|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Affirming Evangelical Unity or Shoehorning in division?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
But this thread has mostly been about evangelicals and same-gender marriage ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I just want to know whether a situation like that with the CoE and divorcees marrying would be acceptable to such a group.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The discussion on this thread started about an attempt to resolve one of the many internecine wars (in this case between evangelicals) that have been going on for the last 20 years.
Only 20 years? I was at university more than 20 years ago, and the question of women in leadership was an old battle ground for the evangelicals I knew then. But, they were almost entirely non-Anglican evangelicals, perhaps the Anglican evangelicals were playing catchup.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Immediately referring to everyone else as 'liberals' is really not helpful. I am pro same-gender marriage, and perhaps could be referred to as liberal on this and some other dead horses. However as a whole I certainly don't consider myself liberal - I affirm the Creeds and do so literally (ie I believe in the virgin birth, physical resurrection and a physical Second Coming), and I'm not a fan of humanism dressed up as Christianity or Spong.
I am not sure why there is such an obsession checking people's orthodoxy wrt sexuality when there's certainly far more heterodoxy regarding money or church structure or even the Trinity out there, even amongst evangelicals. ...
The level of sheer fear radiating from the more distinctly homophobic conservatives reeks of internalised homophobia.
Yup, that's where I'm at, too.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Like you, Pomona, I think this 'liberal' label is a bit of a red herring. Experience has taught me that there are gay people who are exemplary Christians and whose relationships can be loving and holy in the highest degree. Experience has taught me that there are women who are, I believe, excellent clergy. Other than on those issues, I suspect that my beliefs as a Christian and my views on the Church, including especially my views the nature of authority within it, are not significantly different from those of, say, the late Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher (who, BTW, believed that the arguments for and against OOW were 'finely balanced'- this a remarkable statement for someone of his generation and position in 1956 or thereabouts).
Back to the headship thing. Pete says that the nature of the Church is that it is composed of 'different sorts of bastards'. I see what he means, but I don't think that that means that every particular manifestation of the Church (e.g. in this case the CofE) needs to accord equal status to every particular sort of 'bastard'. For example, we all know that there have been people who would regard themselves as devout Christians who believe, on what they believe to be Biblical authority, that black people are inferior to, or at any rate destined to be ruled by, white people. There has not AFAIK ever been any substantial, or substantially noisy, and organised such group within the CofE, but if there were, would Pete feel the need to accommodate them?
Interesting, on looking back through this thread, to see that nowhere does Pete try to defend the principle of making concessions made to the 'headship' (and 'sacramental assurance') crowds. His arguments are based on keeping to the commitments to these groups made in the past. Perhaps he realises that these commitments are, in themselves, indefensible in principle.
[ 13. April 2015, 21:07: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In the past, evangelicals who disagreed with each other didn't insist on belonging to the same churches. Very often they went off to start new churches, some of which became quite effective in their turn. I'm not sure why the same shouldn't be possible regarding disagreements about about sexuality or sexual roles, or anything else.
We all love to talk about 'unity', but in our culture at present unity only seems to mean that churches close and/or merge, and that Christians have less and less choice when it comes to finding others who share their doctrines, or ways of worshipping. Everything is brought down to the lowest common denominator, which is boring.
No, I think we should all be grateful to 'conevo' congregations that make it clear what they teach, so that members and would-be members can take their their money and time elsewhere if they profoundly disagree!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
We now have bishops and priests, male and female, which is something I rejoice in. I also have to deal with clergy (mainly) and laity for whom I have pastoral responsibility who can't (yet) accept women priests and bishops. Finding ways in which they can stay in the CofE is part of the deal. A lot of people don't like it. But we now have Bishops of Stockport and Hull and Gloucester (all great appointments) which wouldn't have happened without the compromises built into the legislation.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, I do wonder whether the concessions that were made in Synod on bishops will be seen as worthwhile if they are allowed to stand for as long as the concessions made about priests have been allowed to. There was the option after women bishops were rejected in 2012 of the senior Bishops saying 'sod it, sod Synod' and getting Parliament to legislate- a semi-nuclear option, but we might yet wish that it had been taken.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the past, evangelicals who disagreed with each other didn't insist on belonging to the same churches. Very often they went off to start new churches, some of which became quite effective in their turn. I'm not sure why the same shouldn't be possible regarding disagreements about about sexuality or sexual roles, or anything else.
