quote:

---

The discontent at Wycliffe Hall, an evangelical Anglican college which is part of Oxford University, has seen several resignations among its small academic staff and claims that one of its most prominent members, the regular Thought for the Day contributor Elaine Storkey, was threatened with disciplinary action.

The college has been accused of becoming more theologically conservative, more hostile to women's ordination and more homophobic since the appointment of its principal, Richard Turnbull, a vicar from Basingstoke and a former accountant without senior academic managerial experience, two years ago

---

quote:

---

"The staff were initially shocked and then outraged at this outrageous attempt to intimidate Storkey into submission, which has backfired totally. Every member of the entire teaching staff except one wrote to the governing body complaining of intimidation and demanding a meeting with them to air their concerns. This was turned down. James Jones [the Bishop of Liverpool and the chair of the college's governing council] made it clear he would back Turnbull whatever he did."

---

This would seem to be a disaster for Evangelicals in general and result of a bad appointment.

[ 09. October 2009, 18:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
It strikes me as odd that someone would take a position as principal of a college who was not in reasonable agreement with the theological basis of the place. But then, some people take jobs for the wrong reasons.

Wycliffe is probably more conservative than some others, but still with intellectual integrity. It sounds like Richard Turnball did not appreciate what working in an academic environment meant.

And james Jones is being stupid if he made a statement that he would back Turnball whatever. His job is to support the principal, but also act as an independant check - therefore not to back him whatever.

Sack him and make Dr Storkey principal.
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Jeez this is starting to get interesting.

RR
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
I'm at Wycliffe.

Essentially the piece in the press is a badly done hatchet job with several major factual innaccuracies and a limited kernel of truth.

The mood of students I've spoken to thus far is really not happy about or in agreement with the article at all.

[ 16. May 2007, 11:09: Message edited by: Custard. ]
 

---

Posted by Fermat (# 4894) on :
 
So what is happening, Custard? for you all.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I am sure I read that one or two members of the staff were moving to other places and now we know why.
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
If the BBC sends someone to investigate will he be followed around by the Office for Special Affairs and yelled at by thuggish looking bearded men? Probably not. I guess the news will out in the long run.

RR
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Essentially the piece in the press is a badly done hatchet job with several major factual innaccuracies and a limited kernel of truth.

---

quote:

---

If the BBC sends someone to investigate will he be followed around by the Office for Special Affairs and yelled at by thuggish looking bearded men? Probably not. I guess the news will out in the long run.

---

quote:

---

the Master shall provide courses of instruction for the undergraduate members of the hall during at least twenty-four weeks in the academic year

---

which may be potentially difficult if the report is right about the number of staff who have left. Ultimately Wycliffe Hall's licence as a Permanent Private Hall could be suspended.

[Cor, my 800th post.]

[ 16. May 2007, 12:22: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
There's an official statement coming out some time in the next couple of days. It's better if I don't comment further on the situation until then.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Well if nothing else the other evangelical colleges may do well out of this news report as students opt to go somewhere else.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I assume that one or two are leaving over this issue and others may want to leave but can't get the jobs they want.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
My previous post now makes no sense.
Custard has deleted a post that denied that half the staff were leaving.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Regnets (where I was officially )is both a private hall *AND* a normal college. In effect it is a normal college, albeit a small one, with normal (ie christian and non christian!) students with a small number or ordinands (ministerials) tagged on the side.

I more or less lived in wycliffe though when i was at uni as i was engaged to one of the students. I remember when I was there there was some tnesion between the groups, but there were plenty of women ordinands and I think the feel there for my first two years was more "open evnagelical" although a sizeable minority of "reform" students were there that wasnt the general feel. By my third year there were a lot of HTB ordinands and there was a distinctly more evo/charismatic feel.

I think the feel does change with the intake. The scholars that were there were from a variety of perspectives and certainly not as conservative as Oak Hill.

I really rather like Elaine Storkey and so will be interested to hear whats been going on.


(disclaimer - obviously subjective student experience!)
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
I can't see what there is to be inaccurate in the article - it almost all either direct quotes or statements about what has happened.
 

---

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :
 
As far as I can tell only the Guardian has published this story. Maybe this should tell us a bit about the Guardian's slant on things.
I also wonder who told the Guardian about this in the first place.
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Church press have also got it.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Church press have also got it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
I can't see what there is to be inaccurate in the article - it almost all either direct quotes or statements about what has happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
For all we know, they may have left out some extra piece of info that exonerates everyone and makes the story a lot less interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

I suspect the existence of the document (if it exists) is closely linked to the existence of this story...

---

quote:

---

There's an official statement coming out some time in the next couple of days. It's better if I don't comment further on the situation until then.

---

I think we ought to wait until then to pass judgement. It's not unknown for the press to get stuff wrong.
 

---

Posted by BIg Carp (# 12635) on :
 
this is another example of the conservative evangelical wing of the church bullying the central evengelical and charismatic evangelical christians. People like David Wenham are modern day saints, they don't resign over nothing. For people like that to leave they must have been treated terribly...they can't all be making it up...as some have suggested here...we are talking about people with serious integrity leaving posts that they have held for tens of years...
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Yes I had read or heard that David Wenham and in effect taken a demotion by going to another college and now we know why.

[ 16. May 2007, 18:18: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by BIg Carp (# 12635) on :
 
It's not just David either, Geoff Maughn is another legend who has left, as is Philip Johnson, and even Alistair McGrath has stepped down from the OCA. These are some of the best people in theological education...and who is wycliffe going to replace the with? surely they don't just happen to have a host of such awesome talent and Goldliness tucked away in James Jones's desk draw...
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Gosh it wont be the wycliffe I remember. Geoff really was really really amazing - really taught me a lot just by him being him and the embodiment of such a wonderful person, and David Wenham was *so* my favourite ever tutor (I think I mentioned that before elsewhere) I cant believe it. What on earth happened??????? CAn wycliffe really lose so many of its key people that make it run?? Will it lose its Oxford accreditation/ its credibility? David really taught me so so so much about doing theology accademically. Where is it hes gone to? I cant believe Wycliffe isnt "wycliffe" anymore

Im nto sure I understand the ALister bit - what is OCA? I didnt think he was involved in wycliffe since doing the other institute thing?
 

---

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BIg Carp:
and even Alistair McGrath has stepped down from the OCA.

---

Another person wondering what OCA is...

I must say that it seemed a terrible idea to me at the time for McGrath to step down as principal but carry on hanging around Wycliffe. I thought it would have made things terribly difficult for the new principal.

With hindsight, I wonder if that was part of the problem (this new guy behaving like a Rottweiler out of a perceived need to strongly mark his territory given the old α-male was still hanging around?); or whether McGrath knew who was coming and thought they needed his help. (Or both, of course).
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
OCCA seems to be a separate but related organisation to Wycliffe.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Having finally got round to reading the Guardian article I did notice one piece of fantastic journalism:

"Dr Storkey, who is on sabbatical, refused to comment, saying only: 'There is some substance to that.'"

How can someone who refused to comment give a comment?

I do wonder what we'd find to talk about on the ship if we ever took all those NT prohibitions of gossip seriously.
 

---

Posted by molehill (# 12285) on :
 
Can we start a new movement of 'Elaine for Principal' - that would cheer things up considerably
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Ohh what a fantastic idea - she would be amazing.

Minor problem though if everyone else *has* already left/resigned...

(again not knowing at all whats goinon ust from this thread!)
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I can't see bishops encouraging people to go to Wycliffe this year. I wonder if this would affect it's finances.
 

---

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
The University's task force on Permanent Private Halls (the PPH Review Panel), headed by Sir Colin Lucas, the previous Vice-Chancellor, may well have things to say about these developents, and these in turn might affect such institutions as S Stephen's House.

Having said that, if Father Turnbull* has a vision for the sort of education he wants to provide to his students, which, as the Master of a PPH he is entirely entitled to have, then what's the problem with that per se?

*I'm sure he would dislike being referred to as such. But hey.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:
The University's task force on Permanent Private Halls (the PPH Review Panel), headed by Sir Colin Lucas, the previous Vice-Chancellor, may well have things to say about these developents, and these in turn might affect such institutions as S Stephen's House..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:
With hindsight, I wonder if that was part of the problem (this new guy behaving like a Rottweiler out of a perceived need to strongly mark his territory given the old α-male was still hanging around?); or whether McGrath knew who was coming and thought they needed his help. (Or both, of course).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:
With hindsight, I wonder if that was part of the problem (this new guy behaving like a Rottweiler out of a perceived need to strongly mark his territory given the old α-male was still hanging around?); or whether McGrath knew who was coming and thought they needed his help. (Or both, of course).

---

Of the two, I'd go with the latter. Turnbull is:

a) Not equipped or qualified to be a principal of a theological college. He might be able to bore for England on pensions but theologically he's a couple of aces short of a full pack.

b) A remarkably self-opinionated man (some would say arrogant) who has no time for anyone who doesn't agree with his views.

Put the two together and you get someone who isn't up to the mark in dealing with genuine theological academics and whose first instinct is to bully people into submission to his ways. So it's no great surprise that things have gone sour at Wycliffe.

---

Who appointed him???????

Carys
 

---

Posted by Fermat (# 4894) on :
 
Presumably the Wycliffe Council? I'm not entirely sure how it works - do theological college principal appointments have to be approved by anyone? (i.e. MinDiv or the Crown Appointments Committee?)
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Each college has its own system of governance as they are all independant (ie the Cof E does not own or control them centrally). No two colleges have exactly the same system.

Who has the power to appoint staff is a key question in each college.
 

---

Posted by BIg Carp (# 12635) on :
 
Stokey for principal, storkey for principal....I can see it now...what a vision of wycliffe heaven
 

---

Posted by Tumphouse (# 11321) on :
 
Why was someone with apparantly few qualifications for the post appointed as Principal? There must have been a reason. What was the agenda of the people who appointed him? The whole thing appears very odd.
G
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Maybe they needed his accountancy and management background, and felt that that and his experience in C of E affairs nationally would be useful in the current climate of change in C of E theological education following the Hind Report (q.v.).

He does not have a background in the academic world but perhaps they thought his CV showed adequate academic credentials for a Principal whose main role lay elsewhere than teaching.

If his ability to manage interpersonal relationships is part of the issue ('If'), that may be something which it was difficult to get a good picture of through references and interview process. With some people their way of relating to others varies considerably depending on their perception of their authority in any given situation. It seems very unlikely that there was any direct evidence to go on to assess his ability in leading an academic institution (herding cats?) or helping it through a time of change.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

I can't see bishops encouraging people to go to Wycliffe this year.

---

I seem to recall that on one of the threads generated by +Southwark's activity, one of the many complaints levelled against him was that he discouraged ordinands to study at either Oak Hill and Wycliffe. Oak Hill of course, I thought, but why Wycliffe. Clearly one of those instances where Southwark leads the rest of the Church of England.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
I'm only saying here what is already in the public domain. I don't want to wash my own or anyone else's dirty laundry in public.

Richard Turnbull is:

• a Northerner who says what he thinks and means what he says
• a minister with a lot more experience of leading churches than any other theological college prinicipal in the C of E
• a Christian who is passionately concerned for the raising up and equipping of godly men and women to lead churches, which is, after all, what Wycliffe Hall is about
• an evangelical who has avoided joining any of the three main political groupings and is keen to work with all of them, while keeping his historic evangelical commitment to the importance of preaching
• appointed by the Hall Council with the specific instructions of strengthening the practical ministerial formation side of college while keeping the academic strength

• claiming to represent the breadth of evangelical tradition, but if you looked at it there were a lot of staff in Fulcrum, a few in New Wine and none in Reform. The college council I'd guess has roughly equal numbers associated with each and is chaired by +Liverpool, who is pretty much "open evangelical".
• doing well as a place of academic theology, but with a poor reputation among many evangelicals because of the lack of emphasis on the more practical side of ministry, particularly in terms of preaching (and remember that preaching Christ is seen in evangelical circles as the heart of what ministry is about)

Richard has appointed two new full-time members of staff thus far, of whom one is a member of Reform and one of New Wine. That is the first member of staff to be in Reform, and there are still two Fulcrum council members on staff. Hardly a conservative takeover.

Since he arrived, numbers have changed from falling short of the quota (which they did under McGrath) to exceeding an increased quota. We were full for 2007 admissions by February and are already filling up for 2008.

I think pretty much everyone here is hurting as a result of the articles. Please keep praying for us.
 

---

Posted by Fermat (# 4894) on :
 
Prayers assured, Custard.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
Do you know, when I was at theological college I didn't have a clue what any of the tutors was a member of. If members of staff are really being chosen in order to maintain some kind of balance between different para-church organisations I find that an extraordinary state of affairs, and if it could be proved it would almost certainly breach Equal Opportunities legislation.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

I think pretty much everyone here is hurting as a result of the articles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
If members of staff are really being chosen in order to maintain some kind of balance between different para-church organisations I find that an extraordinary state of affairs, and if it could be proved it would almost certainly breach Equal Opportunities legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:
The University's task force on Permanent Private Halls (the PPH Review Panel), headed by Sir Colin Lucas, the previous Vice-Chancellor, may well have things to say about these developents, and these in turn might affect such institutions as S Stephen's House..

---

The Staggers staff seemed vigorous and reasonably happy last time I looked. I'm not sure I see how trouble at one PPH would affect the institution of PPHs in general.

ETA: Nor can I see Bishops who were planning to send ordinands to Wycliffe sending them to Staggers instead!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

Richard Turnbull is:

• a minister with a lot more experience of leading churches than any other theological college prinicipal in the C of E

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
PPHs also gave early non-conformity i.e. late 19th century, an entry into Oxford (and Cambridge) and I guess Catholicism to from the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Richard Turnbull is:

• a minister with a lot more experience of leading churches than any other theological college prinicipal in the C of E

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

Richard Turnbull is:

• a minister with a lot more experience of leading churches than any other theological college prinicipal in the C of E

---

Quite a statement!

---

Well he has been 8 years a vicar and never had a role in a theological college before Wycliffe. George Kovooer was 10 years a priest in India and 4 years a priest in England. A Tutor at one college and now a Principal. Who is the better qualified?
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
I find it frustrating that this is being portrayed as a pro- and anti-OoW issue. When my wife was going through the selection process for ordination Richard Turnbull was extremely supportive of her and fought her corner. Lord knows he isn't perfect (he would be the first to admit) but dyfrig and Custard have it right in their assessment re. the Guardian and Christianity (esp of the evangelical kind).

Pre-cambrian and Archimandrite: I would be surprised if there is the remotest danger to the college's PPH status. The trend is pressure to becoming a full college rather than expulsion from the university like a naughty schoolboy. Wycliffe gives the theology faculty money and quite a lot of first-class degrees.

Emma (HI! hope you're well ). In answer to your Q, David Wenham is going to be Senior NT tutor at Trinity Bristol and also on the senior management team there.

Someone asked who appointed Richard Turnbull. I don't know the ins and outs of the procedure, but presumably it was the Hall Council, whose names are I think on the Wycliffe website. They're hardly all bombastic conservatives e.g. James Jones (hairy left wing eco-bishop), Fran Beckett (chief exec of the Church Urban Fund), David Urquhart (bishop of birmingham, not well known as a bastion of conservative evangelicalism). Hardly a Southern Baptist takeover!
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Sean you're married?!?!

THanks for the info on David Wenham. I really ought to write to him at some point!
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
When Richard arrived, Wycliffe was:

• doing well as a place of academic theology, but with a poor reputation among many evangelicals because of the lack of emphasis on the more practical side of ministry, particularly in terms of preaching (and remember that preaching Christ is seen in evangelical circles as the heart of what ministry is about)

---

Which perhaps suggests it's being pulled in opposite directions as a theological college and a PPH. Maybe Wycliffe needs to decide whether it can carry on being both, preferably before the University decides for it and in such a way that impacts unfavourably on the other PPHs which don't seem to be facing the same dichotomy.

[X-posted with Sean D]

[ 17. May 2007, 16:51: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
 

---

Posted by BIg Carp (# 12635) on :
 
I am sorry....but despite what some people say...the mass exodus of some of the most compassionate people in theological education is a sad reflection of a diasterous appointment. You can be brilliant at preaching but if you cannot 'put on love' to your own collegues then there is something seriously wrong. This is another reflection of the conservative 'right' who constantly push for their perception of 'soundness' or 'rightness' at the expense of the Love of Christ. It reminds me of so many other instances, Word Alives departure from Spring Harvest. UCCF's treatment of Fusion, Reforms attitude to Alpha, to name but a few. They are hardly great examples of Christian Love.
 

---

Posted by BIg Carp (# 12635) on :
 
someone will tell me this is all Steve Chalkes fault in a minuite!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
... its all Steve Chalke's fault in a minute
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BIg Carp:
I am sorry....but despite what some people say...the mass exodus of some of the most compassionate people in theological education is a sad reflection of a diasterous appointment. You can be brilliant at preaching but if you cannot 'put on love' to your own collegues then there is something seriously wrong. This is another reflection of the conservative 'right' who constantly push for their perception of 'soundness' or 'rightness' at the expense of the Love of Christ. It reminds me of so many other instances, Word Alives departure from Spring Harvest. UCCF's treatment of Fusion, Reforms attitude to Alpha, to name but a few. They are hardly great examples of Christian Love.

