|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm with Byron: While it may give Reform some small, temporary advantage to call their bluff, it must happen - any move towards accommodating them now would be disastrous and nothing more than a charter for every loony-tune pressure group to have a go at pushing onto the church some obnoxious prejudice.
The position of Reform is inherently unChristian: what they seem to want is an amalgam of MOTR Judaism and Pauline (to the exclusion of all else) Christianity.
The fact that ++Justin and a few others have given these people encouragement beggars belief but even he (and York, for that matter) must now see that this particular tail can no longer be allowed to wag the dog, however much money it comes wrapped in.
TBF, the church's other wings are just as bad, if not worse. At least evangelicals like Welby and Sentamu are standing up for their beliefs. Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)
Moderates just want a quiet life, as moderates always do.
Liberals, by contrast, are due a hard reckoning. Far too many have spent 30 years betraying their beliefs out of a desire to be nice to everyone. Not a single liberal bishop voted against Higton, or spoke out against Issues ... The silence from folk like Nicholas Holtam right now is deafening.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Byron wrote: quote:
Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)
Not that it's a major part of this thread, but as it's a fair question, and it refers to my neck of the woods, I'll give it a go. Though I imagine you would find other POV's from other people.
I was born into the CofE. (My father was a cathedral layclerk and I was baptised in that cathedral.) If you take the meaning of "church" to be a concrete realization, you have to take schism seriously. The schism wasn't caused by anyone in this generation. That sin was someone else's. What we, in our generation, need to do is to do whatever we can to heal it. Realistically it will take generations, if it happens ever. But hammering any wedges in harder is a big no-no.
So on a personal level, any significant schism is going to cause me such cognitive dissonance that I shall probably walk. That will be irrespective of whether I approve or disapprove of whatever turns out to be the majority position. Or indeed whether it's something I have a view on at all.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The silence from folk like Nicholas Holtam right now is deafening.
Agreed. I suspect that he (and others like him) have been leaned on very hard to avoid "rocking the boat" in the build-up to the conversations.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)
Because anglo-catholics do not believe that the C of E is protestant.
Some protestants believe that the CofE isn't - and indeed, can' be - anglo catholic.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)
Because anglo-catholics do not believe that the C of E is protestant.
Some protestants believe that the CofE isn't - and indeed, can' be - anglo catholic.
but I was replying to someone who specifically referred to Rowan Williams.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:
To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.
Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:
To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.
Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.
That's a standard evangelical belief, for which we can thank 1 Corinthians c.6, in which Paul proclaims that arsenokoitai (men who lie with men) will not inherit the kingdom of God.
As Matthew's "blood curse" was ground-zero for Christian antisemitism, that verse is ground-zero for Christian homophobia. To date, there's been no getting around it, despite many attempts from the affirming camp. It's explicit, and sweeping.
If there was ever an example of why authoritarianism is a really terrible idea, that's it.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
BTW, thanks to Honest Ron Bacardi for an Anglo-Catholic perspective. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:
To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.
Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.
That's a standard evangelical belief, for which we can thank 1 Corinthians c.6, in which Paul proclaims that arsenokoitai (men who lie with men) will not inherit the kingdom of God.
As Matthew's "blood curse" was ground-zero for Christian antisemitism, that verse is ground-zero for Christian homophobia. To date, there's been no getting around it, despite many attempts from the affirming camp. It's explicit, and sweeping.
If there was ever an example of why authoritarianism is a really terrible idea, that's it.
By 'authoritarianism' do you mean sticking to the literal meaning of a text in the Bible? This has always baffled me, since the obvious solution is to say that you don't agree with it. Presumably, this is not permitted to evangelicals, although I do wonder how rigidly they stick to other texts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
By 'authoritarianism' do you mean sticking to the literal meaning of a text in the Bible? This has always baffled me, since the obvious solution is to say that you don't agree with it. Presumably, this is not permitted to evangelicals, although I do wonder how rigidly they stick to other texts.
Yup, sticking to the literal meaning, and obeying something just because it's in the Bible.
You're right, evangelicals don't stick to it in practice, 'cause the results would be horrific. They come up with ingenious hermeneutics (or dodgy exegesis) to explain away all the verses supporting slavery, unquestioning obedience to authority, and banning women's ministry.
They've come unstuck with homophobia 'cause it's on the cusp of becoming as socially unacceptable as racism, yet they feel they've invested too much to simply back out now.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:
To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.
Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.
Yep, have come across this before, though IME acceptance of non-heterosexuality is considered a salvation issue and not just SSM. I have heard +Benn say so with my own two ears - that female clergy is not a salvation issue and therefore different positions can be allowed, but that homosexuality is a salvation issue.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
It doesn't help that so many advocates of change frame their argument in evangelical terms. They don't say, "Yes, your interpretation's right, but the Bible's wrong," they say, "What the Bible really says is ..." Evangelicals love this, 'cause arguing scriptural minutiae is their nirvana, and they tend to be better at it.
