|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
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.
From his own church website:
...Simon completed his ordination training at Oak Hill College. Further study has involved a M.Th. in New Testament from Glasgow University, and a D.Min from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando Florida. The subject of his thesis was the teaching of Dr. John Piper.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Thanks - I didn't think to look there and my Crockford is out of date.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
quote:
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
Apologies to Fermat (and others in the CTF) - as an associate staff member I should know better! I will raid the Pastoral Studies discipline cupboard for a whip and a hair shirt...
--------------------
"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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Apologies to Fermat (and others in the CTF) - as an associate staff member I should know better! I will raid the Pastoral Studies discipline cupboard for a whip and a hair shirt...
So Opus Dei are in the CTF as well now?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fermat
Shipmate
# 4894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Apologies to Fermat (and others in the CTF) - as an associate staff member I should know better! I will raid the Pastoral Studies discipline cupboard for a whip and a hair shirt...
No apology necessary, Charles. Though don't let that keep you from the whips and hair shirts ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 1008 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Cherwell's version of the story is now online. (As Cherwell seems to be 'down' at the moment here is Google's cache - I don't know how long this link is good for.) They name the departing members of staff as: Geoffrey Maughan - Director of Pastoral Studies, Philip Johnston - Director of Studies, Adrian Turnbull - tutor in liturgy, Krish Kandiah - tutor in evangelism, David Wenham - tutor in New Testament.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Of whom three are full time (though one with the wrong name), one is part time at Wycliffe and one is not leaving as far as I know...
It's worth mentioning that Cherwell work to such a high standard that they spelt Richard's name wrong more often that not in the print version (they had "Turnball") and they still can't get the name of our liturgy tutor right.
--------------------
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
To lose almost a third of a colleges full time staff could seem to be a bit careless.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Well it seems that the staff at the college agree with me that the new vice-principal of the college is 'highly unsuitable for the job'.
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Perhaps the Dean of St Albans should launch an international campaign to get the new Vice Principal of Wycliffe Hall replaced?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Perhaps the Dean of St Albans should launch an international campaign to get the new Vice Principal of Wycliffe Hall replaced?
By the evidence of this thread someone already has.
There may well be something nassty in the woodshed but nothing thats come out yet seems to deserve quite the unpleasant reaction of the Times, or of some posters here.
The Cherwell article (which is substantially the same as the other ones quoted, I wonder who is copying who?) keeps up the best traditions of polemical student journalism by including mutually contradictory paragraphs back-to-back:
quote:
From September 2007, Wycliffe Hall will have lost all its best loved and most respected staff members. Turnbull will replace them all with conservative evangelicals. More than half the teaching staff has resigned this year. Most will not be replaced in time for the opening of the academic year 2007-8. The College will not be capable of teaching its regular curriculum.”
Since Turnbull’s appointment in April 2005, Geoffrey Maughan has resigned as Director of Pastoral Studies, Philip Johnston as Director of Studies, Adrian Turnbull as tutor in liturgy, Krish Kandiah as tutor in evangelism and David Wenham as tutor in the New Testament.
Wenham is planning to leave Oxford this Autumn to work at a college in Bristol, ending a 25 year association with Wycliffe Hall. He refused to reveal his reasons for resigning. “Other than confirming that I resigned as Vice President, I cannot comment any further,” he said.
Philip Johnston confirmed that he had resigned from the College management staff but that he was still a tutor in college.
Which is it. "More than half the teaching staff" this year? (Presumably that would be at least seven academics, twelve if you count the associates) Or the four mentioned (only four if Johnston is still teaching as the next paragraph says) since 2005?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Interesting link provided on the Fulcrum (Open Evangelical) website.
Brief 'address' given by Richard Turnbull at the Reform conference in 2006.
See here.
Pretty clear that he see's his role to protect Wycliffe against those nasty 'liberal evangelicals' and to align Wycliffe with Oakhill as one of the only two 'true' evangelical colleges.
The others are relagated to a simple '+4' status.
Custard,
I admire your support of Rev. Turnbull and wouldn't expect anything less from one who sides with his 'understanding' of evangelicalism, but I would say this video adds some 'fuel' to the original allegations.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well, that does cast an interesting light on things, doesn't it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Brief 'address' given by Richard Turnbull at the Reform conference in 2006.
See here.but I would say this video adds some 'fuel' to the original allegations.
