Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
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.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
A time of Just Getting On With It and Keeping Their Traps Shut might be helpful.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
.....Keeping Their Traps Shut might be helpful.

---

I agree. And I think it's true for us too.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

...it quickly became apparent to me that the Church was evangelical in name only.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope that idea about having the Eucharist too often is not widespread.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Well, why don't we wait and see?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope that idea about having the Eucharist too often is not widespread.

---

Actually, from what I know of evangelicals (clearly not of the "conservative" ilk!), a suspicion or dislike of weekly Eucharists is extremely passé. Perhaps 25 years ago, it might have been the case, but not now. Same goes for robes - some of my best evangelical friends love to dress up! And evangelicals have in recent years become very good at doing liturgy.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Quich quasi-tangent on evangelicals and worship.....

In the early 1960s, most CofE evangelicals went for Matins as the main weekly service with HC maybe monthly or les, but with a weekly 8am quickie.

At the Keele NEAC in 1967, evangelicals expressed deep regret that they had neglected the eucharist and said they'd strive for a weekly main celebration. This did lead to more main service HC in many places, but I detect that in the last decade or so younger evangelicals have sometimes moved back to a less frequent celebration (often assuming HC is for insiders and so is not mission friendly).

Chris Cocksworth's book, mentioned above, shows how evangelicals of former centuries were far more HC friendly than the early to mid 20th century ones. People like Wesley regarded it as a 'converting ordinance' - i.e. it presents the Gospel and demands a response of faith. It was for him the supreme form of mission-shaped worship.

Thanks to Oscar for his mention of GROW and COB. This group has indeed been highly significant for getting evangelical Anglicans and liturgy back together.I've been a member for 17 years...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by badman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
.....Keeping Their Traps Shut might be helpful.

---

I agree. And I think it's true for us too.

---

It's too late for that. Keeping out of trouble is one thing; doing nothing when you're in trouble is something totally different.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
And Custard: this statement

quote:

---

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.

---

doesn't take into account that what they mean is that they've only just become Christians as you understand it.

I don't deny that people can live a whole lifetime as committed churchpeople without a real understanding of the Gospel, or a commitment to Christ. What I do deny is that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in our lives unless we consciously turn to Christ; or that you, me, Simon Vibert or anyone else (including the person themself) is able or entitled to pronounce on the state of that person's soul.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

We agree on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

How does that square the CofE rubrics (?) that HC must be celebrated weekly? (My old CofE church did it by having HC at a different service each week but if you only have one daily service, that might be a bit of a problem)

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
There are some people who having been regular attenders who have the sort of experience which leads them to claim `they've only just become Christians' who then several years later reassess the situation and come to appreciate that it is more complex than that and that those early years are part of it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

How does that square the CofE rubrics (?) that HC must be celebrated weekly? (My old CofE church did it by having HC at a different service each week but if you only have one daily service, that might be a bit of a problem)

---

Usual practice, IME, is 1662 at 8am followed by 'Contemporary Worship' at the main morning service.

Of course, it is not wholly unprecedented for churches to ignore Canon Law on this point.

---

It was Family Service at 9:30am; Service at 11:00am (trad) and Evening Service (contemporary and less formal) at 6:30pm. And BCP once a month. HC moved from service to service each week.

Ignoring Canon Law? Really? Out of interest, what happens if they're caught doing it?

Tubbs

[ 13. June 2007, 12:50: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Out of interest, what happens if they're caught doing it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

How does that square the CofE rubrics (?) that HC must be celebrated weekly? (My old CofE church did it by having HC at a different service each week but if you only have one daily service, that might be a bit of a problem)

---

Usual practice, IME, is 1662 at 8am followed by 'Contemporary Worship' at the main morning service.

Of course, it is not wholly unprecedented for churches to ignore Canon Law on this point.

---

It was Family Service at 9:30am; Service at 11:00am (trad) and Evening Service (contemporary and less formal) at 6:30pm. And BCP once a month. HC moved from service to service each week.

Ignoring Canon Law? Really? Out of interest, what happens if they're caught doing it?

Tubbs

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Ignoring Canon Law? Really? Out of interest, what happens if they're caught doing it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I was once told the story of an Anglo-Catholic church whose new priest was due to be licensed. On the day they were unable to find a Bible on which he could swear when he made his promises. So he ended up promising only to use the canonically approved rites of the Church of England on a copy of the Roman Missal.

