|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
I don't know that much about Oak Hill other than the usual stereotype. (I know some people who are training there and none of them have seven heads, they all seem pretty normal people to me.)
But even so, I think it's fairly safe to say that Wycliffe is not about to turn into Oak Hill on Thames. Our biggest constituency is the HTB/New Wine type networks. Very few so far if any have been siphoned off by St Paul's centre because they are doing something very specific which by no means fits all charismatic ordinands. Charismatics far outnumber conservatives here, and there are a number of more high church students too. There are also several liberal/open evangelicals of varying hues and none of them have so far been stoned. The number of women in training here is increasing. More importantly, all of these factors are in keeping and not in opposition to what the principal of Wycliffe has said he wants Wycliffe to be.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
I think my beef with it becoming "oak hill" like is that that is one narrow band of evangelical - which Im sure oak hill does rather well. I rather liked that Wycliffe was a mix of different types - exposing people to differing styles of church rather than just one way of doing things, yet still remaining evangelical.
Hi All! Long time no post.
Just a quickie in response to the old chestnut that Oak Hill is so narrow and up its own bum that students only get one narrow and exclusive view of anything. I trained at Oak Hill, and while I was there I did a year long church placement at a charismatic church and a 18 month placement at a liberal catholic church. I was frequently give stuff to read which was liberal, catholic, open etc etc etc. We had students from all over the world, and many denominations, with many views. It was also much more academically rigorous and stretching than my undergraduate degree.
Cheers!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
But even so, I think it's fairly safe to say that Wycliffe is not about to turn into Oak Hill on Thames.
Why not? in three years time as the change over of staff continues and becomes more conservative It is going to attact people of a similar ilk.
Charismatics, Opens will think Ridley, Durham, etc are better places and Bishops will probably start encouraging people to go to those places.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
But even so, I think it's fairly safe to say that Wycliffe is not about to turn into Oak Hill on Thames.
Why not?
Er... because the principal is in favour of the ordination of women, would be one major reason.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Because the new staff aren't significantly more conservative than the old ones, and are a mix reflecting the breadth of evangelicalism?
Because the clear majority at college is charismatic, and the general style is charismatic (though generally friendly to non-charistmatics like me)?
Reflecting on it, the one thing that could make it more like Oak Hill would be if these silly news stories meant that only conservatives came here. As far as I can tell, that's the only reason for Oak Hill being seen as narrow (despite excellent inspection reports) - because almost all the people going there are from conservative evangelical backgrounds.
So if you want to stop Wycliffe becoming like that (or Oak Hill being thought to be like that), the best thing to do is to send a broader range of people there. Or in the case of Wycliffe, to make sure that a broad range of people keeps coming here.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fermat
Shipmate
# 4894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
There's an official statement coming out some time in the next couple of days.
Custard - do you know if this official statement emerged? If so, is it link-able to?
Continued ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for all at Wycliffe.
Posts: 1008 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Oxford University is a pretty liberal institution these days. It will be all for freedom of speech and religion, but it will look very closely at the University status of a Permanent Private Hall which appoints staff to teach that women should be subordinated to men because of their gender, or which appoints as Vice Principal a man who has published his considered opinion that "women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation".
The University has a more than usually powerful commitment to equal opportunities, including a Personnel and Equal Opportunities Pro Vice Chancellor.
The Council (which has replaced the Hebdomadal Council and the General Board of the Faculties) has published a "mission" commitment that:
- The University will work to remove any barriers which might deter people of the highest quality from applying to Oxford, either as staff or students.
- The University will provide an inclusive environment for work and study through embedding diversity and equal opportunities in all areas of its activities, to ensure that staff and students experience a consistently inclusive and supportive environment to assist them in reaching their full potential.
Wycliffe Hall might be able to satisfy these objectives, but it is going to have quite a lot of explaining to do first.
I'm amazed that it has chosen, instead, to say nothing at all. Complaints about a poor or badly informed press don't sound very convincing in these circumstances.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
One might argue that Wycliffe Hall is more supportive of the ministry of women than the Roman Catholic Church which has more PPHs!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
One might argue that Wycliffe Hall is more supportive of the ministry of women than the Roman Catholic Church which has more PPHs!