Some evangelicals will still do that. But, there are lots of good reasons not to. For a start, evangelicals will want to take seriously Biblical texts about being One Body, about loving one another, and so on. Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent. However, even though there's often a reluctance for evangelicals to formally join ecumenical groups, evangelicals are increasingly strengthening relationships with other evangelicals, with a corresponding production of statements similar to this one regarding points of difference between groups within Evangelicalism. There is also a reluctance to make things worse in terms of visible unity by splitting off and forming yet more churches.
That's generally true of evangelicals in my experience. However, Evangelical Anglicans (and also Methodists and others in larger denominations) do tend to be more ecumenically minded than the average for evangelicals. Thus, IME, Anglican Evangelicals are even more likely to value visible unity within the Anglican Communion, and ecumenical initiatives beyond that. That may not result in them having any desire to worship with the AngloCatholic tat-shack down the road, but they would still tend to see themselves as Christians together within the same body.
Of course, the AngloCatholic tat-shack down the road will probably find the worship of evangelicals to not be their glass of gin either. Many of them would also be unhappy about the ordination of women. But, for similar reasons of being part of one body they also want to remain within the Anglican Communion. The desire to maintain visible unity within the Anglican Church has resulted in many groups within the church agreeing with a fudge.
Of course, quite a lot of people have also left the Anglican Church, some to Rome others to independent evangelical churches, some to nowhere in particular, because they couldn't accept the fudge. But, those that remain must surely do so because they value to Anglican Church as a place of common ground.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent.
My (Scottish) wife has chatted from time to time about ecumenical issues with her relatives, who live in Glasgow. She has also - although not recently - taken part in a number of children's work training courses. And her impression is that Scottish Evangelicals are about 20 years "behind" their English counterparts when it comes to getting together with other churches.
To take a concrete example: she was staying with her brother, who is an Elder and Lay Preacher in one of the smaller Presbyterian denominations. The local URC minister dropped round to talk about something happening on their estate; when he'd left, her brother and his wife said, "Of course, our church can't really have much to do with them as they're not Real Christians".
Does that square up with your experience, Alan?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, it does. Coming from the position of an Elder in the URC, and Evangelical I cna relate to being on the other side of that conversation.
And, my experience of Evangelicalism in England is 20 years old, so ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Hallo Alan, I wanted to PM you (again) but your Inbox is full ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sorry about that. I would say I'm popular, but the truth is I'm a hoarder. Sorted now.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Ecumenacalism certainly varies with region. Where I now live in London, the churches together movement seems to be led by the Anglican churches, backed up the the methodist/URC with a smattering of others. Most of evangelical churches are independent pentecostals with a few RCCG, New Frontiers, Pioneer and Ichthus dotted around.
Before I came here though, I lived in Sussex where churches together was much more evangelical led. The pentecostal and baptist churches provided the impetus for any activities. In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Whenever I hear of "liberal catholic" elements of the CofE, it is this hateful attitude that instantly comes to mind.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Ecumenacalism certainly varies with region.
David Coffey - ex-BUGB General Secretary - has
on several occasions written about the "tribes" of Evangelicalism and the need for unity.
quote:
Before I came here though, I lived in Sussex where churches together was much more evangelical led. The pentecostal and baptist churches provided the impetus for any activities. In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Saly I've come across that attitude: "This is 'our' parish (and your tradition doesn't count)".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You surely don't have to remain a member of a particular church in order to have ecumenical relations with it. It's possible to swap churches because of sexuality or other reasons but continue to communicate and to meet up with your former church family for community events and so on. Let's remember that some couples get on much better after they divorce!
