homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Schismatics and Episcopi neo-vagantes (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Schismatics and Episcopi neo-vagantes
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know much about Jesmond now but someone I know who was part of the congregation there in the early 1989s remembers someone objecting to flowers at the front of the church just in case people got the impression that they were 'worshipping' them ...

That's how 'sound' they were ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15089 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What about a new Anglican diocese? Antarctica, for example. (Well, we've already got the Southern Cone)"

Good point. They'd get on with the Shoggoths like an Eldritch City on fire.
Isn't R'lyeh nearby as well? If that re-materialises, an astute cleric could make a killing down that way.

[ 11. May 2017, 21:53: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4726 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know much about Jesmond now but someone I know who was part of the congregation there in the early 1989s remembers someone objecting to flowers at the front of the church just in case people got the impression that they were 'worshipping' them ...

That's how 'sound' they were ...

I have many, many more stories in the same vein. However...

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ahem. Mention of Shoggoths and R'lyeh reminds me that the Church of Cthulhu already exists (and is registered as such in the USA), so please do not think of starting a schism within it - the Great Old Ones would not be pleased.

Mind you, maybe David Holloway is a GOO...

Our Diocese has its own version of Jesmond, though perhaps not quite as large, and rumour has it that they, too, withhold their parish share. This causes some resentment amongst small parishes like ours, who readily pay their share (which, around here, is voluntary).

If such congregations think that the C of E is pants filled with pongy poo, why do they not simply leave, and rent a warehouse somewhere? If you belong to a club, society, or any secular organisation with rules, you should play by those rules.

If Holloway, Pryke, and their supporters left the C of E, the Bishop would have an easier life. Yes, she'd have a large, virtually empty church on her hands, but it would still be the parish church, and could continue to function as such.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8036 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
but it would still be the parish church, and could begin to function as such.

Fixed that for you.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh dear. ISWYM. Point taken - thanks!

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8036 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.

The vicar of Headington has been vicar of Headington since 1957....

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1281 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Eek!] What?! He's over eighty? Yikes! And in the same job for sixty years.

[ 12. May 2017, 15:25: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21192 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593

 - Posted      Profile for american piskie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.

The vicar of Headington has been vicar of Headington since 1957....
Vicar of Highfield actually. Disjoined from Headington about 1910.

He's now into his nineties ...

Posts: 344 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.

The vicar of Headington has been vicar of Headington since 1957....
Vicar of Highfield actually. Disjoined from Headington about 1910.

He's now into his nineties ...

Very true - was the wrong end of Headington Hill for me anyway, in my later Oxford days I was more SS Mary & John/St Alban the Martyr.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1281 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I didn't realise Holloway was still alive - they used to wheel him out on TV discussions as a rent-a-bigot

I thought that was Tony Higton, a man so pompous in his self-righteousness that he would give even the mildest of saints the irresistible urge to slap him in the face. [Devil]

Perhaps they took turns.

Holloway sometimes appeared with Higton then took over his mantle.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 22855 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I the only person who finds the notion that an incumbent has one of his curates ordained as a sort of tame bishop to go round on his instructions conferring a sort of Dutch touch, difficult to reconcile with episcopacy as we know it, either from the New Testament or in tradition from the earliest times until now?

Besides, if you believe in episcopacy, it won't do, because it isn't founded in what episcopacy is about, and if you don't really believe in episcopacy, it isn't necessary.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7095 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
...
If such congregations think that the C of E is pants filled with pongy poo, why do they not simply leave, and rent a warehouse somewhere? ...


My guess has always been that it comes down to the three S's- status, stipend, superannuation.

--------------------
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: 6356 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I the only person who finds the notion that an incumbent has one of his curates ordained as a sort of tame bishop to go round on his instructions conferring a sort of Dutch touch, difficult to reconcile with episcopacy as we know it, either from the New Testament or in tradition from the earliest times until now?

Besides, if you believe in episcopacy, it won't do, because it isn't founded in what episcopacy is about, and if you don't really believe in episcopacy, it isn't necessary.

No, you're not the only one.

