Thread: Schismatics and Episcopi neo-vagantes Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020182
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It appears that the pro-apartheid schismatic group formerly known as the Church of England in South Africa has taken it upon itself to consecrate a hardline conservative evangelical bishop in ++Sentamu Ebor's province of York. While not a GAFCON project it is clear that this is a consequence of Canterbury's appeasement of schismatics in North America, and that you can never be homophobic or sexist enough to satisfy this faction in the church.
It's obviously disappointing that people are willing to play these games with the church, but it seems likely that this will just lead to their "new reformation" being a historical curiosity and leave England's established church free to show stronger leadership on issues of justice.
PS while I know this particular carriage is pulled by a couple of dead horses it's the ecclesiological implications rather than the theology of those aforementioned steads that I'm interested in here.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
PS while I know this particular carriage is pulled by a couple of dead horses it's the ecclesiological implications rather than the theology of those aforementioned steads that I'm interested in here.
I'm not sure there are really any ecclesiastical implications. It is fairly clear that Canterbury is only a figurehead of the global Anglican communion and that there is nothing to be done with regard to who other jurisdictions associate with.
It seems to me that the engagement with GAFCON was an effort to see if there was a way to keep things together, but that's just proven to be impossible and those who are pushing that agenda are looking for a way out.
With respect to Anglican bishops and/or clergy in England under different jurisdictions - well, meh. It happens in many other countries in Europe, it happens in many other places in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The only issue here it seems to me is if this curate/Bishop is attempting to continue in his CofE parish. I can't imagine that can be allowed to continue - but I can't really see there is an issue with another Anglican sect ordaining Bishops with or without the support of renegade Anglican Primates.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
I don't suppose that those who live at the start of a "reformation" recognise it for what it is; but even so I don't think this is it. And yet, and yet..
Maybe if one takes a broader view this is just a small part of a sort of reformation that is going on in The Western Church. I'm lumping together in a crude way the Lefevrists, the Ordinariates, the GAFCON subsidiaries and so on; and the placatory responses to these developments from the historic power centres. Maybe in fifty years time it will turn out that the centralised post-Reformation model will have given way to a looser federation of mutually suspicious factions (underpinned of course by impeccable theology proving this is how things ought to be.)
But more seriously, I don't think this ordination presages anything of importance.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
(declaration of interest - this is my old shack)
Arethosemyfeet is referring to this.
I have mixed feelings about this, ranging from 'WTAF' to 'This is going to end very badly'. But a few observations.
1. Bishops are not made in secret. To essentially sneak off, and hold a ceremony in private, and only announce it later, shows that they knew they were doing something wrong. Any post hoc justification is mealy-mouthed sophistry.
2. Bishops should be in authority, not under authority. Jonathan Pryke (a decent man, but incredibly - some might argue pathologically - loyal to David Holloway) has taken this step only because David Holloway can't. It's Holloway who'll be pulling the strings here. Why can't Holloway take this move? Because he's the priest in charge, and if he loses that post, they lose the building.
3. You cannot serve two masters. This has been painfully obvious for over 30 years, but successive bishops of Newcastle have been content to wait out Holloway's appointment. The gift of the parish lies with the bishop. However, it seems painfully obvious that if you're going to be consecrated as a bishop in one church, and try to remain a priest in holy orders in another, that's not going to work. Pryke should resign his CofE credentials at once, before the inevitable Canon Law proceedings begin. He should, of course, have done this before.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I quite like the idea of "reciprocal heresy trials". Good luck with that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think it is probably true that CofE discipline measures are in a mess and that it isn't easy to unseat a priest. But it is a whole lot easier if he is a priest-in-charge, one would think.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I quite like the idea of "reciprocal heresy trials". Good luck with that.
It's just posturing. Holloway knows he's crossed a line, and that the bishop (the actual bishop, who is, delightfully and ironically a woman) will have to move against him.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Of the 1% of the English population who turn up to CoE services what % could be affected by this in any way? 10% are Yorkies
So of the 50,000 Yorkshire CoEers by darkening a church door, how many? Beyond any of the 2,000 in York? And how many of them?
Or is the risk to the general population?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I attended Jesmond Parish Church while a student at Newcastle, along with many other evangelical students and like me, not all of them were Anglicans. Jesmond was simply the convenient local evangelical church for a lot of us.
Jesmond then was a fairly ordinary CofE evangelical church similar to one I had attended at home before changing as a sixth-former to a more convenient former-Brethren independent evangelical church. I understand that there was something in the circumstances of Jesmond's founding which gave it a degree of independence within the diocese and indeed within the wider church, including I think more say than usual in the appointment of the Vicar.
I met David Holloway at least once as, I think, a newly appointed curate, a few years older than me. Later as part of my research into church/state issues I acquired a copy of his book Church and State in the New Millennium and found it much not to my taste. He is an Anglican who very much believes in establishment or at least massive formal legal privilege/influence for the Church - but also believes that the Church must be more faithfully evangelical to exercise that privileged position properly.
I can see why he would be exploiting that degree of independence at Jesmond to push the kind of agenda seen in the Pryke consecration. He is a very good example of why the establishment is a bad thing. Apart from his belief in establishment he is fairly theologically sound - trouble is that combined with the belief in a state church that is a very toxic combination.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I can see why he would be exploiting that degree of independence at Jesmond to push the kind of agenda seen in the Pryke consecration. He is a very good example of why the establishment is a bad thing. Apart from his belief in establishment he is fairly theologically sound - trouble is that combined with the belief in a state church that is a very toxic combination.
You make no sense. What is a toxic combination with what? Belief in the state church and "sound (!) Evangelical theology"?
Why are you commenting on this subject? I get that you have some connection with the church, but why does it matter to you if the consecration somehow upsets the Anglican setup (or not)?
Answer - it doesn't. You're just pushing your tired agenda once again. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Lay off the ad hominem comments.
/hosting
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
To be fair to Steve (I know, I know ), Holloway clings to the CofE like a limpet because he sees it as the 'best boat to fish from'. He enjoys the privilege of being an ordained minister in the established religion, without being overmuch troubled by the obligations to follow the rules. So there is some of that.
He is much more attached to the building of Jesmond Parish Church, however. Losing that would be a real blow, even though they have two other (independent) churches, which are cloaked in 'anglican' clothes without ever coming straight out and saying they are not CofE.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
He is much more attached to the building of Jesmond Parish Church, however. Losing that would be a real blow, even though they have two other (independent) churches, which are cloaked in 'anglican' clothes without ever coming straight out and saying they are not CofE.
Come again?
You mean something like Glenfall in Cheltenham - in it, but not really..
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So a couple of hundred then?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Apols, it looks like the strange relationship between Glenfall and the diocese of Gloucester has been regularised by a Bishops Mission Order.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
He is much more attached to the building of Jesmond Parish Church, however. Losing that would be a real blow, even though they have two other (independent) churches, which are cloaked in 'anglican' clothes without ever coming straight out and saying they are not CofE.
Come again?
You mean something like Glenfall in Cheltenham - in it, but not really..
These are 'anglican' churches outside of the diocese, under control of the Jesmond Trust (aka David Holloway). There is a history of irregular ordinations, and several family members of the three senior ministers are on the payroll.
(eta outside diocesean control, but geographically inside the diocese)
[ 11. May 2017, 10:25: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
These are 'anglican' churches outside of the diocese, under control of the Jesmond Trust (aka David Holloway). There is a history of irregular ordinations, and several family members of the three senior ministers are on the payroll.
(eta outside diocesean control, but geographically inside the diocese)
It appears that more-or-less congregational polity Conservative Evangelical Anglican-ish churches are much more common than I was aware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conservative_Evangelical_Anglican_churches_in_England
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I don't suppose that those who live at the start of a "reformation" recognise it for what it is; but even so I don't think this is it. And yet, and yet..
Maybe if one takes a broader view this is just a small part of a sort of reformation that is going on in The Western Church. I'm lumping together in a crude way the Lefevrists, the Ordinariates, the GAFCON subsidiaries and so on; and the placatory responses to these developments from the historic power centres. Maybe in fifty years time it will turn out that the centralised post-Reformation model will have given way to a looser federation of mutually suspicious factions (underpinned of course by impeccable theology proving this is how things ought to be.)
But more seriously, I don't think this ordination presages anything of importance.
I share your assessment that it won't likely amount to a great deal in the general scheme of things.
However - I'm not sure you can yoke together the Lefevrists, the Ordinariate and GAFCON in that way. Two of those (the first and third) are essentially rigorists. The word "puritan" describes a particular manifestation of this - and maybe GAFCON can be said to be heirs of that manifestation. I only mention it as I think it better illustrates why protestantism is always likely to suffer from this sort of thing the most.
The Ordinariate is more of a "back to the mother ship" sort of movement - a reconciliation of a pre-existing split rather than a new fissure. There have been far more of these (albeit small in size) in the Catholic and Orthodox end of things.