I'd understand if it was just affirming evos who take that position, but moderates and liberals do as well. Evangelicals sense they lack the courage of their convictions, and I can't say they're wrong.
Result: the most compelling argument -- that Paul gave no reason for his condemnation -- is left unstated, as are 2,000 years of increased knowledge.
It doesn't have to be this way. Evangelicals get noticeably tetchy when confronted about the human cost of their position, and its injustice. People are so much more complicated than books.
[ 12. October 2014, 13:22: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Evangelical does not equal intransigent, Byron. Nor is intransigence only to be found amongst evangelicals.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Indeed. I'm thoroughly intransigent in my liberal-ness. (I think).
Thank you Byron & Pomona. I've never heard the idea of non-heterosexuality as a salvation issue, and despite my peripatetic church upbringing, I have definitely spent most of my time in churches that would identify as evangelical, although I don't think I've ever called myself one.
I've recently been reading, and thoroughly enjoying "How to like Paul again" by Conrad Gempf. It was lent to me by an evangelical friend who was lectured by Gempf at London Bible College, I think. It's an easy read and doesn't make too many points that I hadn't come across before, but he stresses that many of the letters were replies dealing with specific issues. ("Now about what you wrote to me....") and also the ways in which Paul adopted different tactics to address the different churches.
He also talks about the invisibility of normal as why Paul didn't dismiss slavery - ie. everyone does it, he would be powerless to change it.
Both these points are things commonly raised in discussions about homosexuality, I think. 1. Paul was addressing particular practices, not the long term relationships akin to marriage, and 2. Neither Jesus nor Paul said much about marriage-type committed relationships between same-sex partners because that wasn't part of the culture.
All of which rather makes me wonder what I've missed.
I'm mithering about whether to go to the Evangelical Association meeting mentioned earlier, to see what arguments they are preparing people with, ahead of the listening process. I'm also pondering emailing Mary Beard for advice on religious & sexual practices of the Romans...... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Evangelical does not equal intransigent, Byron. Nor is intransigence only to be found amongst evangelicals.
Couldn't agree more. Most all of us are intransigent about our deeply-held beliefs. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. My issue's with the basis of those beliefs.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Jemima, in a sense, I agree, Paul's (authentic) letters are intended as housekeeping, not holy writ. Given his infamous self-loathing, he'd likely be horrified to see his memos treated as the word of God.
But the letters specifically apply a general worldview. A man of Paul's time and background would, in all likelihood, have condemned same-sex copulation in all circumstances. It violated the law of Moses, and would be associated with pagan debauchery.
The answer ought to lie not in arguing about what Paul meant (we'll never know for sure), but in saying that, whatever he meant, he was a man of his time, and on this, as on so much else, he could be wrong.
Problem's not with Paul, or any other biblical author, so much as it is with doctrines that turn men into God's mouthpiece.
[ 12. October 2014, 21:59: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Problem's not with Paul, or any other biblical author, so much as it is with doctrines that turn men into God's mouthpiece.
Fair comment. I guess you are right also about the specific use of 1 Cor 6:9 in support of the "loss of salvation" argument. A pretty clear illustration of one aspect of Steve Chalk's argument re hermeutics and exegetics to be found here.
Convictions are fine, Byron, but they are not the same as intransigent attitudes towards the convictions of others. That's really what I was getting at. A listening process which includes the question and observation "why do you believe that? I don't understand how you can believe that" is not provocative in the same way as an assertion that "you are talking nonsense".
It's easy to lose patience, but generally fatal to any possibilities of listening and dialogue when we do. Steve's comments here are worth remembering.
quote:
William Wilberforce and friends were condemned by huge swathes of the Church as they fought for abolition. They were dismissed as liberal and unbiblical for their ‘deliberate abandonment of the authority of Scripture’. But, on the basis of a straightforward biblical exegesis of the Bible’s text, their critics were right.
A point which he illustrates effectively. And of course there is this rather fine piece of Jed Bartlet exegetical observation which makes a similar point very well. I've used that before in DH and also in RL discussions. It makes people think.
I think the traditional position is open to serious criticism along the lines that Steve Chalk opened up, which is not to say either that his argument is completely correct. His point was not to resolve but to state personal convictions and open up a discussion on a topic regarded by many as closed. That was pretty brave and he's received both bouquets and brickbats as a result. How many minds has he changed? Well, I personally know quite a few.