---

Yer, right. 'Cos in all those examples the problems were 100% one sided weren't they?

The wonderful thing about being right all the time is that you never have to say sorry.
 

---

Posted by rajm (# 5434) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

Someone asked who appointed Richard Turnbull. I don't know the ins and outs of the procedure, but presumably it was the Hall Council, whose names are I think on the Wycliffe website. They're hardly all bombastic conservatives e.g. James Jones (hairy left wing eco-bishop), Fran Beckett (chief exec of the Church Urban Fund), David Urquhart (bishop of birmingham, not well known as a bastion of conservative evangelicalism). Hardly a Southern Baptist takeover!

---

Though David Urquhart has only just taken up Birmingham, so he may not have been on the council when Turnbull was appointed - I don't know whether he was on when he was Bp. Birkenhead.
 

---

Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
Elaine Storkey is a very good friend of mine so I will certainly be emailing her my support and possibly asking for her version of events!
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Not being in any way connected with any of this, the first thing I said to myself when this hit Thinking Anglicans is 'It must have something to do with this whole Steve Chalk affair'

RR
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
ELaine for principal

DO you think we could get a petition going? WE could all turn up and picket with our support?!

On a more serious note - it really has hit me. My formative young years were there, with a lot of memories. A huge major influence on me developing as a "thinking" Christian. Its rather sad to see people I so respect leaving their jobs and oxford community etc due to bullying (or whatever the upset is)
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
Maybe it's just an unfortunate consequence of the natural reordering of evangelicalism within the Church of England. Will be interesting to see the knock-on effects for Oak Hill (one way) and St John's, Trinity, Ridley and Cranmer (the other way).
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Well Wycliffe are defending their cornor in this weeks CEN but I don't get it and it isn't online so I guess their defence will be a mystery to me.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
There is a story in CEN's 'Daily Edition' available as a free PDF dowload from here
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Sorry for double post, but the Church Times is also running the story.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BIg Carp:
It reminds me of so many other instances, Word Alives departure from Spring Harvest. UCCF's treatment of Fusion, Reforms attitude to Alpha, to name but a few. They are hardly great examples of Christian Love.

---

I have to wonder at the mystery of someone pointing the finger at people for not being loving, and then using that same post as a means of condemning a huge swathe of organisations involved in complex decisions about ministry situations. Can you explain, Big Carp, how that models "putting on love" exactly?
As Custard has said, as an insider, that the Guardian article bears little resemblance to reality (quelle surprise, frankly) and that people are hurt over it, I wonder whether it might be more loving to respect the hurt people in the college are feeling and keep your trap shut. In love of course.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Ive just read the Church Times article and am really sad to see what is happening (or what they perceive to be happening etc). Rob Merchant, the guy quoted there was there when I was. I know Ive recommended so Wycliffe to so many people, I loved it as a college, its community and its tutors. My heart really does go out to those all currently there, who applied haivng heard of its good reputation, and then in the process of losing some of its best staff. It must really be a hard time.

I still cant quite believe that David Wenham chose to leave due to differences with the principle (according to the principle in the church times article) - he is such a humble, gentle and gifted scholar and vicar and I so cant imagine Wycliffe without him. If I were Elaine Storkey I think I too would have spoken out at anything causing David to leave. It really is like reading a list of my favourite people (DAvid Maughn and Philip JOhnson too) leaving - and thats only 4! The article said there were more.

I really am shocked, and finding it hard to come to terms wtih, as ROb MErchant said, "the demise of a beloved theological college".


 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
David Wenham is a very lovely guy and a very good scholar, and we are all (Richard included) very sorry to be losing him.

George Kovoor (principal at Trinity Bristol) has been quoted as saying before Easter to the students at Trinity that he would do whatever he could to get David Wenham on staff there, having already got his brother (not from Wycliffe). I don't for a moment suspect Mr Kovoor of dirty tricks, and I'm happy for the folks at Trinity. But it's not a case of David just walking out.
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
I had heard of one of these rather surprising job moves (and not David Wenham) before reading the story here.

I think all organisations (and/or communities) periodically have times of significant change and it sounds as if this is one of those times.

Wycliffe, according to various accounts I've heard of it, had some interesting, rather open-minded people working there and some more conservative traits; it sounds as though the general direction of the leadership has become more conservative, which is a bit of a shame. However, I personally find the level of dissent rather heartening as it seems to me that this is a very healthy thing. It seems as though the open evangelical strand has a fair bit of influence even in the principled abdication of positions of power.

for the staff and students though and also for these fine people who have left, that their talents will be well used in their new posts and that they will be happy and also for the pain of letting go and that these rifts will a find a good and right way of being healed.
 

---

Posted by Edward::Green (# 46) on :
 
It should also be considered that when a new Principle comes in, it is often a time when other staff consider moving on.

Cambridge Theological Federation works differently as teaching staff are very much shared and sometimes only loosely connected to a college. But for example Angela Tilby will be I imagine at some point taking a different role (having already taken on parish ministry at St.Bennetts) then the VP role at Westcott she has served in for many years. This is natural rather than an indication of discord!

Having said that in a small organisation like a Theological College there are frequently tensions. Especially in the Church where colleagues frequently operate on the boundaries of work like professional relationships. Think also about the difficulties that exist in ministry teams.

As a church we aim to model relationships that are vocational rather than just professional. Maybe this is wrong. But often feelings and emotions are on the line in our work. Anyone with Church experience will have seen this in leadership teams, small groups, even whole dioceses. And don't even get started on the early church!

Maybe Wycliffe is experiencing such pain and brokenness that comes from the sacrificial call of the Gospel. There will be failings amongst the personalities there. We are bound up in a world of sin and death. Ultimately press coverage will not be helping.

We should pray for them.

[ 18. May 2007, 11:04: Message edited by: Edward::Green ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

Richard Turnbull is:

• a minister with a lot more experience of leading churches than any other theological college prinicipal in the C of E

---

Quite a statement!

---

Well he has been 8 years a vicar and never had a role in a theological college before Wycliffe. George Kovooer was 10 years a priest in India and 4 years a priest in England. A Tutor at one college and now a Principal. Who is the better qualified?

---

quote:

---

It's a relic, of course, of the old days when anyone with an MA and premises within a certain distance of Carfax could own and operate a Hall which would send students to sit the exams and vivas necessary for a degree, but which wouldn't have had as many facilities as the colleges.

---

quote:

---

PPHs also gave early non-conformity i.e. late 19th century, an entry into Oxford (and Cambridge) and I guess Catholicism to from the list. However these PPH have over recent years converted into full Colleges (Mansfield and Manchester).

---

... gave them a chance, as in, you had to be an Anglican to go to university!

Poor Wycliffe , I hope it doesn't go the way of Oak Hill, though I hasten to add , because it had an important role as being I'd say both open and trad evo without being purely conservative, and kept a lot of people happy, at home, yet also with some challenge.

Hi Emma, btw! (am I cool, I know her too )

another ex-RPC
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
Certainly we should pray for them, and I am - it must be terrible for everyone, especially the students. Ordination training is stressful enough without the college going through a major upheaval.

And while the press coverage must also be dreadful if you are involved, maybe if it prompts those who hold responsibility to look at any problems and find a way forward sooner rather than later it must be better for everyone, including the Principal, than continuing rumours and departures and a gradual drop in student numbers.

Situations of conflict can sometimes be miraculously sorted out by grace.
 

---

Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on :
 
Where I am studying, I am greatful that there is no percieved pressure to think a certain way, but encouraged just to work through issues honestly and seeing the whole learning process as an open ended journey of discovery.

I wonder if this seemingly polarisation of views on certain issues, hampers the student's freedom of thought and reflection.

If there is a sense that staff are under pressure to conform what hope is there for students?

SS
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Just a quick one to say: there is not pressure here at Wycliffe to think a certain way. The place is crawling with opinionated theological students itching to stick their own particular oar in (ahem). There is certainly open and honest debate between people who disagree but personally I think that's a Good Thing.

(BTW David Urquhart was on the council since before his translation to Birmingham).
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

This "my College Principal's bigger than your College Principal" argument is one of the weirder willy-waving contests I've seen in years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Superslug:
Where I am studying, I am greatful that there is no percieved pressure to think a certain way, but encouraged just to work through issues honestly and seeing the whole learning process as an open ended journey of discovery.

I wonder if this seemingly polarisation of views on certain issues, hampers the student's freedom of thought and reflection.

If there is a sense that staff are under pressure to conform what hope is there for students?

SS

---

quote:

---

It reminds me of so many other instances, Word Alives departure from Spring Harvest. UCCF's treatment of Fusion, Reforms attitude to Alpha, to name but a few. They are hardly great examples of Christian Love.

---

This reminds me weirdly of the Labour Party in the 1980s. The Labour Party is a tribal organisation. We are the organised working class of Britain. They are the rich and powerful. Whatever a Labour government does is socialism. The Tories are bad and wrong. Then suddenly things changed. The hard left emerged. Suddenly it wasn't enough to be part of the tribe any more. You had to have sound doctrine. (In this case Marxist rather than evangelical.)

Now it strikes me that evangelicalism is tribal in much the same way. We are the ordinary bible believing church goers. They are decadent crypto-papist Dagon worshippers, or worse, liberals. Evangelicals stand for Biblical Christianity. They stand for Something Else. Now if your alliances are drawn on tribal grounds you can encompass a big tent and evangelicalism is a big tent. It's a bit like those insects which have evolved to get into bee hives. If you try and enter a bee hive you'll get stung to death but once you've got past the first line of defence everyone just assumes you've been cleared by management and ignores you. This has obscured the fact that a lot of open evangelicals are basically just a aging hippies. OoW wouldn't have happened without open evangelicals. Steve Chalke thinks PSA is cosmic child abuse. George Carey has just provided the imprimatur for a book by Hans Kung, describing him as "our greatest living theologian". Yes, that Hans Kung, the Swiss liberal protestant in Roman orders. The con evos aren't hippies. They're pissed as hell that the good guys won at the Restoration and they want a re-match. Now increasingly the con evos aren't tribal, they're doctrinal. In order to be one of the tribe you have to have read Kapital, er, Pierced For Our Transgressions and be Sound On Doctrine.

Hence the whole UCCF/ Spring Harvest bust up. Hence Tom Wright complaining about being "stabbed in the side" over that whole petition thing last year. The con evos are revolting!* They're coming out of the kitchen because there's something they forgot to say to you! Con evos are doing it for themselves! The next few years are going to be very interesting indeed as instead of three big fractions in the C of E you get a kaleidescope of disparate fractions within fractions. Interesting times as the Chinese like to say.

*Pun? Moi?
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

This has obscured the fact that a lot of open evangelicals are basically just aging hippies.

---

Hey Callan, I resemble that remark!!
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Yes I think Callan has hit it. I wrote an essay about ten years ago comparing Reform with the Militant Tendency, and I think their entryism and rewriting of history has now reached its zenith. As someone who spent the 80s trying to purge Trots from the Labour Party in Islington, this feels like familiar territory. What they need to remember is that the Tankies always win in the end!

[ 18. May 2007, 14:18: Message edited by: pete173 ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
The con evos aren't hippies. They're pissed as hell that the good guys won at the Restoration and they want a re-match.

---

Nice touch ... a la 'history is written by the winners'. The good guys always win don't they ... except when they don't

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Now increasingly the con evos aren't tribal, they're doctrinal.

---

Would you explain this a bit more Callan? Are you saying that the other tribes aren't bothered about doctrine? You appear to be saying that it is okay to reject people due to their 'tribe' just not according to what they believe?

I'm sure that's not what you meant ... so please expand.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
What Callan is saying is that once of a day Evangelicals defined themselves tribally. Now they define themselves doctrinally. Which means that they will split into groups along doctrinal lines, which may cut across tribal ones.

The Labour party used to be tribal - it was a working class trade unionist party. Then it got doctrinal; the militant tendancy wanted to purify it on Marxist lines. It wasn't enough to identify with Labour's roots - you had to have the right political beliefs.

Similarly, once of a day the evangelical wing of the CofE was tribal - if you identified with evangelicalism rather than being catholic or liberal, you were in. Now, folks like Reform have made themselves doctrinal - you must have the right conservative evangelical belief set, or you're out. Hence Reform splitting away from other evangelical groupings who aren't sufficiently pure for them.

That's how I understand what Callan's saying. He's not passing any judgement on what sort of rejection or acceptance is, well, acceptable.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Now increasingly the con evos aren't tribal, they're doctrinal.

---

Would you explain this a bit more Callan? Are you saying that the other tribes aren't bothered about doctrine? You appear to be saying that it is okay to reject people due to their 'tribe' just not according to what they believe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's how I understand what Callan's saying. He's not passing any judgement on what sort of rejection or acceptance is, well, acceptable.

---

I assumed the rest, it is your last statement that intrigues me. Once you talk about tribes, aren't you talking about who's in and out? Isn't that the point? (I'm a Crystal Palace fan ... which means that I'm very lonely and no one else wants to know me ... by joining a tribe, you are NOT joining all the others.) If that's the case then all that has changed is the criteria.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
As someone who spent the 80s trying to purge Trots from the Labour Party in Islington, this feels like familiar territory.

---

Maybe you were so busy doing that you forgot to look out for the Blairites infiltrating on your right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D Someone asked who appointed Richard Turnbull. I don't know the ins and outs of the procedure, but presumably it was the Hall Council, whose names are I think on the Wycliffe website. They're hardly all bombastic conservatives e.g. James Jones (hairy left wing eco-bishop)...

---

James Jones is bearded, but very much a 'smooth man' otherwise. Certainly not a lefty, despite his undoubtedly genuine concern for the environment. Custard described him as an 'open evangelical': that might describe his theology (though I would tend to describe him as a conservative who is not averse to tat), but not his pastoral approach.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The thing about the evangelical tribe is that you're in if you say you're in. As opposed to the conservative evangelical doctrinal grouping, which you're in if you agree with Reform

I saw this at university during the 80s and 90s. The CU at Leeds University was welcoming of anyone who wanted to broadly identify with its aims. I don't think I even saw the doctrinal basis for the first two years I was there. The one at Nottingham Trent was initially like that, but it changed over a couple of years whilst I was there to being very concerned about people having the right doctrines. There were some wonderful exceptions - people who were considered "sound" but didn't give a fig about whether other people were (you out there somewhere Lizzy?) - people who even asked yours truly to speak at meetings - but gradually the tolerance of diversity dropped, and within a year I was persona non grata, because I failed on three points - inerrancy of Scripture, creationism and worship songs. I didn't believe in the first two and didn't like the last one. This was Naughty and I was out, despite still considering myself an evangelical and being able to sign the DB (after a fashion) at that time.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

James Jones is bearded, but very much a 'smooth man' otherwise. Certainly not a lefty, despite his undoubtedly genuine concern for the environment. Custard described him as an 'open evangelical': that might describe his theology (though I would tend to describe him as a conservative who is not averse to tat), but not his pastoral approach.

---

quote:

---

I assumed the rest, it is your last statement that intrigues me. Once you talk about tribes, aren't you talking about who's in and out? Isn't that the point? (I'm a Crystal Palace fan ... which means that I'm very lonely and no one else wants to know me [Waterworks] ... by joining a tribe, you are NOT joining all the others.) If that's the case then all that has changed is the criteria.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The thing about the evangelical tribe is that you're in if you say you're in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I saw this at university during the 80s and 90s...I failed on three points - inerrancy of Scripture, creationism and worship songs. I didn't believe in the first two and didn't like the last one.

---

I failed on 2 out of 3 then.


Seriously - I see a polarisation of evangelicalism in the UK and don't like it. I'm not sure what the answer is. I can't make my mind up if 'Open Evangelicals' are helping or hindering the process.
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Two or three other factors include:

1. the loss of a balanced and measured unitive leader around whom people coalesced without being sycophantic (John Stott held that position for many years)

2. the numerical growth of evangelicalism, such that the obvious tribal identification marks (well known churches and gathering points) were no longer there

3. a deliberate policy on the part of the open evos to commit to being part of the CofE. Con Evos are basically oppositionalist in outlook, and have no clue what to do when they aren't in the last ditch opposing something. When the Open Evos moved out of the ditch and decided to commit to the CofE, the Con Evos had to find new ditches to dig and new battles to fight.

[ 18. May 2007, 15:11: Message edited by: pete173 ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
The point is that being a Crystal Palace fan is tribal because it admits all sorts of people whose unifying quality is they support Crystal Palace. Now suppose a dodgy Serbian billionaire who made his loot by nefarious means during the Balkan war buys up Crystal Palace. At which point Crystal Palace fans divvy up between the ones who like him because he's promised to bung huge wodges of cash at the club and those who don't because of his background. At which point the tribe fissures doctrinally. Now you are either a Crystal Palace Fan For Scumovic or you are a Crystal Palace Fan Against Scumovic. Time was you could disagree about whether Trevor Francis (he did manage your lot for a bit, didn't he?) was any good as a manager and still rub along amicably. Now you have to hold the Right Views.

---

Good analogy... although I think, sadly, that the church is too much like a football supporters club.

I pray every day for Scumovic to come ... now you have given me his name
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
A few things...

As far as I can tell, evangelicalism started in the 1500s (well, MacCulloch says it did anyway and he knows lots more about the 1500s than I do), when it very clearly was defined doctrinally.