In terms of broader ecumenical relations, I was until very recently the secretary for a local inner city Churches Together group, so I'm not anti-ecumenical as such. However, it's plain to see that ecumenicalism of this type is most useful to churches that are not strong enough to pursue their mission or public agenda effectively on their own. Evangelical churches that are doing tolerably well on their own terms don't particularly need to subject themselves to agendas which are largely set by more mainstream denominations or congregations.
I don't really understand what a group of CofE evangelicals mean by 'unity', though. They're already part of a single institution, so all they're doing is discussing what should unite members of the subgroup. If they fall out with each other most of them will still remain in the CofE, so it's hardly a big deal...!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You surely don't have to remain a member of a particular church in order to have ecumenical relations with it. It's possible to swap churches because of sexuality or other reasons but continue to communicate and to meet up with your former church family for community events and so on.
Have you ever left a church over a disagreement on something significant? Especially if it's been a big bust-up across the congregation and you're not the only one to leave. I can tell you, meeting with members of the former church at community events is not easy, there is a lot of frosty silence and averted eyes, a large dose of "get this over so I can leave".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If that's the case then why would you want to stay in touch with them anyway?
People leave churches all the time. It always has happened and always will. Many young people will fall out with their parents over religion, and older people will grow weary of supporting churches whose teachings and attitudes they don't fully share. I can't see how any amount of longing for unity is going to change this basic reality. Indeed, the path towards 'unity' is often something else for churchgoers to disagree about! Church mergers often lose people during the process.
Evangelicalism without bust-ups seems to be something of a contradiction, AFAICS. You run the risk of bust-ups when you join a church when everyone takes their doctrines very seriously. The way to avoid that sort of thing is to join a church that values or at least tolerates diversity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If that's the case then why would you want to stay in touch with them anyway?
Because they're still brothers and sisters in Christ. Because, despite whatever it was that means you couldn't continue in that congregation you would still have friends there (many of whom might have been close to leaving too). Because your time there had brought you closer to Christ, given you a chance to grow and develop in your faith, to serve and be served. Because a church is like family, and there will always be some connection no matter how strained and difficult.
quote:
People leave churches all the time. It always has happened and always will. Many young people will fall out with their parents over religion, and older people will grow weary of supporting churches whose teachings and attitudes they don't fully share.
Yes, people leave churches all the time. In many cases perfectly amicably. I've left a church which had nothing for children to another local church which did have, with the blessing and understanding of all in the church. I've left churches because I've moved away. You leave as friends, are always welcome to come back and visit and everyone wants to know how things are going. People drift out slowly as their faith develops in ways different from the church, or the church changes from what had been a good fit to their faith. They start going elsewhere once a month, then make the final step. And, people at the church understand that, because they've known them for a long time, know where they are and where the church is.
That is very different from the emotions of a big bust up. A sudden realisation that the church is not what you thought it was. When the church that had been friendly and welcoming, and you thought would welcome anyone, suddenly shows an unexpected bigotry and refuses to offer someone a welcome. Then people leave shaking the dust from their feet, vowing to never again darken the door of that church. Friends for many years find themselves unexpectedly on different sides, some going and others staying. Those who leave feel betrayed and angry at the church they're leaving. Those left behind feel abandoned and wonder whether they can keep going without several prominent members of the congregation. No one wants to leave, no one wants others to leave, but the divorce is forced on people by circumstances. And it fucking hurts like hell.
And, just to top it off, having stormed out, knowing that there is no way back, you still want to maintain fellowship because despite everything they are brothers and sisters in the faith, they are family, and they are precious people you still love. And, that hurts too.