That is a very good point. But I think there is a difference.
Oxford can't change the policies of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic Church will not ordain women. Some of the Unversity people, however, may think it more offensive that the Vice Principal of an institution training ordinands for a church which does ordain women discourages women from ordination or from taking positions canonically open to them simply because they are women.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
On the statement: I could be wrong, but I don't think it is coming out due to ongoing disciplinary action within college.
On OoW and stuff:
- Wycliffe can't discriminate for or against staff on the basis of their views on OoW. To say that someone should not be appointed to a post because of those views is itself discriminatory.
- The new vice-principal has signed something saying he's committed to training women for ordination and leadership in the C of E
Maybe as a college we're more open than some here - we still allow people to hold either of the "two integrities", or somewhere in between. But the staff here will train whatever students come here to the best of their ability.
Oh, and "which appoints staff to teach that women should be subordinated to men because of their gender" is miles off base, and if it hadn't been in a boolean or statement is quite possibly libellous. Dr Vibert was appointed to train people to preach, not to espouse views on gender which aren't even his!
[ 21. May 2007, 12:16: 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
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Oh, and "which appoints staff to teach that women should be subordinated to men because of their gender" is miles off base, and if it hadn't been in a boolean or statement is quite possibly libellous. Dr Vibert was appointed to train people to preach, not to espouse views on gender which aren't even his!
This would be the same Simon Vibert as this:
"He co-wrote, with the Revd Dr Mark Burkill and the Revd Dr David Peterson, a Latimer Trust paper that argued that a woman on her own should not teach men about faith or lead a congregation (Ministry Work Group Statement concerning the ministry of women in the Church today - see especially point 7): http://www.latimertrust.org/download/66comment.pdf"
That isn't to deny that his role at Wycliffe has a somewhat different focus, but it's slightly disingenuous to try to suggest that he doesn't have fairly conservative views on the role of women.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I agree that he has conversative views on women. But I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.
What happened to two integrities? The fact is that he has clearly stated that he is happy to be involved in the training of women for the Anglican ordained ministry. Whether he himself would seek ordination if he was an unordained woman is completely irrelevant.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.
ISTM that the difference between these two statements is pretty academic to a woman who is following a calling which she believes is to be a 'vicar' in parish ministry (let alone someone who in time might be a rural dean, archdeacon, dean or even (in the fullness of time) a bishop). quote:
The VP doesn't personally support me in this leadership role because he believes I should be subordinated to a man because of my gender.
or quote:
The VP doesn't personally support me in this leadership role because he believes I should subordinate myself to a man because of my gender.
What is the real substantial difference in practice between those two statements?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
What exists at Wycliffe is a clear recognition that evangelicals can and do disagree on various issues. The teaching role of women in the church and the use of ecstatic gifts are two of those issues.
What also exists is a recognition that it is important to recognise the intergrity of other people's points of view, and generally we're fairly good at that. So we discuss issues like that, and agree to disagree, and respect that the other people are also Christians and are also seeking to follow God as best they can, and we try not to judge other people.
So the people here who disagree with the OoW accept the women here, accept that they are genuinely trying to follow God's calling on their lives and do their best to support them in it. And the people who think that there should be no difference between the roles of men and women in the church accept those who disagree, and accept that they disagree because they are seeking to follow Christ, and respect them for it. Most of the time anyway.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all manage to do the same on this thread?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I agree that he has conversative views on women. But I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.
I don't think his own words support this rather nice distinction.
His Latimer Trust paper says: "We agree on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation."
He says "should not be admitted" - not "should not submit herself".
His position seems even clearer when you look at the passage from 1 Tim 2:11-12 which he references: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Ugh. Don't misunderstand me - I accept he's entitled to his views. But others are entitled to hold them up and to hold him to account for them.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Surely, St Stephen's House also has a mixture of pro- and anti- women priest lecturers, without it being suggested it would lose its Oxford PPH status? Some opponents of evangelicalism are being rather biased in their analysis over this incident.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Surely, St Stephen's House also has a mixture of pro- and anti- women priest lecturers, without it being suggested it would lose its Oxford PPH status? Some opponents of evangelicalism are being rather biased in their analysis over this incident.
