|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
(feeling even more stupid - particularly as a theology grad who teaches, and reads the ship regularly..... )
... but are C of E vicars allowed to be in civil partnerships now then?!?!?! I missed that. Are there many? I wasnt sure you could get into vicar-factory if you were openly gay. HAs that changed then if there are openly gay vicars? (I knew there always were gay people in the clergy just had thought it was all hush hush)
Sorry for needing yet another clarification!
(PS - and thanks BroJames for your explanation re evangelical. I think as I hadnt been *in* the c of e initially I too had a different understanding of cons evo. Its seems stricter and narrower in the C of E)
[ 24. May 2007, 14:10: Message edited by: Emma. ]
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Catholic Christians have historically believed that outside the church there is no salvation. [...]
This is not the place for a debate on the double outcome or otherwise of human history but I do think it's problematic to automatically condemn as ghastly a view which is pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity.
Whether or not Callan and Oscar believe that non-Christians go to Hell, I suspect that their beef with the 5% figure is that it looks to them as if that is only talking about evangelicals. They would have been less unhappy (or more likely differently unhappy) if he had suggested a much larger proportion.
How much larger is up for grabs. Full-blown liberal-Tory establishmentatians with an strong erastian streak would probably want to say 80% (census figures for how many said they were Chtristians). More small-c catholics might go for the 20-30% who have been baptised into one church or another (though the figure amongst younger people is much smaller, and many of the older ones aree Roman Catholics or Anglicand who didn't enter the church building twice between their infant baptism and theior wedding) Us wishy-washy open evangelical types might go for 10% - which is about the proportion of the British people who ahve a church to go to, even if they don;t go to it, and also personally it is about the proportion of people who express some sort or personal belief amongst my accquaintances, and has been for decades.
5% is a pessimistic value but not a terribly pessimistic one. It is about the proportion of the population who regularly attend church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Emma, clergy are allowed to be in civil partnerships. Bishops are supposed to ask them to give their word that the relationship is non-sexual, and the clergy are supposed to do so. I don't know how that works in practice.
Spawn, I think it's a bit naive to expect that anything in the Church of England would "come at the end of a theological process of debate". Can you picture this scene:
HENRY VIII: Cranmer, I need a divorce. Invent me a Church that'll give me one, there's a good chap.
CRANMER: Well really, Majesty, such a thing should ideally come at the end of a theological process of ... erm ... I'll have the paperwork by Tuesday.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
(feeling even more stupid - particularly as a theology grad who teaches, and reads the ship regularly..... )
... but are C of E vicars allowed to be in civil partnerships now then?!?!?! I missed that.
As I understand it, not being Anglican, Anglican clergy are allowed to enter Civil Partnerships but must remain celibate. Hence the comments about the need to be 'whiter than white' if such a relationship is entered into.
Anglicans can correct me if I'm wrong or add nuance if necessary.
[double posted with Adeodatus]
[ 24. May 2007, 14:23: 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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Pete173: Surely it all depends on what you mean by Puritan. Richard Hooker and Cranmer themselves (don't know about Jewell, haven't read him) are pretty Puritan by some definitions, in the sense that their doctrine is highly Reformed. But doctrinal views in keeping with theirs are branded Puritan in order to make it appear that reformed Anglicans are necessarily frothing sectarians. So people who are not Puritan in the historic sense are called Puritan as a convenient way of not having to have a proper discussion with them.
Callan asked about evangelical ecclesiology and a few people repeated Runcie's daft adage, perpetuated so nauseatingly by Paul Avis (or did he originate it and Runcie took it up?). I believe that the foundations of evangelical ecclesiology are covered quite well by Messrs Calvin, Luther and Hooker (to name a selection). More recently one might look to the work of Barth, Bonhoeffer, O'Donovan, Bradshaw and Webster.
