangelicals are committed to involvement in the structures of the Church of England and to making a significant constructive contribution to the direction of the Church's life. And finally.
Open to God saying new things through the Bible and His Spirit. Being under the authority of scripture means we may need to be ready to change our mind as we understand more fully.
Being a shortly to be former student of this particular illustrious institution, it probably won't surprise anyone to learn that I for one find myself completely at home calling myself an Open Evangelical.
In his short piece, the Rev Vibert appears to be indulging in some Theology Lite(TM)(of which I'm something of a master). The problem with this approach, is, as his piece says, labels can be misleading - and his explaination then goes on to mislead.
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by innocent(ish):
[Snip]
Being a shortly to be former student of this particular illustrious institution, it probably won't surprise anyone to learn that I for one find myself completely at home calling myself an Open Evangelical.
[Snip]
I think that Ridley's definition of 'Open Evangelical' that you have posted above truly seems to merit the 'open' tag.
I'm not surprised that you associate with it, and I imagine that most anglicans could associate with most of the tenets, at least.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Things just get worse and worse, don't they?
Simon Vibert on St Luke's, Wimbledon Park:
quote:
I have to confess that I was quite surprised that the Church seemed to have little evidence of expository preaching - sermons were 10 minute, largely thematic talks.
There were far more Holy Communions than I would have expected, the wearing of attire and usage of liturgy which a previous generation of evangelical leaders would baulk at. Moreover, there were unconverted people involved in every area of the life of the Church.
So now we have some MORE details of what a "true" evangelical must be like"
a) They must preach long expository sermons
b) They mustn't celebrate holy communion too often
c) They shouldn't ponce about in robes
d) They shouldn't use much liturgy (bugger - that does for Cranmer, then doesn't it???)
Strange how none of these restrictions have appeared in "official" definitions of evangelicalism. Well - not really. It is obvious that there are plenty of evangelicals who would vehemently disagree with all 4 of Simon Vibert's points. He's not defining evangelicalism - he's just being snobby.
And as for that comments about "unconverted people" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? So he has a hot line to the Lord and knows who is and isn't saved, does he?
Words like "arrogant" and "vain" come to mind. As does the word "pompous". Does anyone still seriously suggest that this is a good candidate for a senior position in an Anglican theological college which professes to be "open" or "broad"?
I understand that Vibert was appointed to concentrate on preaching - so does that mean that WH will be full of ordinands who are being told that the only good sermon is a 30 minute expository one? Gawd 'elp us all!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Things just get worse and worse, don't they?
Simon Vibert on St Luke's, Wimbledon Park:
quote:
I have to confess that I was quite surprised that the Church seemed to have little evidence of expository preaching - sermons were 10 minute, largely thematic talks.
There were far more Holy Communions than I would have expected, the wearing of attire and usage of liturgy which a previous generation of evangelical leaders would baulk at. Moreover, there were unconverted people involved in every area of the life of the Church.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) I knew that parish quite well before the Avenging Angel was appointed. There were some good people there.
He further goes on to say:
quote:
2. Evangelicalism isn't defined by a certain kind of community. A certain attitude towards the Bible forms evangelical community!
By this I mean that "Evangelical" is not a label we choose to adopt because it fits in with the kind of things which we like or do. Rather, surely, the local congregation is defined as Evangelical, precisely because of its attitude towards the Scriptures and practical outworking of biblical implications.
So, Article 19, Of the Church states:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in 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...
Fr Vibert must be relieved that I have not sullied his pulpit with the impure Word of Man during his time. I'm sorry if I conspired with his predecessors to obstruct God's work.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
He's a bit of a tick, isn't he, this Vibert fellow?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I guess all the open evangelicals at Wycliffe will be delighted to discover they are on the broad road of destruction.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
And as for that comments about "unconverted people" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? So he has a hot line to the Lord and knows who is and isn't saved, does he?
I'm guessing that there were people who left/ resigned from stuff because they didn't like the direction that Vibert was taking the church - clearly they weren't real Christians.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
It is intolerant people like him who going to cause a complete splintering in the evangelical movement. An open evangelical woman with the gift of teaching is not going to feel that welcomed at Wycliffe in future. The one thing that Vibert’s becoming vice-principal does do is make Turnbull appointment as principal look like a small error.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I don't know Simon Vibert well - I've only met him a couple of times. I do have friends I trust who know him well and like him a lot. I don't know anyone who knows him well and thinks he's a bad appointment.