I would concur.
I wonder what it sounds like to people who agree with him. Because it sounds combatative to me; it sounds like he wants to get rid of catholics and 'liberals' (I'm assuming that 'liberals' are anyone who does not meet his four markers.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
As a Catholic, I found his talk rather interesting. There was much in there to admire, even if one doesn't agree with all of his thinking.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
It is a deeply worrying video - very nasty!
Quite apart from my astonishment that someone in his position could be so poor at public speaking, what he revealed was potentially very damaging.
It is clear that he sees himself as being at the vanguard of some Great Cause to protect "True Evangelicalism" from those Nasty Libruls (which seems to include evangelicals who don't agree with him). If he hasn't got an Agenda, then I'd like to meet someone who has. He made his strategy very clear: transform WH into a twin sister of Oak Hill and then train people to "take over" the Church of England for "True Evangelicalism".
It is within the context of this strategy that his appointment of Viberts has to be seen. He is not really interested in "balance" (except as a veneer to cover his real intents); he really does want to take WH into the heart of Con Evo land.
Oh - and the dismissive sneering attitude towards Nasty Libruls tells you all you need to know about the kind of attitude he is likely to foster among ordinands at WH. Forget any idea of working together or seeking understanding - Nasty Libruls are the enemy and don't you forget it!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Jeez, that's frightening innit? Strategic placements....capturing colleges. Two plus four - i.e. the four don't even merit mentioning because they're not the proper sort of Madrassa (yet).
The link is to Reform's website. Given that the link is now being discussed here and elsewhere one wonders whether it'll be yanked soon. It's not a Mpeg or some format which can be downloaded for posterity (least not by an eedjit like me) - anybody know how to make sure it doesn't just disappear?
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
The link is to Reform's website. Given that the link is now being discussed here and elsewhere one wonders whether it'll be yanked soon. It's not a Mpeg or some format which can be downloaded for posterity (least not by an eedjit like me) - anybody know how to make sure it doesn't just disappear?
You can record the audio using one of the many available free software packages that records whatever is being processed through your computer sound card. Try here (www.freedownloadscenter.com/Search/sound_recorder.html). You should then be able to save it as mpeg. I've got one at home so could do it later, but can't do it at work.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
That's vitriolic rubbish Oscar, and you know it.
I can't remember last time I came across someone quite so poor at understanding something in the context in which it was given.
He was quite clearly speaking to a group who pretty much only send their ordinands to Oak Hill, with an agenda to maintain the distinctives of historic evangelicalism (which is what his PhD is in) within the Church of England. As far as they are concerned, Oak Hill is the paradigmatically good theological college (mainly because it's got the best preaching training). Incidentally, it also got excellent inspection reports last time round.
Have you heard Richard speak at length about his vision for Wycliffe? I have (at least twice), in which he is very clear about aiming to be an international centre for evangelical theology (which Oak Hill isn't), as well as continuing to train people from across the spectrum of evangelicalism, which Oak Hill doesn't. He is much more friendly to charismatics than Oak Hill.
Sean may have more to say on this - he's from a very different bit of evangelicalism to me.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I think it's worth saying that I have sent to Wycliffe and received back a number of ordinands (male and female) over the past few years. I have two more coming at Petertide. None of them show any evidence of being anything other than completely straightforward evangelicals (some charismatic and some non-charismatic). So there is no evidence as yet that the institution is influencing people to be become more sectarian, less Anglican, or more fundamentalist.
Clearly the reforms at Wycliffe are a fait accompli - the jury will be out to see what effect it has on the ordinands produced in the future.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I think it's worth saying that I have sent to Wycliffe and received back a number of ordinands (male and female) over the past few years. I have two more coming at Petertide. None of them show any evidence of being anything other than completely straightforward evangelicals (some charismatic and some non-charismatic). So there is no evidence as yet that the institution is influencing people to be become more sectarian, less Anglican, or more fundamentalist.
Clearly the reforms at Wycliffe are a fait accompli - the jury will be out to see what effect it has on the ordinands produced in the future.
...do you mean:
"The reforms at Wycliffe are a fait accompli",
or
"Reform as Wycliffe is a fait accompli"?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Who gets invited to speak at Reform conferences, anyway? Do they invite eminent persons from the wider Anglican, or at least evangelical scene, or do you have to be one of the boys, so to speak.