And certainly all through my experience of evangelicalism, most evangelicals I have known would have defined it doctrinally, on largely the same lines as in the 1500s.

I think what we might be seeing now is a fracturing of the main bit of the old "low church" into factions, with at least one of them being evangelical.

Wycliffe genuinely does represent the breadth of contemporary evangelicalism (and then some; we've got a couple of RC students for example), and there's plenty of (mostly very friendly) debate on live issues within evangelicalism - ordination of women and use of ecstatic gifts are probably the two biggest at the moment, and the college does try very hard to affirm multiple integrities.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
This is all very interesting, but is this actually what is going on at Wycliffe?
Fact is, when principals of colleges (and ministers of large churches, and chairs of para-church organisations) change there is usually a turnover of staff - and ISTM the Guardian is enjoying muckraking something out of what is just a perfectly normal process that often leaves a few people with noses out of joint.
Could, for example, Turnbull's appointment of a VP opposed to OoW (which seems to be the beef of the Church Times) when he is himself in favour of it, not actually be construed as a move towards greater inclusivity?
 

---

Posted by BIg Carp (# 12635) on :
 
[/QUOTE]I have to wonder at the mystery of someone pointing the finger at people for not being loving, and then using that same post as a means of condemning a huge swathe of organisations involved in complex decisions about ministry situations. Can you explain, Big Carp, how that models "putting on love" exactly?

This is a classic response and one i have seen so many times before in these instances. Whilst initial behavious or attitudes might be wrong or unloving any critique of them is challeneged as being outrageous, "how can you possibly be so unloving as to critque my lack of love, what hypocracy!" This is a brilliant way of silencing anyone who has a point and a way in which no one can be held to account over their initial actions. I have every sympathy with the people of wycliffe including their principal but i don't think we should suffer censorship on this site!
 

---

Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermeneut:

BTW, where are you studying (for comparative purposes) - it sounds like a nice place...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
As far as I can tell, evangelicalism started in the 1500s (well, MacCulloch says it did anyway and he knows lots more about the 1500s than I do), when it very clearly was defined doctrinally.

---

I thought evangelicals claimed that evangelicalism is the True Faith of the Bible. Which dates it considerably before 1500 on my reckoning.

Perhaps Custard has just conceded a point.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm a Crystal Palace fan ... which means that I'm very lonely and no one else wants to know me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Palace? Palace? Who the...

---

Champions of Europe... or at least a very small part of South London.

As in ... "They will soar on wings like Eagles!"
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
On Thinking Anglicans, Stephen Bates has made some more comments about this matter:

a) He's received an email from a "senior evangelical bishop" thanking him for his article.

b) He spoke to members of the staff at WH before printing the article, who all endorsed "the general sense of the anonymous document". They all spoke off the record because of fear of what would happen to them if they were identified.

He finishes by saying:
"They - and we - know that Dr Storkey was threatened with disciplinary action by the principal just for raising the criticisms at a closed staff meeting at the college. And the principal has confirmed that unspecified disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. All of which might create some incentive for anonymity, don't you think?"
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The controversial Vice-principal (see Church Times article) has transformed an open-evangelical parish in South London into a Reform stronghold. I, as a more-or-less-liberal catholic, was welcomed to preside at the eucharist and preach there on numerous occasions during and between the previous incumbencies. Ecumenical co-operation (including with fellow-anglicans) collapsed when he arrived.

[ 18. May 2007, 16:26: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
The controversial Vice-principal (see Church Times article)

---

quote:

---

Dr Turnbull said on Wednesday that women were welcome to train as priests at Wycliffe Hall, and that their numbers had increased “significantly”. He said that, balancing Mr Vibert’s appointment, he also appointed the Revd Will Donaldson, a Charismatic, who was in favour of women’s ministry “at every level”. Mr Donaldson, from the Willesden area in London diocese, has been appointed as director of Christian leadership. Both men start work on 1 August.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
The controversial Vice-principal (see Church Times article)

---

which also says:

quote:

---

Dr Turnbull said on Wednesday that women were welcome to train as priests at Wycliffe Hall, and that their numbers had increased “significantly”. He said that, balancing Mr Vibert’s appointment, he also appointed the Revd Will Donaldson, a Charismatic, who was in favour of women’s ministry “at every level”. Mr Donaldson, from the Willesden area in London diocese, has been appointed as director of Christian leadership. Both men start work on 1 August.

---

Which doesn't quite fit with the Evil Baby-Eating-Reform-Tendency-Coup attitudes of some of tthe posts here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
(BTW David Urquhart was on the council since before his translation to Birmingham).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
No - but maybe with the dysfunctional-how-can-these-guys-possibly-work-together thoughts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
No - but maybe with the dysfunctional-how-can-these-guys-possibly-work-together thoughts.

---

I get those thoughts about the Church of England every Petertide!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
Can I get this straight Angloid - you criticise the guy for turning a parish into a reform stronghold, but then object to one of his appointments on the basis that the person is not conservative enough?

---

I'm sorry quantpole: either I totally misunderstand you or you totally misunderstand me. But I haven't a clue what you mean.
 

---

Posted by Mavis (# 12637) on :
 
You are so right Big Carp. It's a Conservative Conspiracy, and is it really any surprise to anyone that it's gone so wrong, so fast. Elaine for president.
 

---

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
Can I get this straight Angloid - you criticise the guy for turning a parish into a reform stronghold, but then object to one of his appointments on the basis that the person is not conservative enough?

---

I'm sorry quantpole: either I totally misunderstand you or you totally misunderstand me. But I haven't a clue what you mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
Ah sorry - I confused the principal with the vice-principal.

---

quote:

---

I believe that the Bible is perspicuous (clear), infallible (it can not err) and non-contradictory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

Vibert writes

quote:

---

I believe that the Bible is perspicuous (clear), infallible (it can not err) and non-contradictory.

---

To support his arguement he creates a straw man. This kind of simplistic doctrine of scripture in my opinion is going cause issues in any college.

---

I don't know the guys background - but it would seem to me to be a very stragnet hing to do to ahve a non accademic overseeing accademics when the non-accademic is going to want to claim authority in terms of doctrin and belief. Your quote really surprises (and worries) me.

I can understand a non-accademic leading a school/uni - but only just. I do think it is hard to do/ not aware of the same issue etc. However if the top bod wants to trump the scholars in terms of Biblical interpretation or doctrine etc thats a bit of a disaster in the making.

I hope Wycliffe doesnt turn into a conservative enclave, where you have to believe the correct doctrine etc. I was reasonably evangelical when I went to uni - but i really appreciated seeing the breadth of scholarship at oxford, and after i "got over" the "Is x/y/z "sound" question" (the arrogance of it - 18 year olds asking 19 year olds if their lectureres were "sound" or not" - gah who was I?!?!) I really learnt a lot, and my faith isnt as simplistic as it once was. Im aware of a lot mroe shades of grey - but my view of God has grown because of it! God workign through tons of people over thousands of years and the bible being a recrd of that is more exciting to me than something that was dictated in infalliable manner.

ANyway... .Im going to jump out cos Im ranting! Sorry! (And huge thankyous to wycliffe and Oxford - they were hugely responsible for my formative years!)
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

What I find very weird is that neither of them had any experience of teaching at a theological college (even part time) before becoming principal and vice principal which seems very weird. Who appoints a head teacher who has never taught before? It is a recipe for trouble before you start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How long has this taken and how many have actually left?

The OP gave the impression that about half the staff left in one go. The Church Times article was quite a few over a couple of years

To lose half the staff in a few weeks is either a disaster or delberate destruction. To lose a third of the staff in a year is a high rate of turnover that ought to be looked into. To lose a quarter in eighteen months is actually about average - most people stay in one job for less than seven years.

Which is it?

---

• Revd Dr Richard Turnbull Principal
• Revd Dr David Wenham Tutor in New Testament
• Dr Philip Johnston Tutor in Old Testament and Hebrew
• Dr Krish Kandiah Director of the OCCA and Tutor in Mission and Evangelism
• Revd Dr Peter Walker Director of Development and Tutor in New Testament
• Revd Peter Southwell Senior Tutor; Tutor in Old Testament & Hebrew
• Revd Dr Adrian Chatfield Tutor in Worship and Spiritual Formation
• Revd Dr Benno van den Toren Tutor in Doctrine
• Revd Jenni Williams Tutor in Biblical Studies
• Revd Dr Andrew Goddard Tutor in Christian Ethics
• Revd Elisabeth Goddard Tutor for Ministerial Formation
• Ven Dr Gordon Kuhrt Tutor in Preaching
• Dr Elaine Storkey Senior Research Fellow
• Mrs Claire Page Trainer in Communications & Voice Training

• Revd Canon Dr Michael Green
• The Very Revd Dr Chris Hancock
• Dr John Lennox
• Mrs Jenny Maughan
• Dr Michael Ramsden
• Dr Stan Rosenberg
• Revd Dr Graham Tomlin
• Revd Simon Walker
• Revd John Wesson
• Dr Ravi Zacharias

quote:

---

More than half the teaching staff have resigned this year.

---

quote:

---

Those who have resigned include:

• the director of pastoral studies
• the director of studies
• tutors in liturgy and evangelism
• vice-principal and tutor in New Testament studies.

[my formatting]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
This is quite hard to work out.

---

quote:

---

Since Dr Turnbull was appointed in 2005, six full-time or part-time academic staff have resigned posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
As I recall, Simon Vibert was appointed as a preacher with experience of training preachers to be in charge of the preaching training programme, rather than as an academic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Six out of a total of twenty four looks about par for t he course by Ken's account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Six out of a total of twenty four looks about par for t he course by Ken's account.

---

In an ordinary school with that number of staff it would be a sign of bad news, particularly as it seems 4 out of them are full time staff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
The thing about theological colleges is that they are academic, of course they are and should be academic (and there are some good evangelical academics here), but they also are and should be vocational and about training people to do ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
To lose a quarter in eighteen months is actually about average - most people stay in one job for less than seven years.

Which is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
and in the first 2 years of a new leader that is not an unusual turnover of staff at all; in fact, I'd almost expect more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:


I guess it will become a second oak hill. I think thats sad as I think what it had was excellent, but things do change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
I wonder if the HTB having its own theological school meant less going to wycliffe from HTB/HTB style churches? ALthough that would only really affect the student balance if anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
and in the first 2 years of a new leader that is not an unusual turnover of staff at all; in fact, I'd almost expect more.

---

It seems to show that church organisations are bad at handling a change over of leadership. *snip*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
I think my beef with it becoming "oak hill" like is that that is one narrow band of evangelical - which Im sure oak hill does rather well. I rather liked that Wycliffe was a mix of different types - exposing people to differing styles of church rather than just one way of doing things, yet still remaining evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

But even so, I think it's fairly safe to say that Wycliffe is not about to turn into Oak Hill on Thames.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

But even so, I think it's fairly safe to say that Wycliffe is not about to turn into Oak Hill on Thames.

---

Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
There's an official statement coming out some time in the next couple of days.

---

Custard - do you know if this official statement emerged? If so, is it link-able to?

Continued for all at Wycliffe.
 

---

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :
 
Oxford University is a pretty liberal institution these days. It will be all for freedom of speech and religion, but it will look very closely at the University status of a Permanent Private Hall which appoints staff to teach that women should be subordinated to men because of their gender, or which appoints as Vice Principal a man who has published his considered opinion that "women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation".

The University has a more than usually powerful commitment to equal opportunities, including a Personnel and Equal Opportunities Pro Vice Chancellor.

The Council (which has replaced the Hebdomadal Council and the General Board of the Faculties) has published a "mission" commitment that:

- The University will work to remove any barriers which might deter people of the highest quality from applying to Oxford, either as staff or students.

- The University will provide an inclusive environment for work and study through embedding diversity and equal opportunities in all areas of its activities, to ensure that staff and students experience a consistently inclusive and supportive environment to assist them in reaching their full potential.

Wycliffe Hall might be able to satisfy these objectives, but it is going to have quite a lot of explaining to do first.

I'm amazed that it has chosen, instead, to say nothing at all. Complaints about a poor or badly informed press don't sound very convincing in these circumstances.
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
One might argue that Wycliffe Hall is more supportive of the ministry of women than the Roman Catholic Church which has more PPHs!
 

---

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
One might argue that Wycliffe Hall is more supportive of the ministry of women than the Roman Catholic Church which has more PPHs!

---

• Wycliffe can't discriminate for or against staff on the basis of their views on OoW. To say that someone should not be appointed to a post because of those views is itself discriminatory.
• The new vice-principal has signed something saying he's committed to training women for ordination and leadership in the C of E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

Oh, and "which appoints staff to teach that women should be subordinated to men because of their gender" is miles off base, and if it hadn't been in a boolean or statement is quite possibly libellous. Dr Vibert was appointed to train people to preach, not to espouse views on gender which aren't even his!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.

---

quote:

---

The VP doesn't personally support me in this leadership role because he believes I should be subordinated to a man because of my gender.

---

quote:

---

The VP doesn't personally support me in this leadership role because he believes I should subordinate myself to a man because of my gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I agree that he has conversative views on women. But I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
Surely, St Stephen's House also has a mixture of pro- and anti- women priest lecturers, without it being suggested it would lose its Oxford PPH status? Some opponents of evangelicalism are being rather biased in their analysis over this incident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
bending over backwards to be fair to the anti-woman position, saying that a woman should not be the regular teachers in a church is not quite the same as sayign that women should be subordinate to men because of their gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by badman:
Why doesn't that leave the women in the congregation subordinate to men? Because of their gender?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Perhaps he figures that if these women are going to teach congregations, it's his duty to help them do so as well as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
How will he be able to do this in good faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Perhaps he figures that if these women are going to teach congregations, it's his duty to help them do so as well as possible.

---

But surely it must be difficult for a woman who is training for ordination to have their preaching assessed by someone who, they are aware, doesn't believe that they should be doing it. Preaching is such a personal thing - you put so much of yourself into it that you are very vulnerable to criticism (even when it is justified). If you suspect that the person overseeing you is unjustly biased against you because of your gender, it is likely to make you feel even more vulnerable, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:

Would anyone disagree if the preaching tutor were to be from another denomination, say, Orthodoxy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I've come across a Benedictine monk teaching Anglicans, Methodists and URC so it does happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What I would observe is that having both a principal and Vice principal both of who personally object to female priests is a high risk stragegy for the college .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I am still of the opinion that Wycliffe hall are shooting themselves in the foot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I am still of the opinion that Wycliffe hall are shooting themselves in the foot.

---

Has this ever happened or are you putting up a non-existent straw foot?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by badman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I agree that he has conversative views on women. But I don't think that he believes that "women should be subordinated to men because of their gender", though he might well believe that women should subordinate themselves to men because of their gender.

---

I don't think his own words support this rather nice distinction.

His Latimer Trust paper says: "We agree on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that women should not be admitted to an office that involves the regular teaching or leadership of a congregation."

He says "should not be admitted" - not "should not submit herself".

His position seems even clearer when you look at the passage from 1 Tim 2:11-12 which he references: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Ugh. Don't misunderstand me - I accept he's entitled to his views. But others are entitled to hold them up and to hold him to account for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:

Would anyone disagree if the preaching tutor were to be from another denomination, say, Orthodoxy

---

Has this ever happened or are you putting up a non-existent straw man?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

Besides which, as I argued here , the only consistent response for someone who objects to female authority on Biblical grounds who finds a woman in authority over them is to submit to her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
So... there's a lot of it about (ecumenical training) but we are straying off topic:
a) is ecumenical training a good parallel to what is alleged about Dr Vibert's ability to teach preaching to women?
b) is even that relevant to the OP - what is happening at WH?
c) can you teach preaching anyway? (Oops, another thread...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
The point is that Dr Vibert's job is going to be to train people to preach, and he's happy to train both women and men to preach, whatever his personal views of the role of women within the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Cambridge has a federation of colleges (2x Anglican, 1 each x Methodist and URC) and courses

---

And an RC college for women, and the Institute for Orthdox Christian Studies. Ecumenism rocks in Cambridge theological education
 

---

Posted by Mystery of Faith (# 12176) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

Incidentally, is he Dr. Vibert? Crockford and the Church Times don't mention it. I think that title has only crept in on this page of the thread.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Cambridge has a federation of colleges (2x Anglican, 1 each x Methodist and URC) and courses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And an RC college for women, and the Institute for Orthdox Christian Studies. Ecumenism rocks in Cambridge theological education

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Apologies to Fermat (and others in the CTF) - as an associate staff member I should know better! I will raid the Pastoral Studies discipline cupboard for a whip and a hair shirt...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Apologies to Fermat (and others in the CTF) - as an associate staff member I should know better! I will raid the Pastoral Studies discipline cupboard for a whip and a hair shirt...

---

No apology necessary, Charles. Though don't let that keep you from the whips and hair shirts
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Cherwell's version of the story is now online. (As Cherwell seems to be 'down' at the moment here is Google's cache - I don't know how long this link is good for.) They name the departing members of staff as: Geoffrey Maughan - Director of Pastoral Studies, Philip Johnston - Director of Studies, Adrian Turnbull - tutor in liturgy, Krish Kandiah - tutor in evangelism, David Wenham - tutor in New Testament.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
Of whom three are full time (though one with the wrong name), one is part time at Wycliffe and one is not leaving as far as I know...