I'm an evangelical. My personal position is pretty well known here and in RL in my local congo, and was made clear within my first few weeks of joining the Ship close to 10 years ago. IMO those who support the traditional position have already lost the moral argument, but rather like slavery and other justice issues it takes a while for that penny to drop. After all, the traditional belief that homosexuality was a moral and pathological aberration was enshrined in the Encyclopedia Britannica article and in authoritative psychiatric texts as little as 60 years ago. It was "received wisdom" then, in the same way as the anti-abolitionist arguments were a couple of centuries earlier. It was something I felt uncomfortable about at the time, sensed the unfairness of, began to question, formed my own opinions gradually, got to where I am now some time in the 1980's. And was helped on the way by discussion with friends I respect. My own experience teaches me that a private unease with received wisdom has been very common amongst many evangelicals who at least in public still stick to "the party line".
I like Ursula Le Guin's observation from "The Left Hand of Darkness" that "to oppose a thing is to maintain it". She points of course to the dangers of polarisation and isolation which arise from implacability. However annoying it might be, however closed we may perceive the minds of others to be, I think it's wrong to stop trying, right to persevere.
[ 13. October 2014, 07:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
One of my oldest mates screwed up her courage and contacted her local bishops, offering (if they thought it would help) to speak to them, or to any of the diocesan 'listeners' about being married to someone who'd been told to 'marry themselves straight': it took 8 weeks for her to get a reply which was that "althought your own personal experience may have been distressing we don't see how this would be relevant to the ongoing discussions and conversations taking place".
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
If they're not interested in hearing about the personal experiences of people who have been affected by the Church's current policy I don't see how they can claim to be engaged in a 'listening process'. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
As an old campaigner I always regarded such responses as a kind of open door! Some fairly obvious techniques of gradual escalation occur to me. I'll PM if you're interested.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If Reform did bugger off, would their loss be in the long term much more significant than the loss of the Ordinariate parishes? - Which didn't make very much difference at all, at least AFAICS.
Liverpool is supposed to be an Evangelical diocese, but I'm not aware of any Reform parishes, and I doubt that Liverpool is atypical in that respect.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Reform did bugger off, would their loss be in the long term much more significant than the loss of the Ordinariate parishes? - Which didn't make very much difference at all, at least AFAICS.
Liverpool is supposed to be an Evangelical diocese, but I'm not aware of any Reform parishes, and I doubt that Liverpool is atypical in that respect.
The Reform churches I know tend to be big, with plenty of families and young people, and most importantly well-off. Sometimes very well-off indeed. Could the same be said for Ordinariate parishes?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The one Reform church I've encountered outside Liverpool was large and wealthy - and withheld its parish share. Financially, the Church of England would probably be better off without it ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
[I] have come across this before, though IME acceptance of non-heterosexuality is considered a salvation issue and not just SSM. I have heard +Benn say so with my own two ears - that female clergy is not a salvation issue and therefore different positions can be allowed, but that homosexuality is a salvation issue.
At 3:18 into this, the Bishop of Winchester maintains that quote:
... these are Gospel Issues ...
Though such a claim is not obvious in its meaning.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
[I] have come across this before, though IME acceptance of non-heterosexuality is considered a salvation issue and not just SSM. I have heard +Benn say so with my own two ears - that female clergy is not a salvation issue and therefore different positions can be allowed, but that homosexuality is a salvation issue.
At 3:18 into this, the Bishop of Winchester maintains that quote:
... these are Gospel Issues ...
Though such a claim is not obvious in its meaning.
Started listening to this but my brain revolted at the sheer vacuity of it all, on both sides. The Rev JC Flannel is clearly alive and well. As it happens I do think it's a Gospel issue, but in a rather opposite way from many of those who make the claim (even when they're not as contemptibly ridiculous as the ludicrous +Benn).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Thanks for an affirming evo perspective, Barnabas62. Although I make no secret of disagreeing with evangelical theology, my frustration's better directed at liberals and moderates, who refuse to argue a case for change on their own terms.
Any coalition to end institutional homophobia must be broad, and of course affirming evangelicals will argue from their perspective. It's just that liberals and moderates should do likewise.
So when bishops take as given that it's all about scripture, they should be pulled up on it. "Yes, our affirming evangelical allies would agree, and they argue their position strongly, but many of us don't hold to an evangelical view of biblical authority."
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Listened to this twice.
Who scripted it - Alan Bennett or Richard Ingrams?
Highlights just how accurate so many caricatures of the CofE are: +Winchester in particular comes across as vacuous and addicted to cliches. Just a hint at the end that his inclinations to be judgemental wouldn't be out of place in Tehran.
Appreciate that +Manchester was trying to be a decent cove - but what he and other decent coves don't get is that Dakin & Co are not open to persuasion at all and see any compromise as weakness.