I'm glad you've never experienced that, and hope you never will. But, please lay off the platitudes about "some couples get on better after divorce" and "you can still go back for the coffee mornings". Life isn't that simple. Not for couples who break up, not for churches that fall apart.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by pete173 quote:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
The best description of the hole-in-the-corner deal reached with the conservative evangelicals is that it is shoddy and shameful: pragmatism is one thing, but that went way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. If I were you I'd be keeping my own part in it quiet.
quote:
We now have bishops and priests, male and female, which is something I rejoice in.
Yes, it is a good thing - but then if previous bishops and archbishops had had the cojones we could (would, and should) have been here more than 20 years ago.
quote:
I also have to deal with clergy (mainly) and laity for whom I have pastoral responsibility who can't (yet) accept women priests and bishops.
And chances are that if you could find the elixir of eternal youth and so stay a bishop for another 100 years you'd still be finding the same thing: partisans and bigots insisting on their own little patch and demanding that the rest of us make special provision for them.
quote:
Finding ways in which they can stay in the CofE is part of the deal. A lot of people don't like it.
No, finding ways in which they "can" stay is what you're obssessed with: there are plenty of us who think you should call their bluff, especially bearing in mind just how much of the doctrine of the CofE they don't/won't accept - and need I remind you that that includes the existence of bishops for a sizeable number of them.
quote:
But we now have Bishops of Stockport and Hull and Gloucester (all great appointments) which wouldn't have happened without the compromises built into the legislation.
We've had bishops of Gloucester since 1541; suffragans of Stockport since 1949 and Hull since 1891 (forget the 16th century appointment). I'm sure that bishops would eventually have been found for all three places with or without the legislation - and its too soon to tell whether any of them are "great" appointments.
Rather than indulging in yet more back-slapping about the issue, when can we expect the House of Bishops to grasp the nettle of reforming the structure of the CofE to reflect the massive contraction in numbers over the past 60 years? Two of the appointments you quote above are of suffragans when the church should really be questioning whether or not we need suffragans and, if we do, where they should be and how many of them.
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We've had bishops of Gloucester since 1541; suffragans of Stockport since 1949 and Hull since 1891 (forget the 16th century appointment). I'm sure that bishops would eventually have been found for all three places with or without the legislation - and its too soon to tell whether any of them are "great" appointments.
[snip]
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Indeed. I am particularly concerned that the new +Gloucester is of such different churchmanship from her predecessors. Are there no high church woman priests with the potential to be bishops?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by pete173 quote:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
The best description of the hole-in-the-corner deal reached with the conservative evangelicals is that it is shoddy and shameful: pragmatism is one thing, but that went way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. If I were you I'd be keeping my own part in it quiet.
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Oh, no, I'm thoroughly proud of my part in it. Because it keeps people in the CofE and holds us together, and protects them from the bigotry that would exclude them.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent. However, even though there's often a reluctance for evangelicals to formally join ecumenical groups, evangelicals are increasingly strengthening relationships with other evangelicals, with a corresponding production of statements similar to this one regarding points of difference between groups within Evangelicalism.
I can't claim my personal experience as universal, of course, but my experience has been that evangelicals are way ahead of the game in terms of working together between and across denominational boundaries, precisely because they have more theology in common and really do see denominational differences as relatively unimportant. Others in the denominations don't have that large theological common belief, and therefore see their distinctive practices as far more important and not to be easily given up over a 'trivial' cause like Christian unity.
At the Uni I went to, the non-evangelical student societies were pretty fragmented and separate and the nominally unifying 'SCM' was - well, not much anything. The Evangelical Christian Union's active membership likely outweighed all the others put together and was interdenominational all the way from Anglicans to assorted charismatics, 'Open' Brethren, and a local NE-England 'slightly exclusive' Brethren group. Regular attenders at CU meetings also included Greek Orthodox and RCs....
My experiences over many years in the Crusaders youth movement (now rebranded as 'Urban Saints') were similar, working with leaders from many denominations and encouraging young people into a variety of local evangelical churches.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That wasn't exactly what I was trying to say, and besides others have pointed out that my recent experience in Scotland and older experience in other parts of the UK may no longer be representative.