It's worth mentioning that Cherwell work to such a high standard that they spelt Richard's name wrong more often that not in the print version (they had "Turnball") and they still can't get the name of our liturgy tutor right.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
To lose almost a third of a colleges full time staff could seem to be a bit careless.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Well it seems that the staff at the college agree with me that the new vice-principal of the college is 'highly unsuitable for the job'.
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
Perhaps the Dean of St Albans should launch an international campaign to get the new Vice Principal of Wycliffe Hall replaced?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
Perhaps the Dean of St Albans should launch an international campaign to get the new Vice Principal of Wycliffe Hall replaced?

---

quote:

---

From September 2007, Wycliffe Hall will have lost all its best loved and most respected staff members. Turnbull will replace them all with conservative evangelicals. More than half the teaching staff has resigned this year. Most will not be replaced in time for the opening of the academic year 2007-8. The College will not be capable of teaching its regular curriculum.”

Since Turnbull’s appointment in April 2005, Geoffrey Maughan has resigned as Director of Pastoral Studies, Philip Johnston as Director of Studies, Adrian Turnbull as tutor in liturgy, Krish Kandiah as tutor in evangelism and David Wenham as tutor in the New Testament.

Wenham is planning to leave Oxford this Autumn to work at a college in Bristol, ending a 25 year association with Wycliffe Hall. He refused to reveal his reasons for resigning. “Other than confirming that I resigned as Vice President, I cannot comment any further,” he said.

Philip Johnston confirmed that he had resigned from the College management staff but that he was still a tutor in college.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Brief 'address' given by Richard Turnbull at the Reform conference in 2006.

See here.but I would say this video adds some 'fuel' to the original allegations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
The link is to Reform's website. Given that the link is now being discussed here and elsewhere one wonders whether it'll be yanked soon. It's not a Mpeg or some format which can be downloaded for posterity (least not by an eedjit like me) - anybody know how to make sure it doesn't just disappear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I think it's worth saying that I have sent to Wycliffe and received back a number of ordinands (male and female) over the past few years. I have two more coming at Petertide. None of them show any evidence of being anything other than completely straightforward evangelicals (some charismatic and some non-charismatic). So there is no evidence as yet that the institution is influencing people to be become more sectarian, less Anglican, or more fundamentalist.

Clearly the reforms at Wycliffe are a fait accompli - the jury will be out to see what effect it has on the ordinands produced in the future.

---

...do you mean:

"The reforms at Wycliffe are a fait accompli",

or

"Reform as Wycliffe is a fait accompli"?


 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Who gets invited to speak at Reform conferences, anyway? Do they invite eminent persons from the wider Anglican, or at least evangelical scene, or do you have to be one of the boys, so to speak.

Because if the latter then having a principal and vice-principal who are both Reform is going to be, shall we say, interesting...
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
That's vitriolic rubbish Oscar, and you know it.

I can't remember last time I came across someone quite so poor at understanding something in the context in which it was given.

---

quote:

---

c) can you teach preaching anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Who gets invited to speak at Reform conferences, anyway? Do they invite eminent persons from the wider Anglican, or at least evangelical scene, or do you have to be one of the boys, so to speak.

Because if the latter then having a principal and vice-principal who are both Reform is going to be, shall we say, interesting...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something rather bizarre about the principal of an Anglican theological college encouraging people to withdraw payment of Parish Share to their diocese?

---

• The identity of evangelicalism has broadened. It has "become rather convenient or even popular to claim ethe name of evangelical" [seems unlikely to me - round here the name "evangelical" seems to be becoming an insult]
• Need to be clear on who we are. Depends on specifics rather than generalities.
• Four core beliefs of evangelicals:
• 1) supreme authority of scripture for all matters of life and faith
• 2) substitutionary atonement
• 3) our relationship with Jesus Christ is a personal relationship with a personal God
• 4) commitment to evangelism, bringing the gospel method to those who do not know Jesus. In this country that's 95% of the population [I'd be happier with 90% but in general he's right...]
• We need to be careful we do not betray our evangelical identity by embracing an understanding of the church that is not historic Anglicanism. When Robert Runcie said evangelicals have no ecclesiology he really mant that he didn't like our understandig of the church. We don't need to apologise for our understanding of the church, we need to faithfully expound it
• Theological colleges are strategic places because they influence the church through its future ministers. Liiberals seek to capture the evangelical theological colleges in order to preserve their influence. The way to do that would start with the more liberal evangelicals. We ought to captre them back
• Four pressing issues for theological education:
• 1) funding - outdated 1960s system is centralised, corporatist - the centre restricts how many students we can have. Fees were cut when they recruited too many students - funding is used to limit number of evangelical students
• 2) ethos - apologetics, evangelism
  (here he first mentioned the "2 + 4" evangelical theological colleges, without any explanation [though as Oak Hill was the only other college named we safely assume that's what he meant]
• 3) support - wants parishes to pray and donate money from mission budget to colleges of their choice. If not then more colleges will have to close, including Oak Hill and Wycliffe.
• 4) general state of theologial education, suffering because too much emphasis on part-time courses
• 70% of ordinands attend the 2+4 - he doesn't know whether to celebrate this or not. We have a higher percentage (good) of a smaller group (bad). [NB here the +4 are part of "we"] The trend is to train in part-time courses. He thinks these are inadequate. Two to three years full-time is needed. There is pressure to force people into part-time courses. The time given to preparation for parish ministry is woefully inadequate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I've never been invited, nor am likely to... (No tears shed)

---

Well, that may be because you are part of one of the 4 in "2+4"!
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Several of the press reports talk about staff or students not talking to the press while disciplinary proceedings are underway. But as far as I can see there's been nothing to say who's being disciplined or for what. Can anyone fill in the gap?
 

---

Posted by Burbling Psalmist (# 9514) on :
 
[Warning: Tangent]

I find myself agreeing with Dr. Turnbull about two things:

(a) I too am worried about the superficiality and compressed nature of part-time courses. NB. This is not a dig at the ordinands on those courses. I just think they (and their congregations) deserve a richer, deeper training.

(b) Financial pressures are a major (NB. not the only) reason for the encouragement of more people to train part-time.

If residential training in the CofE is to survive, its funding needs to be re-thought and increased.

[End of tangent.]

BP

(Whose college doesn't even make it onto the 4+2 list)
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
It was fascinating watching the video from a perspective of the free churches.

Two things struck me:

1. He's not a great communicator himself (if he was in my preaching class I'd get some one to slap him every time he 'erred' ) - therefore I hope that he isn't doing too much of the preaching training himself.

2. What he said is not that remarkable.

It seems (to me anyway ) that his most terrible crime is that he is trying to train ordinands ON PURPOSE. Most of our theological training in this country is quintessentially British (i.e. by accident) but he has the audacity to want to steer Wycliffe in a particular direction. Now (of course ) we can all argue over whether that direction is a good one or not, but isn't that 'what Principals do' .. to paraphrase a certain bishop?

A different matter would be how he handles dissent to that vision.... and whether he encourages those who disagree with him ... but then again, maybe that is what this thread is all about?

Perhaps this is just because we free church don't get the 'broad church' rhetoric as much as you Anglicans do?
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

It seems (to me anyway ) that his most terrible crime is that he is trying to train ordinands ON PURPOSE. Most of our theological training in this country is quintessentially British (i.e. by accident) but he has the audacity to want to steer Wycliffe in a particular direction.

---

quote:

---

# 4) general state of theologial education, suffering because too much emphasis on part-time courses
# 70% of ordinands attend the 2+4 - he doesn't know whether to celebrate this or not. We have a higher percentage (good) of a smaller group (bad). [NB here the +4 are part of "we"] The trend is to train in part-time courses. He thinks these are inadequate. Two to three years full-time is needed. There is pressure to force people into part-time courses. The time given to preparation for parish ministry is woefully inadequate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
That really isn't anywhere near the reality. You'll find that evangelical Anglican theological training institutions are incredibly purposeful about what they are and what they do. See here for instance. or here as two examples of the mainline evangelical tradition.

---

Thanks Pete. I'm happy to take your word for it ... although I'm not sure how giving a link to St. John's & Ridley 'proves' anything!?
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
My slight involvement in the process of moving people from 'Do I have a vocation?' into training does not lead me in the slightest to believe that ordinands are pressured into particular types of training for financial reasons. Historically those under thirty were expected to do three years residential training, those over thirty to do two years residential training or three years on a course. Non-stipendiary or ordained local ministry has hitherto (until about 2005) been generally the preserve of the over 30s who have been expected to complete three years non-residential training - given that their secular work is intended to be their continuing context. Where there is a special case it goes before the Candidates' Committee whose remit is to ensure both adequate training (for those seeking to reduce time in training) and wise use of the church's resources (for those seeking longer training - in which context there is, I believe, a catchphrase about 'potential theological educators') Most (all?) of this information is available here. The situation is changing, and while the finances of the church require it to be cost neutral it looks as though it could well enable more to benefit from better training.

As far as students to colleges is concerned there is, I believe, a kind of counterpart to the CofE's Sheffield system for the deployment of clergy which is intended to ensure that enough ordinands go to each of the colleges to maintain their viability. This comes increasingly under pressure where ordinands choose and are admitted in spite of the 'quota'. I suppose it operates by reducing the amount per candidate for 'oversubscribed' colleges and giving additional support for the undersubscribed. Presumably it also helps colleges somewhat in dealing with a normal fluctuation of numbers. Colleges who can attract other kinds of students (non C of E basically) do therefore find themselves in a stronger position either through the effect of scale or through cross-subsidisation.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Ok - I'm being thick - what on earth is he talking about when he says "2+4"? Does he mean the main 6 colleges? Are Oak Hill and Wycliffe the biggest two? Or biggest two of evo students?

I didn't think he was particularly clear /not very good speaker/ but didn't find it overly shocking. I wasn't too sure why he thought some people find it trendy to be evangelical. It sounded a bit like he wanted to claim the conservative evo land as the One True Evo, rather than the open evos? But I didn't think he pushed the point.

I'm not overly sure why studying full time is better than part time either. I think fulltime training can remove you from the world of your parish you work in / "real life"/ etc, although I must admit I'd rather train full time if I ever did!
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I take on board all that Custard et al have said, and can only hope that - despite his own understandings of 'evangelicalism' - Wycliffe does continue to embody the broad width of evangelical opinion (it's not just the 'conservatives' who get to define what that term means... ).

Nowadays, it's not really 'between' the Charismatics or Cessationalists (although it used to be), but between the Opens (=Liberal evangelicals ) and those who hold to 'PSA and nothing but PSA' theology. So, although it's good to hear that there is a strong charismatic presence at Wycliffe, my concerns are that it's the Opens who are being censured (or forced out).

Having spent a lot of time personally involved with both the Conservative AND Charismatic constituencies, I'm concerned that they lack some of the theological insights which the Opens bring to the table, and by excluding this side of Anglical evangelicalism they are at risk of sectarianism and schism.

Turnbull may not like the 'catholic understanding of Church', but I see a lot more joined up ecclesiology coming from this perspective than from his own paradigm, and - btw - Runcie was absolutely RIGHT about evangelicals lacking an ecclesiology. Most of my time spent with Newfrontiers was an experience of evangelicals trying to 're-discover' lots of vital thinking about the Church which had been jetisoned since the 16th century (and much since).

Finally, I have recorded and saved the audio of the talk so, should it 'disappear' from the web, I can post it via my blog.

I agree with Pete173, the 'proof of the pudding' from now on will most certainly be in the eating...
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think the 'four' are St. John's in Nottingham, Trinity in Bristol, Ridley in Cambridge and Cranmer in Durham. Which are evo but Not Sound.

You then have Queens in Birmingham, Staggers in Oxford, Mirfield in Leeds, Westcott in Cambridge and Cuddesdon also in Oxenford. These are ecumenical, Catholic and liberal respectively and, therefore, Even More Not Sound. There did also used to be Lincoln and Chichester (liberal and catholic, respectively) but the C of E did a survey of theological training which recommended closing Mirfield and Oak Hill, bottled out of annoying the loonies and handed the black spot to the blameless Lincoln and Chichester. (Actually, Lincoln wasn't that blameless as every member of the Middleaged Churchpersons Union I have ever met seems to have graduated from there.)
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
Ok - I'm being thick - what on earth is he talking about when he says "2+4"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
[snip]
The issue for Wycliffe will be whether it can remain a place of training for evos from across the spectrum. I hope that it can.

[snip]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
True: Richard Turnbull spoke at a Reform conference.
False: Richard Turnbull is a member of Reform.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Does he mean 70% of full time ordinands or 70% of all ordinands.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally I'm not convinced (and I've not otherwise heard it claimed) that vast amounts of pressure is put on ordinands to train locally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
the blameless Lincoln and Chichester. (Actually, Lincoln wasn't that blameless as every member of the Middleaged Churchpersons Union I have ever met seems to have graduated from there.)

---

Not so sure about the entire immaculate blamelessness of Chichester. A long time ago I met some Chichester curates who made the cast and crew of Staggers look like models of clean Protestant maniliness.

At the time the pub-crawling around Sussex in search of Mass done Just Right (something that didn't apparently require having lay persons in congregation) seemed the odd thing. In retrospect the taking teenage boys back to the Prebystery and showing them the pornographic magazines while plying them with sherry seems a little more extreme.

(And yes, I am sure they all grew up to be excellent parish priests. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.)
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Turnbull may not like the 'catholic understanding of Church', but I see a lot more joined up ecclesiology coming from this perspective than from his own paradigm, and - btw - Runcie was absolutely RIGHT about evangelicals lacking an ecclesiology. Most of my time spent with Newfrontiers was an experience of evangelicals trying to 're-discover' lots of vital thinking about the Church which had been jetisoned since the 16th century (and much since).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
four that weren't and are not so distinctly evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
You then have Queens in Birmingham, Staggers in Oxford, Mirfield in Leeds, Westcott in Cambridge and Cuddesdon also in Oxenford. These are ecumenical, Catholic and liberal respectively and, therefore, Even More Not Sound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Westcott used to describe itself as Liberal Catholic (in the sense that it was pro TOOW) but I am not sure where it is now. Certainly Catholic in tradition and discipline, but it always struck me as having the distinct air of Sacramental Socialism and the Parish Communion Movement about the place.

---

That doesn't sound incompatible with "Liberal Catholic" to me There is certainly something Ruskiny-Morrisish about architecture of the place. Even if their heating systems have been possessed by a spirit of mockery

Do you have such concise and cogent summaries of the plus-fours? Enquiring minds need to know.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Do you have such concise and cogent summaries of the plus-fours? Enquiring minds need to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermeneut:
/tangent

A serious tangential question which might sound odd: would any evangelical colleges train celibate gay people?

'I have this friend' that loves open evangelical folks, who is currently celibate and firmly intending to remain so - but is definitely not of the straight persuasion. Would they be welcome at any evo colleges - or would it be a terrible road crash?

/end tangent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In retrospect the taking teenage boys back to the Prebystery and showing them the pornographic magazines while plying them with sherry seems a little more extreme.

(And yes, I am sure they all grew up to be excellent parish priests. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That doesn't sound incompatible with "Liberal Catholic" to me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
All of this stuff is to the best of my understanding. I'm only a student here. On the other hand, I have heard Richard speak about this...

True: Richard Turnbull spoke at a Reform conference.

False: Richard Turnbull is a member of Reform. It's likely they asked him along after an interview he did with Evangelicals Now (I'm sure someone here could dig it out) shortly after getting the job here, which suddenly put Wycliffe back on the Reform radar. I think he said his priorities were training people to preach and evangelise.

True: Richard Turnbull is aiming to make Wycliffe more like Oak Hill in terms of quality of preaching training, which is a) one of Oak Hill's huge strengths and b) probably the number one thing people at Reform are looking for in a theological college.

False: Richard Turnbull is aiming to make Wycliffe more like Oak Hill in terms of only drawing its students from a narrow sector of the church. In fact, the opposite is true. In particular, Wycliffe has a very strong charismatic streak, which is not shared by Oak Hill or Reform, and which Richard has actually encouraged during his time here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In retrospect the taking teenage boys back to the Prebystery and showing them the pornographic magazines while plying them with sherry seems a little more extreme.

(And yes, I am sure they all grew up to be excellent parish priests. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.)

---

In the UK, unless the teenagers were over 18, this consitutes a criminal offense - and conviction would get you put on the sex offenders register. Please tell us the lads were over 18.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
They believe that the evangelical bishops go native
Who's to say that they're wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I should say that most conservative evangelicals I know are generally happy with bishops who have faith in Jesus, some moral backbone and a commitment to mission (or at least not actively hindering it), and there's a fair few such bishops out there.

If they can avoid sniping at conservative evangelicals just for the sake of it, that's nice too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I should say that most conservative evangelicals I know are generally happy with bishops who have faith in Jesus, some moral backbone and a commitment to mission (or at least not actively hindering it), and there's a fair few such bishops out there.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, although I don't agree with Reform on a lot of things, a far greater number of evangelicals these days share their analysis of the crisis. When they were wittering on in the early 1990s, many of us thought they were backwoodsmen. Since 2003, and more recently the Bishops (so-called) pastoral advice on civil partnerships, they've become a little more difficult to ignore. Frankly, many evangelical clergy and laity feel that Reform or Anglican Mainstream are the closest thing they have to representation in this whole horrible mess. They believe that the evangelical bishops go native, and that Synod is a law unto itself. Who's to say that they're wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
They believe that the evangelical bishops go native
Who's to say that they're wrong?