Whilst as an Anglican myself I deplore further dividing the body of Christ - so I'm not going to be part of any schism - I do think that getting all worked up over schisms within Anglicanism whilst ignoring our own state of schism in the larger western church is somehow missing the main point.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Whilst as an Anglican myself I deplore further dividing the body of Christ - so I'm not going to be part of any schism - I do think that getting all worked up over schisms within Anglicanism whilst ignoring our own state of schism in the larger western church is somehow missing the main point.
I don't really care who splits with who, that seems to be an inevitable part of any religious movement.
But it is somewhat .. erm.. disrespectful, I think, to use the structures of the Church of England to create other structures which are not.
I wish people would have the courage of their convictions and either go or stay.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Honest Ron Bacardi , Yes and No to your puritan point. Certainly the spiritual ancestors of the Moore College group are the 17th century puritans, rather than any Anglican school of thought. I don't agree that the same can be said for others in GAFCON though, whose theology and churchmanship cover the range of Anglicanism.
There are many similarities between the Jesmond group and those who eventually left the C of E for Rome via the ordinariate road. Think of the bishops who said that they were going to leave, but waited until they had been paid by the C of E over the Christmas period, all the while declining to carry out episcopal functions. Not that much difference to what's going on at Jesmond.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I entirely agree, Mr. Cheesy. Though the tendency towards splitting appears to be more of a human characteristic where voluntary societies are concerned.
GeeD - point taken. I was focussing more on the "rigorist" part of the equation though, which I think can still be said to apply to GAFCON despite its broader origins.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
These are 'anglican' churches outside of the diocese, under control of the Jesmond Trust (aka David Holloway). There is a history of irregular ordinations, and several family members of the three senior ministers are on the payroll.
(eta outside diocesean control, but geographically inside the diocese)
It appears that more-or-less congregational polity Conservative Evangelical Anglican-ish churches are much more common than I was aware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conservative_Evangelical_Anglican_churches_in_England
I think it unlikely that all self identifying conevo churches would support Gafcon, the various resolutions, or alternative Episcopal oversight. In one case, the vicar was formerly of the parish of which I was, at that time, a member, and he was certainly very pro women's ordination, indeed was married to an ordained priest. Though he has only recently come to the the listed parish, his predecessor was of a pretty much similar persuasion. Despite the self-identification, functionally they are open evo/charismatic lite.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think it unlikely that all self identifying conevo churches would support Gafcon, the various resolutions, or alternative Episcopal oversight. In one case, the vicar was formerly of the parish of which I was, at that time, a member, and he was certainly very pro women's ordination, indeed was married to an ordained priest. Though he has only recently come to the the listed parish, his predecessor was of a pretty much similar persuasion. Despite the self-identification, functionally they are open evo/charismatic lite.
As far as I can understand from browsing what is said about these churches this morning, many of these "Anglican heritage" (ie not in CofE) are essentially congregational churches. It doesn't look like they have much contact with any bishop, never mind the diocese one - so on that basis I doubt that they're particularly interested in GAFCON and alternative bishops.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[del]
I do think that getting all worked up over schisms within Anglicanism whilst ignoring our own state of schism in the larger western church is somehow missing the main point. [/QB]
On that I am with you, and thought that the recent reports on the views of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, were a far more significant development than the Jesmond nonsense.
See Tablet Article
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
I think it unlikely that all self identifying conevo churches would support Gafcon, the various resolutions, or alternative Episcopal oversight. In one case, the vicar was formerly of the parish of which I was, at that time, a member, and he was certainly very pro women's ordination, indeed was married to an ordained priest. Though he has only recently come to the the listed parish, his predecessor was of a pretty much similar persuasion. Despite the self-identification, functionally they are open evo/charismatic lite.
In a previous Deanery we had two conservative evangelical parishes both of which had retired women clergy on the strength. I think the official rationale was "It's fine for the ladies to celebrate the sacraments as long as a REAL MAN is in charge of the parish". I suspect that the actual position was: "I would like to go on holiday occasionally, if that's not too much to ask". Places like Jesmond can afford to play silly buggers with Episcopi Vagantes, most Con Evos, IME, are obliged to live in the real world and are quite often engaged in a balancing act between the faction of their congregation which is rather more hardline than they are, the other faction which regrets that some of their positions are not as liberal as they would like and the overwhelming majority who come because they appreciate the worship and the Sunday School and not because they regard their Sunday attendance as a vote for sticking it to The Other Lot. Before I had dealings with Con Evos I regarded them as a sinister faction who were out to destroy the C of E As We Know And Love It. Having got to know a few of them, I largely regard them as kindred spirits because they don't feel that the appropriate response to secularisation is to feel sorry for oneself, and because they have the personality type whose response to life is: "WHY DOESN'T EVERYTHING MAKE SENSE YOU BASTARDS!?"
tl;dr I don't think this will have much impact outwith a minority of very hardline parishes because people have other fish to fry. As one of my churchwardens remarked to me when she was asked to fill in a questionnaire about a particular Dead Horse: "I'm not doing this. I'm far to busy keeping my church on the road".
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It appears that the pro-apartheid schismatic group formerly known as the Church of England in South Africa has taken it upon itself to consecrate a hardline conservative evangelical bishop in ++Sentamu Ebor's province of York. *snip*
PS while I know this particular carriage is pulled by a couple of dead horses it's the ecclesiological implications rather than the theology of those aforementioned steads that I'm interested in here.
While not a fan of CESA-- I knew two of its products when I was at university-- its origins are older and deeper than might be suggested here. After its schism from Cape Town 150 years ago, it could only obtain bishops by hook or crook, usually by retired CoE evangelical prelates, until provided them by the Archbishop of Sydney in IIRC the 1930s. So they've always been "extra-provincial" in bishop matters. Their swims in irregularity are longstanding and their participation in this is not a shock to me however unhelpful it might be.
As well, it has always had a good presence among South African Blacks even if it was shy-- perhaps from its Erastian roots-- of criticizing apartheid as the CPSA (now ACSA) so notably did; so perhaps I am not sure if I would have called it pro-Apartheid although it is a debatable point.
As far as this episode is concerned, I do not know how or why Fr Pryke has not been disciplined by his diocesan, but our lives are full of mystery and, in the circles of Anglican canon law, there's an awful lot of mystery.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Having got to know a few of them, I largely regard them as kindred spirits because they don't feel that the appropriate response to secularisation is to feel sorry for oneself, and because they have the personality type whose response to life is: "WHY DOESN'T EVERYTHING MAKE SENSE YOU BASTARDS!?"
Well I guess one has to respect someone who has gone to the lengths some of them have gone to, and who stick their necks out and say that they're retaining something of Anglicanism whilst apparently being largely adrift and alone.
I respect that position - whilst not respecting the theology of some of what they're apparently saying. What I don't really respect is the "bridging" role some clergy seem to have with these churches that means they have whilst claiming the shilling from the CofE and apparently actively working to undermine it.
I think this little quote on the Jesmond Parish church website is quite revealing:
quote:
"I believe, under God, that over the next 5 years we can move to 2000 from the 1000 where we are now. And this particular race and course is set before us, not because we need it or would choose it, but because this city needs it and God, I believe, is guiding. But it will be costly and it will mean changes." from a sermon by David Holloway on 13th January 2013.
I'm not sure how you read that, but for me that's David Holloway planning a breakaway church.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
That's very interesting, Callan, and rings after bells for me. Five years ago we were looking for a new church, and I knew of one, not quite local, that was renowned as a con evo shack, with an extremely conservative vicar. Nevertheless, we were urged to try the place by a guy who was in training for the ministry, sponsored by said church. Now I'm a cautious sort of guy, not known for snap judgements, but I absolutely loved the place. When I spoke to the vicar, a man whom I had previously viewed as a fully paid up member of the Neanderthal club, I found him to be not only a kindred spirit, but a man of deep spirituality and grace. Furthermore, he was struggling to bring his congregation along on a more inclusive and more charismatic path. His reputation had been sealed a years before, with no cognisance taken of his growth as a human being over his years in ministry. It was a bit too far for us to go, but I could certainly have seen myself as a member of that church, despite it being a theoretically poor fit theologically.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
My experience of CofE disciplinary action is that it almost never happens unless there is either illegality or sexual scandal, or unless the disciplinee is gay, in which case it's open season.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
I respect that position - whilst not respecting the theology of some of what they're apparently saying. What I don't really respect is the "bridging" role some clergy seem to have with these churches that means they have whilst claiming the shilling from the CofE and apparently actively working to undermine it.
I don't have a lot of time for that either. But I suspect that wouldn't be a fair characterisation of most Conservative Evangelicals within the Church of England.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My experience of CofE disciplinary action is that it almost never happens unless there is either illegality or sexual scandal, or unless the disciplinee is gay, in which case it's open season.