Almost certainly; but that was not the issue that I was picking up on. Rather that the comment which drew this response:
"Oh, and "which appoints staff to teach that women should be subordinated to men because of their gender" is miles off base...Dr Vibert was appointed to train people to preach, not to espouse views on gender which aren't even his!"
wasn't necessarily that far off base.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Wycliffe doesn't appoint staff to teach any particular view on gender. The expectation (AFAICT) is that staff reach their own opinion, based on what they think the Bible says. If asked for their opinion, they give it and are usually clear that there are a range of views which can be held with integrity.
The exception is when we are specifically discussing gender, when we get a variety of speakers with different views to put their own points of view across. This year, we had to import a speaker to discuss and defend the position that women shouldn't teach men, as well as another speaker we imported who defended the view that women couldn't consecrate bread and wine.
Debate is healthy, when done lovingly.
[ 21. May 2007, 13:52: 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
bending over backwards to be fair to the anti-woman position, saying that a woman should not be the regular teachers in a church is not quite the same as sayign that women should be subordinate to men because of their gender.
There are at least some evangelicals (I have no idea is Mr Vibert is one of them) who take that line who will accept ordained women as members of a team, but not as the leader of a team. There are churches where women can lead services and preside at Communion, but not preach in the main sermon. (I think that is Terry Virgo's line, not that he is an Anglican)
Taking this position does not neccessarily involve believing that married women should be subject to their husbands (which you could make an argument for from the Bible and which the headship-freaks in the USA seem to belive) and certainly not that women in general should be subject to men in general (which cannot be argued from the Bible, though some Christians seem to belive it)
From what is said here we have no evidence that Mr Vibert thinks it is wrong for women to have political power over men, or to be economically independent of men.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
bending over backwards to be fair to the anti-woman position, saying that a woman should not be the regular teachers in a church is not quite the same as sayign that women should be subordinate to men because of their gender.
Isn't it? Vibert writes "women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation." Men should. So the regular teaching and leadership of the congregation is left to men - because of their gender. Why doesn't that leave the women in the congregation subordinate to men? Because of their gender?
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Presumably Mr (Dr?) Vibert will be expected to allow women in his preaching classes; women who will be, in due course, leading congregations which include men.
How will he be able to do this in good faith?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Why doesn't that leave the women in the congregation subordinate to men? Because of their gender?
It does. But only in the congregation, not neccessarily out of it. (And there are some headship-types who do seem to think that women in general should be subject to men in general.)
Though it does model a general subjection of women to men, (if not quite as harshly as an all-male celibate priesthood, or veiling the face) and aso might tend to reproduce that in society, even if unintentionally.
I was bending over backwards to be fair.
It is probably impossible to continue this aspect of the conversation without ending up inside a dead horse.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
The point is that Dr Vibert's job is going to be to train people to preach, and he's happy to train both women and men to preach, whatever his personal views of the role of women within the church.
[ 21. May 2007, 19:38: 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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Perhaps he figures that if these women are going to teach congregations, it's his duty to help them do so as well as possible.
But surely it must be difficult for a woman who is training for ordination to have their preaching assessed by someone who, they are aware, doesn't believe that they should be doing it. Preaching is such a personal thing - you put so much of yourself into it that you are very vulnerable to criticism (even when it is justified). If you suspect that the person overseeing you is unjustly biased against you because of your gender, it is likely to make you feel even more vulnerable, isn't it?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
How will he be able to do this in good faith?
Presumably if he accepts the two integrities argument and acknowledges that it's not his job to ensure that everyone under his tutelage has exactly the same theology as him this will not be too difficult. I am sure that many a college lecturer thinks that many of their students are misguided in all kinds of ways! (My tutors certainly must)
Just for the record - when Simon Vibert was appointed, he and the principal made a statement saying that Wycliffe should and will continue to be a place where men and women can train for ordination, and anyone who comes here must accept both that and the fact that women will preach in chapel and in sermon classes (and preside at communion, but IME not many conservatives are that bothered about that).
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Perhaps he figures that if these women are going to teach congregations, it's his duty to help them do so as well as possible.