I agree that evangelicals are very good (well, a lot better than some others) at working and worshipping across denominational barriers. That is, if that is with other evangelicals. When we move location we're much more likely to look for another evangelical church rather than another Methodist, Anglican or URC. So, you're right we place our common theological identity above our identity with a given denomination.
But, my point was while we're good at ecumenical relationships with other evangelical churches, evangelicals (IME, which as has been pointed out is a bit dated for England) are very poor at ecumenical relationships beyond evangelicalism. Evangelical churches in active partnership with non-evangelical CofE, Methodist or URC churches is IME much rarer than those other churches being in ecumenical partnership with each other. And, evangelical churches in partnership with Catholic churches (whether Roman or Anglican) rarer still.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm glad you've never experienced that, and hope you never will. But, please lay off the platitudes about "some couples get on better after divorce" and "you can still go back for the coffee mornings". Life isn't that simple. Not for couples who break up, not for churches that fall apart.
I was part of a church that 'fell apart' several years ago. That was very hard for me, and due to that experience I still don't feel able to give my all to any church today. It wasn't a big evangelical bust-up, just a boring MOTR road church closure due to a lack of money and exhaustion. But no one cares about churches that implode for such mundane reasons. C'est la vie.
From what you're saying, evangelicals will almost always end up unhappy with church, because they always expect more from church life that it can give them. But perhaps you can't have the evangelical highs without the corresponding evangelical lows. That's how ISTM. I have family members in evangelical churches.
One solution is to take the MOTR route and to become tolerant and non-confrontational. In the end, though, this seems to lead to a less evangelical sort of church. So some people leave and the melodrama starts again elsewhere. We don't end up with more unity, ironically, but less.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Just for the record, my personal experience isn't in an evangelical church. It was a bust up over sexuality in a MOTR, "tolerant and non-confrontational" church. You don't have to be evangelical to take your faith seriously, and to react strongly to things which run contrary to that faith.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Whenever I hear of "liberal catholic" elements of the CofE, it is this hateful attitude that instantly comes to mind.
Yes, that's been my experience too in several areas. Where non denom or non Anglican evangelicals are perceived to be the strongest (generally the largest) group, there's a huge amount of Anglican bitching about it.
It reached its zenith a couple of years ago when as an invited guest to the installation of the parish priest (church 200 yards away from our place), I was asked to bring a ecumenical greeting. Both the Priest and Bishop referred to "our" Anglican work in this parish in terms which suggested that they considered it their own patch. Woe betide any of us (Salvation Army, 2 independent churches [one BME - we're inner city], BUGB Baptist - who thought continuing ecumenical activity was the way forward.
At a shot, the work of over 10 years was destroyed. The irony is that the Anglican church is the smallest and least mission minded of all the local churches. It's also the least evangelical by a long long mile.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent. However, even though there's often a reluctance for evangelicals to formally join ecumenical groups, evangelicals are increasingly strengthening relationships with other evangelicals, with a corresponding production of statements similar to this one regarding points of difference between groups within Evangelicalism.
I can't claim my personal experience as universal, of course, but my experience has been that evangelicals are way ahead of the game in terms of working together between and across denominational boundaries, precisely because they have more theology in common and really do see denominational differences as relatively unimportant. Others in the denominations don't have that large theological common belief, and therefore see their distinctive practices as far more important and not to be easily given up over a 'trivial' cause like Christian unity.
At the Uni I went to, the non-evangelical student societies were pretty fragmented and separate and the nominally unifying 'SCM' was - well, not much anything. The Evangelical Christian Union's active membership likely outweighed all the others put together and was interdenominational all the way from Anglicans to assorted charismatics, 'Open' Brethren, and a local NE-England 'slightly exclusive' Brethren group. Regular attenders at CU meetings also included Greek Orthodox and RCs....