You could well be right. But I imagine the Bishop of Newcastle is being urged by her diocesan synod advisers to pull the trigger on this one. There is very little love lost (you may or may not consider the irony) between the bulk of the diocese and JPC, and this could well be the clear breach of Canon law they can pin years of baiting on.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I didn't realise Holloway was still alive - they used to wheel him out on TV discussions as a rent-a-bigot
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My experience of CofE disciplinary action is that it almost never happens unless there is either illegality or sexual scandal, or unless the disciplinee is gay, in which case it's open season.
You could well be right. But I imagine the Bishop of Newcastle is being urged by her diocesan synod advisers to pull the trigger on this one. There is very little love lost (you may or may not consider the irony) between the bulk of the diocese and JPC, and this could well be the clear breach of Canon law they can pin years of baiting on.
Ah, but that would require the presence of a vestigial spine somewhere in the diocese in the face of the potential loss of the big, fat parish share presumably paid by Jesmond into diocesan funds. I don't know Newcastle diocese, but if it's anything like mine, that's a big ask.
Btw, has anyone ever seen a church building that looks more like an intimidating fortress than JPC. Somehow appropriate, really.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I didn't realise Holloway was still alive - they used to wheel him out on TV discussions as a rent-a-bigot
I thought that was Tony Higton, a man so pompous in his self-righteousness that he would give even the mildest of saints the irresistible urge to slap him in the face. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Perhaps they took turns.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I didn't realise Holloway was still alive - they used to wheel him out on TV discussions as a rent-a-bigot
I thought that was Tony Higton, a man so pompous in his self-righteousness that he would give even the mildest of saints the irresistible urge to slap him in the face.
Perhaps they took turns.
IIRC, Higton has a fleeting cameo in Stephen Bates' book 'The Church At War'. Apparently he moved on to a gig in Jerusalem and when asked about his previous activities said something to the effect that he had reassessed his priorities in the light of his subsequent experiences.
It might be a bit hard on the Holy City, but perhaps ++Justin could start preparing a shit list of people for deportation.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
What about a new Anglican diocese? Antarctica, for example. (Well, we've already got the Southern Cone)"
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Apparently he moved on to a gig in Jerusalem and when asked about his previous activities said something to the effect that he had reassessed his priorities in the light of his subsequent experiences.
Sounds like a right moron, although relevant to this discussion, I'd be interested to know exactly what diocese his old gig in Christ Church, Jerusalem is under. It doesn't appear to be a parish of the Diocese of Jerusalem under Abp Suheil and seems to just be another autonomous church run by the CMJ, whatever that is.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Ah, but that would require the presence of a vestigial spine somewhere in the diocese in the face of the potential loss of the big, fat parish share presumably paid by Jesmond into diocesan funds. I don't know Newcastle diocese, but if it's anything like mine, that's a big ask.
They haven't paid their parish share for nigh on thirty years.
So even a nominally chordate bishop could manage this one...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What about a new Anglican diocese? Antarctica, for example. (Well, we've already got the Southern Cone)"
Good point. They'd get on with the Shoggoths like an Eldritch City on fire.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They haven't paid their parish share for nigh on thirty years.
So even a nominally chordate bishop could manage this one...
Quelle Surpise
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As far as I can understand from browsing what is said about these churches this morning, many of these "Anglican heritage" (ie not in CofE) are essentially congregational churches. It doesn't look like they have much contact with any bishop, never mind the diocese one - so on that basis I doubt that they're particularly interested in GAFCON and alternative bishops.
I assume you actually meant the list in section 2 of the link you posted, i.e:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conservative_Evangelical_Anglican_churches_in_England#Outside_the_Church_of_England
whereas presumably JJ was taking you to refer to all the churches on that list (all resolution A churches).
And even with section 2, you could argue that it's the first three groups (sorted by affiliation) that really fall into the category you identify. The Church of England (Continuing) group - for instance - are the result of a previous schism, and do still appoint Bishops within their own group.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Ah, but that would require the presence of a vestigial spine somewhere in the diocese in the face of the potential loss of the big, fat parish share presumably paid by Jesmond into diocesan funds. I don't know Newcastle diocese, but if it's anything like mine, that's a big ask.
They haven't paid their parish share for nigh on thirty years.
So even a nominally chordate bishop could manage this one...
I take it that is the biological meaning, nothing ecclesiastical. Most droll.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
That's right, chris stiles, sorry I wasn't clear.
I was only interested in those churches, as Doc Tor mentioned above, like those connected to the Jesmond Parish church.
I'm sorry I confused it by linking to the WP page which obviously included a load of other churches in various different circumstances.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Holloway, I take it, is the Vicar, with a freehold, no? But I assume that this man Pryke is legally an Assistant Curate. What is the process for the Bishop depriving an assistant curate of his licence?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
According to Doc Tor above, he's a priest-in-charge, so presumably no freehold.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
He's been there since 1973 which seems a long time for a p-i-c. Their own website, I see, lists him as Vicar. So some uncertainty there, since Doc Tor seems to know the place quite well.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Could a kindly host please fix the broken scroll?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Sorry, yes. David Holloway is Vicar of Jesmond, so is in until he retires (which can't be far away - anyone with access to a Crockfords?). But the gift of the parish rests with the diocese, so when he goes, it's up to the bishop to (at the very least) ratify the new vicar.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Thinking Anglicans report that David Holloway is in his mid seventies, which presumably means that he was appointed before there was a mandatory retirement age for Clergy, so he could be there until he shuffles off this mortal coil to be totally surprised at the company he is obliged to keep for the rest of eternity. Who says God doesn' have a sense of humour!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't know much about Jesmond now but someone I know who was part of the congregation there in the early 1989s remembers someone objecting to flowers at the front of the church just in case people got the impression that they were 'worshipping' them ...
That's how 'sound' they were ...
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What about a new Anglican diocese? Antarctica, for example. (Well, we've already got the Southern Cone)"
Good point. They'd get on with the Shoggoths like an Eldritch City on fire.
Isn't R'lyeh nearby as well? If that re-materialises, an astute cleric could make a killing down that way.
[ 11. May 2017, 21:53: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know much about Jesmond now but someone I know who was part of the congregation there in the early 1989s remembers someone objecting to flowers at the front of the church just in case people got the impression that they were 'worshipping' them ...
That's how 'sound' they were ...
I have many, many more stories in the same vein. However...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Ahem. Mention of Shoggoths and R'lyeh reminds me that the Church of Cthulhu already exists (and is registered as such in the USA), so please do not think of starting a schism within it - the Great Old Ones would not be pleased.
Mind you, maybe David Holloway is a GOO...
Our Diocese has its own version of Jesmond, though perhaps not quite as large, and rumour has it that they, too, withhold their parish share. This causes some resentment amongst small parishes like ours, who readily pay their share (which, around here, is voluntary).
If such congregations think that the C of E is pants filled with pongy poo, why do they not simply leave, and rent a warehouse somewhere? If you belong to a club, society, or any secular organisation with rules, you should play by those rules.
If Holloway, Pryke, and their supporters left the C of E, the Bishop would have an easier life. Yes, she'd have a large, virtually empty church on her hands, but it would still be the parish church, and could continue to function as such.
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
but it would still be the parish church, and could begin to function as such.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Oh dear. ISWYM. Point taken - thanks!
IJ
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.
The vicar of Headington has been vicar of Headington since 1957....
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
What?! He's over eighty? Yikes! And in the same job for sixty years.
[ 12. May 2017, 15:25: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.
The vicar of Headington has been vicar of Headington since 1957....
Vicar of Highfield actually. Disjoined from Headington about 1910.
He's now into his nineties ...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Compulsory retirement at 70 came in in 1975 but doesn't apply to people holding an office/ benefice at that date, so long as they continue to hold it. He must be one of the last incumbents in that category.
The vicar of Headington has been vicar of Headington since 1957....
Vicar of Highfield actually. Disjoined from Headington about 1910.
He's now into his nineties ...
Very true - was the wrong end of Headington Hill for me anyway, in my later Oxford days I was more SS Mary & John/St Alban the Martyr.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I didn't realise Holloway was still alive - they used to wheel him out on TV discussions as a rent-a-bigot
I thought that was Tony Higton, a man so pompous in his self-righteousness that he would give even the mildest of saints the irresistible urge to slap him in the face.
Perhaps they took turns.
Holloway sometimes appeared with Higton then took over his mantle.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Am I the only person who finds the notion that an incumbent has one of his curates ordained as a sort of tame bishop to go round on his instructions conferring a sort of Dutch touch, difficult to reconcile with episcopacy as we know it, either from the New Testament or in tradition from the earliest times until now?
Besides, if you believe in episcopacy, it won't do, because it isn't founded in what episcopacy is about, and if you don't really believe in episcopacy, it isn't necessary.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
...
If such congregations think that the C of E is pants filled with pongy poo, why do they not simply leave, and rent a warehouse somewhere? ...
My guess has always been that it comes down to the three S's- status, stipend, superannuation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I the only person who finds the notion that an incumbent has one of his curates ordained as a sort of tame bishop to go round on his instructions conferring a sort of Dutch touch, difficult to reconcile with episcopacy as we know it, either from the New Testament or in tradition from the earliest times until now?