Andrew Goddard has written a (lengthy and detailed) response here.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
[Eek!] What?! He's over eighty? Yikes! And in the same job for sixty years.

This is him, last year. Unless it's a particularly generously edited piece, he still seems to be on the ball and talking sense.

--------------------
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: 6356 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

If Holloway, Pryke, and their supporters left the C of E, the Bishop would have an easier life. Yes, she'd have a large, virtually empty church on her hands, but it would still be the parish church, and could continue to function as such.

IJ

A lot of people would have an easier life
The official name actually is Clayton Memorial Church, but


...it is not the only game in town....

at least as far as Jesmond is concerned. Newcastle actually seems to be a fairly High Church diocese

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3929 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, you're not the only one.

Andrew Goddard has written a (lengthy and detailed) response here.

Thank you for tracing that and linking it. I like Andrew Goddard's list towards the end of 10 questions. I'd ask similar ones.

There's been too much of a habit throughout Christian history of people claiming that because they believe themselves to be right, they are entitled (invariably expressed as some version of 'called') to break fellowship with those who disagree with them, that my conviction obliges me not to fit in with those who don't share it.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7095 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


There's been too much of a habit throughout Christian history of people claiming that because they believe themselves to be right, they are entitled (invariably expressed as some version of 'called') to break fellowship with those who disagree with them, that my conviction obliges me not to fit in with those who don't share it.

See I don't care about that. If one really believes that there is something so serious that one needs to strike out alone then fair enough.

The thing that annoys me is those who think that their "calling" means that they can entirely legitimately bend rules and get other people to do things that make no sense even under their own rules. That they can use the resources of the church (CofE in this case) in such a way as to undermine it and feather one's own nest.

To me, that's just dishonest. And lacks the sort of faith that these people seem to like to tell others that they have.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Frankly, 'dishonest' just about sums it up.

Pay up, play the game, or sod orf!

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8036 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
See I don't care about that. If one really believes that there is something so serious that one needs to strike out alone then fair enough. ....

On that, Mr Cheesy, we disagree.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7095 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On that, Mr Cheesy, we disagree.

Fair enough. I look forward to hearing when your acceptance into the RCC or Orthodox church will be made public.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've just been talking to another Jesmond refugee, who left roughly at the same time we did. He's had a lot more experience of the wider church across Newcastle and beyond (due to his job), and there was much mutual headscratching as to why Jesmond have decided this moment to do this.

On one thing we could agree, however, which was that this will end messily. The act has essentially forced the bishop's hand, and she'll have the full backing of ++John in whatever she does (because they'll have discussed the matter extensively and agreed a course of action between them, because that's what grown-ups do).

If Jesmond have got their legal advice from the CLC and the Christian Institute (which, IIRC, have never won a case between them), then I think they're on a hiding to nothing.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Doc Tor;
quote:
If Jesmond have got their legal advice from the CLC and the Christian Institute (which, IIRC, have never won a case between them), then I think they're on a hiding to nothing.
While I can't pretend to know all the details, I've a niggling suspicion that due to the unusual circumstances of Jesmond's foundation as a very deliberately evangelical church in a predominantly High Church diocese, the trust terms related to the property may just mean that they have more independence than most Shipmates have been assuming. And I suspect that if the CofE wins the case it may still end up as a PR problem for them.

I'm not a supporter of Holloway; I'm pretty sure he will have been responsible for the stuff on the Christian Institute website justifying 'privilege' for Christianity in the state - with the irony that said stuff, from an organisation professing the Bible as its authority, is massively unbiblical.

If only Holloway didn't believe that 'stuff' he could long ago have left the Anglicans and been more useful elsewhere with the basic gospel side of his beliefs.