To say that evangelicals have no eccelsiology is either ignorant or deliberately insulting. It's like saying that Calvin doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit: just because someone disagrees with your view about X, doesn't mean that they have no view about X!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Why? Catholic Christians have historically believed that outside the church there is no salvation. They believed this because it seemed pretty obvious to them from Scripture. Evangelicals probably put the stress on faith in Christ rather than being part of the church (not that faith is separable from participation in Christ's Body) but it boils down to much the same thing.
This is not the place for a debate on the double outcome or otherwise of human history but I do think it's problematic to automatically condemn as ghastly a view which is pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity.
Lots of views which are pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity are ghastly. The damnation of unbaptised babies, for example. I could multiply examples of far ghastlier beliefs but then you'd accuse me of comparing Turnbull to various horrors from the Christian past and that would be unhelpful. Suffice it to say I don't think the Fall of Man happened in the eighteenth century and that any belief which preceeds that is somehow worthy of respect. As it happens I don't think that Fr. Turnbull's view is particularly pre-Enlightenment. Medieval Christians prayed to be spared from the dreadful Day of Judgement which is why the Dies Irae and the Libera Me are in the Requiem Mass and why, today, before receiving communion we ask the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world to have mercy on us. I doubt that Fr. Turnbull worries much on that score.
My real objection, quite apart from the fact that I do believe that it is possible for those in ignorance or error to be saved and would find it rather hard to be a Christian if I didn't, is that judging by the census figures most people in this country are bad or nominal Christians. Obviously we want them (and us) to become better Christians but we can hardly pronounce with any certainty that they are headed down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire. Who died and made Fr. Turnbull judge of the eternal destiny of his neighbour? When we consider hell we should consider the state of our own souls, not complacently pronounce on the state of other peoples.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Callan asked about evangelical ecclesiology and a few people repeated Runcie's daft adage, perpetuated so nauseatingly by Paul Avis (or did he originate it and Runcie took it up?). I believe that the foundations of evangelical ecclesiology are covered quite well by Messrs Calvin, Luther and Hooker (to name a selection). More recently one might look to the work of Barth, Bonhoeffer, O'Donovan, Bradshaw and Webster.
Did I? I'm pretty sure that was someone else. And it was yer man Turnbull who came up with the canard about Evangelicals not having an ecclesiology! Good points though.
ken: you say liberal-Tory establishmentarian with Erastian leanings, I say cautious in pronouncing on other peoples eternal destiny. ![[Smile]](smile.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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
people who are not Puritan in the historic sense are called Puritan as a convenient way of not having to have a proper discussion with them.
A use of the word that started in the 16th century!
While Jengie is historically accurate about the origins of the word "Puritan", that pass was sold before the Civil Wars. For most people nowadays "Puritan" means "an obnoxious Christian fundamentalist who doesn't like sex"
quote:
To say that evangelicals have no eccelsiology is either ignorant or deliberately insulting.
Well yes. We no only have an ecclesiology we have several ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
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 Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
To do Turnbull justice I doubt he meant it as an exact figure. That said, it was still a pretty ghastly thing to say.
Why? Catholic Christians have historically believed that outside the church there is no salvation. They believed this because it seemed pretty obvious to them from Scripture. Evangelicals probably put the stress on faith in Christ rather than being part of the church (not that faith is separable from participation in Christ's Body) but it boils down to much the same thing.
But Turnbull is in the same church as the people he says are going to hell. If everyone who isn't a conservative evangelical is, in his opinion, going to hell, that will include me and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Seems ghastly to me.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm not really sure what the point is in having the Bishops agree on a policy and then half of them rushing into print to denounce it. And having no policy at all would have been fatal. Can you imagine the headlines if +Southwark had announced that it was liberty hall whilst +Durham issued a stern interdict. I imagine that the C of E has m'learned friends on tap who could advise as to the legality or not of any decision. I don't think it was unreasonable, if the legal advice pointed that way, to prefer to avoid a court defeat and the subsequent damaging row in the press.