Besides, if you believe in episcopacy, it won't do, because it isn't founded in what episcopacy is about, and if you don't really believe in episcopacy, it isn't necessary.
No, you're not the only one.
Andrew Goddard has written a (lengthy and detailed) response here.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What?! He's over eighty? Yikes! And in the same job for sixty years.
This is him, last year. Unless it's a particularly generously edited piece, he still seems to be on the ball and talking sense.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If Holloway, Pryke, and their supporters left the C of E, the Bishop would have an easier life. Yes, she'd have a large, virtually empty church on her hands, but it would still be the parish church, and could continue to function as such.
IJ
A lot of people would have an easier life
The official name actually is Clayton Memorial Church, but
...it is not the only game in town....
at least as far as Jesmond is concerned. Newcastle actually seems to be a fairly High Church diocese
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, you're not the only one.
Andrew Goddard has written a (lengthy and detailed) response here.
Thank you for tracing that and linking it. I like Andrew Goddard's list towards the end of 10 questions. I'd ask similar ones.
There's been too much of a habit throughout Christian history of people claiming that because they believe themselves to be right, they are entitled (invariably expressed as some version of 'called') to break fellowship with those who disagree with them, that my conviction obliges me not to fit in with those who don't share it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's been too much of a habit throughout Christian history of people claiming that because they believe themselves to be right, they are entitled (invariably expressed as some version of 'called') to break fellowship with those who disagree with them, that my conviction obliges me not to fit in with those who don't share it.
See I don't care about that. If one really believes that there is something so serious that one needs to strike out alone then fair enough.
The thing that annoys me is those who think that their "calling" means that they can entirely legitimately bend rules and get other people to do things that make no sense even under their own rules. That they can use the resources of the church (CofE in this case) in such a way as to undermine it and feather one's own nest.
To me, that's just dishonest. And lacks the sort of faith that these people seem to like to tell others that they have.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Frankly, 'dishonest' just about sums it up.
Pay up, play the game, or sod orf!
IJ
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
See I don't care about that. If one really believes that there is something so serious that one needs to strike out alone then fair enough. ....
On that, Mr Cheesy, we disagree.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On that, Mr Cheesy, we disagree.
Fair enough. I look forward to hearing when your acceptance into the RCC or Orthodox church will be made public.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I've just been talking to another Jesmond refugee, who left roughly at the same time we did. He's had a lot more experience of the wider church across Newcastle and beyond (due to his job), and there was much mutual headscratching as to why Jesmond have decided this moment to do this.
On one thing we could agree, however, which was that this will end messily. The act has essentially forced the bishop's hand, and she'll have the full backing of ++John in whatever she does (because they'll have discussed the matter extensively and agreed a course of action between them, because that's what grown-ups do).
If Jesmond have got their legal advice from the CLC and the Christian Institute (which, IIRC, have never won a case between them), then I think they're on a hiding to nothing.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
If Jesmond have got their legal advice from the CLC and the Christian Institute (which, IIRC, have never won a case between them), then I think they're on a hiding to nothing.
While I can't pretend to know all the details, I've a niggling suspicion that due to the unusual circumstances of Jesmond's foundation as a very deliberately evangelical church in a predominantly High Church diocese, the trust terms related to the property may just mean that they have more independence than most Shipmates have been assuming. And I suspect that if the CofE wins the case it may still end up as a PR problem for them.
I'm not a supporter of Holloway; I'm pretty sure he will have been responsible for the stuff on the Christian Institute website justifying 'privilege' for Christianity in the state - with the irony that said stuff, from an organisation professing the Bible as its authority, is massively unbiblical.
If only Holloway didn't believe that 'stuff' he could long ago have left the Anglicans and been more useful elsewhere with the basic gospel side of his beliefs.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
Their Charity documents are interesting. The charity that the Church of England could claim ownership of (the PCC) has virtuall no assets. 'The Jesmond Trust', on the other hand, has some 4 million quid in the bank. Apparently, 'The Jesmond Trust' even sponsors the PCC Charity, which means officially, Jesmond Parish Church only had 48k in income last year. I can think of a few of reasons to do that, none of them particularly laudable. All of them suggesting a dangerous break down in relationship between Parish and Diocese.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing that annoys me is those who think that their "calling" means that they can entirely legitimately bend rules and get other people to do things that make no sense even under their own rules. That they can use the resources of the church (CofE in this case) in such a way as to undermine it and feather one's own nest.
Up to a point I'd have less issue if they threw their toys out of the pram in one go - it's the continued attempt to triangulate things that gets me (and largely I'm probably more from their wing of the church than anywhere else).
I also don't think that they are acting among themselves in a particularly intellectually or theologically coherent manner, there is no possible principle (other than the nakedly pragmatic) that they could use to justify the way in which they proceed with their version of the episcopacy. Honestly I'm not sure why they think they *need* bishops given the way they are acting otherwise.
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
quote:
Their Charity documents are interesting. The charity that the Church of England could claim ownership of (the PCC) has virtuall no assets. 'The Jesmond Trust', on the other hand, has some 4 million quid in the bank. Apparently, 'The Jesmond Trust' even sponsors the PCC Charity, which means officially, Jesmond Parish Church only had 48k in income last year.
This doesn't surprise me. Looking at the figures is appears many ConEvo churches take out more than they put in. It gives lie to the much stated claim that the CofE is being kept afloat by such churches.
Exeter Diocese provide up to date totals of common fund giving per parish throughout the year and are very open about the calculation method. The numerate of the parish can easily work out the alleged attendance and visit to see who's cheating the system. Our Mystery Worshipers are more like having the IR in!
Apologies for errors in formatting I'm getting to know how the UBB code works
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'm seeing a bit of a gap here. The church was founded as Wikipedia says as a conscious attempt to set up an Anglican evangelical alternative when an evangelical congregation had a high church priest forced on it.
Now you'd have thought in a situation like that that the congregation would simply have gone off and founded an independent church - 'Congregationalist' if they wanted to continue infant baptism. But instead they go and found a new Anglican Church....
I think anyone doing that back then would also do something hefty by way of 'future-proofing' so that it wouldn't be possible for the Bishop simply to wait for the priest of the new church to retire and then once again appoint a high church replacement! And I suspect that at the same time they'd do something to continue the Anglican link - or at least Anglican 'heritage' in an evangelical/reformed style, . Otherwise as I say they'd have just founded an independent congregation from the start. So there may be some complexities there which account for the way they are now behaving - though perhaps not fully justify it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
While I can't pretend to know all the details, I've a niggling suspicion that due to the unusual circumstances of Jesmond's foundation as a very deliberately evangelical church in a predominantly High Church diocese, the trust terms related to the property may just mean that they have more independence than most Shipmates have been assuming. And I suspect that if the CofE wins the case it may still end up as a PR problem for them.
They're a regular parish inside the diocese. The foundation was, granted, unusual, and it's always been down to the bishop to maintain the identity of the churchmanship - which they have done.
I can post more about the Jesmond Trust tomorrow, but I have Part 2 of the Church Representation Rules to read through again before the morning service.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Sunday, R4, had an interview with Holloway, Ian Paul and one other here (requires a sign-up, probably not available outside of UK), starting at around 32 mins.
Holloway says nothing of note. Pryke is apparently 'away in Africa' and can't be reached. Ian Paul makes the point, contradicting Holloway's assertion that there are no conservative bishops in the CofE, that he could introduce him to many bishops who'd fit the bill.
None of them envisage the Bishop of Newcastle taking any action.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Perhaps +Newcastle is taking the view that, if she gives them enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
A link was given earlier to a neighbouring parish in Jesmond, St. George's. One wonders what they think of it all, but I expect they're too diplomatic/sensible/polite to make their opinions public!
IJ
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sunday, R4, had an interview with Holloway, Ian Paul and one other here (requires a sign-up, probably not available outside of UK), starting at around 32 mins. ...
There's a big flaw in David Holloway's reasoning in that interview. He's been at Jesmond since 1973. It has a large congregation. Nevertheless, he says, quite likely correctly, that the North East has one of the lowest figures for Christian involvement in the UK. He doesn't seem to see that it's a legitimate question to ask - if he's been there so long and has not prevented the decline, what does he think is the persuasive reason why his remedy now is suddenly going to change that, reverse the decline, rather than give its downward spiral an extra spin?
If he, as a prominent incumbent in the area - whether one agrees with him or not - hasn't been able to achieve that overwhelming effect where he is, with all the connections he's presumably got, why does he think that 'coming ye out from among them' is going to change all that? It never has in the past. Why now?
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on
:
I note that despite David Holloway's claim to be following biblical principles, his methodology seems to owe more to secular management science. What is the Biblical Hebrew or New Testament Greek for "change agent"?