Because if the latter then having a principal and vice-principal who are both Reform is going to be, shall we say, interesting...
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
That's vitriolic rubbish Oscar, and you know it.
I can't remember last time I came across someone quite so poor at understanding something in the context in which it was given.
Sorry, Custard, but I think you are the one who needs to remove the blinkers from their eyes.
I am well aware of the context in which he was speaking (ie - Reform conference). But that is what makes what he said so interesting. Being "among friends" it would appear that he didn't feel the need to obscure his meaning. What he said was very plain. Now this means one of two things:
a) He really meant what he clearly said (especially about WH as being closely aligned with Oak Hill)
b) He was fibbing in order to make the Reform people like him.
Either option is not good.
One final point that alarmed me was his suggestion that the good people of Reform give 10% of their Parish Share to WH and Oak Hill. Although he was careful not to be too specific about this, the clear indication (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) was that he was suggesting that Reform churches should withhold this amount from Parish Share in order to give it to the colleges.
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something rather bizarre about the principal of an Anglican theological college encouraging people to withdraw payment of Parish Share to their diocese?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Charles Read: quote:
c) can you teach preaching anyway?
When I was at Cranmer we were taught preaching by the excellent Michael WiIlliams. Just the other day I was reflecting on how apposite his methods were (and wishing that some of my fellow clergy had benefitted from them).
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Who gets invited to speak at Reform conferences, anyway? Do they invite eminent persons from the wider Anglican, or at least evangelical scene, or do you have to be one of the boys, so to speak.
Because if the latter then having a principal and vice-principal who are both Reform is going to be, shall we say, interesting...
Well, I've never been invited, nor am likely to... (No tears shed)
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something rather bizarre about the principal of an Anglican theological college encouraging people to withdraw payment of Parish Share to their diocese?
And give it their college surely at the very least a bit inappropriate. I really hated that 2 + 4 crap.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Jeez Custard, what are they putting in your food over there?
That was as singularly damning a speech as one could imagine coming from somebody in a University context and whose staff and student body have a reasonable breadth of background and experience.
Saying that it was essentially a sales pitch given to a group of people who normally patronize Oak Hill is to say that the whipping up of a narrow partisan spirit (just the two of us - forget the other four whose name's I won't mention because that would be to put their 'product' on the table tho' I can mention the 'liberals' because their candidacy isn't even an option here) was a 'business decision' - something said because 'it might work' and not because it's the truth.
Back in the day my fiancee was doing her teacher training at an Orthodox Jewish Nursery School in Montreal. There was no problem with the Gentiles teaching there. The children could be made aware that Miss X was Roman Catholic or Anglican. When it came to the Jewish women doing their teacher training placement that was another question. They had to undertake not to mention to the small children that they were also Jewish. The children could be made aware of the presence of Gentiles out there in the world. There couldn't be Jews who weren't 'our' sort of Jew.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The video seemed unexceptional to me. What would you expect he would think?
The clip as we have it doesn't explain the background to the "2+4" phrase, perhaps it was in general use at the event, or if he had introduced it previously.
Very quickly summarising what it said as bullet-points [with a couple of comments by me]
- The identity of evangelicalism has broadened. It has "become rather convenient or even popular to claim ethe name of evangelical" [seems unlikely to me - round here the name "evangelical" seems to be becoming an insult]
- Need to be clear on who we are. Depends on specifics rather than generalities.
- Four core beliefs of evangelicals:
- 1) supreme authority of scripture for all matters of life and faith
- 2) substitutionary atonement
- 3) our relationship with Jesus Christ is a personal relationship with a personal God
- 4) commitment to evangelism, bringing the gospel method to those who do not know Jesus. In this country that's 95% of the population [I'd be happier with 90% but in general he's right...]
- We need to be careful we do not betray our evangelical identity by embracing an understanding of the church that is not historic Anglicanism. When Robert Runcie said evangelicals have no ecclesiology he really mant that he didn't like our understandig of the church. We don't need to apologise for our understanding of the church, we need to faithfully expound it
- Theological colleges are strategic places because they influence the church through its future ministers. Liiberals seek to capture the evangelical theological colleges in order to preserve their influence. The way to do that would start with the more liberal evangelicals. We ought to captre them back
- Four pressing issues for theological education:
- 1) funding - outdated 1960s system is centralised, corporatist - the centre restricts how many students we can have. Fees were cut when they recruited too many students - funding is used to limit number of evangelical students
- 2) ethos - apologetics, evangelism
(here he first mentioned the "2 + 4" evangelical theological colleges, without any explanation [though as Oak Hill was the only other college named we safely assume that's what he meant] - 3) support - wants parishes to pray and donate money from mission budget to colleges of their choice. If not then more colleges will have to close, including Oak Hill and Wycliffe.