I think the policy should have been different. And I daresay you would prefer the House of Bishops policy since 1991 to have been different, and would have wished that more liberal bishops had the guts and decency at certain times to stand up and be counted. As to legal advice, it all depends on who you get your advice from. I daresay, legal opinions might divide on this issue - after all there are precedents in all sorts of areas (especially employment) for specific church exemptions.
quote:
Whilst I concede that gays and lesbians don't have any monopoly on pain I think that any pain you (or I) may feel on this issue really pales in significance. Besides which, it's rather a done deal. The Church of England isn't going to change its teaching any time soon, as the responses to the Reading fiasco and the ordination of +Robinson demonstrate. So I think the size of the juggernaut you are so bravely withstanding is overstated. .
Obviously, gay men and lesbians have a particularly burdensome experience of the Church - both those who are celibate and those who are in relationships. However, you underestimate the rate of social change. In only the past few years gay rights campaigners have won just about every single thing they've been working for. You compare Social attitudes surveys of only a decade ago with now, and you'll see vast changes in public attitudes especially among young people. And only the other day there was a Stonewall survey of religious opinion which showed a shift among Christians. Even at General Synod, I see a vast difference between the number of openly gay clergy and laity who declare themselves in various debates, and the kind of rapturous reception they get. I've been reporting on Synod for nearly two decades (on and off). I think we could have substantial change in the next five years, and this will be helped by the fact that once the dust settles over civil partnerships controversy many more gay clergy will quietly enter into them.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Callan asked about evangelical ecclesiology and a few people repeated Runcie's daft adage, perpetuated so nauseatingly by Paul Avis (or did he originate it and Runcie took it up?). I believe that the foundations of evangelical ecclesiology are covered quite well by Messrs Calvin, Luther and Hooker (to name a selection). More recently one might look to the work of Barth, Bonhoeffer, O'Donovan, Bradshaw and Webster.
Did I? I'm pretty sure that was someone else. And it was yer man Turnbull who came up with the canard about Evangelicals not having an ecclesiology! Good points though.
It were me, actually. And to clarify Callan's point, and be fair to Turnbull, he was quoting Runcie who said that Evangelicals didn't have an ecclesiology.
I simply asked (without wishing to derail the thread) what
is the Evangelical ecclesiology? Ken says there are several. Is 'the Church' except in an institutional sense really that important to the Reform crowd? It may very well be, but I'm not sure in what way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
I think the policy should have been different. And I daresay you would prefer the House of Bishops policy since 1991 to have been different, and would have wished that more liberal bishops had the guts and decency at certain times to stand up and be counted. As to legal advice, it all depends on who you get your advice from. I daresay, legal opinions might divide on this issue - after all there are precedents in all sorts of areas (especially employment) for specific church exemptions.
It's on my wish list. Somewhere under world peace and international socialism and above Exeter winning the Champions League so often that everyone hates them and supports Chelski. Whilst I am not in unqualified agreement with the Bishops on Civil Partnerships - apparently I can bless nuclear submarines and household pets, but not gay couples - I do actually give them credit for trying to hold the Church of England together, by and large, and in the current climate I think that counts for something.
quote:
I think we could have substantial change in the next five years, and this will be helped by the fact that once the dust settles over civil partnerships controversy many more gay clergy will quietly enter into them.
That pre-supposes that a)enough evangelicals are going to change their mind on the issue any time soon and b) The rest of the Anglican Communion won't get upset by any such decision. In the current climate I find both unlikely. The Bishops current policy, like that of Mr Merdle, appears to be "no row". I suppose the government could appoint loads of liberals to the Episcopate but there is no evidence of that happening at present.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Lots of views which are pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity are ghastly. The damnation of unbaptised babies, for example.
Heh. Guess I'm glad I didn't appeal to Augustine. I hope I didn't imply that anything pre-Englightenment is automatically invested with an aura of sanctity. But I think there's probably a difference between general orthodox church teaching with biblical basis and the more peripheral ghastly beliefs you could enumerate.
