|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
David Gould
Shipmate
# 11701
|
Posted
From today's (London) Times
The teaching of theology at the University of Oxford has suffered a serious blow with a damning report that recommends ending the admission of school-leavers to some of its colleges.
The official report, which has been seen by The Times, raises grave concerns about the narrow Christian education that is being received by some of the younger students.
The review, conducted by a university panel headed by Sir Colin Lucas, a former vice-chancellor, concludes that Oxford’s seven Christian private halls risk failing to provide a rounded learning experience in keeping with Oxford’s liberal ethos.
In particular, it highlights concerns about the educational quality of life for young students at the university’s Anglican theological colleges.
The report will be seen as an attack on the evangelical wing of the Church of England, which draws intellectual credibility from the association of one of its colleges, Wycliffe Hall, with Oxford.
According to the report, what is on offer at Wycliffe does not resemble “an Oxford experience in its essentials” and is not “a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates”.
Wycliffe and St Stephen’s House, an Anglo-Catholic theological college at Oxford, have been told that they can no longer admit school-leavers to study undergraduate degrees. This will cut the number of students by as much as a quarter. This could have a “critical” effect on the department, the review admits.
--------------------
'If the CofE failed it would be found in my parish' Keble
Posts: 145 | From: Gloucester | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Sure, Nightlamp. As I said earlier, it's not a disagreement. I'm only pointing out an alternative scenario.
Sometimes these things go swimmingly - everyone gets together and works for the newly articulated vision. Just occasionally, there is a bloodbath. That tends to happen when the existing team share a common vision and either cannot or will not embrace the new one. They may be incompetents who fear the future, or they may be highly competent and disagree profoundly with what is being asked of them. Personally speaking, from what has been said on this thread (and ignoring the external spinning noises) I would have to say that the latter option is at least a possibility.
But yes - you could easily be right. There is of course a third possibility - the nightmare scenario - in which Turnbull is trying to effect a culture change and proves to be a crap manager thereafter. But to be fair, you simply won't know that till a couple of years further down the tracks.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
<joke>
How about a merger of St Stephens House and Wycliffe??
</joke>
--------------------
"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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I knew the first couple of years of undergrads (as in 18 year old ones - I think they have often had private students that are older) and I practically lived there as I was engaged to one. It was a great experience and both my ex and myself thought we would be involved in church work and loved at the time. However, it definitely wasn't a "normal" undergraduate life.
With the narrowing of Wycliffe I think its a good thing that it doesn't take 18 year old undergrads. One of the great things for me was that it broadened my mind (from a fairly bog standard evo church) and gave me a chance to really develop as a Christian and as an academic. If it ends up training in one particular strand of Christianity I don't think thats a particularly "full" Oxford degree, and they will have really missed out.
(Having said that I do remember students from other colleges being worried about which authors were "sound" and who they "should" be studying....)
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There is of course a third possibility - the nightmare scenario - in which Turnbull is trying to effect a culture change and proves to be a crap manager thereafter.
To be honest I doubt he will turn out to be a crap manager afterwards. Change management is different from running things on a even keel. The part of his vision that means moving the college from open evangelicism that welcomes others to a more consverative stance which welcomes open evangelicals may well be a huge mistake or it may well be a good move. How this pans out is in the hands of Bishops, potential students and Oxford University.
--------------------
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
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
There is a general feeling among other academics, particularly some scientists, at Oxford that theology is not a "proper" academic subject. The oldest colleges were founded as religious institutions, and the chapel was put at the centre of the college and at the centre of college life. (The university motto is "the Lord is my Light" - in Latin).
Wycliffe losing a large number of students will damage the theology faculty further. Re Richard Turnbull's quoted remarks on this, one would think that it might damage Wycliffe more than the theology faculty. It depends I suppose on what he sees as the future of Wycliffe.
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huts
Apprentice
# 13017
|
Posted
I have been lurking on here for quite a while but only feel I can now post.
I started at Wycliffe this week, and was a little apprehensive as to what to expect. I had applied before the 'advert' in the guardian. I knew a few people there and custards posts calmed my nerves.
I come from a 'con evo' church and choose Wycliffe to train because I wanted to go somewhere which would train me well and challenge me in my views (but not to much).