---

I heard that a certain bishop, when visiting an A/C church would always make a point of asking "Father - would you please hand me a bible?" and see how often panic ensued

I am pleased to say that at our A/C tabernacle the response would be "which version would you like?"

--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Urbanita.
Indeed. Chris Cocksworth, the Principal of Ridley Hall - one of the "4" - wrote an excellent book called Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England . And he's also a member of the CofE Liturgical Commission

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In England, provided they don't break the criminal law, a diocesan bishop has about as much power to make the incumbent of one of his parishes actually do anything as the queen does over Parliament. They have the right to be consulted and informed and they can encourage or warn, but that's about it. Certainly if the PCC and/or churchwardens support the vicar, there is little anyone could to make them do anything

In the old days the promise of preferment was a big carrot, but its not so alluring now. Also even two hundred years ago an incumbent who had decided not to care about career or money was pretty much unassailable. (Its all in Trollope. Everyione shodl read Trollope)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Ignoring Canon Law? Really? Out of interest, what happens if they're caught doing it?

---

I was once told the story of an Anglo-Catholic church whose new priest was due to be licensed. On the day they were unable to find a Bible on which he could swear when he made his promises. So he ended up promising only to use the canonically approved rites of the Church of England on a copy of the Roman Missal.

Which I think demonstrates admirably that the answer to your question is "very little".

---

Thought not

[Where did my post go?]

Tubbs

[ 14. June 2007, 08:58: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.

---

But it's true that there are quite a few of us who get frustrated and would prefer services that do provide sermons with teaching - definitely expository can be missed, and we can feel bereavement.

It's about worshipping the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, strength and minds - we like to use our brains as well as the rest of our characteristics. I get bored when I don't get anything that gives me something to think about.

And like Amy Carmichael, I believe I can have communion with God on my own with bread and wine... so it's not necessary to "waste time" always having communion as the main focus of a service IMO.

They can dress up as they like - my uncle was a pantomime dame

Now, do these opinions come from culture, ethnicity, or specific theology? Or somewhere else?

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posted                      

quote:

---

And like Amy Carmichael, I believe I can have communion with God on my own with bread and wine... so it's not necessary to "waste time" always having communion as the main focus of a service IMO.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by DaisyMay:

quote:

---

And like Amy Carmichael, I believe I can have communion with God on my own with bread and wine... so it's not necessary to "waste time" always having communion as the main focus of a service IMO.

---

So the Eucharist isn't a corporate act. Glad to see that someone has finally put the Universal Church right after all these years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So the Eucharist isn't a corporate act. Glad to see that someone has finally put the Universal Church right after all these years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Yet they have been made to feel stumbling blocks to a new regime by a man who despite the qualities many attribute to him has had no experience of academic and spiritual formation leadership in a college context.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The way different factions are using the press to brief against each other in this situation is not helping the C of E's PR IMO. In fact, it stinketh.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermeneut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The way different factions are using the press to brief against each other in this situation is not helping the C of E's PR IMO. In fact, it stinketh.

---

...and what 'faction' do you think the three previous principals represent? Surely this extraordinary move by them is a lot more than in-fighting?

If both the institution and individuals are suffering, doesn't something have to be done? So What else should be happening now if not public debate - closed doors, quiet words, wait and see? Does that work in response to oppressive regimes - or is public action usually more effective?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I do think there are particular ways Christians should behave differently in disagreements with each other. And Richard Turnbull is hardly General Pinochet.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If the previous principals were worried, writing to the council was a correct course of action. Leaking it to the press (and we don't know who did that) was not.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Let's face it, Evangelicals have proved as indiscreet as anyone else when it comes to leaking to the press. All parties do it when they think it is in their interest. There is no moral high ground to be had here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
No one's suggesting people should have meekly sat and sipped tea. But if staff disagree with the way the college is run, there is no doubt an internal procedure to deal with that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:

---

So the Eucharist isn't a corporate act. Glad to see that someone has finally put the Universal Church right after all these years.

---

Callan

Some folk might well cast doubt as to whether a RCC priest saying mass with just a server (who may well be about to say another mass with the first priest as server) is taking part in 'a corporate act' in any meaningful sense.

---