I take your point re. not pontificating about the salvation of others... but personally I find a reminder of how many people are not yet Christians (or are erroneous or bad Christians) as a helpful stimulus to mission and witness. Being reminded of the seriousness of being without Jesus (in my terminology), even more so. Very different from going round telling particular individuals they are damned.
As for the Requiem Mass: it's true that there can be a fine line between assurance and presumption, but surely praying for God's mercy is not incompatible with assurance of that mercy (since the Lamb of God does take away the sin of the world).
quote:
My real objection <...> is that judging by the census figures most people in this country are bad or nominal Christians. Obviously we want them (and us) to become better Christians but we can hardly pronounce with any certainty that they are headed down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire. Who died and made Fr. Turnbull judge of the eternal destiny of his neighbour? When we consider hell we should consider the state of our own souls, not complacently pronounce on the state of other peoples.
But such pronouncements are meant to engender anything but complacency - rather, activism based on the urgency of the situation.
Perhaps this boils down to a rather ordinary intra-Anglican disagreement between those who believe what is needed is to convert the nation (usually evos?) and those who believe what is needed is to disciple already Christian people better. I suppose on reflection the truth may well be somewhere in between... certainly few younger people see themselves as Christians but there are also certainly plenty who do indeed regard themselves as Christians but don't go to church etc. About the latter I am sure you are right to chide me or anyone else for pronouncing on their eternal destination! But ultimately I struggle to reconcile the exemption for ignorance with my understanding of the NT.
(Sorry that this has become a bit tangential)
[Edited to fix code as requested -- Trudy Scr. P-H]
[ 24. May 2007, 15:55: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
So sorry about that abysmal code... if a host could repair I would be eternally ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) . PPIMF. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:
That pre-supposes that a)enough evangelicals are going to change their mind on the issue any time soon and b) The rest of the Anglican Communion won't get upset by any such decision. In the current climate I find both unlikely. The Bishops current policy, like that of Mr Merdle, appears to be "no row". I suppose the government could appoint loads of liberals to the Episcopate but there is no evidence of that happening at present.
So-called evangelicals are changing their mind at the rate of knots (including some bishops). The Anglican Communion could fall apart in less than two years. In my experience, the current House of Bishops is overwhelmingly liberal - they might even discover one or two backbones between them.
Perhaps not in five years time, but if things fall apart in the Communion, as they could easily do, there need be no brake on the Church of England pursuing its own course.
I think for the sake of everyone, we ought to have a proper, say three-year-debate in the Church of England, informed by prominent theologians of whom we have plenty, with input from groups like Changing Attitude and the True Freedom Trust. After that debate, in diocesan and General Synod we decide on a policy, around civil partnerships, gay ordinations consecrations in the Church of England. And we also rule out any further opening of the question for a period of 15 years. That way, whatever we decide, we can get on with mission without being constantly ripped apart.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
How would this differ from the debates that led up to the compromise reached in Issues? That could have been a good neutral position for the CofE to stick to - but the Jeffrey John business showed that many on the conservative wing had no intention of abiding by it.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I simply asked (without wishing to derail the thread) what
is the Evangelical ecclesiology? Ken says there are several. Is 'the Church' except in an institutional sense really that important to the Reform crowd?
I took the liberty of starting a new thread to which I cross-posted Angloid's question.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Well this discussion has moved in all sorts of directions while I was out training people for ministry! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
At the risk of perpetuating a few of the tangents:
RT mentions fees and quota capping in the video. The House of Bishops (advised bt the Theological Education Committee of MinDiv - on which I was a member) sets a Bishops' Agreed Maximum (BAM) of numbers of Anglican ordinands per college. Courses do not have a BAM.
If a college exceeds its BAM, it can keep a percentage of the fees of the first few extra students (5 students IIRR) and gets no fees for any beyond that. (My figures may be wrong, but the principle's accurate). The BAM is moved up or down to accomodate growing colleges and be realistic for smaller ones, but colleges which hit a recruiting bad patch are visited to see what MinDiv can do to help.
This system helps to smooth out unevenness in the number of college ordinands from year to year. surplus fee money from overful colleges goes indirectly to under-full colleges.