But surely it must be difficult for a woman who is training for ordination to have their preaching assessed by someone who, they are aware, doesn't believe that they should be doing it. Preaching is such a personal thing - you put so much of yourself into it that you are very vulnerable to criticism (even when it is justified). If you suspect that the person overseeing you is unjustly biased against you because of your gender, it is likely to make you feel even more vulnerable, isn't it?
I did my training in a place where a number of denominations train together and where the staff is more liberal than conservative. My denomination has been ordaining women since the 1970s, but some of my female colleagues had tutorials with a tutor who does not believe that women should preach to mixed groups or be in leadership over men. My colleagues found it extremely difficult and frustrating. From their stories, I didn't feel that they got a fair shake in those tutorials or those particular modules. (I am female but didn't have any tutors who don't believe in women in leadership.)
The only thing to be said, I suppose, is that during the course of one's ministry, one will come across those who don't believe in female ministers.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
What I would observe is that having both a principal and Vice principal both of who personally object to female priests is a high risk stragegy for the college .
To make things worse the vice-principal whose focus is on preaching doesn't believe he should listen to women preaching. How on earth he could his theological view yet teach preaching to women with out hypocrisy is a mystery. Maybe he will put cotton wool in his ears whenever a woman preaches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
If Father Vibert has any sense, he'll take the line, with himself and with others, that he's training those in the College to fulfill the tasks which come with being canonically ordained within the Church of England.
Would anyone disagree if the preaching tutor were to be from another denomination, say, Orthodoxy (and I have no idea about how much Our Bearded Brethren and Sistren preach)? Who probably didn't think even the men were really going to be priests? I doubt it.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
In theory that kind of mental compartmentalization may be feasible. In practice, however, it just doesn't work. If you believe that members of a group you are teaching should not do what they are supposed to be learning to do, you cannot help conveying this.
St Stephen's House admits female ordinands (and has done for years) despite a goodly number of students and staff who do not accept women in priest's orders.
The particular way of looking at it there (as I understand it) is to say that all its ordinands are being prepared to be ordained deacon, and that preparation for priestly ministry will be done in their title parishes. Nonetheless,
women have, at least in past years, had an unnecessarily tough time of it at Staggers. When I last visited, things seemed much happier.
I think Wycliffe is fooling itself if it thinks that Dr Vibert can teach homiletics to women as he does to men; I would be surprised to hear that Dr Vibert himself believed that he could.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Would anyone disagree if the preaching tutor were to be from another denomination, say, Orthodoxy
Has this ever happened or are you putting up a non-existent straw man?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I've come across a Benedictine monk teaching Anglicans, Methodists and URC so it does happen.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
It happens all the time in Australia, where the Anglicans, RCs and Unitings tend to be taught together in ecumenical institutions - in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and, I think, Perth. So an Anglican woman could be taught by a Catholic priest in preparation for a priestly ordination which he would presumably not regard as 'valid' by virtue of both her gender and her communion. Indeed some would say that Anglican women ordinands are likely to be better treated by such Catholics than by some of their male counterparts in the ... non-ecumenical colleges.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've come across a Benedictine monk teaching Anglicans, Methodists and URC so it does happen.
But (and I don't know if this is the case):
a) Many Catholics I know, including priests, believe that women should be priests even if the officialdom doesn't.
b) I think to be equivalent in terms of the tradition, your Benedictine would have to be someone who had significant personal opposition to Protestant clerical orders and was training these individuals to preside at the eucharist.
I was taught that if I have significant personal 'baggage' with an issue that it's best referred to a colleague. I think that the same thing has to be said with trying to teach someone something that you think that they shouldn't be doing. What happened with my colleagues in the tutorial was that they were allowed to speak, but the tutor would simply listen, not respond, and move on to another person. Like good rats in an experiment, my female colleagues finally decided that speaking was too much of a frustration and were silent.
AAUI, preaching is not a significant part of the Orthodox tradition although I know there are rogue elements that are trying to flag up preaching as valuable.
[ 22. May 2007, 07:57: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
As an Anglican ordinand, I've been taught by a Jesuit, a Dominican and an Orthodox monk. None of them seemed to have a problem with the fact they wouldn't even recognise my orders if/when I get ordained. They did their job, which was to teach me, and they did it well.
Why don't we wait and see whether Dr Vibert manages to do the same with preaching?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What I would observe is that having both a principal and Vice principal both of who personally object to female priests is a high risk stragegy for the college .
To repeat myself, the principal does not object to women's ordination. He supported my wife when she was going through the selection process, and personally fought her corner when she had some difficulties.
At the end of the day I think it boils down to whether one accepts the notion of two integrities. You can be wrong with integrity. The question is, whether Simon Vibert being wrong (as I see it) will of necessity materially harm his ability to do his job. There is no absolute reason to suppose so - only anecdotal evidence that some people who oppose women's ordination give women ordinands a raw deal. But the fact that plenty of people opposed to the ordination of women and protestants and people with erroneous views about all and sundry train said people seems to suggest that the problem is only a possible and not a necessary one. The difference is between being a dickhead and being a nice person - not between being pro- or anti-OoW theologically.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
When I was preparing for ordination, I did most of my Systematics and all my moral theology at a Jesuit seminary. I was also the only female in a seminar there on the Theology of Priestly Ministry. However all my instructors and the vast majority of the scholastics in those classes supported my vocation. When the day came for the discussion of women's ordination to take place in the seminar, Fr. O'D stepped aside and a female lay worker from the Shrine of St Anthony took the seminar.
At the same time, I studied homiletics with Baptist preachers who enthusiastically affirmed womens' vocation to preach. If they had not, they would not have been appointed to teach in a School of Theology which, from its foundation, had supported the ordination of women. (It was, in case you were wondering, Methodist).
I also served as Seminarian in a church where women were not allowed to preach, preside, or proclaim the Gospel. I would not wish my experience there on others.
We're not talking now about someone dropped in from outside (Archimandrite's hypothetical beardie) to teach. We're talking about the vice-principal of a Hall which has, in my memory, been a good place for women to train. All my experience suggests that their path will now be more difficult.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I am still of the opinion that Wycliffe hall are shooting themselves in the foot.
--------------------
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
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I am still of the opinion that Wycliffe hall are shooting themselves in the foot.
Has this ever happened or are you putting up a non-existent straw foot?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I am still of the opinion that Wycliffe hall are shooting themselves in the foot.
Has this ever happened or are you putting up a non-existent straw foot?
If the foot is straw, it must have some actuality, if only of a symbolic nature...
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can I point out that there is a stance in the Roman Catholic Church which though technically anti-woman ordination does not this as part of their personal integrity. They hold that as long as the pope does not agree to women's ordination then it is wrong for women to be ordained.
Before you think that is cop out. Let me be clear I know someone who expressed that view. Gender was not central matter for ordination and she was prepared to take the Vatican's line in practice. She also would find missing Sunday Mass more problematic than women's ordination if the Pope decides. It is not a doctrinal issue for her.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I agree that he has conversative views on women. But I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.
I don't think his own words support this rather nice distinction.
His Latimer Trust paper says: "We agree on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation."
He says "should not be admitted" - not "should not submit herself".
His position seems even clearer when you look at the passage from 1 Tim 2:11-12 which he references: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Ugh. Don't misunderstand me - I accept he's entitled to his views. But others are entitled to hold them up and to hold him to account for them.
Vibert teaches within the Faculty of Theology of the University - how does he square his view with the fact that the Regius Professor of Divinity within that faculty is a woman?
--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.
Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
No he doesn't. Wycliffe and the faculty of Theology are separate and overlapping. Wycliffe's preaching training is not done as part of the theology faculty, though much of their academic teaching is.
Besides which, as I argued here , the only consistent response for someone who objects to female authority on Biblical grounds who finds a woman in authority over them is to submit to her.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
About women teaching and/or preaching: is there not a bit of encouraging them to learn and practise because women can be part of the teaching in churches that have women teaching women? So they would need to be as well taught and encouraged themselves as men would, and being dissed in any way wouldn't be acceptable.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Would anyone disagree if the preaching tutor were to be from another denomination, say, Orthodoxy
Has this ever happened or are you putting up a non-existent straw man?