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689

 - Posted      Profile for MarsmanTJ   Email MarsmanTJ   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Their Charity documents are interesting. The charity that the Church of England could claim ownership of (the PCC) has virtuall no assets. 'The Jesmond Trust', on the other hand, has some 4 million quid in the bank. Apparently, 'The Jesmond Trust' even sponsors the PCC Charity, which means officially, Jesmond Parish Church only had 48k in income last year. I can think of a few of reasons to do that, none of them particularly laudable. All of them suggesting a dangerous break down in relationship between Parish and Diocese.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The thing that annoys me is those who think that their "calling" means that they can entirely legitimately bend rules and get other people to do things that make no sense even under their own rules. That they can use the resources of the church (CofE in this case) in such a way as to undermine it and feather one's own nest.

Up to a point I'd have less issue if they threw their toys out of the pram in one go - it's the continued attempt to triangulate things that gets me (and largely I'm probably more from their wing of the church than anywhere else).

I also don't think that they are acting among themselves in a particularly intellectually or theologically coherent manner, there is no possible principle (other than the nakedly pragmatic) that they could use to justify the way in which they proceed with their version of the episcopacy. Honestly I'm not sure why they think they *need* bishops given the way they are acting otherwise.

Posts: 3541 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
irreverend tod
Apprentice
# 18773

 - Posted      Profile for irreverend tod   Email irreverend tod   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Their Charity documents are interesting. The charity that the Church of England could claim ownership of (the PCC) has virtuall no assets. 'The Jesmond Trust', on the other hand, has some 4 million quid in the bank. Apparently, 'The Jesmond Trust' even sponsors the PCC Charity, which means officially, Jesmond Parish Church only had 48k in income last year.
This doesn't surprise me. Looking at the figures is appears many ConEvo churches take out more than they put in. It gives lie to the much stated claim that the CofE is being kept afloat by such churches.

Exeter Diocese provide up to date totals of common fund giving per parish throughout the year and are very open about the calculation method. The numerate of the parish can easily work out the alleged attendance and visit to see who's cheating the system. Our Mystery Worshipers are more like having the IR in!

Apologies for errors in formatting I'm getting to know how the UBB code works

--------------------
Diocesan Arsonist and Lead thief to the Church of England.

Posts: 20 | From: England | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm seeing a bit of a gap here. The church was founded as Wikipedia says as a conscious attempt to set up an Anglican evangelical alternative when an evangelical congregation had a high church priest forced on it.

Now you'd have thought in a situation like that that the congregation would simply have gone off and founded an independent church - 'Congregationalist' if they wanted to continue infant baptism. But instead they go and found a new Anglican Church....

I think anyone doing that back then would also do something hefty by way of 'future-proofing' so that it wouldn't be possible for the Bishop simply to wait for the priest of the new church to retire and then once again appoint a high church replacement! And I suspect that at the same time they'd do something to continue the Anglican link - or at least Anglican 'heritage' in an evangelical/reformed style, . Otherwise as I say they'd have just founded an independent congregation from the start. So there may be some complexities there which account for the way they are now behaving - though perhaps not fully justify it.

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
While I can't pretend to know all the details, I've a niggling suspicion that due to the unusual circumstances of Jesmond's foundation as a very deliberately evangelical church in a predominantly High Church diocese, the trust terms related to the property may just mean that they have more independence than most Shipmates have been assuming. And I suspect that if the CofE wins the case it may still end up as a PR problem for them.

They're a regular parish inside the diocese. The foundation was, granted, unusual, and it's always been down to the bishop to maintain the identity of the churchmanship - which they have done.

I can post more about the Jesmond Trust tomorrow, but I have Part 2 of the Church Representation Rules to read through again before the morning service.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sunday, R4, had an interview with Holloway, Ian Paul and one other here (requires a sign-up, probably not available outside of UK), starting at around 32 mins.

Holloway says nothing of note. Pryke is apparently 'away in Africa' and can't be reached. Ian Paul makes the point, contradicting Holloway's assertion that there are no conservative bishops in the CofE, that he could introduce him to many bishops who'd fit the bill.

None of them envisage the Bishop of Newcastle taking any action.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps +Newcastle is taking the view that, if she gives them enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

A link was given earlier to a neighbouring parish in Jesmond, St. George's. One wonders what they think of it all, but I expect they're too diplomatic/sensible/polite to make their opinions public!