The welcome I have received from all the students has been fantastic. The new staff seem great and none of the student body seems to have lost confidence in Richard but it's hard for a newcomer to always completely know what’s going on. I actually think that it's an exciting time in the college and while some of the staff losses are sad, it does seem to have healed quickly, at least inside the college.
Posts: 37 | From: Down South - UK | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by huts:
I come from a 'con evo' church and choose Wycliffe to train because I wanted to go somewhere which would train me well and challenge me in my views (but not to much).
I hope that works out for you, but the expectation used to be that theological training would challenge you enormously, on the basis that parish life will present huge challenges to you when you're out there as a curate - or has that never been the expectation for people who label themselves as conservative?
I went to the nearest college because I needed to commute and a lot of my year were in the same situation, we didn't get to choose what theological neighbourhood we'd like to spend our time in at all. And people who follow regional part time courses have to take what they're given as well. That was hard work for me as I was what you might call an 'open evangelical' (I hate such labels but that's the one they stuck on me) in a 'liberal' institution, but I do feel I learnt a lot.
I can't help but feel training people within their own little enclaves is going to result in churches which can only engage with people on their own (the churches' terms) - which isn't really how I understand the great commission which is more to do with seeking people out where they are.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scribehunter
Shipmate
# 12750
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Scribehunter:
You have had access to only one side of an ongoing dispute.
How do you know that?
Thurible
That is my impression on the basis of his posts in this subject. He knows what Turnbull thinks because of his cosy chats over breakfast. He knows what the students think (to some extent). But he has had little idea about what the staff team have been going through. He has swallowed whatever explanation has been offered (career path, dream job, my brother is in Bristol etc.) but has missed the bigger picture. He has even denied there was such a bigger picture. He can't even mention Storkey without slighting her. Even in all this he presents Goddard as basically following his wife!
So that is why I say I find his perspective one-sided. I get a different view from chatting with the staff. Well, the former staff. There's barely anybody I know there any more.
Ah. maybe that is the point. they all knew my true identity and had to be silenced.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by huts:
The welcome I have received from all the students has been fantastic. The new staff seem great and none of the student body seems to have lost confidence in Richard
I would say that it seems to be mostly an inter-staff problem and all the staff that had lost confidence have now gone. From a student view point the outcome of all the changes will be more about the type and quality of the education which you wouldn't have been there before you will not know what you are missing or gaining.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
I come from a 'con evo' church and choose Wycliffe to train because I wanted to go somewhere which would train me well and challenge me in my views (but not to much).
The "not too much" bit worries me...
Anyway, the PPHs generally are in an odd position. I get the impression that the university isn't sure what to do with them. It seems that in the long run they'll be under pressure to become full colleges (as Regent's is trying to) or drop out of the system. I'm not sure Wycliffe's conservative turn is going to help their case...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
From today's (London) Times
<snip>The report will be seen as an attack on the evangelical wing of the Church of England, which draws intellectual credibility from the association of one of its colleges, Wycliffe Hall, with Oxford. <snip>
This is a very clever piece of phrasing. If challenged the author could say "Oh, I only meant some of its intellectual credibility." Although the sentence actually appears to suggest that the entire intellectual credibility of evangelicalism within the church of England rests on this one college's association with Oxford University. The writer is apparently quite unaware of links between other colleges and Bristol, Cambridge, Durham and Nottingham universities.
Not that the loss of an opportunity to train in the Oxford context would not be a serious issue - if that were at issue. But ISTM that the university is not suggesting that Wycliffe ordinands will be barred from the undergraduate theology at Oxford - just that Wycliffe should not admit 'ordinary' undergraduate students for Oxford degrees.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Ah but BroJames remenber that these other evangelical colleges are 'plus fours'!
The Theology department at Durham warmly welcomed links with Cranmer Hall, and still does, I gather, if anyone is interested. And links between Ridley and both Canbridge and Anglia Ruskin are very good too.
--------------------
"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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Ah but BroJames remenber that these other evangelical colleges are 'plus fours'!
The Theology department at Durham warmly welcomed links with Cranmer Hall, and still does, I gather, if anyone is interested. And links between Ridley and both Canbridge and Anglia Ruskin are very good too.
Yes, I can see why that might be the case for someone who takes the attitude that the 'plus four' terminology tends to suggest, but I suppose I am surprised that the Times appears to have swallowed this "argument".
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
My understanding is that the draft of the PPH review didn't ban PPHs from taking undergrads. Whether the final review will or not remains to be seen.
I also understand that the draft didn't single out Wycliffe for negative attention at all. Their issue is as much with Campion or Blackfriars or Staggers as it is with Wycliffe, though I think Wycliffe is the second largest (after Regents Park).
And as people have pointed out, even if they do say that, it doesn't affect the ministerial courses and it only affects about 10% of our intake (though it is a worthwhile 10% and I like the undergrads).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scribehunter
Shipmate
# 12750
|
Posted
Some thoughts about the strategic thinking behind recent moves.
First the leaving staff perspective. Strategically this has involved: a) shielding the students from the staff room difficulties;
b) continuing to teach their subjects and their students;
c) Writing collectively (and possibly individually), but privately; to the Council in the hope that the Council might be able to deal with the situation satisfactorily.
d) keeping quiet while RT was able to project positive messages to the public at large and the students in particular;
e) enrolling previous Principal's in also writing (in public) a concerned letter to the Council;
f) Leaving one-by-one as alternative opportunities emerged or their own relationship with RT became impossible or (presumably in the most recent three) when it became clear that the Council was going to remain supine in relation to the principal's (perceived) authoritarianism.
So far this strategy looks like a failure - most of them have left and have therefore lost what little influence they had; the Council has rebuffed or ignored their concerns; the Principal looks like he has "won" - he is still in place with a new start this year and a largely new staff.
But would any alternative strategy have worked any better? And may this apparent failure actually still be turned around?
Posts: 143 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scribehunter
Shipmate
# 12750
|
Posted
Second the RT strategic perspective:
a) desires to "improve" the management structure of the Hall (as some report has recommended), but this involves disempowering staff and removing 'collegiality' (to some degree);
b) desires to "improve" the practical ministerial training side of the Hall (as some report has recommended);
c) feels that he is the man to do this since he once was an accountant (/manager?); and has been a vicar (successfully?) for ten years;
d) Is basically a conservative evangelical in theology and capable of CE over-simplification (as reported in the Ev Now interview);
e) Comes up against some staff resistance on some aspects of his vision - e.g. practically unanimous opposition to Vibert's appointment as V-P;
f) presumably perceives some of the stronger characters and independent thinkers among the staff (rightly) to be a threat to his position and plan;
g) makes life difficult for them (decision-making for them in curriculum content, personnel issues, timetabling, priorities etc.);
h) maintains the confidence of the Council and the Students;
i) Watches the staff with problems leave one by one;
j) doesn't replace them all with CEvs but with a range of people form different viewpoints (especially charismatic evangelicals) [this could be a staging strategy - survive this patch and then the next round of appointments will be more solidly CEv]
k) Maintains the support of the Council throughout.
l) Leaves open both the Reform/CEv takeover of Wycliffe (as his own Reform video and Gerald Bray's editorial in Churchman), but this is still deniable at this stage.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766
|
Posted
On the Radio 4 Sunday program Eeva John said that Elaine Storkey had been sacked. (It's at the bottom of this page )
--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe
Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
To be honest I doubt what you outline was a staff strategy as such (ie anyone planned it) it is simply what happened.
--------------------
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
I'm with Nightlamp on this one. I don't believe any of this was thought out to the suggested strategic degree.
There is some kind of underlying strategy however, that much is clear from the now infamous RT Reform speech.
I imagine the idea was to move the college from an Open Evangelical to a Conservative Evangelical position over the course of a few years through natural wastage and key new appointments. All the information that has come out from the college that has been reported by the national press (interestingly neither denied by RT, or confirmed by leaving staff members), suggests that RTs management style is at least a little abrasive.
It's a great pity. When I was looking at Theological colleges I was told that the previous man at the helm was not around much as he was off being a theologian at various important gatherings worldwide. It put me off Wycliffe to the extent that I didn't even bother to look round. Clearly the management was ripe for change, this is not the way I imagine the governing council saw it going, but like the runaway train, once it's in motion, it's not that easy to stop.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
It's worth pointing out the evidence that points against the view that the end goal is Wycliffe as a conservative evangelical college:
- Of the staff appointments, only two (Vibert and Atherstone) are recognisably conservative evangelical
- Richard's appointments include several youngish non-conservative evangelicals (e.g. Andy Angel, Jenni Williams) some appointed to senior positions, with the strong implication and expectation they will stay there for quite some time
- There is no formal provision in college for people who won't hear women preach, which is a big thing for conservatives. And two of the first three sermons of term were by women.
- The staff who have left include two of the most theologically conservative (David Wenham and Andrew Goddard)
- The plan would have to have been masterminded or implemented by +James Jones, noted non-conservative.
[ 24. September 2007, 20:55: 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
I am now convinced that the debacle of the staff situation at Wycliffe is mostly down to poor management. Yet it is RT's stated aim to make Wycliffe more conservative.
--------------------
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
As Custard is at the coal face, I defer to his understanding. From outside, the evidence points to a slightly different conclusion. Mind you, having just watched Silent Witness, with all the twists and turns and evidence that points one way and then the other, every iota of information is important. And then it isn't.
Being a curate is a whole lot easier than CofE politics. Run for the finish line Custard.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimS:
On the Radio 4 Sunday program Eeva John said that Elaine Storkey had been sacked. (It's at the bottom of this page )
How do you get 'Elaine Storkey has been sacked' from 'Elaine Storkey has left' which is what I read?
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Listen to the excerpt from the Radio 4 programme by clicking on the link. Eeva John has, essentially, confirmed the information on the Fulcrum website which said that Elaine and the Goddards had been "required to leave". Following Richard Turnbull's statement and the brief notice on the Fulcrum website (see earlier posts), Eeva John's statement that Elaine has, in fact, been dismissed, do not come as any surprise.
The fact that the Hall Council and Richard Turnbull do not want to talk publically at this stage merely confirms that the negotiation of severance terms is ongoing. You are free to wonder why. But if Eeva John is right, and Elaine did not expect summary action (believing due process on the disciplinary and grievance issues was not yet complete), then (as I said earlier), I would not like to try and negotiate an amicable settlement in those circumstances.
This isn't over.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
It's worth pointing out the evidence that points against the view that the end goal is Wycliffe as a conservative evangelical college:
You miss, of course, the clearest evidence - which is the Reform talk. That can be understood in no other way than that RT intends taking Wycliffe into the CE camp. "2+4"?
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
- Of the staff appointments, only two (Vibert and Atherstone) are recognisably conservative evangelical
This is actually rather irrelevant. As far as I am aware, no college (not even Oakhill) has staff that are 100% from their own "party"; they all have a certain mixture. It is not essential for all staff to be "of the same persuasion" - simply that they can all work in that particular college. And people may choose to work at Wycliffe for all sorts of reasons. Some because it is their first chance to get a lectureship; some because they have a certain attachment to Wycliffe and want to preserve what they love about the place.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
- Richard's appointments include several youngish non-conservative evangelicals (e.g. Andy Angel, Jenni Williams) some appointed to senior positions, with the strong implication and expectation they will stay there for quite some time
It is far too speculative to say that such people will be there for some time. But my immediate reaction to this point is that RT seems to be surrounding himself with rather inexperienced people. Not only is this questionable academically (are they really all the best on offer?), but it means that they will be less likely to offer resistance than more experienced staff. It is a ploy often used by people determined to get their own way.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
- There is no formal provision in college for people who won't hear women preach, which is a big thing for conservatives. And two of the first three sermons of term were by women.
"No formal provision" - interesting words. Is there "informal provision"? If students object to women preaching, is there a tacit agreement that they can remove themselves? When these women preached, were there any noticeable absences?
And again, this is a bit of a smokescreen. Some CEs will not tolerate a woman preaching. But some (many?) won't object as long as the woman doesn't have a position of authority or headship. In truth, any "formal provision" would be the absolute indication that Wycliffe is not just CE-friendly but is positively CE-biased.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
- The staff who have left include two of the most theologically conservative (David Wenham and Andrew Goddard)
Again - rather irrelevant. First of all - they are the experienced ones who would be more likely to speak out against attempts to move Wycliffe from OE to CE. Secondly, Andrew Goddard's position in Fulcrum means that, regardless of his personal theological position, he would be counted as "the enemy" by all who signed and supported the rather notorious "Covenant".
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
- The plan would have to have been masterminded or implemented by +James Jones, noted non-conservative.
Where on earth do you get that from?
All that is required is that RT should sell himself to the Council as someone ready to come in and refresh the management structures. +James Jones (or the Council) doesn't need to know anything about RT's covert strategy.
I do agree that it is surprising that +Jones has pointedly refused to deal with the problem as it has unfolded. But there are plenty of possible reasons for that. First of all, there is the fact that until RT does something which is worthy of discipline, he can't really be touched. Secondly, it is not uncommon for people who have made seriously bad decisions to dig their heels in and refuse to accept the mistake. +Jones has a certain amount of personal vanity and I can see that it may be difficult for him to admit readily to errors.
Also, I'm not really up on who is or is not "conservative" these days. But from my knowledge of +Jones, he's hardly open or liberal. He may not count as hardline conservative, but his track record shows him as sympathetic to that line. In passing, the same could be said of the Bishop of Bradford, David James (who was Richard Turnbull's training incumbent in Southampton). He's not CE but most of his natural instincts take him in that direction.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Also, I'm not really up on who is or is not "conservative" these days. But from my knowledge of +Jones, he's hardly open or liberal.
Er...really? I guess this is evidence of how perspectives vary, but as a conservative evangelical myself and having had several reasons to cross paths with +Jones I would say that open or liberal evangelical would sum him up rather well. He certainly doesn't have anything much in common at all with anyone I know who describes themselves as conservative evangelical.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Also, I'm not really up on who is or is not "conservative" these days. But from my knowledge of +Jones, he's hardly open or liberal.
Er...really? I guess this is evidence of how perspectives vary, but as a conservative evangelical myself and having had several reasons to cross paths with +Jones I would say that open or liberal evangelical would sum him up rather well. He certainly doesn't have anything much in common at all with anyone I know who describes themselves as conservative evangelical.
What? The need for conversion? The primacy of Jesus' saving work? Commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority in matters of faith? I think he would probably assent to all those. From what I remember of his writings, in ecclesiological terms he would not be immediately identifiable by free church evos such as yourself as "one of us", but he seems to me to be more conservative than that doyen of "openism", NT Wright (not that NT would demur on any of those tests of evo orthodoxy).
But, as others have pointed out, it seems highly likely that RT was appointed to move Wycliffe "forward" (if that's the word) managerially, rather than theologically, to make the place more like a training college and less like a university. It may well be that, as the Reform talk suggests, RT had his own agenda, but, if so, it seems unlikely that this agenda would be communicated to the Council prior to his appointment.
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
What I don't get in all this is the idea that it's okay to have theological colleges with a strong party affiliation.
To this outsider, it looks very much like a system designed to ensure that catholics and evangelicals are kept apart from each other in training. Does this not lead to unnecessary division in parish life? Surely colleges should teach the broad range of Anglican theology and practice so that even if true broad church ends up being a step too far, at least those of one tradition understand and are familiar with the ways of another.
It looks even worse in a different way for those having to train on local courses. Don't evangelicals training at catholic places and vice versa have to constantly keep their fingers crossed behind their backs and essentially ignore a great deal of what they're taught, because their own traditions don't get a look in? Isn't that highly inefficient?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Gould
Shipmate
# 11701
|
Posted
A friend of mine is studying at an Oxford Theological College (not Wycliffe) and he tells me that not one of the Wycliffe students he has met recently mentions the problems at the college. He puts this down to lack of interest rather than fear. Strange.
--------------------
'If the CofE failed it would be found in my parish' Keble
Posts: 145 | From: Gloucester | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I think that I read (either here or on Fulcrum) that the students had been told not to speak about it to anyone outside the college.
Obviously Custard IS engaged in 'outside' discussion - does he have a special dispensation?
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oscar the Grouch wrote quote:
I do agree that it is surprising that +Jones has pointedly refused to deal with the problem as it has unfolded. But there are plenty of possible reasons for that. First of all, there is the fact that until RT does something which is worthy of discipline, he can't really be touched. Secondly, it is not uncommon for people who have made seriously bad decisions to dig their heels in and refuse to accept the mistake. +Jones has a certain amount of personal vanity and I can see that it may be difficult for him to admit readily to errors.
Oscar - I think you must have missed the discussion that Nightlamp and I were having just a bit further up this thread. The point here is that it was this factor above all others that persuaded me to think of this matter in terms of a management culture change. In that respect, +Jones's actions are exactly and precisely what you would expect to happen. If you arrive as a top manager with a brief to change the culture of a company, you would not do it without the agreement of the chairman. Obviously Wycliffe is not a company, but analogous considerations still apply.
This is not to say that RT may not have made bad decisions. I simply don't know. The point of putting it this way is to point out that culture changes sometimes involve the parting of the ways between people who have genuine differences, however well handled the process may have been.
Evidentially, this business does have all the hallmarks of a culture-change, and that being so I think you do need to consider matters such as this in that light (even if it is only to disagree!).
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
A friend of mine is studying at an Oxford Theological College (not Wycliffe) and he tells me that not one of the Wycliffe students he has met recently mentions the problems at the college. He puts this down to lack of interest rather than fear. Strange.
Not really. Based on my experience of doing a vocational degree, staff matters will be viewed in the context of "how will this affect me completing my degree and being able to move onto my first job". As far as I can tell, everyone has made great efforts to ensure that what's happened behind the scenes doesn't affect the students.
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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think that I read (either here or on Fulcrum) that the students had been told not to speak about it to anyone outside the college.
Obviously Custard IS engaged in 'outside' discussion - does he have a special dispensation?
That was on Fulcrum. Someone reported that they'd been to a church and spoken to Wycliffe students who said they weren't allowed to talk about it.
Last term (or maybe the term before), the Common Room president advised students not to discuss the issue. A week later, after he'd spoken to Richard about it, the advice changed to "say what you want, but be wise", and hasn't changed since.
If there are any Wycliffe students who are saying they aren't allowed to talk about it (which I suppose there might be - more likely they just don't want to), then they are wrong.
quote:
Nightlamp:I am now convinced that the debacle of the staff situation at Wycliffe is mostly down to poor management.
Add the word "change" between poor and management and I'd be inclined to agree. Richard has said that he'd have managed it differently if he was doing it again. Could it have been done better by someone who didn't have the advantage of hindsight? Don't know.
I think Honest Ron Bacardi is right on this one.
quote:
Yet it is RT's stated aim to make Wycliffe more conservative.
Where?
[ 25. September 2007, 10:04: 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.:
I think Honest Ron Bacardi is right on this one.
quote:
Yet it is RT's stated aim to make Wycliffe more conservative.
Where?
In the reform video there is no other way to understand what he was saying.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think that I read (either here or on Fulcrum) that the students had been told not to speak about it to anyone outside the college.
Obviously Custard IS engaged in 'outside' discussion - does he have a special dispensation?
That was on Fulcrum. Someone reported that they'd been to a church and spoken to Wycliffe students who said they weren't allowed to talk about it.
Last term (or maybe the term before), the Common Room president advised students not to discuss the issue. A week later, after he'd spoken to Richard about it, the advice changed to "say what you want, but be wise", and hasn't changed since.
If there are any Wycliffe students who are saying they aren't allowed to talk about it (which I suppose there might be - more likely they just don't want to), then they are wrong.
...
In situations like these, it can be less hassle to tell someone you're not allowed to talk about something rather than you don't want to.
People are more likely to back off when told you're not allowed to talk about something, but may try and press the point when told you don't want to.
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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
er - it's probably just the way you did that last cut'n'paste, Nightlamp. But I wasn't arguing anything about direction. Indeed, I was trying to disentangle elements of process from that.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Nightlamp:<snip>Yet it is RT's stated aim to make Wycliffe more conservative.
Where?
I think it is overstating the case to say that it is RT's stated aim. However, the transcript of RT's address to Reform (and even more the words as spoken in the video of that address, which has about it the feeling of "here I am among friends, I can speak my mind") are suggestive that RT wants to more clearly mark Wycliffe as being conservative evangelical in a way which Reform members would be likely to approve. There is an overall subtext to his address which is 'Who are the true evangelicals?' with the answer 'Reform and those like-minded with them'. His comments about quote:
the nature of liberalism within our own midst
and his statement that quote:
If the liberals seek to capture the theological colleges in order to exercise strategic influence, the first step will be to encourage liberal evangelicals to capture the evangelical colleges.
together with his reference to the "two plus four" evangelical theological colleges and his repeated reference by name to Oak Hill and Wycliffe all tend to suggest that he wants members of Reform at least to see Wycliffe and Oak Hill as upholders of true evangelicalism in contrast with the other four evangelical theological colleges.