[ 14. May 2017, 21:32: Message edited by: John D. Ward ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps +Newcastle is taking the view that, if she gives them enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
They've already been given enough rope to rig a tea clipper with. At some point, someone's going to have to go alongside and lead a boarding party.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's a big flaw in David Holloway's reasoning in that interview.
Yes, that has been pointed out before. There are now 3 Jesmond congregations, with perhaps a 1000 regular attendees. When I left some 7 years ago, there was one congregation, with perhaps 900 regular attendees. (I'm more certain of the latter figure than I am the former).
While that is an impressive figure for a church, the ambition was always to be significantly bigger, and much more quickly, than has been achieved. This didn't happen while I was there due to the limits imposed by the physical size of the church (it can seat about 1000, rammed full, and pray it doesn't catch fire). An extra morning service was added, but it didn't significantly change attendance. Now that there are two church plants, with seed congregations from the main church, there are just one morning and one evening service. (Also, the congregation is made up of people from all across Tyneside. The numbers coming from the actual parish were proportionally and numerically tiny when I last had my hands on the figures.)
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
I note that despite David Holloway's claim to be following biblical principles, his methodology seems to owe more to secular management science. What is the Biblical Hebrew or New Testament Greek for "change agent"?
I'd take issue more with Holloway's management style, which is more autocrat than collegiate. He was, when I was there, chair of every PCC sub-committee and, IMHO, ran the (not insignificant number of) staff as if they were there to serve him.
[ 14. May 2017, 22:51: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
After a long think, I reckon many Shipmates are misunderstanding Holloway/Jesmond because they don't realise how big a deal it is to him that Christianity should be 'privileged' in the state.
In addition to his book “Church and State in the New Millennium” (2000, Harper and Collins), I'm pretty sure that he has provided the material on that kind of thing in the Christian Institute website, including a lot of stuff on how the Queen's Coronation Oath should be upheld (he seems to have missed the bit in the NT where Jesus tells his followers not to swear oaths!).
If you understand this you should realise that to Holloway/Jesmond it cannot be enough to just secede from the Anglicans and form a non-conformist church/denomination like any other apart from some superficial Anglican features. What is now going on makes at least some kind of sense if you see a kind of dual aim in it; EITHER to push the CofE to restore itself to its original status as a NATIONAL evangelical/bible-believing Church – OR to push it into a position of open apostasy and opposition to the biblical gospel, so that it's claim to be the 'national Christian church' can be discredited (and evangelicals would leave/be pushed out) and you can set out to build an evangelical alternative to replace it as the national church. I'm not saying it makes total sense – and I at least don't think Holloway's key point of a state-privileged religion is biblical anyway – but that kind of aim seems to be behind what's happening at present.
The links with fringe Anglicanism abroad could be seen as an attempt to by-pass a UK leadership which is seen as increasingly betraying evangelical ideals, and set up an alternative supposedly more legitimate than the current 'compromisers'.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The Christian Institute certainly seems to make a lot of play about the UK being a Christian Nation, so I suppose it would make sense for Mr Holloway to think that's a big deal.
I suppose I'm a bit confused if this is his beef; I know that the Christian Institute has a wider base than (his ilk of) Conservative Evangelical Anglicans (who must be a fairly small group) and would appear to include those who have historically been against the notion of an Established church.
That said, there is a certain resonance I hear from various quarters who might be supporters of this view (via the CI) who also seem to think that Christianity should be mandatory. Or something.
--
On a side issue: Doc Tor, why the heck were you involved in this crowd?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
After a long think, I reckon many Shipmates are misunderstanding Holloway/Jesmond because they don't realise how big a deal it is to him that Christianity should be 'privileged' in the state.
No, that's pretty much a feature, not a bug.
Holloway has never made a secret of the CofE being 'the best boat to fish from', and his determination to hang on in there, despite rejecting almost everything about the CofE. It's the kudos he wants, not the responsibility.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a side issue: Doc Tor, why the heck were you involved in this crowd?
That's a very pertinent question, and not at all a side issue, because in attempting to answer it, it touches on several issues surrounding the present controversy.
JPC was recommended as a good student church - I was going to Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield at the time. And they weren't wrong. It was (1987) a good student church, lots going on, offers of free food, and lots of other students. It was, then, a conservative evangelical church, much like the one I'd just left, much like Greyfriars in Reading which I'd also irregularly attended.
It moved. I moved, yes, but so did the church, and we moved in opposite directions. Over the 20 years I was there - I worked in the church office for 2 of those - the Authoritarian Right-ward drift became simply too much, not to ignore, because I didn't ignore it, but it was too much to fight. I was tired of disagreeing and being disagreeable.
The final straw came over a couple of things, which might seem minor, but weren't. Miss Tor was about to move up into the next tier of youth work (KS2 to KS3) where boys and girls were grouped on separate mats (while being in the same room). Also involving Miss Tor, when she was helping me check the microphones before a service. She climbed up into the pulpit, and I thought "This is the only time you'll ever be allowed up there."
It was then I knew we had to go. And it was a wrench. I'd been there 20 years. I knew lots of people there, had good friends there (and still do). And having been told, week in, week out, that there were no other faithful Christians in the whole of Tyneside, made it difficult psychologically to go, even if we already knew it wasn't true.
First church we tried thereafter, we stayed at. 8 years, now. Sorry. That was long.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Christian Institute certainly seems to make a lot of play about the UK being a Christian Nation, so I suppose it would make sense for Mr Holloway to think that's a big deal.
I suppose I'm a bit confused if this is his beef; I know that the Christian Institute has a wider base than (his ilk of) Conservative Evangelical Anglicans (who must be a fairly small group) and would appear to include those who have historically been against the notion of an Established church.
That said, there is a certain resonance I hear from various quarters who might be supporters of this view (via the CI) who also seem to think that Christianity should be mandatory. Or something".
AIUI Holloway is a major player in the Christian Institute which is based in Newcastle. I am fairly sure that the material on their website about privileged status for Christianity in the nation reflects Holloway's views - and if I'm right there he's gone a bit beyond the book I mentioned published in 2000; the book points where he was going but is perhaps not fully worked out yet.
The Christian Institute does have a somewhat wider constituency than just Jesmond - I recently attended a meeting they organised at an Anglican church in Bolton and they didn't there make much reference to that side of their programme. I suspect some are involved simply because the Institute appears to be defending Christian freedoms against secular tyranny. Which I think could be better done from a 'free church' position.
Those who believe in varying degrees of 'Christian Nation' range in practice from non-conformists who wouldn't want to be the established church, but believe that the nation should nevertheless formally have a Christian bias, all the way to a few who do pretty much believe Christianity should be mandatory (eg, one David Field, a former lecturer at Oak Hill Anglican college). There's also a considerable group of people whose actual involvement in church is occasional baptisms/weddings/funerals but who see England as a 'Christian country' as part of nationalism and opposition to Islam.
The point I'm making is that some features of Holloway/Jesmond which seem to be puzzling Shipmates become a lot more understandable if you realise that he has this 'national evangelical church' agenda and therefore simply to secede from the church wouldn't suit him. He couldn't be a seceder into non-conformity like early Brethren leaders or Philpot and Tiptaft who joined the Particular Baptists. If he can't change the CofE back to the kind of position he wants, he kind of needs a break with a clearly 'apostate' church which would - he hopes - force a realignment in UK church life and hopefully lead to a replacement national evangelical church.
I think he is in the end over-optimistic; I also think that if he gets the clear public confrontation he wants it could seriously damage the credibility of the mainstream Anglican church as a representative of Christianity, while the resultant flak could harm the image of Christianity in general.
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Holloway has never made a secret of the CofE being 'the best boat to fish from', and his determination to hang on in there, despite rejecting almost everything about the CofE. It's the kudos he wants, not the responsibility.
I have in the past come across more than a few Anglicans of the 'the best boat to fish from' school and some are doing it relatively innocently and others with what seems to me rather serious dishonesty. As I see it, Holloway is different from that in that he actually believes in this idea of Christianity privileged in the state and for example providing the foundation of laws and so on. He may well have hardened in that way in the years since you were involved there.
I suspect in his own eyes he is not "rejecting almost everything about the CofE", but holding on to what the CofE was founded to be, against people he sees as changing and compromising it. In my eyes he could actually have a point there, looking at the amorphous mess the CofE seems to be these days....
To me the irony is that for a person so professedly biblical his theology of state and church is massively unbiblical....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point I'm making is that some features of Holloway/Jesmond which seem to be puzzling Shipmates become a lot more understandable if you realise that he has this 'national evangelical church' agenda and therefore simply to secede from the church wouldn't suit him. He couldn't be a seceder into non-conformity like early Brethren leaders or Philpot and Tiptaft who joined the Particular Baptists. If he can't change the CofE back to the kind of position he wants, he kind of needs a break with a clearly 'apostate' church which would - he hopes - force a realignment in UK church life and hopefully lead to a replacement national evangelical church.