My experiences over many years in the Crusaders youth movement (now rebranded as 'Urban Saints') were similar, working with leaders from many denominations and encouraging young people into a variety of local evangelical churches.
That seems surprising - most CUs don't believe that Catholics and Orthodox are 'Real Christians'. This is the thinking behind the lack of ecumenism I've experienced in evangelical churches (Anglican ones at that!) - nnot at leadership levels, but certainly the majority of the laity did not believe that RCs etc were 'Real Christians'.
Also as an SCM member I'm sorry you had a bad experience of them. In the last decade or so we've merged with SCM Ireland and got a new leader, and have been really working on including different denominations. We have many evangelical staff now, for instance, and go to evangelical conferences as well as Greenbelt etc. And as you may know, we do a lot with the UK Anabaptist Network! We have Bruderhof come to every conference.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Ecumenacalism certainly varies with region. Where I now live in London, the churches together movement seems to be led by the Anglican churches, backed up the the methodist/URC with a smattering of others. Most of evangelical churches are independent pentecostals with a few RCCG, New Frontiers, Pioneer and Ichthus dotted around.
Before I came here though, I lived in Sussex where churches together was much more evangelical led. The pentecostal and baptist churches provided the impetus for any activities. In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Whenever I hear of "liberal catholic" elements of the CofE, it is this hateful attitude that instantly comes to mind.
When I lived in Sussex (about 7 years ago now) it was very difficult to find a liberal catholic CoE church! Were you in Brighton? I was nearer Hastings (not in Hastings though) and the Anglican churches were almost entirely conservative evangelical, with a few FiF churches.
I'm really sorry you've experienced that. As an LGBT Christian, liberal catholic CoE churches have been pretty much my only option (I am too theologically high-church to be comfortable in the URC or Methodist churches) and the people who believe in the parish model to the exclusion of all others are very frustrating even to me. I am a pro-gay high-church person (dislike the label of liberal and am more monastic-influenced than tat queen) but I am the first to say that there are huge problems with liberal catholics smugly seeing themselves as the Best Most Progressive Christians Ever when there are serious problems within it (classism springs to mind). I would like to apologise for the experience you had - it shouldn't have happened.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I did say my experience wasn't necessarily universal. And my Uni experience was in the 1960s when Bishop John Robinson had recently published 'Honest to God' and much non-evangelical Christianity was decidedly wobbly - many prominent leaders really ought for honesty to have left the main churches and joined Unitarianism....
Evangelical unity was as I said, considerable - remember the exercise we did on one thread recently where some Shipmates checked how many of the CofE '39 Articles' we could assent to, and even I from the opposite end of Protestantism had a pretty high score. That also applied to other 'Statements of Faith' like the Presbyterian Westminster Confession and its Congregational and Particular Baptist derivatives. Evangelicals could consent to almost all of such 'confessions'; and the differences were not in the important things about the nature of God and Christ and salvation. Evangelicals really differed between themselves only in the areas of Church/State relations, Church Government, and Paedo- v Credo-Baptism (and even on the latter evangelicals probably agreed with each other inter-denominationally more than, say, evangelical Anglicans with high-church Anglicans).
Most of the rather extreme liberal theology of back then seems to have died away - in attempting to be trendy they'd often ended up producing the effect of a church so vague as not to be worth joining once the shock value of things like "the bishop who doesn't believe in the resurrection..." had lost its novelty.
As evangelicals saw it, they were united around these common beliefs, but the liberals in their denominations seemed if anything to be prepared to surrender that common heritage for a merely organisational unity round a very watered-down faith. An initial prospect of talking through the differences and trying to sort them out had turned instead into a funny situation of ignoring the differences and not talking about them between denominations and in front of the world, while within the denominations if anything emphasising the distinctives and making unity harder. It always seemed odd to me that they simultaneously made the loudest noises about being ecumenical but sabotaged unity by their
practice. Of course from an evangelical viewpoint many of those 'distinctives' were not very biblical so not important....