- 4) general state of theologial education, suffering because too much emphasis on part-time courses
- 70% of ordinands attend the 2+4 - he doesn't know whether to celebrate this or not. We have a higher percentage (good) of a smaller group (bad). [NB here the +4 are part of "we"] The trend is to train in part-time courses. He thinks these are inadequate. Two to three years full-time is needed. There is pressure to force people into part-time courses. The time given to preparation for parish ministry is woefully inadequate.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
All of this stuff is to the best of my understanding. I'm only a student here. On the other hand, I have heard Richard speak about this...
True: Richard Turnbull spoke at a Reform conference.
False: Richard Turnbull is a member of Reform. It's likely they asked him along after an interview he did with Evangelicals Now (I'm sure someone here could dig it out) shortly after getting the job here, which suddenly put Wycliffe back on the Reform radar. I think he said his priorities were training people to preach and evangelise.
True: Richard Turnbull is aiming to make Wycliffe more like Oak Hill in terms of quality of preaching training, which is a) one of Oak Hill's huge strengths and b) probably the number one thing people at Reform are looking for in a theological college.
False: Richard Turnbull is aiming to make Wycliffe more like Oak Hill in terms of only drawing its students from a narrow sector of the church. In fact, the opposite is true. In particular, Wycliffe has a very strong charismatic streak, which is not shared by Oak Hill or Reform, and which Richard has actually encouraged during his time here.
--------------------
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
He did have a point about the rather odd way of funding students. Can any one explain what actually happens?
[ 23. May 2007, 16:32: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I've never been invited, nor am likely to... (No tears shed)
Well, that may be because you are part of one of the 4 in "2+4"!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Several of the press reports talk about staff or students not talking to the press while disciplinary proceedings are underway. But as far as I can see there's been nothing to say who's being disciplined or for what. Can anyone fill in the gap?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Burbling Psalmist
Shipmate
# 9514
|
Posted
[Warning: Tangent]
I find myself agreeing with Dr. Turnbull about two things:
(a) I too am worried about the superficiality and compressed nature of part-time courses. NB. This is not a dig at the ordinands on those courses. I just think they (and their congregations) deserve a richer, deeper training.
(b) Financial pressures are a major (NB. not the only) reason for the encouragement of more people to train part-time.
If residential training in the CofE is to survive, its funding needs to be re-thought and increased.
[End of tangent.]
BP
(Whose college doesn't even make it onto the 4+2 list)
--------------------
"And the greatness of the great Christian saints lies in their readiness to be questioned, judged, stripped naked and left speechless by what lies at the centre of their faith" - Rowan Williams
Posts: 183 | From: Cambridge | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
It was fascinating watching the video from a perspective of the free churches.
Two things struck me:
1. He's not a great communicator himself (if he was in my preaching class I'd get some one to slap him every time he 'erred' ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ) - therefore I hope that he isn't doing too much of the preaching training himself.
2. What he said is not that remarkable.
It seems (to me anyway ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) that his most terrible crime is that he is trying to train ordinands ON PURPOSE. Most of our theological training in this country is quintessentially British (i.e. by accident) but he has the audacity to want to steer Wycliffe in a particular direction. Now (of course ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) we can all argue over whether that direction is a good one or not, but isn't that 'what Principals do' .. to paraphrase a certain bishop?
A different matter would be how he handles dissent to that vision.... and whether he encourages those who disagree with him ... but then again, maybe that is what this thread is all about?
Perhaps this is just because we free church don't get the 'broad church' rhetoric as much as you Anglicans do?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It seems (to me anyway ) that his most terrible crime is that he is trying to train ordinands ON PURPOSE. Most of our theological training in this country is quintessentially British (i.e. by accident) but he has the audacity to want to steer Wycliffe in a particular direction.
That really isn't anywhere near the reality. You'll find that evangelical Anglican theological training institutions are incredibly purposeful about what they are and what they do. See here for instance. or here as two examples of the mainline evangelical tradition. And the rigorous inspection regime that runs in vicar factories does ensure that they're up to the mark.