Some people want BAM removed and a free market. RT seems to want this and it would advantage the larger colleges, but they must remember things change over time and they might be smaller one day. BAM is not perfect, but it does preserve a bredth of college provision.
Some of us argued for BAM for courses, but the problem here is that an ordinand who cannot go full time may have no choice but their regional course - so if it were full they would have to defer entry. At present, the policy is that candidates can start training in the immediate future if they wish (i.e. not wait a year) so BAM for courses is unlikely.
RT's views here may not endear him to fellow college principals, but they will have to tell him so themselves!
Fees do not cover the cost of training - as Christina Baxter has said at least once in General Synod. Colleges then recruit non-ordinands (independant students) and / or build up a conference trade in the vacs..
The first version of Hind seemed to say college training was too expensive and places should be cut (restricted to single people under 30, basically). This was widely thought to be A Bad Idea and got duffed up in GS. 'Ah' quoth the financiers, 'Well tell us how we are going to fund residential training then, seeing as how we are a bit short this month' And lo there arose in the Synod one to lead a working party on this matter and was called Richard of Turnbull in the diocese of Winchester (I think). And Richard did consult in many of the colleges, including the four that were not two and he produced a plan. And behold he presented this plan to General Synod who said 'We don't like this plan' and the working party said 'That's our best advice, take it or leave it' and lo GS left it and the matter was referred to the Bishops.
Which may be partly why he got the WH job - he had stood up for the colleges in GS against Hind and had financial acumen.
And on the matter of modes of training - I spent 7 years teaching in one of the four and now have been vice-principal of a diocesan non-residential course for 6 weeks (haven't found much vice in Norfolk yet). Previously I taught a bit on another non-res course. I do buy into non-res being academically inferior to res training. The fact is that the best courses are more rigorous than the worst colleges - it does not fall out by type of training. There are things the non-res courses find hard to do, but we try anyway (e.g. the living in community experience) and there are some things we generally do better (Contectual theology) - but even here it is not uniform. I know of colleges with poorer community life than some courses and colleges which do contextual theology well. But this is off-topic and we have a dead horse on this surely??
--------------------
"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
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Aagh! preview post is my fiend!
I meant to write that I do NOT buy into non-res training being academically inferior to res training.
Please don't anyone tell the Bishop of Norwich. I'm the Vice-principal - that's what I do and I'd like to carry on doing it...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
But Turnbull is in the same church as the people he says are going to hell. If everyone who isn't a conservative evangelical is, in his opinion, going to hell, that will include me and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Seems ghastly to me.
Do you even read what other people post? Or do you just take Bates's anaylsis as binding?
Turnbull said (or implied) 5% Christian. Regular church attendance in the UK is about 5%. Having spoken to Richard at lunchtime today about this, he reckons that's a decent ballpark way of estimating the number of Christians in the UK. Seems fair to me - the number of non-Christians who go to church is probably in the same ballpark as the number of Christians who don't go regularly.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
'Thinking Anglicans' web site still has a working link to the Reform clip of Turnbull. Just checked it out. The Guardian featured the subject again today and recommended this link. Someone there is very interested in the matter, it seems!
G
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
Custard,
So Father Turnbull reckons there are about as many Christians in the UK as people who go to church regularly. And he also thinks it's better to be a Christian than not to be one. Also, that if you heard the Good News, you couldn't help but go "yes, yes, yes!" and go to church lots.
And what he wants to do with his Hall is to make sure that the people who, presumably, haven't heard the message in a way that makes them want to be a practising Christian, do hear it, because he thinks it would be really rather good for their souls if they did.
Have I summed this up reasonably?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Now, I'm no universalist, and am happy to accept that some self-labelling is a confused delusion - but where did the Anglican practice of 'taking people what they claim to be until evidence proves otherwise' disappear to?
Hasn't the recent debate answered Richard's question?