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8036 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sunday, R4, had an interview with Holloway, Ian Paul and one other here (requires a sign-up, probably not available outside of UK), starting at around 32 mins. ...

There's a big flaw in David Holloway's reasoning in that interview. He's been at Jesmond since 1973. It has a large congregation. Nevertheless, he says, quite likely correctly, that the North East has one of the lowest figures for Christian involvement in the UK. He doesn't seem to see that it's a legitimate question to ask - if he's been there so long and has not prevented the decline, what does he think is the persuasive reason why his remedy now is suddenly going to change that, reverse the decline, rather than give its downward spiral an extra spin?

If he, as a prominent incumbent in the area - whether one agrees with him or not - hasn't been able to achieve that overwhelming effect where he is, with all the connections he's presumably got, why does he think that 'coming ye out from among them' is going to change all that? It never has in the past. Why now?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7095 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378

 - Posted      Profile for John D. Ward   Email John D. Ward   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I note that despite David Holloway's claim to be following biblical principles, his methodology seems to owe more to secular management science. What is the Biblical Hebrew or New Testament Greek for "change agent"?

[ 14. May 2017, 21:32: Message edited by: John D. Ward ]

Posts: 207 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps +Newcastle is taking the view that, if she gives them enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

They've already been given enough rope to rig a tea clipper with. At some point, someone's going to have to go alongside and lead a boarding party.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's a big flaw in David Holloway's reasoning in that interview.

Yes, that has been pointed out before. There are now 3 Jesmond congregations, with perhaps a 1000 regular attendees. When I left some 7 years ago, there was one congregation, with perhaps 900 regular attendees. (I'm more certain of the latter figure than I am the former).

While that is an impressive figure for a church, the ambition was always to be significantly bigger, and much more quickly, than has been achieved. This didn't happen while I was there due to the limits imposed by the physical size of the church (it can seat about 1000, rammed full, and pray it doesn't catch fire). An extra morning service was added, but it didn't significantly change attendance. Now that there are two church plants, with seed congregations from the main church, there are just one morning and one evening service. (Also, the congregation is made up of people from all across Tyneside. The numbers coming from the actual parish were proportionally and numerically tiny when I last had my hands on the figures.)

quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
I note that despite David Holloway's claim to be following biblical principles, his methodology seems to owe more to secular management science. What is the Biblical Hebrew or New Testament Greek for "change agent"?

I'd take issue more with Holloway's management style, which is more autocrat than collegiate. He was, when I was there, chair of every PCC sub-committee and, IMHO, ran the (not insignificant number of) staff as if they were there to serve him.

[ 14. May 2017, 22:51: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
After a long think, I reckon many Shipmates are misunderstanding Holloway/Jesmond because they don't realise how big a deal it is to him that Christianity should be 'privileged' in the state.

In addition to his book “Church and State in the New Millennium” (2000, Harper and Collins), I'm pretty sure that he has provided the material on that kind of thing in the Christian Institute website, including a lot of stuff on how the Queen's Coronation Oath should be upheld (he seems to have missed the bit in the NT where Jesus tells his followers not to swear oaths!).

If you understand this you should realise that to Holloway/Jesmond it cannot be enough to just secede from the Anglicans and form a non-conformist church/denomination like any other apart from some superficial Anglican features. What is now going on makes at least some kind of sense if you see a kind of dual aim in it; EITHER to push the CofE to restore itself to its original status as a NATIONAL evangelical/bible-believing Church – OR to push it into a position of open apostasy and opposition to the biblical gospel, so that it's claim to be the 'national Christian church' can be discredited (and evangelicals would leave/be pushed out) and you can set out to build an evangelical alternative to replace it as the national church. I'm not saying it makes total sense – and I at least don't think Holloway's key point of a state-privileged religion is biblical anyway – but that kind of aim seems to be behind what's happening at present.

The links with fringe Anglicanism abroad could be seen as an attempt to by-pass a UK leadership which is seen as increasingly betraying evangelical ideals, and set up an alternative supposedly more legitimate than the current 'compromisers'.