The issue for Wycliffe will be whether it can remain a place of training for evos from across the spectrum. I hope that it can.
Oak Hill used to be like that, but has gone down a particular road. Intentionality means that you can quite deliberately plan the direction and strategy of a college, and it is clear that Wycliffe has been very deliberate about the changes that the Council wishes to make.
And, yes, there are outstanding disciplinary matters that are being addressed, which is why nobody is making official public statements.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
# 4) general state of theologial education, suffering because too much emphasis on part-time courses
# 70% of ordinands attend the 2+4 - he doesn't know whether to celebrate this or not. We have a higher percentage (good) of a smaller group (bad). [NB here the +4 are part of "we"] The trend is to train in part-time courses. He thinks these are inadequate. Two to three years full-time is needed. There is pressure to force people into part-time courses. The time given to preparation for parish ministry is woefully inadequate.
Does he mean 70% of full time ordinands or 70% of all ordinands. Because if 70% of all ordinands attend the 2+4 (am I the only one who thinks this is beginning to sound like an episode of The Prisoner?) then by the time you factor in the other theological colleges there aren't going to be huge numbers of ordinands on courses, comparative to the number training full time.
Incidentally I'm not convinced (and I've not otherwise heard it claimed) that vast amounts of pressure is put on ordinands to train locally. Given the options of training part time or moving into halls of residence along with one's spouse and children, I imagine that most older candidates for ministry are going to give the former serious consideration. Claiming that DDOs and the like put the 'fluence on people sounds like special pleading to me. [Disclaimer: I trained on a course. But no-one made me do it.] I can see that there are advantages in training residentially and I would advise any ordinand to seriously consider it but I think the popularity of courses has more to do with the circumstances of those thus trained than the nefarious influence of the Diocesan hierarchy.
Of course, the nefarious influence of the Diocesan hierarchy is always going to go down well at a Reform conference.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
That really isn't anywhere near the reality. You'll find that evangelical Anglican theological training institutions are incredibly purposeful about what they are and what they do. See here for instance. or here as two examples of the mainline evangelical tradition.
Thanks Pete. I'm happy to take your word for it ... although I'm not sure how giving a link to St. John's & Ridley 'proves' anything!?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
My slight involvement in the process of moving people from 'Do I have a vocation?' into training does not lead me in the slightest to believe that ordinands are pressured into particular types of training for financial reasons. Historically those under thirty were expected to do three years residential training, those over thirty to do two years residential training or three years on a course. Non-stipendiary or ordained local ministry has hitherto (until about 2005) been generally the preserve of the over 30s who have been expected to complete three years non-residential training - given that their secular work is intended to be their continuing context. Where there is a special case it goes before the Candidates' Committee whose remit is to ensure both adequate training (for those seeking to reduce time in training) and wise use of the church's resources (for those seeking longer training - in which context there is, I believe, a catchphrase about 'potential theological educators') Most (all?) of this information is available here. The situation is changing, and while the finances of the church require it to be cost neutral it looks as though it could well enable more to benefit from better training.
As far as students to colleges is concerned there is, I believe, a kind of counterpart to the CofE's Sheffield system for the deployment of clergy which is intended to ensure that enough ordinands go to each of the colleges to maintain their viability. This comes increasingly under pressure where ordinands choose and are admitted in spite of the 'quota'. I suppose it operates by reducing the amount per candidate for 'oversubscribed' colleges and giving additional support for the undersubscribed. Presumably it also helps colleges somewhat in dealing with a normal fluctuation of numbers. Colleges who can attract other kinds of students (non C of E basically) do therefore find themselves in a stronger position either through the effect of scale or through cross-subsidisation.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Ok - I'm being thick - what on earth is he talking about when he says "2+4"? Does he mean the main 6 colleges? Are Oak Hill and Wycliffe the biggest two? Or biggest two of evo students?
I didn't think he was particularly clear /not very good speaker/ but didn't find it overly shocking. I wasn't too sure why he thought some people find it trendy to be evangelical. It sounded a bit like he wanted to claim the conservative evo land as the One True Evo, rather than the open evos? But I didn't think he pushed the point.
I'm not overly sure why studying full time is better than part time either. I think fulltime training can remove you from the world of your parish you work in / "real life"/ etc, although I must admit I'd rather train full time if I ever did!
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I take on board all that Custard et al have said, and can only hope that - despite his own understandings of 'evangelicalism' - Wycliffe does continue to embody the broad width of evangelical opinion (it's not just the 'conservatives' who get to define what that term means... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ).
Nowadays, it's not really 'between' the Charismatics or Cessationalists (although it used to be), but between the Opens (=Liberal evangelicals ) and those who hold to 'PSA and nothing but PSA' theology. So, although it's good to hear that there is a strong charismatic presence at Wycliffe, my concerns are that it's the Opens who are being censured (or forced out).
Having spent a lot of time personally involved with both the Conservative AND Charismatic constituencies, I'm concerned that they lack some of the theological insights which the Opens bring to the table, and by excluding this side of Anglical evangelicalism they are at risk of sectarianism and schism.
Turnbull may not like the 'catholic understanding of Church', but I see a lot more joined up ecclesiology coming from this perspective than from his own paradigm, and - btw - Runcie was absolutely RIGHT about evangelicals lacking an ecclesiology. Most of my time spent with Newfrontiers was an experience of evangelicals trying to 're-discover' lots of vital thinking about the Church which had been jetisoned since the 16th century (and much since).
Finally, I have recorded and saved the audio of the talk so, should it 'disappear' from the web, I can post it via my blog.
I agree with Pete173, the 'proof of the pudding' from now on will most certainly be in the eating...
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think the 'four' are St. John's in Nottingham, Trinity in Bristol, Ridley in Cambridge and Cranmer in Durham. Which are evo but Not Sound.
You then have Queens in Birmingham, Staggers in Oxford, Mirfield in Leeds, Westcott in Cambridge and Cuddesdon also in Oxenford. These are ecumenical, Catholic and liberal respectively and, therefore, Even More Not Sound. There did also used to be Lincoln and Chichester (liberal and catholic, respectively) but the C of E did a survey of theological training which recommended closing Mirfield and Oak Hill, bottled out of annoying the loonies and handed the black spot to the blameless Lincoln and Chichester. (Actually, Lincoln wasn't that blameless as every member of the Middleaged Churchpersons Union I have ever met seems to have graduated from there.)
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Ok - I'm being thick - what on earth is he talking about when he says "2+4"?
Two evangelical colleges that were represented at the Reform meeting he was talking to and four that weren't and are not so distinctly evangelical.
The Two are Wycliffe and Oak Hill. The Four are presumably (the clip didn't say) Ridley at Cambridge, Trinity at Bristol, St John's at Nottingham, and Cranmer/St Johns at Durham.
It is not clear from this clip whether he regards those four as having betrayed their evangelical roots or just being in danger of doing do. My guess is the seconsd as he included them in his 70%.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
[snip]
The issue for Wycliffe will be whether it can remain a place of training for evos from across the spectrum. I hope that it can.
[snip]
/tangent
A serious tangential question which might sound odd: would any evangelical colleges train celibate gay people?
'I have this friend' that loves open evangelical folks, who is currently celibate and firmly intending to remain so - but is definitely not of the straight persuasion. Would they be welcome at any evo colleges - or would it be a terrible road crash?
/end tangent
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Emma,
Watch it again, and he makes a comment about '...evangelical colleges, assessed by the criterion I mentioned before (i.e. the 4 marks of 'true' evangelical Christianity)...thus 2+4'.
Without being explicit, I took the implicit suggestion to be that it is only Oakhill and Wycliffe which are 'evangelical' according to his criterion, but clearly he couldn't go on public record as saying such a thing explicitly.
Also his comment about the '95%' was a lot worse than Ken makes out. He said that 95% of the population of the UK is going to Hell. With our population being about 60 Million, this means that he thinks only 3 million are doing 'ok'. The last time I looked I believe 3 million was the estimated number of Evangelical Association church membership, so quite clearly he means to say that only 'EA evangelicals' are 'real Christians'.
Of course there are many who think this, and he is entitled to his opinions, but it's important to know that this is what the Principle of Wycliffe thinks....(Orthodoxy/Catholicism anyone...?).
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
True: Richard Turnbull spoke at a Reform conference.
False: Richard Turnbull is a member of Reform.
Fair enough. But it is also true that Richard Turnbull, and his chosen Vice Principal Simon Vibert, were two of the group of nine which drafted "A Covenant for the Church of England", the first name on the group being David Banting, Chair of Reform.
The Covenant for the Church of England, you will recall, included such points as
* supporting "mission shaped expressions of church through proper prayer, finance and personnel, even when official permission is unreasonably withheld"
* "If the local Bishop unreasonably withholds authorisation, we will pay for, train and commission the ministers that are needed, and seek official Anglican recognition for them" - widely understood to refer to Akinola-style "oversight"
* "the Church of England is increasingly polarizing into two churches: the one submitting to God’s revelation, Gospel-focused, Christ-centred, cross-shaped and Spirit-empowered; the other holding a progressive view of revelation, giving priority to human reason over Scripture, shaped primarily by western secular culture, and focused on church structures."
* "We are aware of those who justifiably consider that their communion with their bishops is impaired, and will support and help them to find alternative oversight"
None of this seems appropriate for the Principal and Vice Principal of a theological college specifically founded to train clergy for the Church of England.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Does he mean 70% of full time ordinands or 70% of all ordinands.
The former. The point he was making was that it is good that more ordinands go to evangelical colleges than to other sorts, but it is bad that so many ordinands don't get to go to college at all.
quote:
Incidentally I'm not convinced (and I've not otherwise heard it claimed) that vast amounts of pressure is put on ordinands to train locally.
I know one person who struggled to get approved for a full-time place, though in the end did get it. Pretty near the upper age limit the diocese sets for residental colleges. It might have been easier for a younger person.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
the blameless Lincoln and Chichester. (Actually, Lincoln wasn't that blameless as every member of the Middleaged Churchpersons Union I have ever met seems to have graduated from there.)
Not so sure about the entire immaculate blamelessness of Chichester. A long time ago I met some Chichester curates who made the cast and crew of Staggers look like models of clean Protestant maniliness.
At the time the pub-crawling around Sussex in search of Mass done Just Right (something that didn't apparently require having lay persons in congregation) seemed the odd thing. In retrospect the taking teenage boys back to the Prebystery and showing them the pornographic magazines while plying them with sherry seems a little more extreme.
(And yes, I am sure they all grew up to be excellent parish priests. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Turnbull may not like the 'catholic understanding of Church', but I see a lot more joined up ecclesiology coming from this perspective than from his own paradigm, and - btw - Runcie was absolutely RIGHT about evangelicals lacking an ecclesiology. Most of my time spent with Newfrontiers was an experience of evangelicals trying to 're-discover' lots of vital thinking about the Church which had been jetisoned since the 16th century (and much since).
Turnbull didn't give any clue to what his idea of an evangelical ecclesiology might be. OK, that wasn't the subject of his talk, but the lack of an alternative made his comments sound a bit flat. Any of the evangelicals on this thread care to suggest one?
Also, I find puzzling the continuing harking back to 'Anglican tradition' as if it were something that began in the 16th century. I thought anglo-catholics and evangelicals were at one in tracing our history back to the early church. Of course, the latter will claim that things started to go wrong fairly soon afterwards, but nevertheless surely there are stronger foundations for the fath than what a few reformers thought at the end of the Middle Ages.
[completely irrelevant tangent] Where is Richard Turnbull from? I thought I could detect a scouse intonation in his accent. On the other hand, Turnbull is a common name in the NE. [/completely irrelevant tangent]
[ 23. May 2007, 19:57: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
four that weren't and are not so distinctly evangelical.
Sorry, I mean that he thinks are not so distinctly evangelical. That's not my opinion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
You then have Queens in Birmingham, Staggers in Oxford, Mirfield in Leeds, Westcott in Cambridge and Cuddesdon also in Oxenford. These are ecumenical, Catholic and liberal respectively and, therefore, Even More Not Sound.
Queens would strike me as the most Liberal of these. Mirfield and Staggers are certainly Catholic. Westcott used to describe itself as Liberal Catholic (in the sense that it was pro TOOW) but I am not sure where it is now. Certainly Catholic in tradition and discipline, but it always struck me as having the distinct air of Sacramental Socialism and the Parish Communion Movement about the place. During my time the Staff mirrored the Students. From Charismatic Evangelical through to Radical Orthodoxy Spikiness, via the marshlands of Choral and Floral. I always assumed Cuddesdon was a bit like Westcott for Telegraph readers with 7 Children.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