As regards RCs we were still in an era where both evangelical and RCs were still getting used to the post-Vatican II changes in the RC church. There were people like Paisley in Ulster who didn't believe there had been a change - there were also both evangelicals who very much gave the new RCC at least benefit of the doubt, and RCs who felt much freer to associate with non-RC Christians. My Cypriot friend John might perhaps have been better described as 'from an Orthodox background'.
I suspect the position of SCM at my Uni was a bit unusual....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
No, I think SCM has had a not so great record in welcoming evangelicals, but I think it is changing now thankfully.
And thanks for putting things in context, it makes a lot more sense. I think Honest To God was published by SCM Press to make things even worse! Actually I find that I'm always too liberal/progressive for the conservatives and too conservative for the real liberals - I think sometimes that the internet/technology has increased the polarisation of liberals and conservatives. American post-evangelicals like Rachel Held Evans are making interesting contributions to the discussion though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by pete173 quote:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
The best description of the hole-in-the-corner deal reached with the conservative evangelicals is that it is shoddy and shameful: pragmatism is one thing, but that went way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. If I were you I'd be keeping my own part in it quiet.
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Oh, no, I'm thoroughly proud of my part in it. Because it keeps people in the CofE and holds us together, and protects them from the bigotry that would exclude them.
The problem with that Pete is that as a straight cis man you don't have to pay the price of the compromise. No-one questions whether you are a real bishop.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
No, I don't have to pay the price (though my sexual orientation is not relevant to the Synod vote on the legislation). But there were enough women on Synod who were prepared to vote with the legislation who do have to pay the price. And they were willing to go with it. A purist approach to this wouldn't have got us women bishops.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yet. But it might have been worth it in the long run.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
And there you have it. Purists tend to see pragmatists as unprincipled. Pragmatists tend to see purists as providing support for the theory that the best is the enemy of the good.
I've worn both hats in my life. Neither was a mitre.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just for the record, my personal experience isn't in an evangelical church. It was a bust up over sexuality in a MOTR, "tolerant and non-confrontational" church. You don't have to be evangelical to take your faith seriously, and to react strongly to things which run contrary to that faith.
Most of my experience is with MOTR Methodists. Although there will certainly be members who deeply disapprove of intimate homosexual relationships, the Methodist way is to avoid confrontation at all costs. I can't imagine a 'normal' English Methodist church imploding over this issue. But each congregation has its own dynamic, and I suspect that the dynamic in MOTR CofE congregations is quite different.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And there you have it. Purists tend to see pragmatists as unprincipled. Pragmatists tend to see purists as providing support for the theory that the best is the enemy of the good.
I've worn both hats in my life. Neither was a mitre.
I'm far from being a purist. I like pragmatism. But I do also want to get results that can be sustained in the long-term. A short-term fix is perfectly acceptable so long as it doesn't contain something that's going to come back and bite you on the bum, and turn into a chronic headache (to mix a metaphor). That's what happened with the concessions on ordaining women to the priesthood in the CofE, and that's what I fear will happen with the concessions now- especially the 'headship bishop'.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Although, further delays in ordaining women and consecrating women as bishops would have created headaches as well.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
But shorter-term ones. Mind you, if I'd been ++Rowan I'd have had a one-clause bill tabled in the Lords the day after the unsuccessful Synod vote. And I bet they could have got it through.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?
I'm not a member of the C of E but I can well understand why the pace of change is slow - and sometimes it may be a case of "one step forward, two steps back".
I well recall this speech by Rowan Williams. At the time, I hoped it would be "a moment of truth" for Synod representatives. Particularly this segment.
quote:
Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society - worse than that, it seems that we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities in that wider society.
The word "wilful" is worth reflection in this context. From my perspective, the "wilful tendency" is a long time a-dying, so being content with small, sometimes compromised, gains seems to me to be an act of realism.
Of course you could be right, Albertus, that the rearguard action has been given a hostage to fortune. But I'm not sure. The history of conservative evangelicalism contains several examples of stubborn public resistance followed by quiet capitulation under a smokescreen.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I hope that the settlement which the synod made and Bishop Pete173 took part in was not just pragmatism, as for me it represents a principle which is close to the heart of Christianity, namely wanting the best for one's opponents.
The alternative that it's all about winning, and preferably purging the church of one's opponents, I find quite chilling. Anyway whether that principle played a part or whether it was just pragmatism, I am glad the decision was made in synod and not on the ship of fools.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope that the settlement which the synod made and Bishop Pete173 took part in was not just pragmatism, as for me it represents a principle which is close to the heart of Christianity, namely wanting the best for one's opponents.
The alternative that it's all about winning, and preferably purging the church of one's opponents, I find quite chilling. Anyway whether that principle played a part or whether it was just pragmatism, I am glad the decision was made in synod and not on the ship of fools.
It's not all about winning for LGBT Anglicans, it's about surviving. I don't want to purge the church of all our opponents, I want them to stop trying to eradicate us. And while not all go that far, there are certainly conservative Anglicans campaigning for the recriminalisation of homosexuality and for reparative 'therapy'.
--------------------
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
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
We appear to be at cross purposes here. The synod settlement to which I am referring is the one which brought about the appointment of women bishops. Perhaps I could have made that more explicit but it was what Albertus, Barnabas62, and Pete173 had been talking about for the past several posts.
Some had expressed the view that it would be better if opponents of women bishops left the church of England but I am glad they can remain if they want to, and was expressing the view that making concessions which allowed them to do so could be viewed as principled as well as pragmatic, since for me giving up something one feels one deserves or is entitled to, in order to help one's opponents, is a good Christian principle.
My post was not intended to refer at all to the position of gay Anglicans in the church or how they get treated by anyone.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Apologies - but a not-dissimilar level of oppression still applies to female clergy/potential clergy. I used to live in Northampton which Anglican-wise is mostly FiF. There was a lot of hostility towards women who wanted to go for ordination in all but a handful of churches, and a church with a female priest (the only one in the town) really struggled to find anyone to be an assistant minister that was willing to work with women. Being a woman who is called to ordination in an anti-women area or church is extremely isolating and damaging. Nobody ever doubts that an anti-OoW man is a real priest or bishop.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I didn't realise anyone was claiming that the CofE is perfect.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't realise anyone was claiming that the CofE is perfect.
Not sure anyone is. The usual (implicit) claim is that the CofE is the entirety of the church, as amply demonstrated with how quickly this thread got derailed from a discussion about {evangelicals} to being a discussion about {evangelicals} ∩ {CofE}.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The comment about the imperfection in the CofE was a reflection on comments about areas where there still isn't an acceptance of women in ordained ministry.
The thread has concentrated on Evangelicals within the Anglican Church simply because the document that started it all off is so very Anglican to start with. Perhaps it's the good folks at Oak Hill who need to realise that Evangelicalism is a good deal bigger than part of the CofE.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
+Pete quoted- in another context- in this week's Church Times:
quote:
The Synod was "very out of date. . . It's based on a 1980s or 1970s representative-democracy thing, which really doesn't work."
...except presumably, when Synodical process gives me cover to sign up with my conevo mates against those horrid liberals...
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
+Pete quoted- in another context- in this week's Church Times:
quote:
The Synod was "very out of date. . . It's based on a 1980s or 1970s representative-democracy thing, which really doesn't work."
...except presumably, when Synodical process gives me cover to sign up with my conevo mates against those horrid liberals...
Either there is some mitigating context for that sentiment or the quality of Christian political thought has really gone downhill since Gerson and Ockham.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Glad you pointed it out, Albertus: I choked on my breakfast when I read it.
And why have I got a persistent image of the Cheshire Cat in my mind's eye??? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
