|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Emma:
quote:
Gosh for all 3 previous principals to comment is quite something!
It does tend to nix the "this is all being got up by the horrid liberal media who don't like evangelicals" line.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Custard, sorry to drag you back into this but I'm wondering what you think of the letter. If there really isn't an issue at Wycliffe, whats motivating the three ex-principles? And how do the students there feel about it?
After 15 odd pages I still can't reconcile Vibert/Turnball's public statements with the idea that they want to keep Wycliffe 'open' and supportive of OOW in the longterm. Surely if they really think OOW is scripturally unsound they shouldn't be actively involved in training women for the ministry?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Whatever the weaknesses of Richard Turnbull, this should have remained a private matter, although perhaps its public airing was inevitable given the amount of publicity this story has already gathered.
The weaknesses of Richard Turnbull can remain a private matter only if he is not in charge of a theological college training ordinands for the Church of England, and a Permanent Private Hall affiliated to Oxford University. I don't see these as private matters at all, although I do see that attempts have been made to keep them secret, which have spectacularly failed and backfired.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Whatever the weaknesses of Richard Turnbull, this should have remained a private matter, although perhaps its public airing was inevitable given the amount of publicity this story has already gathered.
The weaknesses of Richard Turnbull can remain a private matter only if he is not in charge of a theological college training ordinands for the Church of England, and a Permanent Private Hall affiliated to Oxford University. I don't see these as private matters at all, although I do see that attempts have been made to keep them secret, which have spectacularly failed and backfired.
Quite. I would also add that the timing suggests that this letter could have remained private if something had been done. The sequence of events is key here:
two weeks ago - the letter is sent privately to +Liverpool
yesterday - +Liverpool chairs a meeting of the WH council and says that he supports Turnbull
today - the letter is 'leaked'
Given that people have privately expressed serious concerns, that were then publicly ignored, (if you know what I mean), it's unsurprising if those concerns are then made public, isn't it?
(edited to fix punctuation)
[ 14. June 2007, 18:13: Message edited by: Hermeneut ]
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think that we are dealing with one of those peculiar irregular verbs again, aren't we?
I whistleblow but THEY leak
Actually, I think it conjugates like this:
I brief off the record
You leak
He's been arrested under Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act
(c) Lynn and Jay
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
After 15 odd pages I still can't reconcile Vibert/Turnball's public statements with the idea that they want to keep Wycliffe 'open' and supportive of OOW in the longterm. Surely if they really think OOW is scripturally unsound they shouldn't be actively involved in training women for the ministry?
They will recommend that they ideally stay as deacons or they become presbyters but only under the leadership of a man or group of men.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If Alister McGrath has a weakness it is his propensity to react robustly, if not somewhat disproportionately, when in disagreement with someone. I personally witnessed him become quite angry and consequently say something rather rash during a debate at a Hall Council meeting.
When I was an an ordinand at Wycliffe Hall it was common knowledge that David Wenham was much closer, relationally speaking, to the student body than Alister McGrath, and to be perfectly honest Wenham was the better pastor.
McGrath is a very clever man who is much to be admired, but his interpersonal skills might best be described as idiosyncratic. He is a very focussed, highly intelligent, but slightly strange man. I wouldn't put too much stock on this letter and wouldn't be surprised if he apologised to Richard Turnbull at some point in the future.
It is also worth noting the WH moved to a considerably more conservative position under McGrath's principleship than during the time of his two predecessors. I think it is possible that the tenor of Turnbull's principleship is simply a reflection of a wider shift within world evangelicalism towards the more doctrinally robust Calvinistic and charismatic conservative evangelicalism of John Piper, C J Maheney, Mark Driscoll et al.
Personally, and indeed retrospectively, I think that Wycliffe Hall could benefit from a shift in this direction. I say this because the so-called open evengelicalism that I see in much of the wider church is virtually indistinguishable from liberalism apart from the fact that it's not so tied to liturgy and isn't quite as sceptical about the charismata.