That's interesting, thank you. I suppose my main comment here is that even in an imaginary world where there was a "national evangelical church", this would seem to be against the fundamental beliefs of a significant part of the supporters of the Christian Institute.
quote:
I think he is in the end over-optimistic; I also think that if he gets the clear public confrontation he wants it could seriously damage the credibility of the mainstream Anglican church as a representative of Christianity, while the resultant flak could harm the image of Christianity in general.
I don't know the situation, but I know people and organisations who seem to think that they can aid the Almighty by provoking the earthly powers and that things will "work out in the end". I can't remember the proper word for this mechanistic understanding of Christianity, but it seems akin to poking a lion with a stick.
quote:
I have in the past come across more than a few Anglicans of the 'the best boat to fish from' school and some are doing it relatively innocently and others with what seems to me rather serious dishonesty. As I see it, Holloway is different from that in that he actually believes in this idea of Christianity privileged in the state and for example providing the foundation of laws and so on. He may well have hardened in that way in the years since you were involved there.
I suspect in his own eyes he is not "rejecting almost everything about the CofE", but holding on to what the CofE was founded to be, against people he sees as changing and compromising it. In my eyes he could actually have a point there, looking at the amorphous mess the CofE seems to be these days....
Whatever one's personal theology, it is fairly clear that his views are not consistent with Anglican practice.
quote:
To me the irony is that for a person so professedly biblical his theology of state and church is massively unbiblical....
It just highlights for me once again that there are many different understandings claiming to be "biblical" and that when one digs under the surface they're anything but.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but are there automatic canonical repercussions in the C of E of a priest accepting episcopal consecration without approval from the C of E? In the RCC that priest would be excommunicated the moment he was consecrated bishop and would be banned from serving as clergy in the RCC immediately until he severed any relationship with the schismatic group and began a (perhaps lengthy) process, assuming the Church was willing to begin such a process, to lift the excommunication and return to active ministry.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't think there is automatic anything in the CofE. The power balance is quite different to the RCC.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... What is now going on makes at least some kind of sense if you see a kind of dual aim in it; EITHER to push the CofE to restore itself to its original status as a NATIONAL evangelical/bible-believing Church – OR ...
And when was it that? 1529, 1547, 1553 1560, 1603, 1662, 1689, 23rd May 1738, the day before the 1833 Oxford Assizes?
That perspective is as ahistorical and deluded as both the Tracts for Times's and Percy Dearmer's interpretations of English church history.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, quite, but try telling that to Holloway or Pryke.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... What is now going on makes at least some kind of sense if you see a kind of dual aim in it; EITHER to push the CofE to restore itself to its original status as a NATIONAL evangelical/bible-believing Church – OR ...
And when was it that? 1529, 1547, 1553 1560, 1603, 1662, 1689, 23rd May 1738, the day before the 1833 Oxford Assizes?
That perspective is as ahistorical and deluded as both the Tracts for Times's and Percy Dearmer's interpretations of English church history.
I can't help but agree. There's always something seductive about a call to 'go back to the beginning', but the beginning in this case was a reformed catholic church. Holloway's once-evangelical CofE is as much a myth as the once and future king: powerful, but ultimately ahistorical.
And it's something he's possibly now abandoning with an appeal to the Celtic church. I don't know: whatever story serves his strategy, I suppose. It was always my opinion that his churchmanship was formed in the Bash camps and minor private schools of the 1950s.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but are there automatic canonical repercussions in the C of E of a priest accepting episcopal consecration without approval from the C of E? In the RCC that priest would be excommunicated the moment he was consecrated bishop and would be banned from serving as clergy in the RCC immediately until he severed any relationship with the schismatic group and began a (perhaps lengthy) process, assuming the Church was willing to begin such a process, to lift the excommunication and return to active ministry.
Under the recent Clergy Discipline Measures, there's a range of options open, but there is an established procedure to be followed. I do not think that there are any ipso facto excommunications. Ah for the good old days.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This may be of interest from Canada.
quote:
The House of Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of BC & Yukon in the Anglican Church of Canada has registered its objection to the episcopal election of the Rev. Jacob Worley in the Diocese of Caledonia.
He will not be consecrated bishop because he served the Anglican Mission in America under license from the Province of Rwanda in the geographical jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church without permission of The Episcopal Church.
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on
:
I attended JPC for a year or so in the very late 80's, early 90s, became a Christian there and was baptized (by Jonathan Pryke as it happens). I didn't know much about the different strands of the Cofe in those days and wouldn't have been aware of their distinctive approach to things. I really valued their capacity to help an interested enquirer get to grips with the basics of the Christian faith through a course (it was called Mustardseed, this was pre Alpha/Christianity Explored), but found the size of the congregation a bit overwhelming. I left when we moved across t'Pennines and happily found a more human scale evangelical church, where I settled.
A friend's relative worships there at the moment and one slightly weird (and disturbing) aspect of their current approach is that, as a coeliac, they refuse to provide her with gluten free wafers.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'm slightly surprised, firstly that con evos would get hung up about such things (I thought the valid form, matter and intent business was more those of us on the Catholic end of things) and secondly that they'd be using wafers at all; I'd have expected Kingsmill. Interesting.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm slightly surprised, firstly that con evos would get hung up about such things (I thought the valid form, matter and intent business was more those of us on the Catholic end of things) and secondly that they'd be using wafers at all; I'd have expected Kingsmill. Interesting.
Yes, that is weird. They do the same at HTB. It's so out of line with the practice of most evangelical churches, even most CofE evangelical churches, that I feel there must be some doctrinal reasons for it, 'cause there are doctrinal reasons, ISTM, in every practice embraced by conevo shacks.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It was either sliced white or a bun the whole time I was there...
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on
:
It's certainly not universal in conevo churches. Our last vicar was very definitely conevo (we're now out to advert for what we are calling an Anglican Evangelical), and the one before him and they were both happy to provide gluten free for anyone needing it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I can't imagine a theological rationale for not providing the elements in a form that the faithful are able to consume. That's pretty close to crazy.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't imagine a theological rationale for not providing the elements in a form that the faithful are able to consume. That's pretty close to crazy.
Well to imagine a rationale, what I'd suggest is along the lines of for the sacrament to 'work', it requires proper form (for the Eucharist, the Institution Narrative), proper intention (to celebrate the Eucharist as the Church does) and proper matter (actual bread and actual wine).
If one also assumes that proper bread is made of wheat, then for it to be the Body of Christ that the communicant receives it needs to be wheat based bread to begin with, and therefore to contain gluten.
But none of that makes anything like as much sense without some fairly catholic theology of what happens in the Eucharist.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I suspect that Prayer Book Fundamentalism may be at fault. The BCP specifies the finest wheaten bread, so wheaten bread it must be. I can't imagine the Real Presence is a doctrine much taught at Jesmond.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I suspect that Prayer Book Fundamentalism may be at fault. The BCP specifies the finest wheaten bread, so wheaten bread it must be. I can't imagine the Real Presence is a doctrine much taught at Jesmond.
I'm a bit doubtful that they were the kind who have that much respect for the prayerbook - are they Doc Tor?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This may be of interest from Canada.
quote:
The House of Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of BC & Yukon in the Anglican Church of Canada has registered its objection to the episcopal election of the Rev. Jacob Worley in the Diocese of Caledonia.
He will not be consecrated bishop because he served the Anglican Mission in America under license from the Province of Rwanda in the geographical jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church without permission of The Episcopal Church.
Offhand, I think that this is the first time in Canadian Anglican history that an election has been set aside in this way.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't imagine a theological rationale for not providing the elements in a form that the faithful are able to consume. That's pretty close to crazy.
Well to imagine a rationale, what I'd suggest is along the lines of for the sacrament to 'work', it requires proper form (for the Eucharist, the Institution Narrative), proper intention (to celebrate the Eucharist as the Church does) and proper matter (actual bread and actual wine).
If one also assumes that proper bread is made of wheat, then for it to be the Body of Christ that the communicant receives it needs to be wheat based bread to begin with, and therefore to contain gluten.
But none of that makes anything like as much sense without some fairly catholic theology of what happens in the Eucharist.
Here in the US the RCC, or at least multiple dioceses of it, allow for some kind of special bread to be used for people with gluten issues. I have seen it be distributed to a boy with some kind of gluten issue. I do not know if such bread is completely free of gluten. They also allow some kind of wine that is dealcoholized or has undergone minimal fermentation to be used for people with issues with alcohol. I think the rule is the bread has to originally come from wheat, but it can be altered to remove as much gluten as possible in special cases, and the wine has to come from grapes and must undergo at least some fermentation but perhaps also can be altered to remove as much alcohol as possible. I'm not an expert, though. These elements may not work for people with celiac disease (or severe forms of it) or for people who cannot have any alcohol whatsoever. However, RCC theology believes that the Body and Blood are fully present in both the bread and the wine, so receiving in only one form is perfectly ok. If someone was not able to receive either the bread for people with gluten issues or the wine for people with alcohol issues - if such a case has ever existed, I do not know what accommodation, if any, could be made, but I do not know if the RCC has ever issued a ruling on such a real or hypothetical case.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Maybe they haven't, but I can't imagine the RCC not coming up with some solution acceptable to all.