In fact I wonder if Richard answers his own question. Once we assume any delusion over self-labelling then we have to make some kind of generalisations, don't we? What alternatives are there?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
Richard Turnbull at the Reform conference 2006 - Google Video
[EMAIL][/EMAIL]
And an even better link above
G
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Have I summed this up reasonably?
Mostly, though he'd also want the people who go to his hall to learn how to teach those who already go to church to grow in their discipleship.
quote:
Also, that if you heard the Good News, you couldn't help but go "yes, yes, yes!" and go to church lots.
This bit isn't true though.
The rest seems to be fairly standard Christian belief for the last 2000 years or so.
Oh, and you probably know people at Wycliffe who refer to him as "Father Turnbull" regularly.
[ 24. May 2007, 20:23: 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
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.
--------------------
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 Custard.:
Oh, and you probably know people at Wycliffe who refer to him as "Father Turnbull" regularly.
I doubt they do it to his face, though...
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
I seem to remember he was referred to as Father Turnbull on the Pusey House pew slip when he preached there...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.
Though has to be said, I'm not actually sure what she does here, though I'm sure it must be something really useful...
--------------------
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.:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.
Though has to be said, I'm not actually sure what she does here, though I'm sure it must be something really useful...
Well, based on a number of the posts here she would appear to be regarded as a fairly significant asset of Wycliffe.
Wycliffe's website would seem to attest to this as well stating in her biog:
"Dr Elaine Storkey is one of the most experienced writers and speakers in relating the Christian Gospel to contemporary culture....Elaine is a Senior Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, a role which allows her to continue her valued wider ministry in writing, broadcasting, research and public speaking."
It sounds like she has a somewhat ambassadorial role which might explain why her role at the college is not as clear as it might otherwise be.
Wouldn't have thought Tunrbull would want to be relating the Gospel to contemporary culture mind...isn't that what's damned the 95%?
[ 25. May 2007, 06:56: Message edited by: Mystery of Faith ]
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Which is why they need the gospel.
Oh, Richard Turnbull wrote an excellent article explaining stuff in this morning's CEN, but it's not on the website yet.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Aagh! preview post is my fiend!
I meant to write that I do NOT buy into non-res training being academically inferior to res training.
Please don't anyone tell the Bishop of Norwich. I'm the Vice-principal - that's what I do and I'd like to carry on doing it...
I'm glad you corrected this. I was just about to ask Sue to point out to you that firmly ERMCs results were indistinguishable from the residential colleges in Cambridge last semester! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 25. May 2007, 08:08: Message edited by: Stranger in a strange land ]
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Turnbull's article is here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.
Though has to be said, I'm not actually sure what she does here, though I'm sure it must be something really useful...
Well, based on a number of the posts here she would appear to be regarded as a fairly significant asset of Wycliffe.
She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.
[ 25. May 2007, 08:21: 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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.
She's the only one I'd heard of.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
How would this differ from the debates that led up to the compromise reached in Issues? That could have been a good neutral position for the CofE to stick to - but the Jeffrey John business showed that many on the conservative wing had no intention of abiding by it.
What debate? There was no real debate prior to Issues. Fearing even more threatened schism at the same time as the process of women's ordination was underway, the Bishops kept the debate firmly in their hands. And they made a hash of it including the famous burial of the Osborne report.
As to your final point, neither the conservative wing, nor the liberal wing had any truck with the distinction in 'Issues' between laity and clergy. The Jeffrey John issue equally showed that the liberal wing were not prepared to abide by 'Issues' (after all Jeffrey John by his own admission had been in a sexual relationship for much of his ministry as a priest. There would be no thought of allowing a heterosexual priest who had cohabited with his partner for over a decade to advance to the episcopate).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.
She's the only one I'd heard of.
Some of that is because the culture had oddly got to the stage where very few people at college were publishing much. Richard's trying to change that now - Peter Walker and he have both published books recently, and quite a few other members of staff have books somewhere in the pipeline. He's also encouraging them to take more outside speaking engagements.
I have been very very impressed with David Wenham (and quite a few others on staff). It's a real shame he's leaving.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
haven't found much vice in Norfolk yet
Try Yarmouth.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Big two-pager in the Independent today.
Read it here.
Title: The man who says we are all going to hell
Author: Andy McSmith
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
There is an article on the independent website. See here
[Argh Crosspost]
[ 25. May 2007, 09:18: Message edited by: Jenn R ]
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.
She's the only one I'd heard of.
She's the only one I've listened to, and she's an excellent "teacher", interesting to listen to and always adds in some things that get you thinking even more - and IMO she's not just churning out common ideas, but adding stuff in and countering what she reckons are wrong, or mistakes, or inaccurate.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
She's the only one I've listened to, and she's an excellent "teacher", interesting to listen to and always adds in some things that get you thinking even more - and IMO she's not just churning out common ideas, but adding stuff in and countering what she reckons are wrong, or mistakes, or inaccurate.
I've been to at least a couple of her lectures (meaning I can remember two clearly - there may have been more), and it seems that it's very much a case of YMMV.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
The man who says we are all going to hell
So who died and made Richard Turnbull God?
Especially when he was behind me in the queue for that post.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
As someone who knows the C of E legal office and how they work it was patently clear when Civil Partnerships were made a legal entity that there was no way clergy could prevented from entering them as contractually they are an agreement about property and next of kin rights. Legally, love ain't got anything to do with it (same with marriage - after all, we all know women as 'goods and chattels' wasn't that long ago). So the bishops' statement was perfectly straight forward. It reiterated issues (ie. don't get up to anything between the sheets) and just confirmed the new legal possiblity existed. There's no way under the HRA that the church could get an exemption. The state can't enforce on other individuals what a separate group want. The employment legislation is quite different. You can get reasonable exemptions, e.g. you can advertise for a male Hamlet, a translator probably wouldn't be deaf, a Hindu can't be an RC priest. etc .
--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Custard says:
quote:
I've been to at least a couple of her lectures (meaning I can remember two clearly - there may have been more), and it seems that it's very much a case of YMMV.
YMMV? Yummy Mummy Merits Volkswagon? Some misquoting of the Divine Name worthy of stoning? Your Move Mouldy Vicar? I try to keep up on my internet acronymns but I am aging quickly and they're outstripping me.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
OK, here's the thing that disturbs me. The hierarchy of the CofE seems to divide along tribal lines. RT's speech and similar seem to me to confirm that.
But at the same time it has also been suggested to me that at synod while the clergy split along party lines, many of the laity are less interested in the labels and party affiliations.
Now I've never been, so I can't comment. However in the church I attend, I was recently involved in a discussion of churchmanship. The vicar is evangelical, but does not push a tribal affiliation - while he encourages an evangelical mission focus, he is careful not to exclude any of the diverse congregation on the basis of their churchmanship. And one member of the praise band, who regularly perform new-wine style worship songs, asked another 'what are we'? To which the reply was 'probably some sort of liberals'.
So here's the beef. Party evanglicals portray liberals as virtual atheists who don't pray, read their bibles or tithe. Party liberals portray evangelicals as frothing-at-the-mouth, mysogenistic, homophobic fundamentalists. And then there is the silent mass of non-party anglicans who just get on together with praying, worshipping, reading the bible, and giving without knowing or caring what they are, all while holding a spectrum of beliefs from con-evo to liberal.
No-one actually preaches that we are saved by doctrine. But the schismatic nature of protestantism seems to me to be the living out in practice of that unspoken belief. And it looks more and more to me like some sort of sick doctrinal pissing contest.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn R:
There is an article on the independent website. See here
This is quickly turning into a ridiculous hatchet job. "Principal of evangelical college believes non-Christians going to hell" Since when was that a headline? Even for the Independent that is dull dull dull.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
I have to say that that was my first reaction to the article. Many prayers for the student body there atm, as well as those who are due to arrive in september. I know that there are some potential students who have been very very worried by these stories, when they should be concentrating on A-levels.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