In fact, it's only since leaving Wycliffe that I have begun to understand the genuine strengths of conservative evangelicalism.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
quote:
If Alister McGrath has a weakness it is his propensity to react robustly, if not somewhat disproportionately, when in disagreement with someone. I personally witnessed him become quite angry and consequently say something rather rash during a debate at a Hall Council meeting.
When I was an an ordinand at Wycliffe Hall it was common knowledge that David Wenham was much closer, relationally speaking, to the student body than Alister McGrath, and to be perfectly honest Wenham was the better pastor.
However, McGrath managed to work with Wenham whereas under Turnbull it was clearly a case of "Sur Votre Bicyclette Matey".
It is absolutely astonishing that three former principals of a theological college should write to denounce their predecessor either the three of them have lost the plot or are engaged in folie a trois or, alternately, things are so bad that they felt obliged to speak out. Whilst I am not a massive admirer of McGrath, based on the occasion when I have heard him speak, I don't believe that this is something he would do lightly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
This latest twist also raises question marks about +Liverpool.
As chair of the Council, he is ultimately responsible for making what appears to be the poor appointment of someone who is palpably unqualified for this post. One black mark of +Liverpool.
By refusing to even consider the matters being raised, he appears to be either sticking his head in the sand and pretending a problem doesn't exist, or confirming that he supports the direction being taken by Turnbull and Vibert. Either way, it leaves him with some explaining to do - not least to the evangelical bishops who are contacting him. His present wilful determination to avoid addressing the issue looks bad and is ultimately unsustainable. Two black marks for +Liverpool.
+Liverpool's present inaction ties him firmly to Turnbull's future. If, in the end, Turnbull cannot survive at WH, +Liverpool will be placed in a very precarious position. I'm not saying that he will have to resign but he will have lost an enormous amount of credibility - especially among the vast majority of non-CE Anglicans.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This latest twist also raises question marks about +Liverpool.
As chair of the Council, he is ultimately responsible...
Isn't that the point though? He is Chair of the council, why won't anyone let him chair? If he has refused to listen to 3 previous Principals then that's hardly good leadership but isn't that down to whoever he is responsible to? I may have got confused in the middle of this slanging match but I don't think the Chair of the council is supposed to be accountable to the British press or indeed, to us.
To an outsider this whole thread is making a mockery of the CofE, and therefore of Christ. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Debating on the ship is one thing but circumventing institutional methods of review by using the press is another. I thought Anglicans believed in the Episcopate?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought Anglicans believed in the Episcopate?
They do, but not, generally, in infallibility.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought Anglicans believed in the Episcopate?
They do, but not, generally, in infallibility.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Who said anything about infallibility?
If you've got a leadership structure with systems of accountability you either trust in them or you don't. If you feel you aren't being heard then you appeal as far as you can and then ... let it drop ... i.e. either stay and put up with it or, if you've had enough, leave. Where does this 'if I don't get my own way I'll shout and scream until I do get my way' come from? We have got used to it in politics, I'm sad to see it in the church. And I thought Turnball was supposed to be the bully?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
The theological colleges are outside direct episcopal control. They are often run by a govening body which may or may not have a bishop on the committee. It is probably a failing of the CofE college system that the governing body of a college is not directly accountable to anyone. Hence if the governing body doesn't listen to you all that is left is the media.
The Bishops can exercise indirect contol over colleges by allowing or not allowing students to go them. Every so often the colleges and training couses are checked on so as to see if they are still up to an acceptable standard.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you've got a leadership structure with systems of accountability you either trust in them or you don't. If you feel you aren't being heard then you appeal as far as you can and then ... let it drop ... i.e. either stay and put up with it or, if you've had enough, leave.
Theological colleges aren't directly responsible to their clients - the Dioceses who pay a lot of money for training - and the system of accountability appears to end with + Liverpool whose answer at least publicly seems to be 'Well I like him, so tough'. Why should anyone put up with that? It's clearly not enough when people's employment is at stake.