I personally will be interested to see how he gets on here. He's certainly promised in writing that he's going to be fully supportive of women who are training here. He's from a different theological background to the staff here at the moment, but it's a background which there are quite a few students from and which it is probably important to see represented on the staff team here given the breadth of UK Anglican evangelicalism.
It's generally considered good manners at least to give him a chance at doing his job before concluding that he's the wrong person to do it.
I intend to give him that chance, and to pray for him. And I can't see how anyone should fail to do likewise.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So now we have some MORE details of what a "true" evangelical must be like"
a) They must preach long expository sermons
b) They mustn't celebrate holy communion too often
c) They shouldn't ponce about in robes
d) They shouldn't use much liturgy (bugger - that does for Cranmer, then doesn't it???)
Strange how none of these restrictions have appeared in "official" definitions of evangelicalism. Well - not really. It is obvious that there are plenty of evangelicals who would vehemently disagree with all 4 of Simon Vibert's points. He's not defining evangelicalism - he's just being snobby.
Now you are being ingenuous.
Did you really not know that some evangelicals like long sermons? Or don;t like formal liturgy and robes? Or have Communion less often than anglo-catholics?
Come off it!
Its back to tolerance again. You sound as if you are unwilling to countenance any theological college bosses holding views you don't like.
Anfd just because he is intolerant (or rather you suspect he is - has he yet refused a college place to a single woman beause she is a woman?) you want to be intolerant to him and others like him
Yes there are sexist bastards in the church. But there's a lot worse than this. Yes he's got a narrow definition of evangelicalism. But its one thats part of the CofE and unless you want to exclude it altogether we're going to have some clergy and academics who follow it.
From where I'm sitting your rhetoric sounds like an attempt to exclude evangelicals from consideration as college staff (or bishops?) entirely and I feel pushed into solidarity with Wycliffe.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
It's generally considered good manners at least to give him a chance at doing his job before concluding that he's the wrong person to do it.
I am only judging him by his own words. He was the person who said open evangelicals were on the broad road to destruction.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So now we have some MORE details of what a "true" evangelical must be like"
a) They must preach long expository sermons
b) They mustn't celebrate holy communion too often
c) They shouldn't ponce about in robes
d) They shouldn't use much liturgy (bugger - that does for Cranmer, then doesn't it???)
Strange how none of these restrictions have appeared in "official" definitions of evangelicalism. Well - not really. It is obvious that there are plenty of evangelicals who would vehemently disagree with all 4 of Simon Vibert's points. He's not defining evangelicalism - he's just being snobby.
Now you are being ingenuous.
Did you really not know that some evangelicals like long sermons? Or don;t like formal liturgy and robes? Or have Communion less often than anglo-catholics?
Come off it!
Its back to tolerance again. You sound as if you are unwilling to countenance any theological college bosses holding views you don't like.
No, that's not the point. The point is that he went to a church which self-identified as evangelical but which had communion more often (with an implication of too often?) than he expected wore robes more, did sermons differently and appeared to value liturgy. The implication of the article is that he went in there and sorted this out (and got rid off those he judged `uncoverted')*. That's just not good management of change or respectful of the traditions in that place which doesn't necessarily bode well for Wycliffe (where change appears to have been managed badly already). Nor does it bode well for someone who is training priests for ministry as I can see him encouraging people to treat congregations in the same manner.
Carys
*Yes I've been in some churches where certain people seem to treat the church as a social club or whatever, but even there I wouldn't presume to comment on whether they are converted or not. My experience of evangelicalism is such that I suspect I might viewed as `unconverted' because I prefer to worship using hymns and liturgy rather than worship songs and informality. Yes, not all evangelicals think like this but I have come across it.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Um - one small problem - he doesn't actually say that. He says that it's a bad label, and gives an example of why being "open" might be unhelpful. Personally, given some of what I know about him, I think that bit is badly worded and easily open to misinterpretation.
If you're going to judge people, it makes more sense to judge them by their actions. Lets see how he gets on working with people who describe themselves as "open evangelicals" before judging that he's going to be judgemental and incapable of working with them.
And on the unconvertedness issue, the way I tell that people at church are unconverted is when several years later they tell me that they've only just become Christians.
[ 12. June 2007, 10:13: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Um - one small problem - he doesn't actually say that.
It is the natural way to understand him. He says open evangelicals are are on broad way and the only way to keep on the narrow way is the authentic conservative way. Good spin custard, but he says what he says.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Custard, what do you know about the internal disciplinary and grievance procedures that Turnbull has publicly confirmed are taking place?
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