Truly depressing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
That's just what I was thinking. We used to have a particularly homophobic shipmate from those parts- can't remember his name. Perhaps they made him a Bishop too.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan. What an enouraging potential sending diocese for me, not ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
We both also have the joy of Maria Miller as local MP. What did Hampshire ever do to piss God off so much??
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan.
Pomona - the deed is done. Diocesan Rep to the CNC who selected +Dakin, who then in turn selected him as Suffragan.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan.
Pomona - the deed is done. Diocesan Rep to the CNC who selected +Dakin, who then in turn selected him as Suffragan.
Sorry for mangling your username, and the timeline!
Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan.
Pomona - the deed is done. Diocesan Rep to the CNC who selected +Dakin, who then in turn selected him as Suffragan.
Sorry for mangling your username, and the timeline!
Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.
(there's quite a few shipmates live in the Winchester diocese)
There are certainly evangelical parishes in reasonable number, but few of them are con-evo. Oddly enough, Pomona, I think there is one up your way, though I can't remember its name. MoTR might characterise the diocese rather better.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
The most obvious Con-Evo one would be St Mary's in Eastrop.
Other evangelical churches in the north of the diocese would include Yateley, Darby Green and Eversley (as far as I can remember).
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.
Exhibit A: St Mary, Eastrop is affiliated to Reform. +Wallace is the guest speaker at their 'Mens Weekend' in November. Their female curate 'specialises in Women and Children's work' ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) . Basingstoke Deanery was the only one in the diocese to vote against WB.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.
Exhibit A: St Mary, Eastrop is affiliated to Reform. +Wallace is the guest speaker at their 'Mens Weekend' in November. Their female curate 'specialises in Women and Children's work' . Basingstoke Deanery was the only one in the diocese to vote against WB.
ewwww
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
For the record, my nearest church is St Mary's Tadley, and then the Baughurst Common churches (I'm officially in Baughurst but as a non-driver, Tadley is easier and quicker to get to). The St Michael's group of churches is the one I'm most familiar with, along with the Tadley branch of Basingstoke Community Church and the Tadley Methodist church that's by BCC and St Mary's.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, St Mary's Tadley seem decent and sensible enough, insofar as you can tell from their website: bit elderly but I suppose that's par for the course in most places. Looks like an attractive church, if you like that sort of interior (which I do).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Looking at bishops (suffragans especially) named since ++Justin was appointed: anyone else think he's appointing in his own image/ to suit his own preferences?
A cause for concern IMO.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
They're all short and can't wear a dog collar properly?
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
From what I can see- and I've been outside the CofE for the last 13 years- an awful lot of appointments under ++Justin and his two predecessors have been at best 'pretty ordinary' and at worst bonkers. Oh for the days when Robert Runcie could propose nominations to the PM on the basis of just throwing paper darts in the common room at Cuddesdon and seeing who they hit. (Well, I simplify the process for rhetorical effect, but it certainly didn't work any worse than all the sodding about that goes on now. Did rely a bit of course on having sensible people in Lambeth and No10- more involved in those days- in the first place.)
[ 16. October 2014, 11:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Looking at bishops (suffragans especially) named since ++Justin was appointed: anyone else think he's appointing in his own image/ to suit his own preferences?
A cause for concern IMO.
I'm not sure how much influence the ABC has over the appointments process these days.
Pragmatically that is. Though it's hardly a new accusation. Robert Runcie was frequently accused of being behind the disproportionate number of lib/cath bishops in his day.
Bishops surely have a much greater hold over the appointment of their suffragans.
(X-post with Albertus)
[ 16. October 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Well yes, but diocesans are overwhelmingly evo these days, and increasingly seem to appoint suffragans who agree with rather than complement (as opposed to compliment) them.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Which all goes to show how extraordinary it was for +Wallace to become a bishop...
Actually, in Runcie's day it was rather more to do with the appointments secretary Mr Smith who was rumoured to limit his suggestions to those clergy he had either met in the Athanaeum or in the showrooms of Watts & Co (and, of course, Lindy Runcie was his goddaughter).
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The suffragan appointments tend to be the choice of the Diocesan (after due process, etc.) The Archbishop's role is more about consenting and giving his nihil obstat
So I don't think that Justin (or his predecessors) can be blamed for any perceived poor quality among the suffragans.
As for the alleged evangelical hegemony, it was only a decade or two ago that every appointment was from Cuddesdon or Westcott stock. What goes around comes around.
Edmonton is our next one here in London - I somehow doubt that there will be an evangelical appointed there! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually, in Runcie's day it was rather more to do with the appointments secretary Mr Smith who was rumoured to limit his suggestions to those clergy he had either met in the Athanaeum or in the showrooms of Watts & Co...
That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