And actually it is not good enough for an employer to say 'if you don't like it, leave' because an employer is ultimately subject to employment law. You may be able to go into a church and get rid of 'dead wood' but if you're an employer and it can be shown that you've made life so intolerable that an employee had no choice but to leave that constitutes constructive dismissal. (Obviously I am making no judgment on whether that is the case here.)
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
The governing body of Wycliffe currently has +Liverpool and +Birmingham on. We've also had +Bradford and +Rochester in here for end of term stuff. We're not short of bishops.
Of course James Jones knows what's going on here, in considerably more detail than me or anyone else on this thread. And of course he's doing stuff about it. Just he happens to think that it's better to deal with issues one-to-one, where that's possible, than in front of the national media.
On the letter from McGrath et al, yes, I'm concerned too, mostly at the effect that this media mess is having on Wycliffe. I've said before, this stands a far better chance of making Wycliffe into a male conservative college than any purported schemes, which don't exist anyway.
There's a good tradition in the C of E that former vicars shouldn't go back to their former churches except with the express permission of the current incumbent. Some of that is because often change is necessary. It definitely was here, and much of it has been welcomed, though it could probably have been introduced better, as Richard has already said.
In terms of the academic reputation of college, I suggest waiting to see who the new New Testament tutor is (we've currently got two good NT tutors; we need a top NT person, who will be appointed over the summer).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
'If you don't like it, leave' is also a very difficult and painful option for the ordinands being trained at a theological college. If they're unhappy with it, their DDOs and Bishops will still be very, very reluctant for them to go elsewhere.
[ 15. June 2007, 06:05: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I don't know any ordinands who want to leave, unless it is to get into ministry.
What we do have is, for example, quite a few international students who started doing one-term or one-year courses who are now trying to stay for three years.
[ 15. June 2007, 06:08: 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
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Of course James Jones knows what's going on here, in considerably more detail than me or anyone else on this thread. And of course he's doing stuff about it. Just he happens to think that it's better to deal with issues one-to-one, where that's possible, than in front of the national media.
Very nice, except it isn't the Bishop of Liverpool who has a grievance against Turnbull and those who do have a grievance against him appear to have been fobbed off in every attempt to have that dealt with privately.
Obviously I can't and wouldn't want to comment on the legal position at Wycliffe Hall, my point was a general one. If in your reply you are advocating (as you seem to be) that people employed by Christian organisations should opt out of their legal rights and place their trust in the church authorities you're in a for a bit of a rude awakening if you're ever a vicar.
Paul is talking about disputes within the fellowship, not legal contracts. If Christians employ people they do so under the law of the land. I don't see anything in the Bible that states those in powerful positions should be protected from their legal obligations by being a Christian.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The Bishops can exercise indirect contol over colleges by allowing or not allowing students to go them. Every so often the colleges and training couses are checked on so as to see if they are still up to an acceptable standard.
It is worth noting that some bishops were exercising this control during McGrath's principleship. Wycliffe was always considered to be at the conservative end of things by some bishops and I personally know at least three people whose bishops refused to let them train at Wycliffe five years ago. I also know of at least one bishop who has refused to recieve ordinands who trained at Wycliffe during McGrath's time. Now, are we now, in retrospect, to assume that this practice was in fact unreasonable just because McGrath happens to be speaking against Turnbull?
ISTM that evangelicalism in general is objectionable to some bishops and conservative evangelicalism is simply the arch-enemy because it happens to have strong convictions that it is prepared to stand by in the face of unpopularity. I think it's possible that McGrath is upset because Turnbull isn't quite as prepared as he was to ingratiate himself with the likes of the current Arch-bishop and central Anglicanism in general.
Are we now the believe that bishops who refused to send ordinands to Wycliffe when McGrath was in the driving seat were simply prejudiced, whereas bishops that now refuse to send people to Wycliffe are acting in their best interests? I don't think so. ISTM that Turnbull's less diplomatic, more distinctly evangelical doctrinal stance will inevitably draw out the closeted prejudice against Anglican evangelicalism in general.
Speaking of Anglican Evanelicalism, is anyone reading Turnbull's book Anglican and Evangelical? Surely this should be essential reading for anone who is currenly inclined to denounce him for being so unAnglican?
[ 15. June 2007, 08:07: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Obviously I can't and wouldn't want to comment on the legal position at Wycliffe Hall, my point was a general one. If in your reply you are advocating (as you seem to be) that people employed by Christian organisations should opt out of their legal rights and place their trust in the church authorities you're in a for a bit of a rude awakening if you're ever a vicar.
Again, who said anything about ignoring legal rights? My point was that, when things go wrong, we need to leave it in the hands of the appropriate channels. If things have really gone that wrong then legal recourse may even be necessary. I don't see how that is a defense for 'getting all my friends to write to the press'?
But more importantly what do people hope to achieve by this trial by media? IMHO there is already a sad polarisation in the UK church, leading to fragmentation. If the council back Turnball he will become a hero of the Con-Evos and Wycliffe will become stereotyped as one of the 'two'. If he is removed then, even worse, he will become a martyr of the evangelical cause and Con-Evos will not touch Wycliffe with a barge-pole.
Either way, by turning it into a national issue what has been achieved other than division and polarisation? Ironic since the major accusation of Turnball is that he is too narrow. This is rapidly turning into something that will cause far more division than one College Principal could possibly have done on his own.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
There's a good tradition in the C of E that former vicars shouldn't go back to their former churches except with the express permission of the current incumbent. Some of that is because often change is necessary. It definitely was here, and much of it has been welcomed...
I totally agree. The former principles' actions are totally out of order in this respect. They appear to using the measure of their own principleship as the mark of orthodoxy. The starnge thing is that McGrath and Turnbull have more in common theologically that McGarth and his predecessor once removed. Is it a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
[ 15. June 2007, 08:15: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The starnge thing is that McGrath and Turnbull have more in common theologically that McGarth and his predecessor once removed. Is it a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Are you saying there's some sort of logical progression here? That would imply, of course, that Fr Turnbull's views did not come as a complete surprise to anyone.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty
quote:
It is worth noting that some bishops were exercising this control during McGrath's principleship. Wycliffe was always considered to be at the conservative end of things by some bishops and I personally know at least three people whose bishops refused to let them train at Wycliffe five years ago. I also know of at least one bishop who has refused to recieve ordinands who trained at Wycliffe during McGrath's time.
Is this really how bishops behave ? I thought they were supposed to be bishops of the whole church and work with people of all types. Surely they have more important things to do than playing politics trying to fill the dicoese with vicars of their own churchmanship.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The starnge thing is that McGrath and Turnbull have more in common theologically that McGarth and his predecessor once removed. Is it a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Are you saying there's some sort of logical progression here? That would imply, of course, that Fr Turnbull's views did not come as a complete surprise to anyone.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Over the past three decades or more Wycliffe has moved from a liberal Anglican to a conservative evangelical Anglican position. In this respect the college has been a microcosm of the rise of evangelicalism within the Church of England over the past twenty or thirty years.
When one looks at the mood of wider evangelicalism (and one must if one is interested in where Anglican conservative evangelicals are taking their cues) it is quite clear that it is the new blend of highly mission-focused Calvinistic conservative-charismatic evangelicalism coming out of North America. The Godfathers of this movement are, in part, convervative evangelical Anglicans like Jim Packer and John Stott and American evangelicals like R C Sproul and Daniel Fuller (deceased). This new movement is very much influence by a renewed interest in the hertiage of Puritanism and expository preaching blended with a strong desire for cultural relevance and a new openness to 'things charismatic', albeit governed by a very strong doctrinal framework.
The trajectory of North American conservative evangelicalism which is being currently experiencing considerable numerical growth (whispers of revival abound) is simply too attractive to ignore. This is particularly true of the likes of Turnbull, who quite unashamedly would like to see the renewal of a more Puritanical form of Anglicanism.
What is interesting however, is the convergence of Calvinism and Charismaticism in the States, under the theological leadership of John Piper and the popular and cultural leadership of Mark Driscoll. This has yet to really show itself within Anglicanism (Sydney Evangelicalism being a negative case in point). What I think may happen at Wycliffe is this: there will be a convergence of charismatic and conservative evangelicals which will be doctrinally Calvinistic in nature. This in turn will lead to a return to historical Anglican doctirne (39 Articles) but a maintainance of cultiurally relevant and 'packaging'. This convergence which will be highly missional in nature will see the further self-marginalisation of open evangelicals who have all but abandoned the doctrinal distinctives of historical Anglicanism and a strong emphasis on mission in favour of a politically driven, pragmatic inclusivism and inceasingly liberalised single issue ecclesiology.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty
quote:
It is worth noting that some bishops were exercising this control during McGrath's principleship. Wycliffe was always considered to be at the conservative end of things by some bishops and I personally know at least three people whose bishops refused to let them train at Wycliffe five years ago. I also know of at least one bishop who has refused to recieve ordinands who trained at Wycliffe during McGrath's time.
Is this really how bishops behave ? I thought they were supposed to be bishops of the whole church and work with people of all types. Surely they have more important things to do than playing politics trying to fill the dicoese with vicars of their own churchmanship.
Yes it is how bishops behave. And yes many non-evangelical bishops don't like to take evangelical ordinands. It just a fact of life for evangelicals within Anglicanism.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you've got a leadership structure with systems of accountability you either trust in them or you don't. If you feel you aren't being heard then you appeal as far as you can and then ... let it drop ... i.e. either stay and put up with it or, if you've had enough, leave. Where does this 'if I don't get my own way I'll shout and scream until I do get my way' come from?
Maybe from the Covenant for the Church of England
drafted by Turnbull and Vibert?
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Numpty [QB] ...the so-called open evengelicalism that I see in much of the wider church is virtually indistinguishable from liberalism apart from the fact that it's not so tied to liturgy and isn't quite as sceptical about the charismata.
Trying to stay out of this thread, but is this really your considered opinion, Numpty? I would have thought there was a world of difference between the two, unless you define liberalism as being "anything other than a very narrow type of conservative theology". All the open evos I know are thoroughly orthodox on the key points of the Christian faith, even if there is a degree of debate about secondary issues.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Numpty [QB] ...the so-called open evengelicalism that I see in much of the wider church is virtually indistinguishable from liberalism apart from the fact that it's not so tied to liturgy and isn't quite as sceptical about the charismata.
Trying to stay out of this thread, but is this really your considered opinion, Numpty? I would have thought there was a world of difference between the two, unless you define liberalism as being "anything other than a very narrow type of conservative theology". All the open evos I know are thoroughly orthodox on the key points of the Christian faith, even if there is a degree of debate about secondary issues.
The open evangelicals I know seem to be more comfortable with a larger gap between their stated orthodoxy and their actual ministerial praxis that most conservatives. In other words, on paper they're evangelical but in practice they're not.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you've got a leadership structure with systems of accountability you either trust in them or you don't. If you feel you aren't being heard then you appeal as far as you can and then ... let it drop ... i.e. either stay and put up with it or, if you've had enough, leave. Where does this 'if I don't get my own way I'll shout and scream until I do get my way' come from?
Maybe from the Covenant for the Church of England
drafted by Turnbull and Vibert?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) So having a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss your concerns is the same as running to the press in order to put pressure on from outside?