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Christian Institute certainly seems to make a lot of play about the UK being a Christian Nation, so I suppose it would make sense for Mr Holloway to think that's a big deal.

I suppose I'm a bit confused if this is his beef; I know that the Christian Institute has a wider base than (his ilk of) Conservative Evangelical Anglicans (who must be a fairly small group) and would appear to include those who have historically been against the notion of an Established church.

That said, there is a certain resonance I hear from various quarters who might be supporters of this view (via the CI) who also seem to think that Christianity should be mandatory. Or something.

--

On a side issue: Doc Tor, why the heck were you involved in this crowd?

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
After a long think, I reckon many Shipmates are misunderstanding Holloway/Jesmond because they don't realise how big a deal it is to him that Christianity should be 'privileged' in the state.

No, that's pretty much a feature, not a bug.

Holloway has never made a secret of the CofE being 'the best boat to fish from', and his determination to hang on in there, despite rejecting almost everything about the CofE. It's the kudos he wants, not the responsibility.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a side issue: Doc Tor, why the heck were you involved in this crowd?

That's a very pertinent question, and not at all a side issue, because in attempting to answer it, it touches on several issues surrounding the present controversy.

JPC was recommended as a good student church - I was going to Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield at the time. And they weren't wrong. It was (1987) a good student church, lots going on, offers of free food, and lots of other students. It was, then, a conservative evangelical church, much like the one I'd just left, much like Greyfriars in Reading which I'd also irregularly attended.

It moved. I moved, yes, but so did the church, and we moved in opposite directions. Over the 20 years I was there - I worked in the church office for 2 of those - the Authoritarian Right-ward drift became simply too much, not to ignore, because I didn't ignore it, but it was too much to fight. I was tired of disagreeing and being disagreeable.

The final straw came over a couple of things, which might seem minor, but weren't. Miss Tor was about to move up into the next tier of youth work (KS2 to KS3) where boys and girls were grouped on separate mats (while being in the same room). Also involving Miss Tor, when she was helping me check the microphones before a service. She climbed up into the pulpit, and I thought "This is the only time you'll ever be allowed up there."

It was then I knew we had to go. And it was a wrench. I'd been there 20 years. I knew lots of people there, had good friends there (and still do). And having been told, week in, week out, that there were no other faithful Christians in the whole of Tyneside, made it difficult psychologically to go, even if we already knew it wasn't true.

First church we tried thereafter, we stayed at. 8 years, now. Sorry. That was long.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Christian Institute certainly seems to make a lot of play about the UK being a Christian Nation, so I suppose it would make sense for Mr Holloway to think that's a big deal.

I suppose I'm a bit confused if this is his beef; I know that the Christian Institute has a wider base than (his ilk of) Conservative Evangelical Anglicans (who must be a fairly small group) and would appear to include those who have historically been against the notion of an Established church.

That said, there is a certain resonance I hear from various quarters who might be supporters of this view (via the CI) who also seem to think that Christianity should be mandatory. Or something".

AIUI Holloway is a major player in the Christian Institute which is based in Newcastle. I am fairly sure that the material on their website about privileged status for Christianity in the nation reflects Holloway's views - and if I'm right there he's gone a bit beyond the book I mentioned published in 2000; the book points where he was going but is perhaps not fully worked out yet.

The Christian Institute does have a somewhat wider constituency than just Jesmond - I recently attended a meeting they organised at an Anglican church in Bolton and they didn't there make much reference to that side of their programme. I suspect some are involved simply because the Institute appears to be defending Christian freedoms against secular tyranny. Which I think could be better done from a 'free church' position.

Those who believe in varying degrees of 'Christian Nation' range in practice from non-conformists who wouldn't want to be the established church, but believe that the nation should nevertheless formally have a Christian bias, all the way to a few who do pretty much believe Christianity should be mandatory (eg, one David Field, a former lecturer at Oak Hill Anglican college). There's also a considerable group of people whose actual involvement in church is occasional baptisms/weddings/funerals but who see England as a 'Christian country' as part of nationalism and opposition to Islam.