When I was at St John's, Durham in the 1970s there were Presbyterians (and I think Methodists though I can't remember any offhand) on the teaching staff at Cranmer Hall, and at least one Orthodox research student who did some tutorial work. Anglican Ordination candidates were also sometimes taught jointly with both Roman Catholics and Methodists from other institutions.
I do not think the place has got any less ecumenical since. The current Principal is a Methodist.
I believe there is some academic connection between Anglican ordination courses in Cambridge and the Orthodox Study Centre there.
And in both Durham and Cambridge ordination candidates commonly take University courses which might be taught by Christians of any denomination, or by non-Christians.
I'm sure something similar goes for most of the other colleges (I know that Queens is formally multi-denominational and that Trinity, Wycliffe, and Oak Hill all advertise themselves to non-Anglican students)
So I'd imagine that Anglican ordination candidates are quite often taught by people of other denominations, and at least occasionally by Orthodox.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Certainly I was taught by an Orthodox priest, when at Cranmer Hall in the 80s, the wonderful Fr Dragas. Some of the things he taught me shape my priestly ministry to this day.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Besides which, as I argued here , the only consistent response for someone who objects to female authority on Biblical grounds who finds a woman in authority over them is to submit to her.
So when Eve persuaded Adam to eat of the fruit, Adam was right to submit to her? Even though God then held Adam responsible? Adam was right to tell God it was Eve's fault? Or do you think Paul chose the wrong example to illustrate his point?
I don't for a moment think that, when I find my self with an unscriptural authority over me, my only choice is to submit to them. There are times when I should - eg. ungodly civil authorites - and times when I should not - eg. heretics leading churches. Those who disagree with the OoW can legitemately take different views on the matter.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Cranmer is as ecumenical as Ken remembers from his distant student days (!) - more so in fact as
1. the principal of the whole college (St John's) is a Methodist - an excellent person as well
2. there are more Methodists than there used to be in training there
3. all courses, meals and worship are shared Anglican / Methodist - i.e. shared common life
4. there was until last summer a house church / New Church leader full time on the staff of Cranmer - one of his congregation still teaches there
5. there is good co-operation with the Roman Catholic seminary at Ushaw and all degrees are joint with them, but there is limited shared teaching at undergrad level - but there is mort than there used to be.
Cambridge has a federation of colleges (2x Anglican, 1 each x Methodist and URC) and courses (mine is one - it's Anglican, but ERMC is URC / Meth / Anglican. So shared learnuing and some shared worghip. from Sept, some shared life too.
Queens is Anglican / Meth / URC shared life, learning and worship.
So... there's a lot of it about (ecumenical training) but we are straying off topic:
a) is ecumenical training a good parallel to what is alleged about Dr Vibert's ability to teach preaching to women?
b) is even that relevant to the OP - what is happening at WH?
c) can you teach preaching anyway? (Oops, another thread...)
--------------------
"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:
So... there's a lot of it about (ecumenical training) but we are straying off topic:
a) is ecumenical training a good parallel to what is alleged about Dr Vibert's ability to teach preaching to women?
b) is even that relevant to the OP - what is happening at WH?
c) can you teach preaching anyway? (Oops, another thread...)
I'm glad Charles posted this. Elsewhere quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The point is that Dr Vibert's job is going to be to train people to preach, and he's happy to train both women and men to preach, whatever his personal views of the role of women within the church.
IMHO it is not his appointment to teach students to preach which is the major issue, it is his 'flagship' role as Vice Principal where students (and particularly the women, given his views) need to have confidence in him. Presumably (contra Custard's post) there must be some parts of the job which are about rather more than teaching people to preach (unless Vice Principal is simply an honorific sinecure)
Incidentally, is he Dr. Vibert? Crockford and the Church Times don't mention it. I think that title has only crept in on this page of the thread.
[ 22. May 2007, 11:25: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fermat
Shipmate
# 4894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Cambridge has a federation of colleges (2x Anglican, 1 each x Methodist and URC) and courses
And an RC college for women, and the Institute for Orthdox Christian Studies. Ecumenism rocks in Cambridge theological education ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1008 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