---

Well, there are 30 odd of us at the Bishops Meeting at present who might want to argue with that! (Actually, fewer now, as the suffragans have all gone home). What they lack is the perspective that you have to be a bishop to the whole church, and not just their little clique.

And I don't think we do go native; we argue the case, even when we disagree with their theology and ecclesiology, as I shall be tomorrow on behalf of the so-called "covenant" group. Evangelical bishops can represent the con evos, but we're never going to be able fully to embrace their position, because it's basically not where authentic evangelicalism in the CofE ever was. In other words, they are an unhistorical aberration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I should say that most conservative evangelicals I know are generally happy with bishops who have faith in Jesus, some moral backbone and a commitment to mission (or at least not actively hindering it), and there's a fair few such bishops out there.

If they can avoid sniping at conservative evangelicals just for the sake of it, that's nice too.

---

Most conservative evangelicals I know have a very particular, narrowly defined understanding of what 'faith in Jesus', 'moral backbone', and 'a commitment to mission' would entail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
ETA: I spent three hours at my local Christian Union last night. It was an eye-opener.

---

Is it really necessary to turn a thread about Wycliffe hall into yet another Uccf bashing thread?

[ 24. May 2007, 08:25: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
 

---

Posted by Hermeneut (# 11066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermeneut:
/tangent

A serious tangential question which might sound odd: would any evangelical colleges train celibate gay people?

'I have this friend' that loves open evangelical folks, who is currently celibate and firmly intending to remain so - but is definitely not of the straight persuasion. Would they be welcome at any evo colleges - or would it be a terrible road crash?

/end tangent

---

In the past I would certainly have recommended your friend look at Cranmer - seriously suggesting they be entirely open with the warden about themselves. I say in the past because my experience is no longer current, though I have no reason to believe things have changed.

---

quote:

---

Also his comment about the '95%' was a lot worse than Ken makes out. He said that 95% of the population of the UK is going to Hell. With our population being about 60 Million, this means that he thinks only 3 million are doing 'ok'. The last time I looked I believe 3 million was the estimated number of Evangelical Association church membership, so quite clearly he means to say that only 'EA evangelicals' are 'real Christians'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

However, your idea that con evos are an unhistorical abberration is absolute nonsense. You know enough evangelical history to remember groups like the Recordites - and how long have Church Society been around? Con evos and their puritan predecessors have always been with us in Anglicanism. You can't just write them out of history. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

I can't check my first impressions as the video link is now inaccessible "due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit" - but they were that Richard Turnbull was not speaking to a prepared script. He gave the appearance of thinking on his feet about what he was saying with perhaps a handful of heading jotted down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
I can't check my first impressions as the video link is now inaccessible "due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit" - but they were that Richard Turnbull was not speaking to a prepared script. He gave the appearance of thinking on his feet about what he was saying with perhaps a handful of heading jotted down.

I guess if he had foreseen that he would be in the middle of this kind of media attention he might have given more careful thought to ensure that he said clearly exactly what he did intend to say. IOW he would have been careful about what figures he gave, and to shape his statements so that they were not open to accidental or deliberate misinterpretation by hearers other than those to whom he was actually speaking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The point I'm making is that, with the CofE, evangelical Anglicanism has never been separatist. We are not heirs of the Puritans, but heirs of Hooker and Jewell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The point I'm making is that, with the CofE, evangelical Anglicanism has never been separatist. We are not heirs of the Puritans, but heirs of Hooker and Jewell.

---

That's basically a tautology Pete. Any Anglicanism that becomes separatist won't be Anglican for very long! The Puritans sought to reform the CofE from within and when they got frustrated many of them increasingly became separatist.

---

quote:

---

I don't think you have to be a conservative evangelical bishop to be a bit more representative of evangelical opinion in general. However, this is not a criticism of you in particular but a more general one. I think a lot of evangelical clergy and laity (and not exclusively from the con evo camp) are very unhappy with the silence of evangelical bishops on the civil partnerships pastoral advice. The point I was trying, evidently unsuccessfully, to make is that Reform's analysis of the crisis within Anglicanism is shared much more widely among evangelicals now than just con evos. The point on which many open evangelicals would differ from con evos is the response to that crisis. If you view it as a choice between truth and unity, we open evangelicals are likely to go the extra mile for unity in the belief that both are thus better served.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Yes, they lost. And left.

---

(That is presuming a PSA model of atonement Pete, if we assume CV then they won ... victory in defeat )

You miss the point ... but perhaps deliberately ... within the CofE the seeds of 'reformation' have been sown. Every group will claim that they are the true CofE and will try to 'reform' it to their own principles. Some will get frustrated and leave. If your definition of the CofE communion is as poor as 'if you don't like it then you can leave' then Turnball's ecclesiology is suddenly looking very rich indeed.

Still, as I've said before, there'll be plenty of time to be Baptists in heaven
 

---

Posted by Edward::Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Yes, they lost. And left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The point I'm making is that, with the CofE, evangelical Anglicanism has never been separatist. We are not heirs of the Puritans, but heirs of Hooker and Jewell.

---

That's basically a tautology Pete. Any Anglicanism that becomes separatist won't be Anglican for very long! The Puritans sought to reform the CofE from within and when they got frustrated many of them increasingly became separatist.

---

Yes, they lost. And left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Yes, they lost. And left.

---

(That is presuming a PSA model of atonement Pete, if we assume CV then they won ... victory in defeat )

You miss the point ... but perhaps deliberately ... within the CofE the seeds of 'reformation' have been sown. Every group will claim that they are the true CofE and will try to 'reform' it to their own principles. Some will get frustrated and leave. If your definition of the CofE communion is as poor as 'if you don't like it then you can leave' then Turnball's ecclesiology is suddenly looking very rich indeed.

Still, as I've said before, there'll be plenty of time to be Baptists in heaven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The deal is that the CofE is reformed and catholic (and semper reformanda), but that we have already worked through the Puritan issue and decided that we will not be a Puritan church. (Which is why I left the Baptists and became an Anglican). Bishops, connexionalism, being a church for everyone, catholicity, comprehensiveness, are all givens. I'm not seeking to chuck them out; but they need to recognise the reality of the bottom lines of what it means to be CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not seeking to chuck them out; but they need to recognise the reality of the bottom lines of what it means to be CofE.

---

quote:

---

Baptists are not Puritans.

By virtue of being Baptists they can not be Puritans.

Worked through, seems to me as someone from historic non-conformity to be code for "used strong armed tactics against". Not nice but historically more accurate.

Lets imagine an inverse situation today to this working through. Lets have Reform become the dominant force in the Church of England. They insist that nobody can hold a parish who does not sign up to the 39 Articles. If you can not in all honesty sign not only are you out of your living but you are fined six months pay for being in the living under false pretences. They also make the rule that you cannot take a living with another denomination within the same county. So you have to move and upset any relationships you have with locals if you want to continue to minister. This is almost exactly the way the Puritans were forced out of the Church of England.

Please do not white wash the Church of England's past.

I think all you are seeing now is what would inevitably happen and that is certain strands of Puritanism would return once allowed to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:

Evangelicals sign up to position that isn't wholly condemnatory of homosexuality shock! Woe unto fucking Ilium! Iscariot and Arius are wearing blue shirts and sitting in the House of Bishops! <Rends garments, beats breast> Does it never occur to you that if, as you claim, you are interested in unity that you might just have to occasionally put up with people who disagree with you?

---

quote:

---

As for "a commitment to mission" - as Richard Turnbull makes clear, the word "mission" is henceforth to be regarded as a nasty Librul smokescreen. It is not a commitment to mission, but to evangelism (and often an aggressive version of it - remember 95% of the UK population are going to hell, so unless you are an evangelical, you're really screwed).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch

quote:

---

As for "a commitment to mission" - as Richard Turnbull makes clear, the word "mission" is henceforth to be regarded as a nasty Librul smokescreen. It is not a commitment to mission, but to evangelism (and often an aggressive version of it - remember 95% of the UK population are going to hell, so unless you are an evangelical, you're really screwed).

---

Sorry if this is a naive question but is evangelism considered a bad thing by some people ? I don't care what view of the atonement a bishop has or what he thinks about civil partnerships but I would be disappointed if a bishop wasn't committed to evangelism. I had always thought evangelism was something that all elements of the church believed in, and carried out in their different ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Please tell us the lads were over 18.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Really Spawn, you think that the evangelical members of the House of Bishop should have criticised their own policy in the national press and then accuse me of losing the plot?

---

quote:

---

My point about gay people was that in most of the conversations I have had with them, including a number of rather painful discussions with a confirmand at my church, Church of England is not perceived as a body which is excessively lenient or indulgent in its attitudes to gay people. I imagine if you ask one of your gay mates about this they will doubtless confirm this perception. If you think that it is you and your new found chums really ought to get out more. You may enjoy politicking about this sort of thing but IME Actually Existing gay people seem to object to becoming lay figures on whom conservatives can project their anxieties and pick up soundness points.

---

quote:

---

Kindly demonstrate the sleight of hand, changing facts on the ground and subversive tactics or go into the kitchen, put on the kettle and pour yourself a nice hot mug of shut the fuck up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
In the Church of England we now have a situation whereby the Bishops have done a similar thing. Without seeking the judgement of General Synod, they are regularising relationships which were previously anomalous. Everyone knows that civil partnerships amount to gay marriage - that is apart from the Bishops. This is the wrong way round. Permission to enter into civil partnerships should have come at the end of a theological process of debate in which the Church debated marriage and human sexcuality in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The Bishops should never have allowed clergy to enter into civil partnerships. I would have like to have seen the law tested in terms of your claim that it might be illagel to prohibit clergy from entering into civil partnerships.

---

quote:

---

Yes, they should have done. After all, Peter Selby distanced himself from the pastoral advice. Rochester, Durham, Winchester, Chichester also were publicly critical (of government policy, in particular) in their ad clerums.

I have no problems with freedom of conscience for laity, but over clergy the Church can and should exercise discipline. The Bishops should never have allowed clergy to enter into civil partnerships. I would have like to have seen the law tested in terms of your claim that it might be illagel to prohibit clergy from entering into civil partnerships. If that is so, the Bishops' pastoral advice probably remains illegal given that it requires clergy to conform to certain standards set forth in 'Issues' (which of course, they and the bishops ignore in any case).

---

quote:

---

I don't underestimate the pain that gay men and lesbians experience, but they don't have a monopoly on pain. Frankly, it's rather unpleasant for you to suggest that I 'enjoy' politicking about these issues - I would much prefer to be arguing with you against me, because that would be the easier course. To stand in front of a cultural juggernaut that is riding roughshod over centuries of Christian theology is not a particularly comfortable place to be. Nevertheless, the case for changing church teaching is far from proven. I'm not an impossiblist and am willing to hear a 'killer' argument to change my mind, but so far all I've heard is special pleading, arrant nonsense and a failure to actually engage with what the Bible fully says about human relationships.

---

quote:

---

Quite simply, allowing clergy to enter into civil partnerships represents a kind of 'Righter' moment for the C of E. In the 'Righter' judgement the court of Bishops ruled, that ECUSA had no 'core doctrine' to prevent the ordination of a practising homosexual. Despite the fact that the court went on to say, it wasn't ruling on the substantive issue, this gave the green light, and was considered widely to do for homosexuals what an act of General Convention had never done permissively.

In the Church of England we now have a situation whereby the Bishops have done a similar thing. Without seeking the judgement of General Synod, they are regularising relationships which were previously anomalous. Everyone knows that civil partnerships amount to gay marriage - that is apart from the Bishops. This is the wrong way round. Permission to enter into civil partnerships should have come at the end of a theological process of debate in which the Church debated marriage and human sexcuality in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
To do Turnbull justice I doubt he meant it as an exact figure. That said, it was still a pretty ghastly thing to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
Catholic Christians have historically believed that outside the church there is no salvation. [...]
This is not the place for a debate on the double outcome or otherwise of human history but I do think it's problematic to automatically condemn as ghastly a view which is pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
(feeling even more stupid - particularly as a theology grad who teaches, and reads the ship regularly..... )

... but are C of E vicars allowed to be in civil partnerships now then?!?!?! I missed that.

---

quote:

---

Why? Catholic Christians have historically believed that outside the church there is no salvation. They believed this because it seemed pretty obvious to them from Scripture. Evangelicals probably put the stress on faith in Christ rather than being part of the church (not that faith is separable from participation in Christ's Body) but it boils down to much the same thing.

This is not the place for a debate on the double outcome or otherwise of human history but I do think it's problematic to automatically condemn as ghastly a view which is pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Callan asked about evangelical ecclesiology and a few people repeated Runcie's daft adage, perpetuated so nauseatingly by Paul Avis (or did he originate it and Runcie took it up?). I believe that the foundations of evangelical ecclesiology are covered quite well by Messrs Calvin, Luther and Hooker (to name a selection). More recently one might look to the work of Barth, Bonhoeffer, O'Donovan, Bradshaw and Webster.

---

Did I? I'm pretty sure that was someone else. And it was yer man Turnbull who came up with the canard about Evangelicals not having an ecclesiology! Good points though.

ken: you say liberal-Tory establishmentarian with Erastian leanings, I say cautious in pronouncing on other peoples eternal destiny.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
people who are not Puritan in the historic sense are called Puritan as a convenient way of not having to have a proper discussion with them.

---

quote:

---

To say that evangelicals have no eccelsiology is either ignorant or deliberately insulting.

---

Well yes. We no only have an ecclesiology we have several
 

---

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
To do Turnbull justice I doubt he meant it as an exact figure. That said, it was still a pretty ghastly thing to say.

---

Why? Catholic Christians have historically believed that outside the church there is no salvation. They believed this because it seemed pretty obvious to them from Scripture. Evangelicals probably put the stress on faith in Christ rather than being part of the church (not that faith is separable from participation in Christ's Body) but it boils down to much the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:

I'm not really sure what the point is in having the Bishops agree on a policy and then half of them rushing into print to denounce it. And having no policy at all would have been fatal. Can you imagine the headlines if +Southwark had announced that it was liberty hall whilst +Durham issued a stern interdict. I imagine that the C of E has m'learned friends on tap who could advise as to the legality or not of any decision. I don't think it was unreasonable, if the legal advice pointed that way, to prefer to avoid a court defeat and the subsequent damaging row in the press.

---

quote:

---

Whilst I concede that gays and lesbians don't have any monopoly on pain I think that any pain you (or I) may feel on this issue really pales in significance. Besides which, it's rather a done deal. The Church of England isn't going to change its teaching any time soon, as the responses to the Reading fiasco and the ordination of +Robinson demonstrate. So I think the size of the juggernaut you are so bravely withstanding is overstated. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sean D:

quote:

---

Callan asked about evangelical ecclesiology and a few people repeated Runcie's daft adage, perpetuated so nauseatingly by Paul Avis (or did he originate it and Runcie took it up?). I believe that the foundations of evangelical ecclesiology are covered quite well by Messrs Calvin, Luther and Hooker (to name a selection). More recently one might look to the work of Barth, Bonhoeffer, O'Donovan, Bradshaw and Webster.

---

Did I? I'm pretty sure that was someone else. And it was yer man Turnbull who came up with the canard about Evangelicals not having an ecclesiology! Good points though.

---

quote:

---

I think the policy should have been different. And I daresay you would prefer the House of Bishops policy since 1991 to have been different, and would have wished that more liberal bishops had the guts and decency at certain times to stand up and be counted. As to legal advice, it all depends on who you get your advice from. I daresay, legal opinions might divide on this issue - after all there are precedents in all sorts of areas (especially employment) for specific church exemptions.

---

quote:

---

I think we could have substantial change in the next five years, and this will be helped by the fact that once the dust settles over civil partnerships controversy many more gay clergy will quietly enter into them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Lots of views which are pretty well-rooted in pre-Enlightenment orthodox Christianity are ghastly. The damnation of unbaptised babies, for example.

---

quote:

---

My real objection <...> is that judging by the census figures most people in this country are bad or nominal Christians. Obviously we want them (and us) to become better Christians but we can hardly pronounce with any certainty that they are headed down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire. Who died and made Fr. Turnbull judge of the eternal destiny of his neighbour? When we consider hell we should consider the state of our own souls, not complacently pronounce on the state of other peoples.

---

But such pronouncements are meant to engender anything but complacency - rather, activism based on the urgency of the situation.

Perhaps this boils down to a rather ordinary intra-Anglican disagreement between those who believe what is needed is to convert the nation (usually evos?) and those who believe what is needed is to disciple already Christian people better. I suppose on reflection the truth may well be somewhere in between... certainly few younger people see themselves as Christians but there are also certainly plenty who do indeed regard themselves as Christians but don't go to church etc. About the latter I am sure you are right to chide me or anyone else for pronouncing on their eternal destination! But ultimately I struggle to reconcile the exemption for ignorance with my understanding of the NT.

(Sorry that this has become a bit tangential)

[Edited to fix code as requested -- Trudy Scr. P-H]

[ 24. May 2007, 15:55: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
So sorry about that abysmal code... if a host could repair I would be eternally . PPIMF.
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:

That pre-supposes that a)enough evangelicals are going to change their mind on the issue any time soon and b) The rest of the Anglican Communion won't get upset by any such decision. In the current climate I find both unlikely. The Bishops current policy, like that of Mr Merdle, appears to be "no row". I suppose the government could appoint loads of liberals to the Episcopate but there is no evidence of that happening at present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I simply asked (without wishing to derail the thread) what
is the Evangelical ecclesiology? Ken says there are several. Is 'the Church' except in an institutional sense really that important to the Reform crowd?

---

I took the liberty of starting a new thread to which I cross-posted Angloid's question.
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Well this discussion has moved in all sorts of directions while I was out training people for ministry!

At the risk of perpetuating a few of the tangents:

RT mentions fees and quota capping in the video. The House of Bishops (advised bt the Theological Education Committee of MinDiv - on which I was a member) sets a Bishops' Agreed Maximum (BAM) of numbers of Anglican ordinands per college. Courses do not have a BAM.

If a college exceeds its BAM, it can keep a percentage of the fees of the first few extra students (5 students IIRR) and gets no fees for any beyond that. (My figures may be wrong, but the principle's accurate). The BAM is moved up or down to accomodate growing colleges and be realistic for smaller ones, but colleges which hit a recruiting bad patch are visited to see what MinDiv can do to help.

This system helps to smooth out unevenness in the number of college ordinands from year to year. surplus fee money from overful colleges goes indirectly to under-full colleges.

Some people want BAM removed and a free market. RT seems to want this and it would advantage the larger colleges, but they must remember things change over time and they might be smaller one day. BAM is not perfect, but it does preserve a bredth of college provision.

Some of us argued for BAM for courses, but the problem here is that an ordinand who cannot go full time may have no choice but their regional course - so if it were full they would have to defer entry. At present, the policy is that candidates can start training in the immediate future if they wish (i.e. not wait a year) so BAM for courses is unlikely.

RT's views here may not endear him to fellow college principals, but they will have to tell him so themselves!

Fees do not cover the cost of training - as Christina Baxter has said at least once in General Synod. Colleges then recruit non-ordinands (independant students) and / or build up a conference trade in the vacs..

The first version of Hind seemed to say college training was too expensive and places should be cut (restricted to single people under 30, basically). This was widely thought to be A Bad Idea and got duffed up in GS. 'Ah' quoth the financiers, 'Well tell us how we are going to fund residential training then, seeing as how we are a bit short this month' And lo there arose in the Synod one to lead a working party on this matter and was called Richard of Turnbull in the diocese of Winchester (I think). And Richard did consult in many of the colleges, including the four that were not two and he produced a plan. And behold he presented this plan to General Synod who said 'We don't like this plan' and the working party said 'That's our best advice, take it or leave it' and lo GS left it and the matter was referred to the Bishops.

Which may be partly why he got the WH job - he had stood up for the colleges in GS against Hind and had financial acumen.

And on the matter of modes of training - I spent 7 years teaching in one of the four and now have been vice-principal of a diocesan non-residential course for 6 weeks (haven't found much vice in Norfolk yet). Previously I taught a bit on another non-res course. I do buy into non-res being academically inferior to res training. The fact is that the best courses are more rigorous than the worst colleges - it does not fall out by type of training. There are things the non-res courses find hard to do, but we try anyway (e.g. the living in community experience) and there are some things we generally do better (Contectual theology) - but even here it is not uniform. I know of colleges with poorer community life than some courses and colleges which do contextual theology well. But this is off-topic and we have a dead horse on this surely??
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Aagh! preview post is my fiend!

I meant to write that I do NOT buy into non-res training being academically inferior to res training.

Please don't anyone tell the Bishop of Norwich. I'm the Vice-principal - that's what I do and I'd like to carry on doing it...
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by badman:
But Turnbull is in the same church as the people he says are going to hell. If everyone who isn't a conservative evangelical is, in his opinion, going to hell, that will include me and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Seems ghastly to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Now, I'm no universalist, and am happy to accept that some self-labelling is a confused delusion - but where did the Anglican practice of 'taking people what they claim to be until evidence proves otherwise' disappear to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Have I summed this up reasonably?

---

quote:

---

Also, that if you heard the Good News, you couldn't help but go "yes, yes, yes!" and go to church lots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

Oh, and you probably know people at Wycliffe who refer to him as "Father Turnbull" regularly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.

---

Though has to be said, I'm not actually sure what she does here, though I'm sure it must be something really useful...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Aagh! preview post is my fiend!

I meant to write that I do NOT buy into non-res training being academically inferior to res training.

Please don't anyone tell the Bishop of Norwich. I'm the Vice-principal - that's what I do and I'd like to carry on doing it...

---

I'm glad you corrected this. I was just about to ask Sue to point out to you that firmly ERMCs results were indistinguishable from the residential colleges in Cambridge last semester!

[ 25. May 2007, 08:08: Message edited by: Stranger in a strange land ]
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Turnbull's article is here.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Elaine Storkey ends up leaving Wycliffe Hall then that would absolutely confirm Wycliffe is in deep shit.

---

Though has to be said, I'm not actually sure what she does here, though I'm sure it must be something really useful...

---

Well, based on a number of the posts here she would appear to be regarded as a fairly significant asset of Wycliffe.

---

quote:

---

She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
How would this differ from the debates that led up to the compromise reached in Issues? That could have been a good neutral position for the CofE to stick to - but the Jeffrey John business showed that many on the conservative wing had no intention of abiding by it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.

---

She's the only one I'd heard of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
haven't found much vice in Norfolk yet

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Big two-pager in the Independent today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

She is certainly the most well known member of Wycliffe's staff and of the current crop she and Wenham were the only two I had heard of.

---

She's the only one I'd heard of.

---

She's the only one I've listened to, and she's an excellent "teacher", interesting to listen to and always adds in some things that get you thinking even more - and IMO she's not just churning out common ideas, but adding stuff in and countering what she reckons are wrong, or mistakes, or inaccurate.

 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
She's the only one I've listened to, and she's an excellent "teacher", interesting to listen to and always adds in some things that get you thinking even more - and IMO she's not just churning out common ideas, but adding stuff in and countering what she reckons are wrong, or mistakes, or inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

The man who says we are all going to hell

---

quote:

---

I've been to at least a couple of her lectures (meaning I can remember two clearly - there may have been more), and it seems that it's very much a case of YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
YMMV?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn R:
There is an article on the independent website. See here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
HAve these newspaper articles come about as a result of this thread.....?? THe indy article states the clip was 9 months old - so is it only through our discussio and resurrection of it that its come to the attention of the newsy peeps?

---

quote:

---

One blogger on a liberal Christian website jokily suggested that Dr Turnbull was himself a secret liberal, who has infiltrated the evangelical movement to discredit it from within. Another pleaded with fellow Christians: "Pray your socks off for Dr Turnbull and Wycliffe Hall."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The Indy article did say:

quote:

---

One blogger on a liberal Christian website jokily suggested that Dr Turnbull was himself a secret liberal, who has infiltrated the evangelical movement to discredit it from within. Another pleaded with fellow Christians: "Pray your socks off for Dr Turnbull and Wycliffe Hall."

---

which made me think of the Ship. However I don't recognise either remark (although that could just be my bad memory, of course).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
Actually 5% is an awfully high estimate of the number of people who are currenlty regenerate. The number who semi-regularly attend a church where something resembling the true gospl is preached - that is, those who could be expected to have heard the gospel, if only over time, in small bits mixed with error, would be well below 5%, if the UK is anything like Australia. Then factor in that probably a minority of those would be regenerate, as we can see clearly by the fact that so many fall away, or later embrace heresy. I imagine the 7000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal, scaled for national population, would be a good working hypothesis. But that is not to be pessimistic - God kept the 7000 in Elijah's day, and he will no doubt keep His faithful remnant in our day as well.

---

"There's a narrowness in God's mercy,
That excludes the C of E.
Rest assured you're going Hell-wards,
If you don't agree with me."

Yep. Much better that way.

- Chris.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Zwingli:

quote:

---

The number who semi-regularly attend a church where something resembling the true gospl is preached - that is, those who could be expected to have heard the gospel, if only over time, in small bits mixed with error, would be well below 5%, if the UK is anything like Australia.

---

The "True" Gospel according to our Zwingli.

I presume the heretics include all RCs, Orthodox, and anyone who doesn't vote a straight Reform ticket on their theological ballot.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Good to see that we have Zwingli to help us keep things in perspective.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
I imagine the 7000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal, scaled for national population, would be a good working hypothesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Ah, but on that reading the incarnation and the atonement wasn't for them. It was for a select handful of stormtroopers of smugness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The supreme advantage of remnant theology is that you can say to people you don't like, "God doesn't love you and Jesus didn't die for you."

---

No no no - you're missing the point. The advantage of remnant theology is that you can say to people who disagree with you, "God's on my side, ner ner ner."
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
That's the trouble with you liberals. Always taking the Bible literally.

[X-posted with Dyfrig.]

[ 25. May 2007, 13:21: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Ah, but on that reading the incarnation and the atonement wasn't for them. It was for a select handful of stormtroopers of smugness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
HAve these newspaper articles come about as a result of this thread.....?? THe indy article states the clip was 9 months old - so is it only through our discussio and resurrection of it that its come to the attention of the newsy peeps?

---

I wonder Emma....

The clip was found by Jody, who contributes to the Fulcrum and that was where I first found it. I, then, posted it here.

Somehow Thinking Anglicans got hold of it (?via Fulcrum or here) and I think Stephen Bates got it from there. I don't know what the Independant connection is with the Guardian, but the story is definately 'spreading'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The Indy article did say:

quote:

---

One blogger on a liberal Christian website jokily suggested that Dr Turnbull was himself a secret liberal, who has infiltrated the evangelical movement to discredit it from within. Another pleaded with fellow Christians: "Pray your socks off for Dr Turnbull and Wycliffe Hall."

---

which made me think of the Ship. However I don't recognise either remark (although that could just be my bad memory, of course).

---

quote:

---

guys. guys, it's another nasty liberal plot, concocted by Giles Fraser and Stephen Bates: Years ago, in a secret ceremony held in the staff canteen at the Guardian, Turnbull agreed to act as a 'sleeper' within the ConsEv movement, to be wheeled out as instant embarrassment as soon as the liberal ascendancy was threatened. By re-establishing the connection between 'evangelical' and 'nasty party' he denies the evangelical faith the rehabilitation it has so long been seeking in the public mind.

Posted by: mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 at 6:33pm BST

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Oh, I'm not certain (although I hope) that all will be saved. I just think that it is slightly presumptuous for fallen, sinful human beings to start identifying the exact demographic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
Actually 5% is an awfully high estimate of the number of people who are currenlty regenerate. The number who semi-regularly attend a church where something resembling the true gospl is preached - that is, those who could be expected to have heard the gospel, if only over time, in small bits mixed with error, would be well below 5%, if the UK is anything like Australia. Then factor in that probably a minority of those would be regenerate, as we can see clearly by the fact that so many fall away, or later embrace heresy. I imagine the 7000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal, scaled for national population, would be a good working hypothesis. But that is not to be pessimistic - God kept the 7000 in Elijah's day, and he will no doubt keep His faithful remnant in our day as well.

---

"There's a narrowness in God's mercy,
That excludes the C of E.
Rest assured you're going Hell-wards,
If you don't agree with me."

Yep. Much better that way.

- Chris.

---

sanityman

It must be since the advent of those awful liberal baptism liturgies. At one time the majority of the population would have been baptised according to the BCP rite, and would have been declared to be 'regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church.' But then I suppose Cranmer was a woolly liberal according to Zwingli (both of them).
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
IIRC, the original Zwingli was a bit of a woolly liberal as he argued that the death of a child was a sign of its election (an odd doctrine but probably quite humane on some level given the rate of infant mortality in sixteenth century Europe) and hypothesised that Seneca and Socrates were among the elect. The dates are all wrong but I generally think of him as being the bastard child of Calvin and Erasmus.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Oh, I'm not certain (although I hope) that all will be saved. I just think that it is slightly presumptuous for fallen, sinful human beings to start identifying the exact demographic.

---

I think you guys are being way too hard on Zwingli (and I'm not just saying that because I did my long essay on his view of the Eucharist ... plus I must say: his grasp of Latin is not what it used to be ).

I find Matthew 7 one of the most challenging bits of the whole bible. After warning us not to be quick to judge each other (i.e. in our current debate - no one knows who is saved, only God does) Jesus goes on to give warning after warning that not everyone who says they follow him really are doing so.

Whilst it is not up to me to say who is in and who is out, surely following the words of Jesus must mean warning others not to make this very mistake?

[ 25. May 2007, 16:49: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
Yes, heard a sermon by one of my fellow students on 2 Peter 2 recently. It's a sad and difficult passage, but that doesn't make it less true.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I find Matthew 7 one of the most challenging bits of the whole bible. After warning us not to be quick to judge each other (i.e. in our current debate - no one knows who is saved, only God does) Jesus goes on to give warning after warning that not everyone who says they follow him really are doing so.

Whilst it is not up to me to say who is in and who is out, surely following the words of Jesus must mean warning others not to make this very mistake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Yes, heard a sermon by one of my fellow students on 2 Peter 2 recently. It's a sad and difficult passage, but that doesn't make it less true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Yes, heard a sermon by one of my fellow students on 2 Peter 2 recently. It's a sad and difficult passage, but that doesn't make it less true.

---

Wasn't Peter writing about the Paulines?

---

I didn't think anyone considered that it was written by Peter.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
It's generally considered good manners to call the author "Peter", at least.

And yes, a good number of people do think it was the same Peter as knew Jesus.
 

---

Posted by Audry Ely (# 12665) on :
 
(Hello, I'm new here)

I think that the colleges training ordinands are rather reflecting the state of the Anglican Communion, sadly those on the extreme liberal wing and those on the extreme conservative evangelical wing, and I guess those on any extreme wing...don't listen. I've just put something to this effect on my own blog (which I'd be pleased if you visit
Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
How did we get from this ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I find Matthew 7 one of the most challenging bits of the whole bible. After warning us not to be quick to judge each other (i.e. in our current debate - no one knows who is saved, only God does) Jesus goes on to give warning after warning that not everyone who says they follow him really are doing so.

Whilst it is not up to me to say who is in and who is out, surely following the words of Jesus must mean warning others not to make this very mistake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I rarely venture into the awesome realms of Kerygmania, and this thread looks as if it's heading that way. However, if Johnny S is alluding to Matt 7.21 'Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord...' , and indeed chapter 25 (sheep and goats), it surely highlights the arrogance of those religious people who suggest that explicit commitment to Christ is the only way to be saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
noooo noooo - you're giving me more interesting sites to read ... I'll never be off my computer with *more* websites, and weblogs and and and!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
The dates are all wrong but I generally think of him as being the bastard child of Calvin and Erasmus.

---

quote:

---

There's something to be said for a Christian minister who died in battle

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And there really were people who when they said that Anglicanism was the Middle Way, meant the middle way between Zwinglism and Calvinism. (There were quite a lot more who meant the middle way between Luther and Calvin)

---

quote:

---

There's something to be said for a Christian minister who died in battle. I'm not sure what it is though, but it miost be something.

---

quote:

---

I am actually the only principal who has gone to that job from parish ministry. And I simply want to say to you that I think that makes a difference

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
But is it true that Turnbull is the only Principal to come out of parish ministry? A quick glance at Crockford shows me that Robin Ward also came out of parish ministry (Sevenoaks) with a hospital chaplaincy under his belt to boot. Martin Seeley came to Westcott from ten years at St John with St Luke on the Isle of Dogs and has considerable experience in the selection and training of clergy also. How many others have been overlooked?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audry Ely:
I think the danger can be that some (and I say some) liberals can actually be very intolerant, and at times quite unpleasant. I think 'Thinking Anglicans' is at times very informed, but some of the comments are not very nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Robin Ward went to St Stephens in 2006, as did Seeley to Westcott. So, as RT's talk was to LAST year's Reform Conference, it may be that when he said those words, it was before these two men had started. I am sure someone can check the relative dates. Of course, the other answer is that St Stephens and Westcott aren't in the "2+4" and so don't count as far as RT is concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
As did Kovoor to Trinity, who also has parish experience.

Notice a trend?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audry Ely:
I think the danger can be that some (and I say some) liberals can actually be very intolerant, and at times quite unpleasant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And yes, the slagging off of Roman pisses me off.

---

Was that a deliberate typo Ken? Or just incredibly freudian?
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And there really were people who when they said that Anglicanism was the Middle Way, meant the middle way between Zwinglism and Calvinism. (There were quite a lot more who meant the middle way between Luther and Calvin)

---

I thought Cranmer meant it between Zwingli and Luther...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
For the Reformers the via media lay on a path between the errors of Rome and those of Anabaptism

---

Of course we all know what happens to those who stand in the middle of the road.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Who said anything about standing?

Historically one could argue that there was a time when the C of E simply drove a bulldozer along the middle of the road - Archbishop Whitgift's response to both Puritans and Catholics was equally uncompromising.

Even today it can sometimes seem as if the C of E thinks it owns the road and has every right to drive along the middle of it if it wants to.
 

---

Posted by Audry Ely (# 12665) on :
 
I see his week's edition of the Roman Catholic (and good) magazine, The Tablet, has an article about the colleges like Wycliffe in Oxford which are being reveiwed about their status. Some of them are Catholic, some Anflican - Wycliffe, St Stepehens House etc. I hope the University has some trenchant remarks to make.
The trouble is though - according to the Table - Oxfgord University is rather dependant on places like Wycliffe to provide staff to teach Theology in the University.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
What kind of trenchant remarks?
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
For the Reformers the via media lay on a path between the errors of Rome and those of Anabaptism

---

Of course we all know what happens to those who stand in the middle of the road.

---

Crucifixion, I reckon. But then, I'm a Girardian, so I would think that.
 

---

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Just heard the BBC religious news programme Sunday on Radio 4, which had a good piece on Wycliffe, with some of Turnbull speech and an interview with +Pete. you can listen to it from this page.

- Chris.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Just heard the BBC religious news programme Sunday on Radio 4, which had a good piece on Wycliffe, with some of Turnbull speech and an interview with +Pete. you can listen to it from this page.

- Chris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audry Ely:
... and Westcott is having students fighting!

---

quote:

---

and Westcott is having students fighting!

---

Are we? News to me. And I'm only a full-time student here.

Anyway, assuming you're correct and I'm behind with the gossip, the conclusion I would tend to draw is that ordinands are human. I'd be surprised if that's news.

BP
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
There is considerable difference between ordinands being silly and the matter people have been discussing on this thread, which concerns the policies and management of Wycliffe's teaching and administration. Miss Ely is simply filing them all as 'Bad-news Stories About Theological Colleges'.

Incidentally, I'm about 14 miles closer to Westcott than Miss Ely is, and I've heard nothing about fighting ordinands. Was it bareknuckle? Were bets laid on the outcome? Did anyone get hurt?

It may simply be that Fr Seeley is preparing his young charges for the cut and thrust of parish life.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn R:
There is an article on the independent website. See here

---

This is quickly turning into a ridiculous hatchet job. "Principal of evangelical college believes non-Christians going to hell" Since when was that a headline? Even for the Independent that is dull dull dull.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn R:
There is an article on the independent website. See here

---

This is quickly turning into a ridiculous hatchet job. "Principal of evangelical college believes non-Christians going to hell" Since when was that a headline? Even for the Independent that is dull dull dull.

---

Really? I doubt if many Indy readers know/care what evangelicals think about...well anything really, so it probably is all new to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
I don't know if "bad" publicity is always good publicity though. I certainly am far more likely to consider Cambridge or Bristol now if I pursue that route in the dim dark distant future..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burbling Psalmist:
Are we? News to me. And I'm only a full-time student here.

---

Are you sure there wasn't a debate about having a Cross in the Chapel / Benediction / Having the Compline Address during Compline not after / When to Sing the Angelus / Use of Hail Mary in Office Prayers / Which Newspapers to have in the Common Room / The Validity of last Thursday's Tutor Group Eucharist / The Edibility of last Thursday's Tutor Group Soup which you missed?
 

---

Posted by Burbling Psalmist (# 9514) on :
 
No, I was there for all those. Indeed, I started most of them...

BP
 

---

Posted by Audry Ely (# 12665) on :
 
My point was not to "file bad news stories about theological colleges," but rather that Wycliffe is going through difficult times - and its issues clearly need resolution. In the same way other theological colleges have gone through difficult times at other times - some very significant problems, some just passing problems.

I did not mean to say that the problems at Westcott are of the same seriousness as Wycliffe.

Audrey
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audry Ely:
In the same way other theological colleges have gone through difficult times at other times -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burbling Psalmist:
No, I was there for all those. Indeed, I started most of them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audry Ely:
I did not mean to say that the problems at Westcott are of the same seriousness as Wycliffe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
which is exactly how the conservative evangelicals want you to respond, as that would result in the move from 1+5 to 2+4 that they were speaking of.

Wycliffe will be able to fill its places with cons.evos, Ridley and Trinity get more applicants, everyone is happy except those who want Wycliffe to be what it used to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Can you think of any other theological college in England who has such significant issues that they have been in the national press?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Can you think of any other theological college in England who has such significant issues that they have been in the national press?

---

And that is the curious thing. Other colleges have certainly had more significant issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Ummm... I can remember bigger issues with Staggers, certainly, which got less press coverage. But it's better not to talk about such things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audry Ely:
In the same way other theological colleges have gone through difficult times at other times -

---

Can you think of any other theological college in England who has such significant issues that they have been in the national press?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
[QB] Richard Turnbull wants the college to stay broad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
I'm sorry, Custard, but I've been following this thread for some time and I'm quite shocked that you can assert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Richard Turnbull wants the college to stay broad.

---

Given what he said on the video from the Reform conference. Didn't he question the validity of the term 'Open Evangelical' and suggest that, ultimately, one is either an evangelical or a liberal? Perhaps I got that wrong but that's what I heard and if that is what he thinks, then what sort of broad college does he want? If he's saying 'any evangelical can come here - but only Reform-style conservative evangelcials are evangelicals' then isn't he saying exactly what people are accusing him of?

I don't know: you're at the place, not me (I was at Trinity) and for the record, the last two Wycliffe ordinands that I've met in my diocese have been VERY open - to the extent that I was shocked that they were from Wycliffe! But tell me: if someone turned up at your place for an interview now and said that, while they still considered themselves evangelical because that was their tradition/formation and they were still mission-centred (again, Turnbull expressed scepticism/contempt for that word in the video, didn't he?) but that they were now convinced that homosexual practice was not (necessarily) sinful ie if conducted in the context of a loving/committed relationship (to pick an example at random but!) - well: do you think he would be happy/willing to let them (and more like them in?)

I may be wrong but I suspect that the answer to that would be no - and, to be fair, it might be at the 'new' Trinity too. But, if I'm right, what sort of breadth does Turnbull actually have in mind? Would he consider those that have signed the Accepting Evangelicals petition as 'real' evangelicals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I imagine that the C of E has m'learned friends on tap who could advise as to the legality or not of any decision. I don't think it was unreasonable, if the legal advice pointed that way, to prefer to avoid a court defeat and the subsequent damaging row in the press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
[QB] Richard Turnbull wants the college to stay broad.

---

Given what he said on the video from the Reform conference. Didn't he question the validity of the term 'Open Evangelical' and suggest that, ultimately, one is either an evangelical or a liberal?

---

quote:

---

Our numbers of ordinands from both conservative and charismatic traditions have increased, so have both the number and proportion of women candidates. For me, and for Wycliffe, ‘inclusive’ means exactly that, rather than the exclusion of particular views. So, issues which divide, whether over ordination, charismatic gifts, baptism etc. have to be debated in the
open, albeit with care and sensitivity.

---

quote:

---

the Bible, the atonement and an evangelical understanding of ministry and formation

---

quote:

---

But tell me: if someone turned up at your place for an interview now and said that, while they still considered themselves evangelical because that was their tradition/formation and they were still mission-centred (again, Turnbull expressed scepticism/contempt for that word in the video, didn't he?) but that they were now convinced that homosexual practice was not (necessarily) sinful ie if conducted in the context of a loving/committed relationship (to pick an example at random but!) - well: do you think he would be happy/willing to let them (and more like them in?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:Richard Turnbull wants the college to stay broad.

---

Given what he said on the video from the Reform conference. Didn't he question the validity of the term 'Open Evangelical' and suggest that, ultimately, one is either an evangelical or a liberal?

---

Richard said in his article in the CEN:

quote:

---

Our numbers of ordinands from both conservative and charismatic traditions have increased, so have both the number and proportion of women candidates. For me, and for Wycliffe, ‘inclusive’ means exactly that, rather than the exclusion of particular views. So, issues which divide, whether over ordination, charismatic gifts, baptism etc. have to be debated in the
open, albeit with care and sensitivity.

---

---

Custard, the problem I have with this is that one would expect Richard Turnbull to say such things in a carefully prepared article which is to be printed in a sympathetic newspaper.

What you still don't seem to have addressed is the clear gap between what Turnbull has said in "official" statements and what he said unofficially to Reform. And the latter has been supported by the anonymous comments also coming out of WH which Stephen Bates has referred to.

Now it seems to me that there are two options:

a) Turnbull's official statements are a true indication of his intent (which is what you are arguing). The problem with this is that not only does it run counter to the fears expressed to Bates, it means that Turnbull's talk at Reform was little more than a rather cynical sales pitch.

b) Turnbull's comments to Reform are a true indication of his intent, which means that his official statements are little more than window-dressing.

Part of the problem is that there is a great deal of opaqueness about what Turnbull means by certain key phrases and whether what he means is what other people mean. I'm thinking here of such phrases as "open evangelical", "broad" and even the word "evangelical" itself.

For me, the basic issue is that the Reform talk fits in with the comments made to Stephen Bates by present and past members of staff and by an evangelical bishop. Nothing that Turnbull has said subsequent to this has really addressed these issues. Once you strip away the denials and empty phrases, there is still a discrepancy.
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Oscar,

It's also like the comment from David Peterson (on the Radio 4 Sunday program) about how Oakhill is supportive of 'Women in ministry'.

Of course this is code speak for, 'They can lead the kids work and counsel other women, but don't let them become the parish priest'.

Isn't this called 'doublespeak' where you say one thing, knowing that people will take one meaning, when - in fact - you meant the opposite?

Saying Wycliffe Hall is to be 'broad' is doublespeak for '..as long as you sign up to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Hold the bible to be inerrant and think evangelism is about 'two ways to live''

I've absolutely NO problem with Richard Turnball believing what he likes (even if I disagree with him), I only wish he would <pentecostal mode>'SPEAK IT PLAINLY, BROTHER!'</pentecostal mode> (well, that's what he did to Reform )

Spin, spin and more spin....(what a wonderful talent New Labour left with us).
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What you still don't seem to have addressed is the clear gap between what Turnbull has said in "official" statements and what he said unofficially to Reform.

---

quote:

---

... We really do think that the liberal catholic view is now dominant in the CofE (does anyone seriously doubt that it is? Or that it has been for at least forty years, if not eighty?) and we really would prefer to shift things back our way. ...

---

As a liberal Catholic Anglican (although I'm not using the word liberal as synonymous with vaccuous - others on this thread might be ) I certainly don't feel that our view is dominant in the CofE.

On the contrary, my own tradition has been pretty rubbish at asserting itself for the last 15 years (which is as long as I've been paying attention). My sense is very much that it's the almost complete failure of the non-Forward-in-Faith Catholics in the CofE to articulate what we believe in a concise, attractive way that has left the field clear for the rise of conservative evangelicalism.

I have to say, though, that I don't really want any one churchpersonship to triumph. That's part of the reason why I'm an Anglican.

BP
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burbling Psalmist:
.

On the contrary, my own tradition has been pretty rubbish at asserting itself for the last 15 years (which is as long as I've been paying attention). My sense is very much that it's the almost complete failure of the non-Forward-in-Faith Catholics in the CofE to articulate what we believe in a concise, attractive way that has left the field clear for the rise of conservative evangelicalism.

BP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Richard tends to tell things how he sees them. Yes, he probably does think that there are evangelicals and liberals. But he'd include a lot of "open evangelicals" in the "evangelical" bracket. I know students here who call themselves "open evangelical" and who Richard is very happy to count as evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What you still don't seem to have addressed is the clear gap between what Turnbull has said in "official" statements and what he said unofficially to Reform.

---

There really isn't a clear gap.

---

quote:

---

Er..are you serious? So exactly how many conservative(as opposed to open/liberal) evangelical bishops are there?

And how many liberal catholics?

---

I don't know. I doubt anyone asks Bishops to self-label in those categories so I doubt there are meaningful figures available.

I've also expressed myself badly. Sorry. I didn't really mean to see "control" of the CofE in terms of the factional allegiences of the House of Bishops (and yes, I realise that's an odd line for a Catholic ). It's more about my sense of the perception of the average unchurched man in the street.

On any given litmus test issue, the more conservative and/or evengelical organisations (I suppose the paradigm is Reform) are good at producing concise statements of their position, whereas what tends to come from my end of the Church is a sort of wishy washy, "Well let's start a conversation about this..." kind of statement.

Now I happen to think that approach is right; that conversation and listening rather than bullet points probably is what God intends for the Church.

But organisations like Aff. Cath sometimes take such pains to make the dialogue respectful that they flirt with the danger of not really saying anything positive at all.

Anyway, we're way off topic. Sorry about that, too.

BP
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So exactly how many conservative(as opposed to open/liberal) evangelical bishops are there?

And how many liberal catholics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Custard.:
[QB] Richard Turnbull wants the college to stay broad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
IIRC, he doesn't talk of capturing colleges for the evangelicals; he says that colleges are strategic and that evangelicals shouldn't let the liberals capture them.

i.e. the implication is that the colleges are evangelical, and it is stopping them from broadening/liberalifiying rather than capturing them that is needed.

---

Custard,

Whatever Richard is paying you, it is clearly not enough
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Bass:
But (Turnbull) has problems with open evangelicals because they inhabit the grey area between evangelicalism and liberalism, which is precisely where he wants to build a fence. So he has to clear them out of the way, either by incorporating them into his vision of evangelicalism or by pushing them out into liberalism. The long-term objective is to change the C of E into a pureley evangelical church, but this isn't possible while those pesky open evangelicals insist on interacting with, and drawing from, liberal and catholic streams within the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Custard,

Whatever Richard is paying you, it is clearly not enough

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
If they were deliberately going against what they thought the Bible taught, he wouldn't see them as evangelical.

---

I've followed but kept out of this so far, but I was interested in Custard's earlier comment that liberals talk about regaining influence in the church, so why shouldn't evangelicals? That makes sense, so why was I also so disturbed when I listened to what was said on the video?

I think it's because it is coming from someone in charge of theological EDUCATION. If you simply see it as theological TRAINING then maybe it is different, but if (as I do) you see it as education then it is surely a prerequisite of education that you seek to allow people to grow and explore, not to constrain them?

What Turnbull actually convinces me of is the exact opposite of what he wants to: I believe more and more that ALL the 'doctrinally' based colleges are doing their students a disservice. Like all Readers I was trained on a course, like many I was trained alongside OLMs: I think most of us would cite the experience of learning and being formed alongside those from different traditions, and having to understand that yes, they really DID believe that, was vital.

Back to what I quoted - ISTM that the terms 'evangelical' and 'catholic', and for that matter 'charismatic' are irrelevant here. What Turnbull is saying, and Custard is reflecting (reflective custard ) is that the battle lines now are between biblical conservative and biblical liberal. Depending on where you draw the dividing line, I suspect the CoE as a whole is more evenly balanced on that than it is on evangelical/catholic.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
I agree (strongly) with Dave the Bass and Richard Collins: open evos 'let the evo side down' for the clearly conservative evos by being happy - or at least willing - to belong to the same church as catholics and even the dreaded liberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So exactly how many conservative(as opposed to open/liberal) evangelical bishops are there?

And how many liberal catholics?

---

Conservative evangelical bishops - easy, coz there's only one: +Lewes.

Liberal catholics have a few more than that I think...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So exactly how many conservative(as opposed to open/liberal) evangelical bishops are there?

And how many liberal catholics?

---

Conservative evangelical bishops - easy, coz there's only one: +Lewes.

Liberal catholics have a few more than that I think...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If we're going to talk about how many liberal catholic bishops there are, can we please for once remember that "liberal catholic" is not the same as "dresses up and talks crap"?

---

Could someone tell the Crown Nominations Commission that please?
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
then, as an outsider, that a lot of this stuff about conservative evangelicals taking over the Church of England bears as much resemblance to reality as Patricia Hewitt's understanding of the NHS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
A somewhat over the top article in the Guardian which seems to be as confused a Leprechaun between one college and the entire Church of England. Yet sadly one college in Oxford with leadship from the lunatic fringe of the church of England is not going to be good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
At Wycliffe, with Richard Turnbull as principal, I have been taught in small group situations by a Jesuit, an Orthodox monk, and a pro-women bishops Anglo-Catholic. I'm happy to recognise all of them as fellow Christians and college is happy for them to teach me as part of my theological education. I'd be fine with being in the same church as any of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
what you are saying here is entirely consistent with the most recent Wycliffe ordinands I have met. So perhaps the situation is being exaggerated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope Giles Fraser doesn't teach ethics in the Oxford Philosophy department; his article seemed both dishonest and malicious to me.

---

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If we're going to talk about how many liberal catholic bishops there are, can we please for once remember that "liberal catholic" is not the same as "dresses up and talks crap"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Ken instead of using rhetoric why don't you deal with the actual statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope Giles Fraser doesn't teach ethics in the Oxford Philosophy department; his article seemed both dishonest and malicious to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Newspapers always exaggerate stories.
Pope a Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
But AIUI, in this situation, it's not just newspapers, is it? Aren't people who are sort of involved talking about it on their blogs? If so (and I might have got that wrong) isn't that different to a commercial newspaper looking for a scandal? Is it not a fact that a lot of staff have left?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
But AIUI, in this situation, it's not just newspapers, is it? Aren't people who are sort of involved talking about it on their blogs? If so (and I might have got that wrong) isn't that different to a commercial newspaper looking for a scandal? Is it not a fact that a lot of staff have left?

---

Blogs: I'm one of the blogging students at Wycliffe. I've just checked through half a dozen other blogs of students here, and can't find a single mention of it. If you find anything, I'd be interested. And no, we haven't been told to refrain from blogging on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tumphouse:
Why are Wycliffe students not blogging, Custard? That seems odd to me. If my place of work, or my Church or place of study when I begin Reader Training in September, was attracting so much attention, in the national press as well as on line, I would be blogging like mad.
G

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
On the Fulcrum forum, (hardly anti-evo!) this question was asked:
"Is it true that WH does not send its students (or is it just the ordinands?) to any of the theological faculty's lectures on biblical studies, but keeps them at home with their own (conservative) reading lists?"

Custard (or anyone else who may know the answer to this question) - can you comment on whether this is true or incorrect?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
On the Fulcrum forum, (hardly anti-evo!) this question was asked:
"Is it true that WH does not send its students (or is it just the ordinands?) to any of the theological faculty's lectures on biblical studies, but keeps them at home with their own (conservative) reading lists?"

Custard (or anyone else who may know the answer to this question) - can you comment on whether this is true or incorrect?

---

It's complete tosh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
It is all too easy for an unsubstantiated claim

---

It wasn't a claim or allegation it was question on a forum based on Giles Fraser's dubious article.

[ 30. May 2007, 21:29: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by Audry Ely (# 12665) on :
 
I have to say I rather enjoyed reading Giles Fraser's recent article about Wycliffe Hall in the Guardian newspaper. It raises important questions about the relationship of the University of Oxford to rather strict Christian colleges.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
That article was hilarious, in a kind of sad way.

I particularly liked the bit where, after claiming that Wycliffe was trading off Oxford's good name, he claimed to be a lecturer at Oxford. AFAIK, he was a college chaplain some time ago, but left and doesn't have anything to do with the university.

Needless to say, we're not anti-intellectual. Maybe there are a few people here who are. Personally, I'm trying to do the proper Oxford theology degree in two years, so don't have time to notice them if they do exist.
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
According to his church website Giles Fraser lectures in philosophy at Wadham College.

Although he is involved with something called Inclusive Church, his article is very exclusive, and Custard comes across as the inclusive one of the two. I am having to rethink my preconceptions.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
I was under the impression Giles Fraser was part of the philosophy department at Oxford and a reasonably well respected scholar.When I was in Oxford he was involved in a church there and was very well respected by fellow students.

I usually quite like his articles in the church times, and was quite surprised at his Wycliffe one. It did seem rather unsubstantiated. Perhaps he hit a blind spot or a sore point for him somewhere and lost his usualy journalistic competency.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Letter in the Guardian this week which I can't quote, both because of copyright and because I can't find it, but said something like, the difference between Wycliffe and Giles Fraser is that the former is obsessed by the wages of Sodom, while Fraser was taught by the sages of Wadham.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
Richard Turnbull is said to be writing a reply to Mr Fraser to be published in the Guardian.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Giles Fraser's name does not appear on the current list of staff at Wadham College (where I understand he used to be the chaplain). It's quite possible that he may give the occasional invited lecture, but that's not at all the same thing - on that basis I could describe myself as a lecturer at several UK universities, and the Uni. of Brno in the Czech Republic.

To be honest I like some of his stuff - the problem arises when he opines on culture-wars type subjects. Then it tends to become a one-sided rant. Any sense of objectivity, limitations, applicability etc. etc. flies out of the window.

I only mention that because I would level the same accusation at Stephen Bates. Its not that when he does that he is wrong - on the contrary he may well be right. But in being so uncompromisingly one-sided, it has me starting to sympathise for the other side who must surely have something to say for themselves.

Oh well. He's hardly the only one I would level that accusation at, and he does come across as almost a different person when he speaks on the BBC. Does he get heavily subedited? Does he write his newspaper pieces that way because he thinks that will play to the specific prejudices of Grauniad readers?

Ian
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I suspect my views on a lot of things are rather closer to those of Fr. Fraser than Fr. Turnbull (surely not! I hear you cry), but I do think that an Anglican priest calling for the plug to be pulled on an Anglican theological college by the University of Oxford is really a bit much.

My impression is that Fraser lectures once a week at Wadham, (or at least he did until a few years ago when my spies were active). I've no idea whether this 'counts' or not.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
According to his church website Giles Fraser lectures in philosophy at Wadham College.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
According to his church website Giles Fraser lectures in philosophy at Wadham College.

---

That is intriguing. I didn't think normal Oxford colleges had lecturers in subjects - lectureships are part of the university system rather than the college one if I understand it.

Searches of the Wadham college website turn up no mentions for him, nor is he on the philosophy faculty list though searches of the university website show him as an occasional preacher at various chapels, listed as vicar of Putney and former chaplain at Wadham.

I suppose it's possible that he does a few tutorials for them, but it's odd that he isn't listed as such.

Anyway, that hardly matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Giles Fraser's name does not appear on the current list of staff at Wadham College (where I understand he used to be the chaplain). It's quite possible that he may give the occasional invited lecture, but that's not at all the same thing - on that basis I could describe myself as a lecturer at several UK universities, and the Uni. of Brno in the Czech Republic.

[snip]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I particularly liked the bit where, after claiming that Wycliffe was trading off Oxford's good name, he claimed to be a lecturer at Oxford. AFAIK, he was a college chaplain some time ago, but left and doesn't have anything to do with the university.

---

So it appears it's Fraser 1: Custard 0
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I found Giles Fraser in the Wadham Gazette for 2007 as lecturer not on foundation in Philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I found Giles Fraser in the Wadham Gazette for 2007 as lecturer not on foundation in Philosophy.

---

Oh, ok, fine. I'm far more used to another collegiate system than the Oxford one, where such things didn't seem to exist. Hence the "AFAIK".

As I said, it doesn't matter - I was merely pointing out that some of us thought it ironic that he'd try doing what he accused us of.

---

So, we'll take that as a gracious withdrawal and apology, shall we? "Oh, OK, fine."
 

---

Posted by Edward::Green (# 46) on :
 
I am fond of Giles Fraser's writing, but here I think he is playing to 'the crowd' in much the same way Richard was at Reform.

[ 31. May 2007, 11:13: Message edited by: Edward::Green ]
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
This seems to be a well balanced BBC Report.
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Edward, you're right.

Turnbull and Fraser represent two extreme ends of the spectrum with many of us filling in the space inbetween.

Custard clearly feels closer to RT's position and so would reject GF's analysis, some on the Ship would be closer to GF's position and, thus, detest RT's Reform 'spiel'.

I, like you, found GF's article somewhat 'extreme' and playing to 'party politics' (just as RT did) and, thus, reject both attempts to seize the moral highground.

I think it's the 'muddled middle' where much of the work within the CofE goes on and I'm increasingly getting fed up with all this political posturing and rhetoric.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
This seems to be a well balanced BBC Report.

---

quote:

---

FRASER, Giles Anthony. b 64. Newc Univ BA84 Ox Univ BA92 MA97 Lanc Univ PhD99. Ripon Coll Cuddesdon. d 93 p 94. C Streetly Lich 93-97; C Ox St Mary V w St Cross and St Pet 97-00; Chapl Wadh Coll Ox 97-00; V Putney St Mary S'wark 00-04; TR from 04.

---

quote:

---

But he always speaks with passion and conviction and you have to accept the rhetoric which goes with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

I was merely pointing out that some of us thought it ironic that he'd try doing what he accused us of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Custard clearly feels closer to RT's position and so would reject GF's analysis, some on the Ship would be closer to GF's position and, thus, detest RT's Reform 'spiel'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
In the headlines today:

Newspapers always exaggerate stories.
Pope a Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Chris Sugden said:
Richard Turnbull comes from parish ministry and wanted to change the culture of what had been really a sort of free-spirited academic collective in common with all Oxford colleges. I think it is a culture change situation in the institution which is being led by the Council which the chief executive is being asked to take through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
though tensions within the college may have been minor contributing factors."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
though tensions within the college may have been minor contributing factors."

---

They left seems to be a fact, 'minor' is your spin since you are not a mind reader.

---

quote:

---

I know of no homophobia or misogyny at Wycliffe. If there is any evidence then it must be produced. For Giles to say that I believe 95% of people will "burn in hell" is a misrepresentation when the rest of my sentence, "unless the message of the gospel is brought to them", is excluded.

---

The difference being? I'm sorry but this is a smug, presumptuous statement that assumes that people just need to hear the right version of the gospel and suddenly our churches would be overflowing. It assumes that non-attendance is synonymous with unbelief and casts judgement which God alone can make on the hearts of people, not whether they tick Mr Turnbull's list of 6 impossible things to believe before breakfast

quote:

---

Nor does my deputy believe it's "wrong for women to teach men". He believes, as I do, that in our college women can and should teach and preach. There are various views on practices in local churches.

---

WTF has whether these women are allowed to doing a bit of teaching in our college got to do with whether they have a valid ministry in the Church? To suddenly go into the 3rd person and disassociate himself and his deputy from giving any public statement on whether women should be ordained, let alone lead churches, implicitly suggests they both support resolutions A, B and C. This almost suggests he's still trying to cosy up to Reform by implying he's pro res C, despite Custard saying, and many giving him the benefit of the doubt, though recognising that it's not the case for his deputy, that he supported women's ordination, even if not res A.

I'm disappointed to say his defence comes across as more spin. I want to be pro-Wycliffe, I hold lots of its former student in high esteem, even though I don't agree with them on everything, but Turnbull is not helping its cause.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
We're evangelicals. We don't have an ontological view of ordination, which is why the (very few) evangelical parishes seeking alternative episcopal oversight don't do it for reasons of OoW and don't do it through Resolution C.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I want to be pro-Wycliffe, I hold lots of its former student in high esteem, even though I don't agree with them on everything, but Turnbull is not helping its cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Given that one of them was invited to do a Q&A session with the students the other week, and answered questions on why they were leaving, it doesn't always take a mind-reader.

---

quote:

---

. Giles referred to Wycliffe "drawing upon a long-standing tradition of evangelical anti-intellectualism", and said "the low esteem in which many evangelicals hold academic inquiry is a function of fear". This comment lacks the very academic rigour the author complains is missing from evangelical scholars. The faculty at Wycliffe has a long record of academic publication, with a regular flow of books and articles and our students winning multiple university prizes.

---

quote:

---

For Giles to say that I believe 95% of people will "burn in hell" is a misrepresentation when the rest of my sentence, "unless the message of the gospel is brought to them", is excluded.

---

quote:

---

Nor does my deputy believe it's "wrong for women to teach men". He believes, as I do, that in our college women can and should teach and preach. There are various views on practices in local churches

---

This is a statement of a fact surely? Although it is possible for women to be trained for ministry, not all churches will employ them or recognise their ministry as valid. Any collage principal that wasn’t aware of that and didn’t mention it to their students when discussing job prospects would be rather foolish. IIRC, there are studies showing that many of the women who were ordained when the Anglican church first permitted it didn’t end up in paid church ministry but in prison / hospital / voluntary jobs. IMO, this is wrong and the church should be ashamed but that’s a whole other discussion.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Of course, it's a view held by many, arguably including St Paul, that 100% of people will go to hell unless the Gospel is preached to them. Come on everyone, read for comprehension.
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Leprechaun, it was the 'as I do' that pi**ed me off in that sentence. Apparently Turnbull is pro OoW to some extent, yet here he implies he's in total agreement with his deputy, suggesting he's disingenuous even to his own wife! Why can't he just talk plain and say, 'I don't believe women should have overall control of a church and my mate thinks they can't even teach men, but we're happy to teach them the skill of preaching and maintain our integrity on these separate points'?

Re pleasing me on the 95% it was the way he pretended there was some noticeable difference in the two statements. I'd rather he was honest and said, 'as a trad/conservative evangelical I think non-church-goers are likely to be unblievers and so will probably go to hell'. That way he's honest but shows he also accepts he doesn't know everything and there might be some element of grace involved in the final decision . Important but subtle differences, and funnily enough more biblical.

[ 01. June 2007, 11:54: Message edited by: I_am_not_Job ]
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Dinghy Sailor,

People don't object to the gospel needing to be preached for people to be saved, it's the assumption that 95% of the population haven't heard it, cos otherwise they would be fashioning their lives in exactly the same way as Turnbull and his friends, and at the very least being regular church goers, that is objectionable. Plus, if you're saying grace ain't biblical (and I've got a meeting in a few minutes so don't have time to proof text it), we really have got fundamental problems with agreeing on what is the main message of Christianity.

[ 01. June 2007, 12:00: Message edited by: I_am_not_Job ]
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I'm a bit puzzled by Turnball's 95% comment (ie "unless the message of the gospel is brought to them"). He seems to assume that only 5% of the population have heard "the gospel", which makes me wonder how he defines it....
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I'm fairly comfortable with what Richard Turnbull 'believes', not that I entirely agree with him, but he's entitled to think what he wants to think. I'm also fairly comfortable that his 'thought life' hasn't impacted that much on the general culture at Wycliffe (yet ), and so clearly whatever he does believe isn't stopping certain people from attending and being trained at Wycliffe.

The thing that is an embarrassment (for him) is how he clearly 'played to the floor' at the Reform conference ('nassssty liberals, we haaaaatesssss them', 'most people are going to Hell', 'Penal Substitutionary atonement is the mark of a TRUE evangelical/Christian' - they loves that sort of thing does them Reform people....) AND GOT CAUGHT DOING IT!

I've no doubt that all his Guardian letters/Church times articles etc..etc..will be full of nice fluffy stuff, nor that Wycliffe will continue to admit a broad crowd from amongst all sides of the equation, but the image is indelibly etched in my mind that he was happy to lower himself to stereotypes, just to get a laugh....

It wouldn't stop me choosing Wycliffe, but I would come thinking the Principle had made an almighty twerp of himself (as I think Giles Fraser also has in his Guardian 'rant').
 

---

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Leprechaun, it was the 'as I do' that pi**ed me off in that sentence. Apparently Turnbull is pro OoW to some extent, yet here he implies he's in total agreement with his deputy, suggesting he's disingenuous even to his own wife! Why can't he just talk plain and say, 'I don't believe women should have overall control of a church and my mate thinks they can't even teach men, but we're happy to teach them the skill of preaching and maintain our integrity on these separate points'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Plus, if you're saying grace ain't biblical

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm a bit puzzled by Turnball's 95% comment (ie "unless the message of the gospel is brought to them"). He seems to assume that only 5% of the population have heard "the gospel", which makes me wonder how he defines it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm a bit puzzled by Turnball's 95% comment (ie "unless the message of the gospel is brought to them"). He seems to assume that only 5% of the population have heard "the gospel", which makes me wonder how he defines it....

---

The church (a kirk) I grew up in never ever taught anything about any "gospel" or "good news" even though I was there every week, either at Sunday School or at the kirk during the summer when there was no Sunday School - and I started teaching in Sunday School on my 13th birthday, with eight 5year olds in my class, still with no knowledge of the gospel.

I didn't hear any "good news" till a 15 yr old in the new class I went to at school started telling us about it. He's ended up a very qualified minister, studying Greek at school and Hebrew at college, and is still passing on the gospel.

So it is definitely not always something that even church members hear or understand; some churches don't do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm a bit puzzled by Turnball's 95% comment (ie "unless the message of the gospel is brought to them"). He seems to assume that only 5% of the population have heard "the gospel", which makes me wonder how he defines it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Turnball's remark only makes sense if you assume that most churches/Christians aren't preaching "the gospel".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Turnball's remark only makes sense if you assume that most churches/Christians aren't preaching "the gospel".

---

Or if you assume that door-knowcking, leafleting, and the occsional church service doesn't really countas "bringing the Gospel to people".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PostDenominational Catholic:
Here are new developments in the Wycliffe Hall controversy, if it hasn't been posted here yet.

---

This is far more exciting than Big Brother ... and equally as 'real'.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
That link links on to Ricahrd Turnbull's Guardian article. And to the responses to it from readers. Which certainly do make it look as if 95% of the British people know nothing of the Gospel.

Effectively none of those who responded seem to know enough about Christianity to even make a worthwhile point against it. They are so ignorant of it their ideas about it aren't even wrong.

So whatever else the churches have been doing in England, getting the Good News to the secular majority hasn't exactly been a success.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The militant atheist "I'm too clever to imagine there could be a God unlike you cretins" lot are rather out in force, aren't they?
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
It's worth linking explicitly to this letter, linked to from the TA post above. It's from the previous, current and next presidents of the student body at Wycliffe.
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
...none of whom are women (just as a point of interest )
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The militant atheist "I'm too clever to imagine there could be a God unlike you cretins" lot are rather out in force, aren't they?

---

Reading the Guardian? Surely not.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Which leaves one to wonder what paper Tory atheists read.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The Times.
 

---

Posted by innocent(ish) (# 12691) on :
 
The Church Times presumably
 

---

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The militant atheist "I'm too clever to imagine there could be a God unlike you cretins" lot are rather out in force, aren't they?

---

quote:

---

we recognise that the implementation of change has not been handled as successfully as it might have been

---

• Poor management.
• Eccentric choice of Principal and Vice-principal
• An attempt to have a conservative take over.
• A change in emphasis in training at Wycliffe.
• Bad inter-personal relationships