The point I'm making is that some features of Holloway/Jesmond which seem to be puzzling Shipmates become a lot more understandable if you realise that he has this 'national evangelical church' agenda and therefore simply to secede from the church wouldn't suit him. He couldn't be a seceder into non-conformity like early Brethren leaders or Philpot and Tiptaft who joined the Particular Baptists. If he can't change the CofE back to the kind of position he wants, he kind of needs a break with a clearly 'apostate' church which would - he hopes - force a realignment in UK church life and hopefully lead to a replacement national evangelical church.

I think he is in the end over-optimistic; I also think that if he gets the clear public confrontation he wants it could seriously damage the credibility of the mainstream Anglican church as a representative of Christianity, while the resultant flak could harm the image of Christianity in general.

by Doc Tor;
quote:
Holloway has never made a secret of the CofE being 'the best boat to fish from', and his determination to hang on in there, despite rejecting almost everything about the CofE. It's the kudos he wants, not the responsibility.
I have in the past come across more than a few Anglicans of the 'the best boat to fish from' school and some are doing it relatively innocently and others with what seems to me rather serious dishonesty. As I see it, Holloway is different from that in that he actually believes in this idea of Christianity privileged in the state and for example providing the foundation of laws and so on. He may well have hardened in that way in the years since you were involved there.

I suspect in his own eyes he is not "rejecting almost everything about the CofE", but holding on to what the CofE was founded to be, against people he sees as changing and compromising it. In my eyes he could actually have a point there, looking at the amorphous mess the CofE seems to be these days....

To me the irony is that for a person so professedly biblical his theology of state and church is massively unbiblical....

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:


The point I'm making is that some features of Holloway/Jesmond which seem to be puzzling Shipmates become a lot more understandable if you realise that he has this 'national evangelical church' agenda and therefore simply to secede from the church wouldn't suit him. He couldn't be a seceder into non-conformity like early Brethren leaders or Philpot and Tiptaft who joined the Particular Baptists. If he can't change the CofE back to the kind of position he wants, he kind of needs a break with a clearly 'apostate' church which would - he hopes - force a realignment in UK church life and hopefully lead to a replacement national evangelical church.

That's interesting, thank you. I suppose my main comment here is that even in an imaginary world where there was a "national evangelical church", this would seem to be against the fundamental beliefs of a significant part of the supporters of the Christian Institute.

quote:
I think he is in the end over-optimistic; I also think that if he gets the clear public confrontation he wants it could seriously damage the credibility of the mainstream Anglican church as a representative of Christianity, while the resultant flak could harm the image of Christianity in general.
I don't know the situation, but I know people and organisations who seem to think that they can aid the Almighty by provoking the earthly powers and that things will "work out in the end". I can't remember the proper word for this mechanistic understanding of Christianity, but it seems akin to poking a lion with a stick.

quote:
I have in the past come across more than a few Anglicans of the 'the best boat to fish from' school and some are doing it relatively innocently and others with what seems to me rather serious dishonesty. As I see it, Holloway is different from that in that he actually believes in this idea of Christianity privileged in the state and for example providing the foundation of laws and so on. He may well have hardened in that way in the years since you were involved there.

I suspect in his own eyes he is not "rejecting almost everything about the CofE", but holding on to what the CofE was founded to be, against people he sees as changing and compromising it. In my eyes he could actually have a point there, looking at the amorphous mess the CofE seems to be these days....

Whatever one's personal theology, it is fairly clear that his views are not consistent with Anglican practice.

quote:
To me the irony is that for a person so professedly biblical his theology of state and church is massively unbiblical....
It just highlights for me once again that there are many different understandings claiming to be "biblical" and that when one digs under the surface they're anything but.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but are there automatic canonical repercussions in the C of E of a priest accepting episcopal consecration without approval from the C of E? In the RCC that priest would be excommunicated the moment he was consecrated bishop and would be banned from serving as clergy in the RCC immediately until he severed any relationship with the schismatic group and began a (perhaps lengthy) process, assuming the Church was willing to begin such a process, to lift the excommunication and return to active ministry.
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think there is automatic anything in the CofE. The power balance is quite different to the RCC.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... What is now going on makes at least some kind of sense if you see a kind of dual aim in it; EITHER to push the CofE to restore itself to its original status as a NATIONAL evangelical/bible-believing Church – OR ...