JPC are just batshit crazy, ISTM. Whatever happened to pastoral concern for those less fortunate than others?
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I suspect that Prayer Book Fundamentalism may be at fault. The BCP specifies the finest wheaten bread, so wheaten bread it must be. I can't imagine the Real Presence is a doctrine much taught at Jesmond.
I'm a bit doubtful that they were the kind who have that much respect for the prayerbook - are they Doc Tor?
There was one (1) BCP service a year when I was there. I don't think they adopted Common Worship, so it's probably still ASB.
Real Presence was anathema. Communion was a memorial, and not salvic in any way.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Maybe they haven't, but I can't imagine the RCC not coming up with some solution acceptable to all.
Oh indeed, I wasn't suggesting anyone actually believed that model, just that it wasn't that difficult to get to one.
If on the other hand one applies a little thought to doing theology, it is also a reasonably straight forward question to resolve - after all, if you've convinced yourself wafers are really bread...
I think the official RC teaching is that the wine must have begun fermentation, but the process can then be stopped and the limited alcohol present removed; and I think the bread must have some wheat in it, but only at minimal levels - such that it acquires more gluten from the priest's fingers than it contains itself.
See here
[ 16. May 2017, 16:00: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Do we actually have definitive evidence that they explicitly ban the use of gluten free bread in the services on a continuous basis? [The anecdote was about the relative of a posters friend].
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You will never get an answer to the question.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You will never get an answer to the question.
I'm genuinely trying not to be difficult - just trying to ascertain whether or not it was official policy or something a particular staff member being difficult on a particular occasion(s).
IME such groups don't change their position on things and aren't particularly shy about mentioning their distinctives - so if there was such a policy it would go back years and be fairly well known.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Members of the church aren't encouraged to question the leadership, or talk to other members about their disagreements. 'Disturbances in the force' expressed in public are dealt with, shall we say, pastorally.
You are literally left believing "Am I the only person who feels like this?"
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Is JPC a church or some sort of Gulag?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IJ
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on
:
It's the sister of a close friend of mine (she's godmother to my son). We've talked about it on more than one occasion, including during the past week, as my friend is also coeliac and finds the whole thing as upsetting as her sister does.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Is JPC a church or some sort of Gulag?
Well, no. You are of course free to leave whenever you wish, but the skill is in making you not wish that. As I said here,
quote:
And having been told, week in, week out, that there were no other faithful Christians in the whole of Tyneside, made it difficult psychologically to go, even if we already knew it wasn't true.
For those who only engage lightly with its structures and strictures, there's not much friction. Start voicing doctrinally unorthodox opinions (or even politically and socially left-wing ones), and the wagons begin to circle. With you outside.
For all its size, there is a not an insignificant amount of churn in the membership list. (At least, there was when I was administering it.)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
It's the sister of a close friend of mine (she's godmother to my son). We've talked about it on more than one occasion, including during the past week, as my friend is also coeliac and finds the whole thing as upsetting as her sister does.
I'm not doubting the incident, I just wondered how widespread it was and what their reasoning was (given the speculation in this thread).
IME, when movements like that have a distinctive belief that's somewhat heterodox, it generally originated at the same time as the movement itself (anything new is automatically suspect), and they'll take pride in explaining it as part of some bigger principle (usually trotted out in the annual sermon that's intended to teach the wider thing that it's attached to - also the occasion for fulminating against some real or imagined social ill).
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on
:
Possibly, I'm inclined to agree with DocTor on this one. Going by my experience of the conservative mindset elsewhere and also the fact that there is very little governance information on the JPC website I think it might be the sort of environment where people are expected to accept what they are told about a while range of issues and not question the leadership overmuch. This is often backed up through reference to scriptural authority, the need for unity etc and is very difficult to push against without things getting messy.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a side issue: Doc Tor, why the heck were you involved in this crowd?
That's a very pertinent question, and not at all a side issue, because in attempting to answer it, it touches on several issues surrounding the present controversy.
JPC was recommended as a good student church - I was going to Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield at the time. And they weren't wrong. It was (1987) a good student church, lots going on, offers of free food, and lots of other students. It was, then, a conservative evangelical church, much like the one I'd just left, much like Greyfriars in Reading which I'd also irregularly attended.
It moved. I moved, yes, but so did the church, and we moved in opposite directions. Over the 20 years I was there - I worked in the church office for 2 of those - the Authoritarian Right-ward drift became simply too much, not to ignore, because I didn't ignore it, but it was too much to fight. I was tired of disagreeing and being disagreeable.
The final straw came over a couple of things, which might seem minor, but weren't. Miss Tor was about to move up into the next tier of youth work (KS2 to KS3) where boys and girls were grouped on separate mats (while being in the same room). Also involving Miss Tor, when she was helping me check the microphones before a service. She climbed up into the pulpit, and I thought "This is the only time you'll ever be allowed up there."
It was then I knew we had to go. And it was a wrench. I'd been there 20 years. I knew lots of people there, had good friends there (and still do). And having been told, week in, week out, that there were no other faithful Christians in the whole of Tyneside, made it difficult psychologically to go, even if we already knew it wasn't true.
First church we tried thereafter, we stayed at. 8 years, now. Sorry. That was long.
Heartbreaking.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Apparently, this schismatic congregation has expunged the word 'catholic' from the creed and is liberal on the remarriage of divorcees - about which Jesus had much to say, unlike the issue of gays
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Apparently, this schismatic congregation has expunged the word 'catholic' from the creed and is liberal on the remarriage of divorcees - about which Jesus had much to say, unlike the issue of gays
There's another similarly conservative schismatic congregation on the South Coast that retains the word 'catholic' in the Creed and refuses re-marriage of divorcees - I'm not sure they are much of an improvement.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
The thing that amuses me is how they seem to be as obsessed by the Power of Three to the same eztebt as the magical thinkers of the Oxford Sect trying to prove the Reformation didn't matter in the C of E.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The thing that amuses me is how they seem to be as obsessed by the Power of Three to the same eztebt as the magical thinkers of the Oxford Sect trying to prove the Reformation didn't matter in the C of E.
Thanks, I like eztebt and will try to use it wherever possible from now on.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
Oh, mock the blind person using an iphone why don't you.
That's racist [ding]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wasn't mocking. I genuinely think it is a fine word.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I expect payment whenever you use it. My usual rates applly.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Leo:
quote:
Apparently, this schismatic congregation has expunged the word 'catholic' from the creed
Look again! It isn't the only thing they have expunged from the Creeds (they've made changes to both).
[ 19. May 2017, 18:11: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Members of the church aren't encouraged to question the leadership, or talk to other members about their disagreements. 'Disturbances in the force' expressed in public are dealt with, shall we say, pastorally.
You are literally left believing "Am I the only person who feels like this?"
That's a helpful situation to be in, ISTM. You can establish clearly that you're in the wrong church for you, and can then leave.
Not all churches are meant for people who want to question and disagree. Some people want clear rules, clear guidelines. They don't want to be engaged in (or observers of) endless debates about who's right or wrong.
The best thing is that our is a religion of diversity. There are churches for individuals who want the freedom to believe more or less whatever they feel is right, and churches for people who want a strong 'party line' to follow.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, that won't do. People being encouraged to accept whatever they're told is dangerous. It's asking fot spiritual abuse. And do you think for a moment the leaders of these places share your generous "different strokes" attitude?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But that's the point. If your church leader doesn't accept 'different strokes', and you want different strokes, then you leave.
This, to me, is what Protestantism (and especially Nonconformist Protestantism) is about. We're not bound by the leader's or the hierarchy's methods, or by the tyranny of the group, for our salvation. We're free to go where we believe the spirit to be leading us. In fact, we could be compelled to go, because staying might, in our understanding, damage our souls.
There's no future for a Christianity where one single denomination provides all the liberty and diversity and/or strictness and clarity that every Christian will ever want. That's never going to happen, and it's not the sort of Christian 'unity' that I'd ever pray for.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Apparently, this schismatic congregation has expunged the word 'catholic' from the creed and is liberal on the remarriage of divorcees - about which Jesus had much to say, unlike the issue of gays
What about divorced gays?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Leo:
quote:
Apparently, this schismatic congregation has expunged the word 'catholic' from the creed
Look again! It isn't the only thing they have expunged from the Creeds (they've made changes to both).
Are their versions of the creeds available online somewhere?
FWIW, "holy Christian church"/"one holy Christian and apostolic church" instead of "holy catholic church"/"one holy catholic and apostolic church" was the norm among American Lutherans not that long ago (and still is the norm for some). I think I've encountered it among the Methodists, too, though I may be confusing that with "descended to the dead."