One could say that Wycliffe was already like that and the RT is simply making that clear to Reform members, but ISTM that the people who have left Wycliffe are for the most part people who would have wanted to point to important differences between Wycliffe and Oak Hill, or who are significantly critical of the way in which Reform (and others) pursue their agenda and specifically of the covenant. They may also be people who in strictly theological terms are [virtually] indistinguishable from members of Reform - and in that sense this is not a theological disagreement as such. Inasmuch, however, as Conservative Evangelical, Open Evangelical etc. are increasingly becoming party labels rather than theological descriptors it is hard to resist the conclusion that Richard intends Wycliffe to be more firmly identified with Conservative Evangelicalism, and that the staff changes are a product of that determination
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What I don't get in all this is the idea that it's okay to have theological colleges with a strong party affiliation.
To this outsider, it looks very much like a system designed to ensure that catholics and evangelicals are kept apart from each other in training. Does this not lead to unnecessary division in parish life? Surely colleges should teach the broad range of Anglican theology and practice so that even if true broad church ends up being a step too far, at least those of one tradition understand and are familiar with the ways of another.
It looks even worse in a different way for those having to train on local courses. Don't evangelicals training at catholic places and vice versa have to constantly keep their fingers crossed behind their backs and essentially ignore a great deal of what they're taught, because their own traditions don't get a look in? Isn't that highly inefficient?
Like many things in the CofE the situation is the result of historical accident, and is preserved by the lobbying of interested groups who are concerned that distinctives that they regard as important should not be lost to the CofE. Some (all?) of the colleges have an existence wholly independent of the CofE and the only way to 'close' them would be for the church to de-recognise them as appropriate institutions to provide ordination training. IIRC an understanding of the breadth of the C of E is one of the things that training institutions are intended to impart. Courses tend to be much less obviously party linked. IME people from further out on the wings tend to regard them as 'low', 'evangelical', 'liberal', 'catholic' etc. i.e. as belonging more than is comfortable to that part of the church from which the speaker does not come. Most of them IMHO are distinctively Anglican, but not distinctively belonging to any particular party.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What I don't get in all this is the idea that it's okay to have theological colleges with a strong party affiliation.
All CofE theological colleges always were party animals. They were set up to defend the varying churchmanships of their founders, and are probably less partisan now than they were fifty years ago, certainly much less than a century ago.
Once upon a time men seeking a higher education followed by ordination in the Church of England went to Oxford or Cambridge colleges (or later, briefly, to Durham or Kings' London) which were explicitly Anglican foundations. In the nineteenth century, with the rise of secular universities and the increasingly public splits between churchmanships, the theological colleges were started specifically to be partisan. Since then they have mellowed slightly.
quote:
It looks even worse in a different way for those having to train on local courses. Don't evangelicals training at catholic places and vice versa have to constantly keep their fingers crossed behind their backs and essentially ignore a great deal of what they're taught, because their own traditions don't get a look in? Isn't that highly inefficient?
The question doesn't arise because all the non-residential schemes are liberal catholic (he says, partisanly)
--------------------
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:
The question doesn't arise because all the non-residential schemes are liberal catholic (he says, partisanly)
I would say that in the non-residential colleges there is frequently an anti-evangelical feeling but this based purely on hearsay but Charles Read may want to differ on this point...
--------------------
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 Custard.:
If there are any Wycliffe students who are saying they aren't allowed to talk about it (which I suppose there might be - more likely they just don't want to), then they are wrong.
With all due respect Custard, you can't possibly know what individual students have been told/advised. The college has the power of ministerial life or death over you as they get to write the final report which ends with a statement that they either recommend you or don't recommend you to be deaconed.
In that situation if it was conveyed to you that it might be better if you didn't raise your concerns outside the college, you may well listen.
[ 25. September 2007, 12:20: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
quote:
I would say that in the non-residential colleges there is frequently an anti-evangelical feeling but this based purely on hearsay but Charles Read may want to differ on this point...
I certainly do!
In non-residential courses you get who you appoint - to state the bleedin' obvious!
In Norwich, two of the course staff would self-define as evangelical (including me) and one as Anglo-Catholic. I would hesitate to describe my other three colleagues without talking to them about it - I only label the three of us as we have outed ourselves as evangelical / catholic to the student body!
In the region, there are a number of evangelicals teaching on the course. How then do you define an evangelical course programme? We have made preaching from scripture more prominent in the curriculum and increased the apllied Biblical studies elements of the programme. Most who are not evangelical would be happy with these moves, and they were made with full staff agreement across the region - not as a party take-over!
When I taught at Cranmer, we did discuss from time to time what made our academic programme recognisibly evangelical - and one answer was that we prioritised Biblical studies in various ways - not least that everyone had to do at least one Biblical module each year (even if they had a degree in Biblical studies...) - most did more than this of course.
One hears of anti-evangelical atmospheres in some places - I have not seen it in the eastern region - indeed Ridley Hall is in partnership with us (yes, I know that Gerald Bray has recently been rude about Ridley, but in this as in most things he writes about the Church of England he is describing a fantasy world). I suspect these feelings are sometimes generated by students who have had their views challenged in training...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Superslug
Shipmate
# 7024
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
One hears of anti-evangelical atmospheres in some places - I have not seen it in the eastern region - indeed Ridley Hall is in partnership with us (yes, I know that Gerald Bray has recently been rude about Ridley, but in this as in most things he writes about the Church of England he is describing a fantasy world). I suspect these feelings are sometimes generated by students who have had their views challenged in training...
... and just because students get their views challenged in training doesn't mean the courses are anti evangelical. It probably means that the evangelical students as opposed to the student body as a whole, aren't used to having their views challenged and therefore kick up a fuss.
The regional course I am on is very open but very questioning of all practice and theology. It just makes it a rigorous course which for me makes it extremely interesting.
--------------------
I was 'educated' in the UK in the 70s and early 80s. Therefore, please feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation. I need to know!
Posts: 464 | From: Hessle, East Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
quote:
I would say that in the non-residential colleges there is frequently an anti-evangelical feeling but this based purely on hearsay but Charles Read may want to differ on this point...
One hears of anti-evangelical atmospheres in some places - I have not seen it in the eastern region - indeed Ridley Hall is in partnership with us (yes, I know that Gerald Bray has recently been rude about Ridley, but in this as in most things he writes about the Church of England he is describing a fantasy world). I suspect these feelings are sometimes generated by students who have had their views challenged in training...
Interesting; I had simply assumed from the name that Ridley was an evangelical establishment (unless of course it was named in a fit of SSPP -like mischievousness, rather like the latter's "Lambeth" incense and "Latimer" votive candle stand.) Is this not so?
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Charles, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Given that applicants for regional courses don't have a choice about where they train, it would seem strange if regional courses were either not standardised or did not all teach the full breadth of Anglicanism without bias. I say that because if regional course trainees were being prevented from studying the tradition from which they come or to which they are called, I can't see why college applicants should be allowed to do so.
Are you saying that some regional courses have evangelical, some liberal, and some catholic biases in which case if you're in the wrong place that's just tough?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
if regional course trainees were being prevented from studying the tradition from which they come or to which they are called, I can't see why college applicants should be allowed to do so.
Absolutely.
The problem though is that the colleges are autonomous foundations and offer what they want to offer. As I pointed out earlier though, a number of college students attend the college nearest home rather than the one that suits their church person ship and I think that may start to happen more.
I'd shut them all down and start again - which is one of many reasons I'll never be put in charge! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
If there are any Wycliffe students who are saying they aren't allowed to talk about it (which I suppose there might be - more likely they just don't want to), then they are wrong.
With all due respect Custard, you can't possibly know what individual students have been told/advised. The college has the power of ministerial life or death over you as they get to write the final report which ends with a statement that they either recommend you or don't recommend you to be deaconed.
In that situation if it was conveyed to you that it might be better if you didn't raise your concerns outside the college, you may well listen.
Going back to Custard's orginal post:
quote:
Last term (or maybe the term before), the Common Room president advised students not to discuss the issue. A week later, after he'd spoken to Richard about it, the advice changed to "say what you want, but be wise", and hasn't changed since.
Arrietty's post supports my comment that some students have opted to tell others that they're not allowed to talk about it as an easy way of dealing with things. Given the potential consequences of saying the wrong thing, many are going to try and keep well out of it.
One person's version of "saying what they like while being wise" might be someone else's "what on earth were you doing spouting off that piece of crap"?!
And all any student in these circumstances knows is what's been said in the public announcements. Students asking for advice privately about what do when asked may be told completely different things depending on who they ask.
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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
I had simply assumed from the name that Ridley was an evangelical establishment (
It is.
Did anyone say it wasn't?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
It doesn't help the speculation when some from WH (who, they keep telling us, have more knowledge on this matters) overstate their case. One very nearly got into a libel situation with Stephen Bates over on Thinking Anglicans , until he did the decent thing and ejected from the debate...
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