As others have pointed out elsewhere there is a tragic irony to this sorry tale. In the past evangelicals moaned about preferment but did nothing about it, remaining isolationist. Now they have learnt to 'play the game' and use the structures within Anglicanism to gain influence. It is now that evangelical Anglicans are behaving more like Anglicans that 'all hell breaks loose'!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I have huge respect for the one of the former principals whom I know, both for his evangelical credentials and for his wisdom. The fact that he was moved to be part of this letter is significant to me.
The fact that it has been leaked is sad, but in the WH situation there is no higher authority than the College Council, no other way of taking direct action. If a person felt strongly that the Council or the Bp of Liverpool were taking the wrong course - there is nowhere else for them to go.
I know that my own experience of moving into the C of E (as someone who would have self-described as conservative evangelical, and who had studied theology in that context) was of a surprisingly difficult culture change and a general party-mindedness that I found alienating.
My understanding of the application of the authority of scripture involves a process of seeking to identify what the author intended - using all appropriate tools for that purpose, and then seeking to identify how that meaning addresses present circumstances - and remembering that this is not an isolated task but a corporate effort as part of the church. The Anglican starting point as I understand it is to respect diversity so long as 'nothing be ordained against God's Word' and, in principle, to retain those traditions 'which be not repugnant to the Word of God' (Article XXXIV).
There are many aspects of puritan praxis and theology which have enriched us and which I respect, but that aspect which would purge the church of every practice not expressly commanded in scripture is not one of them.
There are many questions to be asked about missional and evangelistic effectiveness of the life and ministry of the church about which we may come to differing conclusions. To make them touchstones of orthodoxy, however, is a grave mistake.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't know any ordinands who want to leave, unless it is to get into ministry.
What we do have is, for example, quite a few international students who started doing one-term or one-year courses who are now trying to stay for three years.
If there were ordinands who wanted to leave, they would hardly be likely to tell you.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE] So having a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss your concerns is the same as running to the press in order to put pressure on from outside?
There was nothing private about the Covenant. It was released to the press and briefed about and put up on websites - it was only the meeting itself which was private.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Numpty [QB] ...the so-called open evengelicalism that I see in much of the wider church is virtually indistinguishable from liberalism apart from the fact that it's not so tied to liturgy and isn't quite as sceptical about the charismata.
Trying to stay out of this thread, but is this really your considered opinion, Numpty? I would have thought there was a world of difference between the two, unless you define liberalism as being "anything other than a very narrow type of conservative theology". All the open evos I know are thoroughly orthodox on the key points of the Christian faith, even if there is a degree of debate about secondary issues.
The open evangelicals I know seem to be more comfortable with a larger gap between their stated orthodoxy and their actual ministerial praxis that most conservatives. In other words, on paper they're evangelical but in practice they're not.
Or just maybe they disagree with you about what is and what is not orthodox. Which only makes them liberals if you define orthodox as "any belief that it totally consonant with mine". If opens can honestly read the scriptures and honestly apply those scriptures in the light of the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and honestly come to a different pastoral praxis than some others, I think that they can justifiably call themselves "evangelical". And, if it comes to it, there are plenty of non-evos out there who aren't by any stretch of the imagination liberals.
But then, as I've said before, I think that liberal is an entirely honourable label. I just don't think it's one that describes me.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you've got a leadership structure with systems of accountability you either trust in them or you don't. If you feel you aren't being heard then you appeal as far as you can and then ... let it drop ... i.e. either stay and put up with it or, if you've had enough, leave. Where does this 'if I don't get my own way I'll shout and scream until I do get my way' come from?
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Maybe from the Covenant for the Church of England
drafted by Turnbull and Vibert?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So having a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss your concerns is the same as running to the press in order to put pressure on from outside?
My reference was to the "Covenant", not to the meeting which presented it. This contains such gems as:
We will support mission-shaped expressions of church through prayer, finance and personnel, even when official permission is unreasonably withheld.
and
we can no longer be constrained by an over-centralised and increasingly ineffective control that is stifling the natural development of ministry. If the local Bishop unreasonably withholds authorisation, we will pay for, train and commission the ministers that are needed
and
We reaffirm the Church of England as a confessing church, built supremely not on administrative or human structures but on biblical authority, belief and behaviour. This means that we can no longer associate with teaching that is contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures either doctrinally (for example, on the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ) or morally (for example, on issues of gender, sex and marriage), or church leadership which advocates such teaching.
and
We are aware of those who justifiably consider that their communion with their bishops is impaired, and will support and help them to find alternative oversight.
Seems a million miles from your proposition that, where there's a leadership structure, you have to submit to it or leave. (Which, incidentally, hasn't got much to do with public comment and criticism, as opposed to the outright disobedience asserted by Turnbull and Vibert in their "Covenant")
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Or just maybe they disagree with you about what is and what is not orthodox. Which only makes them liberals if you define orthodox as "any belief that it totally consonant with mine".
In contemporary Anglican parlance a liberal is someone that a conservative happens to disapprove of. In contemporary evangelical Anglican parlance the term liberal is also an indicator of the common belief that people who one disapproves of aren't proper 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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
There was nothing private about the Covenant. It was released to the press and briefed about and put up on websites - it was only the meeting itself which was private.
This is getting tedious - who said anything about the meeting being private?
It still seems as if the Con-Evos are using the proper channels but others are not happy with this. If the Chair doesn't have proper accountability then that is something to be fixed and it would seem that this sad affair has brought that problem to light. Still no one has explained to me why its okay to submit to the church's authority except when I don't like it - and I make that point precisely because it is the main accusation hurled at evangelical anglicans.
ETA - cross posted with badman and others.
[ 15. June 2007, 10:27: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Seems a million miles from your proposition that, where there's a leadership structure, you have to submit to it or leave. (Which, incidentally, hasn't got much to do with public comment and criticism, as opposed to the outright disobedience asserted by Turnbull and Vibert in their "Covenant")
The covenant read to me as if they were holding the proper authorities to account - presumably the debate will be over what constitutes 'unreasonably withheld'.
I read the covenant as a request for the leadership structures to 'play by the rules' of the anglican communion.
However, as a Baptist, I freely admit that I will never understand the workings of the CofE. And if that is the point you are making then I will shut up!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Still no one has explained to me why its okay to submit to the church's authority except when I don't like it - and I make that point precisely because it is the main accusation hurled at evangelical anglicans.
The only people who have told everyone they won't submit to the church's authority are Turnbull and Vibert, and their fellows on the "Anglican Covenant".
At Wycliffe Hall, grievance procedures have been launched and not a single "insider" has broken with the church's authority.
Surely you can understand the difference between dissent and disobedience? If not, that is very worrying.
It seems that Turnbull and co don't understand the difference either, since Elaine Storkey is being subjected to formal disciplinary proceedings for comments made at an internal meeting.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Jolly Jape said: quote:
Or just maybe they disagree with you about what is and what is not orthodox. Which only makes them liberals if you define orthodox as "any belief that it totally consonant with mine".
Of course you'll notice that I actually said that open evangelicals seem to be comfortable with a wider gap between their stated orthodoxy and their own praxis. My understanding of orthodoxy did not, and does not, come into the equation. What I said is that, IME, open evangelicals are more inclined to practically compromise on their own stated orthodoxy that are conservative evangelicals. Conservatives tend towards a 'here I stand, I can do no other' mentality, Opens tend towards a 'let's find a way around this one' type mentality.
[ 15. June 2007, 10:38: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Johnny S what do you mean and who do you mean when you say churches authority? You seem to be under a servere misunderstanding about how the Anglican church works.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In contemporary evangelical Anglican parlance the term liberal is also an indicator of the common belief that people who one disapproves of aren't proper Christians. [/QB]
Bollocks.