And when was it that? 1529, 1547, 1553 1560, 1603, 1662, 1689, 23rd May 1738, the day before the 1833 Oxford Assizes?

That perspective is as ahistorical and deluded as both the Tracts for Times's and Percy Dearmer's interpretations of English church history.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7095 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, quite, but try telling that to Holloway or Pryke.

[Disappointed]

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8036 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... What is now going on makes at least some kind of sense if you see a kind of dual aim in it; EITHER to push the CofE to restore itself to its original status as a NATIONAL evangelical/bible-believing Church – OR ...

And when was it that? 1529, 1547, 1553 1560, 1603, 1662, 1689, 23rd May 1738, the day before the 1833 Oxford Assizes?

That perspective is as ahistorical and deluded as both the Tracts for Times's and Percy Dearmer's interpretations of English church history.

I can't help but agree. There's always something seductive about a call to 'go back to the beginning', but the beginning in this case was a reformed catholic church. Holloway's once-evangelical CofE is as much a myth as the once and future king: powerful, but ultimately ahistorical.

And it's something he's possibly now abandoning with an appeal to the Celtic church. I don't know: whatever story serves his strategy, I suppose. It was always my opinion that his churchmanship was formed in the Bash camps and minor private schools of the 1950s.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but are there automatic canonical repercussions in the C of E of a priest accepting episcopal consecration without approval from the C of E? In the RCC that priest would be excommunicated the moment he was consecrated bishop and would be banned from serving as clergy in the RCC immediately until he severed any relationship with the schismatic group and began a (perhaps lengthy) process, assuming the Church was willing to begin such a process, to lift the excommunication and return to active ministry.

Under the recent Clergy Discipline Measures, there's a range of options open, but there is an established procedure to be followed. I do not think that there are any ipso facto excommunications. Ah for the good old days.
Posts: 6046 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This may be of interest from Canada.
quote:
The House of Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of BC & Yukon in the Anglican Church of Canada has registered its objection to the episcopal election of the Rev. Jacob Worley in the Diocese of Caledonia.
He will not be consecrated bishop because he served the Anglican Mission in America under license from the Province of Rwanda in the geographical jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church without permission of The Episcopal Church.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
busyknitter
Shipmate
# 2501

 - Posted      Profile for busyknitter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I attended JPC for a year or so in the very late 80's, early 90s, became a Christian there and was baptized (by Jonathan Pryke as it happens). I didn't know much about the different strands of the Cofe in those days and wouldn't have been aware of their distinctive approach to things. I really valued their capacity to help an interested enquirer get to grips with the basics of the Christian faith through a course (it was called Mustardseed, this was pre Alpha/Christianity Explored), but found the size of the congregation a bit overwhelming. I left when we moved across t'Pennines and happily found a more human scale evangelical church, where I settled.

A friend's relative worships there at the moment and one slightly weird (and disturbing) aspect of their current approach is that, as a coeliac, they refuse to provide her with gluten free wafers. [Disappointed]

Posts: 902 | From: The Wool Basket | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm slightly surprised, firstly that con evos would get hung up about such things (I thought the valid form, matter and intent business was more those of us on the Catholic end of things) and secondly that they'd be using wafers at all; I'd have expected Kingsmill. Interesting.
Posts: 2705 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm slightly surprised, firstly that con evos would get hung up about such things (I thought the valid form, matter and intent business was more those of us on the Catholic end of things) and secondly that they'd be using wafers at all; I'd have expected Kingsmill. Interesting.

Yes, that is weird. They do the same at HTB. It's so out of line with the practice of most evangelical churches, even most CofE evangelical churches, that I feel there must be some doctrinal reasons for it, 'cause there are doctrinal reasons, ISTM, in every practice embraced by conevo shacks.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was either sliced white or a bun the whole time I was there...

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools