|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglicanism
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.
Discuss
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
It is only a weakness when you get members who cannot accept that other people actually have the right to hold a differing opinion.
IOW everyone has to work on making it work.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We revel in the tension which holds us together,
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Or it is in only in dialogue with those that are different from us, that we find out what unites us.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
For me, inclusiveness is its greatest strength as I can't abide the judgementalism that comes hand in hand with exclusivity.
It means in theory that all people will be embraced as loved by Christ, whatever their beliefs and attitudes, whatever their preferences for styles of worship or music or church furniture or architecture. All are catered for. That is its weakness too, as it spreads resources thinly and where it tries to blend it can seem shallow.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is only a weakness when you get members who cannot accept that other people actually have the right to hold a differing opinion.
Especially when they use offensive language when criticising people they disagree with.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.
Discuss
Is this inclusivity a feature of Anglicanism in every part of the world, or only in some places (generally in the West)? There must be some countries where Anglicanism fills a niche position and doesn't have the remit or the inclination to try to 'include' everybody.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Weakness is strength. So we are doubly strong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I've heard it likened to the Lyle's syrup ad (which came from the OT originally) of a swarm of bees in a dead lion - out of the strong came forth sweetness.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is this inclusivity a feature of Anglicanism in every part of the world, or only in some places (generally in the West)? There must be some countries where Anglicanism fills a niche position and doesn't have the remit or the inclination to try to 'include' everybody.
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
And yet the National Cathedral in Washington DC is an Episcopalian Cathedral.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Weakness is strength. So we are doubly strong.
It depends what the weakness is based on. If it weakness borne out of a desire to depend on god then, yes, I'd agree. If it's weakness that comes from a dilution of the foundational beliefs of the church, then that's something way more serious.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is this inclusivity a feature of Anglicanism in every part of the world, or only in some places (generally in the West)? There must be some countries where Anglicanism fills a niche position and doesn't have the remit or the inclination to try to 'include' everybody.
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
I wasn't trying to be controversial just for the sake of it. It's just that the OP contains a rather questionable assumption.
The USA is an obvious example of a country where Anglicanism has no particular remit to include everyone. I was also thinking of Anglicanism in Africa. Or how about the Anglophone Caribbean? The former British colonies there were envisioned as Anglican, but the CofE was generally slow to evangelise among the black inhabitants, and in Jamaica, for instance, the normative forms of mainstream Christianity were more likely to be Baptist or Methodist than Anglican.
It seems as though Australian Anglicanism (to which Archbishop Roger Herft belongs) is similar to the CofE in social status and in its self-regard as an inclusive church. But I imagine that the pros and cons of inclusivity are less relevant to a majority of the world's Anglicans, most of whom are in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
And yet the character of Anglicanism springs from its identity as the national Church of England. With the partial exception of the Scottish Episcopal Church and its cousin TEC, though even these have been strongly influenced by the English variety of Anglicanism. Nearly everywhere else where Anglican churches exist they have been planted by missionaries or expatriates from England, and hence comprehensiveness is in their DNA. But also (as in the C of E itself) bloody-mindedness and self-contradiction, so you will see attempts to turn it into an exclusive church. Sydney perhaps?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor's Eye:
It means in theory that all people will be embraced as loved by Christ, whatever their beliefs and attitudes, whatever their preferences for styles of worship or music or church furniture or architecture. All are catered for. That is its weakness too, as it spreads resources thinly and where it tries to blend it can seem shallow.
Then its strength greatly outweighs its weakness. The further down the road towards exclusivity which any religion, philosophy or political ideology takes us, the more odious it becomes. Anglicanism can seem a warm and gentle embrace.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I realise this might seem like coat-trailing, but it's actually a serious question. In the US where there's no denomination that could even be seen as a deposed official church, and almost everyone is descended from people who came from somewhere else and brought their religious identity with them, isn't every denomination a niche position?
And yet the National Cathedral in Washington DC is an Episcopalian Cathedral.
Which many non-Episcopalians, at least among those who pay attention to the National Cathedral and are aware of its foundation, find a somewhat vestigial echo of presumed establishment at best and pretentious at worst.
As for whether TEC can be seen as a deposed official church, its status varied from colony to colony.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I only have fleeting contacts with the Episcopalian Church here in Brazil. They're definitely a minority here, but I can't judge very well if they have an inclination to include everyone. Some of the churches are quite active in the ecumenical movement.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.
I think it's a defacto rather than deliberate position, and it's mainly maintained as a kind of flag of convenience, where it's convenient.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Weakness is a foundational teaching of the church.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is only a weakness when you get members who cannot accept that other people actually have the right to hold a differing opinion.
IOW everyone has to work on making it work.
So very much this.
Anglicanism's fatal weakness is its stubborn insistence on tolerating the intolerant. I use "tolerance" in a strict sense: evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who demand that their personal beliefs be imposed on the rest of the church, and anyone who disagrees either conform or leave.
No better illustration can be found (I'm not seeking to discuss the DH itself) than England giving Anglo-Catholic opponents of equal ordination a church-within-a-church, after they'd tried to block any women from being ordained.
If Anglicanism doesn't learn to stand up to intolerance, its center cannot hold.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.
Discuss
I think it used to be a strength (not sure I would call it the "greatest strength, though). But that was when the various wings of Anglicanism talked to one another rather than at one another.
In recent decades, there has been a retreat into separatist camps. Instead of relating to your neighbouring church (which might be of a very different tradition), more effort and time is given to connecting with like minded churches across the country or area (think Reform or New Wine or Forward in Faith). Hence there is no longer any genuine inclusivity. What there is amounts to differing groups who have little connection to one another, other than using the same title of "Anglican."
I doubt that Anglicanism can survive in this way for very long. Rather than continue to pursue the present policy of "keep everyone onboard at all costs", there should be a point where Anglicanism says "THIS is what you have to accept. If you can't do that, then you can't be a part of the Anglican Communion."
At the very least, "THIS" should include: being willing to share communion with all other Anglicans, regardless of their opinions, gender or sexuality; a refusal to tolerate naked homophobia.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
I've always felt that the parish structure encouraged being inclusive: the church being there for everyone in the parish regardless of their attendance and I still think that that hope remains. As others have said there has been a more recent polarisation around theology and praxis in the UK and that saddens me.
Here in Kenya, especially in the rural parishes the Anglican church reflects its roots: it was born out of the endeavours of brave souls from the Church Mission Society over 200 hundred years ago and it reflects that history with the vast majority of the churches being traditional prayer book Evangelical. In neighbouring Tanzania many of the first missionaries were from a high church background so things are a bit different there.
All of that said, the Anglican church here does still see itself as being there for the parish and although quite narrow in its practice is a lot less controlling and more inclusive than some other denominations. Which has to be a strength!
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
*dons the non-Anglican hat*
Looking in from the perspective of an outside observer who frequently interacts with the CofE, inclusiveness is often misapplied. While the CofE is certainly welcoming to all, that is by no means unique to that denomination.
Where it oversteps the mark (and here I speak more of the hierarchy than those who fill the pews) is where it tries to market itself not just as a church that is welcoming to everybody, but as one that is for everybody. In other words, that it is the right church for all.
The consequence of this is the denigration of other churches. Take for example, the 'A church near you' website. It lists only Anglican churches. It's rather like Starbucks running 'A coffee shop near you' website that only lists their outlets.
The CofE's aim to have a 'christian presence in every community' is certainly commendable. I just question whether it has to be that particular flavour of christianity with no mention of the wider variety that exists.
*takes off the non-Anglican hat*
That said, the CofE does use its privileged position for a lot of good, speaking out boldly at a national level what the non-conformist churches usually only whisper in their local communities. The level of social action, particularly in the inner city, puts a lot of other churches to shame.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Where it oversteps the mark (and here I speak more of the hierarchy than those who fill the pews) is where it tries to market itself not just as a church that is welcoming to everybody, but as one that is for everybody. In other words, that it is the right church for all.
The consequence of this is the denigration of other churches ...
There is truth in this and I have experienced it.
I think that there is a fundamental difference in thinking between Anglican and Nonconformist churches. Anglicans (and other national churches) imply that "you are English, therefore you are a Christian unless you deliberately opt out". Nonconformists imply "you are not a Christian until you opt in".
I could write more ... but do others agree? Of course this is less true today than it once was because (a) all Christian affiliation is becoming increasingly countercultural and (b) many Christians don't consciously brand themselves as members of a denomination, they are more likely to identify themselves with their local congregation.
[ 04. August 2014, 08:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is only in the twentieth century Non-Conformist whisper. The demise relates almost exactly to the decline of the Liberal Party.
Can I just point out for those who think Anglicanism and more particularly the CofE is inclusive that it was the denomination that got the same sex marriage legislation to be such that it is assumed that Churches do not carry out such acts.
It is doubly exclusionary. Not only does it carry out the obvious one but it is framed solely for the Church of England and pays no attention to the form of other churches even ones enshrined in British Law.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I agree with Jengie although I don't want to stray onto DH territory.
Certainly there is an assumption by the media that "The Church" = the CofE (with occasional nods towards the RCs). So "the Church" is seen as having stood monolithically against SSM although, in fact, some denominations have been actively discussing it.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think there are three visions of the C of E that only rarely interact. There is the smooth-talking hierarchy, brushing division and conflict under the carpet, claiming to be the voice of Establishment; there are the activist sectarian groups such as Reform, F in F, and the rest; and there is the ordinary bog-standard parish church which is there for the people. The latter does not have to be middle of the road liturgically (though in rural areas usually is), just to recognise that its mission is not to be the flag-waver for a cause but to be a focus for God's love in that particular community. In my experience, at least 90% of parish churches are like this. Not all equally effectively of course, but I know well several churches from snake-belly low to stratospherically high and none of them have a significant proportion of partisan flag-wavers.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
1. Where it oversteps the mark (and here I speak more of the hierarchy than those who fill the pews) is where it tries to market itself not just as a church that is welcoming to everybody, but as one that is for everybody. In other words, that it is the right church for all.
2. That said, the CofE does use its privileged position for a lot of good, speaking out boldly at a national level what the non-conformist churches usually only whisper in their local communities.
3.The level of social action, particularly in the inner city, puts a lot of other churches to shame.
1. Yep with you on that one. Sadly we non Anglicans are only tolerated by most aspects of the CofE hierarchy when we have resources to offer (esp money). What took the biscuit at a recent induction was the implication that this was the only church in the parish when there were 3 other ministers all local sitting in the congregation. Said Anglican church did very little in this inner city area.
2. I'm not convinced. All too often it's a load of posh boy bishops stroking the egos of their chums from public schools
3. I'd beg to differ. In this very urban area (half a mile from the centre of a town with 220,000 people) the CofE does very little except fight sectarian battles with itself. The strongest participants in social projects are non Anglicans with the Salvation Army (who I respect a great deal) streets ahead of everyone.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Comprehensive inclusivity is Anglicanism's greatest strength. It is also its greatest weakness.
- Archbishop Roger Herft. Metropolitan of Perth, Australia.
Discuss
I think it used to be a strength (not sure I would call it the "greatest strength, though). But that was when the various wings of Anglicanism talked to one another rather than at one another.
In recent decades, there has been a retreat into separatist camps. Instead of relating to your neighbouring church (which might be of a very different tradition), more effort and time is given to connecting with like minded churches across the country or area (think Reform or New Wine or Forward in Faith). Hence there is no longer any genuine inclusivity. What there is amounts to differing groups who have little connection to one another, other than using the same title of "Anglican."
I think this is an important point, and what makes "communion" a reality.
If that fails, then perhaps it is time to separate ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If Anglicanism doesn't learn to stand up to intolerance, its center cannot hold.
If Anglicanism rejects intolerance, it is no longer tolerant and inclusive itself.
You can't claim to be inclusive but reject those who disagree with you and not tolerate them.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't claim to be inclusive but reject those who disagree with you and not tolerate them.
The question is inclusive of what. That depends on your project, in this case anglicanism. If it is about "right belief", you have to reject "wrong belief" or it cannot exist.
If on the other hand anglicanism is about, say, the search for truth within the Christian tradition, then you can authentically welcome anyone who is also searching for the truth, whatever they believe, as long as they've happy to conduct their search within what "Christian tradition" looks like in your context. But you have to say to those who either think they've "found the truth", or want to search in, say, the Islamic tradition, that that is not what anglicanism is about.
The problem for anglicanism is that it claims in its rituals to be about right belief.
[ 04. August 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
If Anglicanism was inclusive it would be Unitarian! Sorry but the Unitarians are not marked by their rejection of the Trinity, they are marked by the fact they are willing to include people who do not accept the Trinity into membership. They used to be called in England the far more accurate Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Some parts of the CofE are unitarian in all but name, Jengie ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I was part of a Baptist church until I moved here and got involved with my local CofE parish because it was evangelical (I was more evangelical back then) and had good kids/youth work.
No disrespect to the non-conformist alternatives, but they held even less appeal I'm afraid and I know that sounds terribly consumerist. Not that the parish church did, particularly, to be honest.
Having been involved with 'new church', Free Church and Anglican churches I certainly recognise the gripes. The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
The problem, as I see it - is that those aspects of Anglicanism that I DO find attractive are increasingly being nudged out into rural fastnesses.
The evangelical charismatics have all got Vineyard-envy and are trying to be all bright, bubbly and trendy and it's bloody embarrassing. It's like Dad-dancing at weddings.
There are still some Prayer Book Evangelicals around but they're becoming as rare as hen's teeth.
Liberal Catholic Anglicanism looks attractive at first, but when you look closely it's like a bloody doughnut with air in the middle ...
The Anglo-Catholics are arcane and spikey and fighting among themselves.
Sure, the CofE has to reinvent itself and get away from the 'More tea, vicar?' and the evil Wallace and Gromit vicar and ineffective 'Dad's Army' vicar cliches.
But the stomach churningly cheesy way it's going about it makes me wince.
I really don't know what the answer is. I wish I did. There's never, ever been an idyllically Anglican era with old ladies cycling to Evensong, George Herbert in the pulpit and the setting sun slanting through the stained glass windows as the faithful sing, 'The Day Thou Gavest ...'
I know that. But it still stings.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
They used to be called in England the far more accurate Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church.
They still are, and I have a friend who found himself less than welcomed by some members of his Meeting because he wished to emphasise the "Free Christian" aspect. I think though that this is not true of all meetings.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
A line of DNA stretching back through David Watson, John Stott and the 1930s "Bash Camps" - as Pete Ward made very clear. But I think you know that.
(Could so nearly have gone down that line myself, had not the local "sound" church in my University city been non-conformist instead of Anglican).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
They used to be called in England the far more accurate Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church.
They still are, and I have a friend who found himself less than welcomed by some members of his Meeting because he wished to emphasise the "Free Christian" aspect. I think though that this is not true of all meetings.
[tangent]
In the 1990s the principle of a Unitarian college was sacked for not being Christian enough.
[/tangent]
I know of no denomination that does not wish to exclude certain groups of people. They just have different ways of doing it. Imagine trying to be a Quaker if you could not handle silence.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the Quakers would simply tell you to 'shut up' ...
They'd put it more politely than that, though.
'Shut up, Friend.'
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But yes, your point stands. But one wouldn't be drawn to a Quaker Meeting unless one could handle silence - or learn to handle it. Equally, if someone has an allergy to incense they're going to hit some trouble if they feel drawn to the Orthodox ...
Meanwhile, @Baptist Trainfan ...
Please don't misunderstand me, some of my best friends went to public school ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
In a former time, I might have gone to a Grammar and not a 'bog-standard Comprehensive' ... if I'd passed my 11+ of course. I think I would have done on most things but I'm not sure if my maths would have been up to it back then ... I used to struggle with that. Still do to an extent.
Still doesn't stop me from having a South Walian chip on my shoulder towards toffs.
My wife's family is made up of people who'd have brought me out in spots when I was growing up in South Wales.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
A line of DNA stretching back through David Watson, John Stott and the 1930s "Bash Camps" - as Pete Ward made very clear. But I think you know that.
(Could so nearly have gone down that line myself, had not the local "sound" church in my University city been non-conformist instead of Anglican).
I wonder how many clergy have ever worked in manual work or other such employment? (I don't mean a few weeks sorting post as a student either).
I wonder what the figures might be of clergy who went to public school and/or university?
It would be instructive to see just how far removed the clergy are from the "average man in the street" of their parish and/or congregation.
I'm with Gam here. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the posh, I just think it's another example of our unrepresentative church. I don't need an eton boy like Justin to tell me what it's like to suffer, I rather know it out of my own experience. He's got sod all in common with most people in his churches and les with those outside them: perhaps I'll put the point to him when we meet in a few weeks' time.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
There is plenty of research about CoE clerics' social and educational background, but as the OP was not about the CoE, but rather Anglicanism, I don't know if it would be terribly useful. Indeed, given the variety of life among different provinces, I think that averages of all Anglican clergy around the world would be likely useless.
Certainly, in Canada most of our bishops are of professional or less background--- I can only think of a few who come from wealthy families and we only have one aristocrat (now a retired suffragan of Toronto)-- I believe that one of our diocesans has no university qualification. While we have our own class divisions, as do other countries, they are not of the same nature as seems to be the case in the UK.
In any case Anglicans do have a general intolerance of those who really don't agree with our presuppositions. Try being in a minority theological opinion and you will discover the viciousness of our passive aggressive approach ot church life.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, ExclamationMark, Eton boy or not, Justin Welby has lost a daughter in a car accident.
He's also been threatened with death and endured some rough treatment in a mercy-mission/go between role in Africa.
Both of those count as suffering in my book.
Perhaps they don't in yours ... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Never judge anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
Ok, you've worked as a manual labourer. Good for you. No need to get chippy about it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't need an eton boy like Justin to tell me what it's like to suffer, I rather know it out of my own experience. He's got sod all in common with most people in his churches and les with those outside them: perhaps I'll put the point to him when we meet in a few weeks' time.
But what do you expect him to do about it? He is who he is, and he probably wouldn't be where he is without his expensive education. Let's just hope he does some good with it.
I read somewhere that he sends his children to state schools, so perhaps their friends and contacts have helped to broaden his awareness of what ordinary life is like.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
There is plenty of research about CoE clerics' social and educational background, but as the OP was not about the CoE, but rather Anglicanism, I don't know if it would be terribly useful. Indeed, given the variety of life among different provinces, I think that averages of all Anglican clergy around the world would be likely useless.
Certainly, in Canada most of our bishops are of professional or less background--- I can only think of a few who come from wealthy families and we only have one aristocrat (now a retired suffragan of Toronto)-- I believe that one of our diocesans has no university qualification. While we have our own class divisions, as do other countries, they are not of the same nature as seems to be the case in the UK.
Comparisons are likely to be made with ministers in other local denominations though, not simply with Anglican clergy in England. My impression is that Anglican clergy throughout the world tend to be a bit further up the social scale than their local 'colleagues' in other denominations. This might not be about wealth as such.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I hope when you do meet him, ExclamationMark, he treats you more graciously than you are currently treating him.
'I'm not chippy ...' like hell you aren't ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
... Anglicanism's fatal weakness is its stubborn insistence on tolerating the intolerant. I use "tolerance" in a strict sense: evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who demand that their personal beliefs be imposed on the rest of the church, and anyone who disagrees either conform or leave.
No better illustration can be found (I'm not seeking to discuss the DH itself) than England giving Anglo-Catholic opponents of equal ordination a church-within-a-church, after they'd tried to block any women from being ordained.
If Anglicanism doesn't learn to stand up to intolerance, its center cannot hold.
IMHO that is not just wrong, but goes against something deeply fundamental to what the CofE is there for and stands for. It is also not what the parable of the wheat and the tares is about.
Whatever Anglicanism may stand for elsewhere, and however much Exclamation Mark may take exception to this, fundamental to the English take on this is that the Church of England aspires to be Mere Christianity for all English people.
There are serious tensions this engenders. One of them is that between comprehensiveness and faithfulness to what you think is the Anglican vision. The CofE hasn't always done very well on this, though the prickliness of many Puritans in the C17 did not help.
Comprehensiveness thinks there should be room within the CofE household for as many as possible of those in the country who consider themselves to be Christian - at its extreme, only those who choose to exclude themselves, who feel that their vision obliges them to separate themselves, are excluded.
Faithfulness to what you think is the Anglican vision, tends to mean that you claim you know what true Anglicanism is, and that it is your calling to get yourself into a position where you can force others to agree or get out, whether you are a Puritan, Archbishop Laud, the Oxford Movement, Reform, Forward in Faith, Byron, or in a non-English setting Archbishop Jefferts Schori.
Another tension is between 'enthusiasm' and 'blandness/complacency/taking the church of Laodicea as your model'. Enthusiasts may be edgy and uncomfortable at times. They may be intolerant, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. It is, though, a much, much more dangerous thing for any church to prefer those who do not seek first the kingdom of heaven to those who do.
I am sure Professor Woodhead of Lancaster University would disagree with me. I am equally sure she is wrong. That that would be the path to ensuring that the Church of England splutters and goes out in this generation.
It may be that would fulfil the vision of various New Frontiers type ecclesial communities, but I'm not at all convinced they are up to picking up the baton.
A third tension which follows on from this, is that if one believes that the church is the household of faith for all Christians, it is not our job either to exclude or to squeeze out those with whom we disagree, but who are not heretics in the traditional conciliar sense.
On the DH issue to which Byron refers, whatever one's personal view (I would guess my view is probably not that far from Byron's), holding what he regards as the wrong or out-of- date view on who can be bishops can hardly be a conciliar heresy. Most people took that view for granted until very recently. Nor have the world's two largest ecclesial communities come round to the CofE's position.
So, inconvenient though it may be, I now think the CofE is right to have done what it can to accommodate those who haven't agreed with the majority view, particularly bearing in mind that although one may disagree with them, they are not heretics.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair call.
I was tempted to issue a Hell call but thought better of it. I shouldn't have posted like that in Purgatory.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On the DH issue to which Byron refers, whatever one's personal view (I would guess my view is probably not that far from Byron's), holding what he regards as the wrong or out-of- date view on who can be bishops can hardly be a conciliar heresy. Most people took that view for granted until very recently. Nor have the world's two largest ecclesial communities come round to the CofE's position.
I agree with Enoch. The C of E has done exactly the right thing with regards to the DH issue. The Lambeth Conference of 1998 clarified that members with this particular minority view are loyal Anglicans along with the majority. It's therefore inclusive to include them, rather than exclude them because they are less inclusive than others. Whether the measures agreed endure another 20 years or more remain to be seen. But, to their credit, they finally found a formula that's fair and, as a bottom line, acceptable to all. That is inclusiveness.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I doubt that Anglicanism can survive in this way for very long. Rather than continue to pursue the present policy of "keep everyone onboard at all costs", there should be a point where Anglicanism says "THIS is what you have to accept. If you can't do that, then you can't be a part of the Anglican Communion."
At the very least, "THIS" should include: being willing to share communion with all other Anglicans, regardless of their opinions, gender or sexuality; a refusal to tolerate naked homophobia.
This is worth emphasizing because I think it puts forward exactly what is needed. And because I really like the turn of phrase "refusal to tolerate naked homophobia".
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Both of those count as suffering in my book.
Perhaps they don't in yours ...
2. Ok, you've worked as a manual labourer. Good for you. No need to get chippy about it.
1. They count to me too - I recognise he has faced those two faith and life changing events. Yes I did know about both.
The point I was trying to make - badly and with hyperbole as it turned out - was that like me and you he hasn't walked in the shoes of the employed on a so called sink estate in the UK (as you rightly reminded me). Yet his privileged education has set him in a place where lots of his congregations aren't.
I don't diminish his suffering in any way.
2. Surely you can't come down on the side of chippy - shouldn't it be both chippy and of course non chippy ?
Perhaps we both recognise the absurdities and prejudices of the world but express them in different ways. In the Fens of my youth they tended to kick seven bells out of people who were suspected of being or getting above themselves. I rather think that South wales was more refined in its dislike of patronage and the like.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair call.
I was tempted to issue a Hell call but thought better of it. I shouldn't have posted like that in Purgatory.
Apologies everyone and Justin - my post was out of order in making it personal. My frustrations about stuff on the ground got the better of my posting on line.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The heirarchy is still dominated by public school toffs. So is the evangelical wing of the CofE to be frank ... HT-bloody-B and all that.
A line of DNA stretching back through David Watson, John Stott and the 1930s "Bash Camps" - as Pete Ward made very clear. But I think you know that.
(Could so nearly have gone down that line myself, had not the local "sound" church in my University city been non-conformist instead of Anglican).
I wonder how many clergy have ever worked in manual work or other such employment? (I don't mean a few weeks sorting post as a student either).
I wonder what the figures might be of clergy who went to public school and/or university?
It would be instructive to see just how far removed the clergy are from the "average man in the street" of their parish and/or congregation.
I'm with Gam here. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the posh, I just think it's another example of our unrepresentative church. I don't need an eton boy like Justin to tell me what it's like to suffer, I rather know it out of my own experience. He's got sod all in common with most people in his churches and les with those outside them: perhaps I'll put the point to him when we meet in a few weeks' time.
Well, not that many people generally work in manual work nowadays - most working-class people now work in supermarkets and call-centres etc.
I think the CoE is actually probably the most inclusive in terms of clergy's backgrounds - in many other branches of the Anglican church, you need a degree (or sometimes even a postgrad degree) to be accepted for ministerial training. You don't in the CoE. I agree that there is an issue with the clergy being incredibly middle class, but in a church which is very middle class, what are you going to do?
--------------------
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
What's the point of having go at ++Justin just because he's posh? Lord knows I have no brief for Etonians but none of us chooses which family we're born into and few of us choose which school we go to, or if we do we do so within a range determined by (i) what is available and /or (ii) what our parents think is suitable.
What ++Justin has done is decide to turn off of the route of material advantage and success in which he started and, by being ordained, to take on a life which although it may carry a certain amount of social status even as a parish priest, will have taken him outside his social comfort zone and offers material rewards (even as an Archbishop) which many of his contemporaries from his own background would regard as laughably small.
Inverted snobbery is just as distasteful as the traditional kind.
[ 05. August 2014, 15:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