Isn't it funny that I hear the 'not proper christians' line mostly from liberals throwing insults rather than evos actually meaning it, though I've moved in some of the most con-evo anglican circles. One would almost think it's a straw man!
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
You seem to be under a servere misunderstanding about how the Anglican church works.
Okay, you are saying that. I'll shut up then. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said: Or just maybe they disagree with you about what is and what is not orthodox. Which only makes them liberals if you define orthodox as "any belief that it totally consonant with mine".Of course you'll notice that I actually said that open evangelicals seem to be comfortable with a wider gap between their stated orthodoxy and their own praxis. My understanding of orthodoxy did not, and does not, come into the equation. What I said is that, IME, open evangelicals are more inclined to practically compromise on their own stated orthodoxy that are conservative evangelicals. Conservatives tend towards a 'here I stand, I can do no other' mentality, Opens tend towards a 'let's find a way around this one' type mentality.
OK, fair enough, sorry I misrepresented you. Not sure that "let's find a way round this, (I would rather understand it as "let's find a way through this") is enough to disqualify someone from membership of the evangelical club, though!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Still no one has explained to me why its okay to submit to the church's authority except when I don't like it - and I make that point precisely because it is the main accusation hurled at evangelical anglicans.
Point 1: the accusation is not hurled - ConEvo anglicans own that view, as shown by the Covenant.
Point 2: Christians are not doormats, nor should they be. As has been pointed out by Arriety, Christian employers cannot opt out of employment law, even when they feel it conflicts with church authority.
Point 3: a church is a voluntary association - I can leave my church any time I wish, spiritual authority or no. If I feel like I'm being bullied, or taught heresy, or see other practices that are questionable... is it not my duty, Christian or otherwise, to speak out?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In contemporary evangelical Anglican parlance the term liberal is also an indicator of the common belief that people who one disapproves of aren't proper Christians.
Bollocks.
Not where I come from. Clearly YMMV, but since this is the Wycliffe Hall thread, perhaps you'd better take another look at the Reform video.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty
quote:
What I said is that, IME, open evangelicals are more inclined to practically compromise on their own stated orthodoxy that are conservative evangelicals. Conservatives tend towards a 'here I stand, I can do no other' mentality, Opens tend towards a 'let's find a way around this one' type mentality.
Can you give an example of what you mean by this ? I'm not clear whether you are talking about clergy specifically or everybody.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In contemporary evangelical Anglican parlance the term liberal is also an indicator of the common belief that people who one disapproves of aren't proper Christians.
Bollocks.
Isn't it funny that I hear the 'not proper christians' line mostly from liberals throwing insults rather than evos actually meaning it, though I've moved in some of the most con-evo anglican circles. One would almost think it's a straw man!
Bollocks backatcha.
I've experienced that attitude often enough in real life and on these boards. So kindly piss off.
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think, Johnny S, that what both badman and I are trying to say is that publishing the Covenant was "the same as running to the press in order to put pressure on from outside" to quote your post. The meeting itself was relatively private, and IMHO there would have been nothing objectionable about the statement about the meeting which heads the Anglican Mainstream page to which badman linked.
The covenant specifically says that if the lawful authority within the CofE structures 'unreasonably' withholds approval for certain actions we will go ahead and do them anyway - and by implication sets itself and its authors up as arbiters of episcopal reasonableness. It is in fact a public threat of disobedience - we can argue about whether it was justified or not - nonetheless it was an intentional use of the public (and news) arena to put pressure on the Archbishop.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Isn't it funny that I hear the 'not proper christians' line mostly from liberals throwing insults rather than evos actually meaning it, though I've moved in some of the most con-evo anglican circles.
Very funny indeed. These things are said all the time by con-evos on blog comments. They are also said by such as Bishop Martyn Minns with his "two religions" line. If you want a more recent and high-level example, try on Archbishop's Nzimbi of Kenya's statement yesterday with its distinction between The Episcopal Church and "the faithful who continue steadfastly in “the faith once delivered to the saints.”"
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