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
As far as I know, this is the version of the creed amongst German Lutherans - eine heilige,christliche Kirche - one holy Christian church. This ,presumably, goes back centuries in the Lutheran liturgical forms.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As far as I know, this is the version of the creed amongst German Lutherans - eine heilige,christliche Kirche - one holy Christian church. This ,presumably, goes back centuries in the Lutheran liturgical forms.
Yes, I think it's Luther's translation/version. I think it continued among American Lutherans for a long time because of tradition combined with potential confusion among worshippers over what is meant by "catholic." It wasn't until the Lutheran Book of Worship in the late 70s that "catholic" came back for what is now the ELCA. The fairly new Lutheran Service Book of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod still uses "Christian," but with a note that the original is "catholic," meaning "universal."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The consecrating church also supported apartheid.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
It's a longstanding thing that many Protestants/evangelicals are not keen on the word 'catholic' because obviously they were being opposed by the Roman Catholic Church. Some deal with it by leaving the creed as is but making sure everyone understands that 'catholic' means 'universal'. Some replace the word 'catholic' by 'universal' - which is anyway the original meaning of the Greek word, and if you've translated the rest of the creed it's surely no big deal that you translate that word to rather than retain the 'alien' word.
Some simply leave the word out altogether - in effect, treat it as redundant when you've said 'Church' anyway. This course was apparently common among Anabaptists and was - of course - treated as 'burn-at-the-stake' heresy by the Inquisition....
From an Anabaptist view the issue is not that they, the Anabaptists, change the creed - it's more that the Orthodox/Roman Catholic churches, though keeping the words, changed the meaning of the creed. Before Theodosius, 'universal' meant something like 'for all the world/open to everybody'. By 400CE, Theodosius' decision to make Christianity compulsory in the Empire gave the word 'catholic' overtones of the church being 'totalitarian', imposed upon all in a so-called 'Christian country' rather than freely accepted through individual spiritual birth through faith.
Indeed in a very real sense a 'Catholic Church' based on state compulsion is NOT the Church God intended, and not something that Christians should believe at a credal level. And from where I'm standing that also raises some rather serious questions about the claims to special authority made by both Orthodox and RCC. If you've so betrayed the nature of the Church by entanglement with the state, how can this "Not-Really-The-Original-Church" claim such authority? And for that matter, by that betrayal haven't they shown that they didn't really have the institutional authority they claimed in the first place.
My personal position on this is to prefer 'universal' but not make a big fuss if a church I'm worshipping at uses the creed with 'catholic' in it.
I'd suspect that omission of 'catholic' at JPC will be basically a Protestant anti-RCC gesture. As far as I can tell, Rev Holloway's stance on church and state issues would make JPC one of the most 'catholic' congregations I know of in the really objectionable sense of 'catholic'....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
From an Anabaptist view the issue is not that they, the Anabaptists, change the creed - it's more that the Orthodox/Roman Catholic churches, though keeping the words, changed the meaning of the creed. Before Theodosius, 'universal' meant something like 'for all the world/open to everybody'. By 400CE, Theodosius' decision to make Christianity compulsory in the Empire gave the word 'catholic' overtones of the church being 'totalitarian', imposed upon all in a so-called 'Christian country' rather than freely accepted through individual spiritual birth through faith.
Whilst I see what you're saying, I don't think it really does have those overtones other than to those who are particularly sensitive to them or who want to see it there.
I suspect the majority of people who regularly use the phrase "I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church" are meaning something like "I believe in this, the real, genuine, authentic, true church - the one who God loves - whose witness and teaching has been passed down to me right back to the apostles."
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But that's the point. If your church leader doesn't accept 'different strokes', and you want different strokes, then you leave.
This, to me, is what Protestantism (and especially Nonconformist Protestantism) is about. We're not bound by the leader's or the hierarchy's methods, or by the tyranny of the group, for our salvation. We're free to go where we believe the spirit to be leading us. In fact, we could be compelled to go, because staying might, in our understanding, damage our souls.
There's no future for a Christianity where one single denomination provides all the liberty and diversity and/or strictness and clarity that every Christian will ever want. That's never going to happen, and it's not the sort of Christian 'unity' that I'd ever pray for.
I do not believe in giving people things that are harmful. Telling people what to believe and spiritually blackmailing them into doing so is harmful. No churches should be doing that, regardless of the demand. Of course, they will, and can, and people will lap it up, but that doesn't mean anyone should be offering it. There's demand for cigarettes, and people are at liberty to buy them and smoke, but that doesn't mean that tobacco companies are off the hook for their moral responsibility for killing people.
There's no reciprocity in your model. You're comfortable with the strict churches, but they're not comfortable with you - or me. They want you to be told what to believe. They think we and our leaders are evil compromisers and faux-Christians, doomed to Hell. Just read some of Gorpo's contributions.
Forgive me if I'm not inclined to be particularly generous towards them.
[ 22. May 2017, 11:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't see it as a matter of generosity. More a matter of just leaving things alone if you don't like them.
Worrying about how other Christians serve and worship God is not really a part of my religious DNA, I think. It strikes me as paternalistic, patronising. I might think the other man is utterly wrong, but who cares? The feeling is mutual, so let's just part company, hopefully in love, or at least with some dignity.
However, I can understand individual Anglicans worrying about what's happening in their own denomination. That seems to be what Anglicans do. But I can't see a solution for Anglicanism if it insists on trying to incorporate everyone, regardless of theology. Christians disagree vehemently about certain things. That won't change.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy
quote:
Whilst I see what you're saying, I don't think it really does have those overtones other than to those who are particularly sensitive to them or who want to see it there. I suspect the majority of people who regularly use the phrase "I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church" are meaning something like "I believe in this, the real, genuine, authentic, true church - the one who God loves - whose witness and teaching has been passed down to me right back to the apostles."
And I see what you're saying there and have similar suspicions about the everyday usage by most people.
But in my experience there are quite a lot of people, particularly among the 'unchurched' of today, who are a bit thrown by the word 'catholic' because of the association with the RCC, which is often referred to simply as "the Catholic Church". It's a bit similar to the way mentioning the name 'Jehovah' can have people thinking you're the JWs....
And while it would be nice to have "the real, genuine, authentic, true church - the one who God loves - whose witness and teaching has been passed down to me right back to the apostles", you seem to have missed the point I made up there that actually the Orthodox and RCC are a bit removed from that precisely because of their involvement in the state church era business and some of whose key teaching, including that on their own special authority, really doesn't go "right back to the apostles". And that if you think about it, their claims to special authority are more than a bit compromised by their involvement in that 'totalitarian' past. As in they've got some brass neck, after all the atrocities that led to, to still be claiming such special authority for their institutions.
As far as this thread was concerned I just wanted to explain some of the reasons why the word 'catholic' in the creed can be problematic; and to point up the irony that JPC finds it problematic when actually they are decidedly 'catholic' in the most objectionable sense.
And I guess to point up the fact that JPC appears to have very definite views in the 'church and state' area which you really need to be aware of to usefully discuss what's going on up there.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And while it would be nice to have "the real, genuine, authentic, true church - the one who God loves - whose witness and teaching has been passed down to me right back to the apostles", you seem to have missed the point I made up there that actually the Orthodox and RCC are a bit removed from that precisely because of their involvement in the state church era business and some of whose key teaching, including that on their own special authority, really doesn't go "right back to the apostles". And that if you think about it, their claims to special authority are more than a bit compromised by their involvement in that 'totalitarian' past. As in they've got some brass neck, after all the atrocities that led to, to still be claiming such special authority for their institutions.
Sorry, I don't accept that previous bad performance is anything to do with whether they are the status as the church.
Indeed, I don't accept that you have any skill or insight whatsoever to identify the things above you say are obvious.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But in my experience there are quite a lot of people, particularly among the 'unchurched' of today, who are a bit thrown by the word 'catholic' because of the association with the RCC, which is often referred to simply as "the Catholic Church".
If the c-word frightens your horses, replacing it with a near-synonym such as "universal" seems reasonable (although your unchurched are unlikely to grok "apostolic" either - what do you do with that?) Replacing it with the word "Christian" would seem to be to be a sectarian marker for the kind of person who would see "Catholic" and "Christian" as mutually exclusive.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And while it would be nice to have "the real, genuine, authentic, true church - the one who God loves - whose witness and teaching has been passed down to me right back to the apostles", you seem to have missed the point I made up there that actually the Orthodox and RCC are a bit removed from that precisely because of their involvement in the state church era business and some of whose key teaching, including that on their own special authority, really doesn't go "right back to the apostles". And that if you think about it, their claims to special authority are more than a bit compromised by their involvement in that 'totalitarian' past. As in they've got some brass neck, after all the atrocities that led to, to still be claiming such special authority for their institutions.
Sorry, I don't accept that previous bad performance is anything to do with whether they are the status as the church.
*snip*
I fear that it's verging on a dead horse in spirit to mention that the same brass neck would also apply to a series of reformation churches in northern and western Europe, as well as to the CoE, in terms of their state-church links and participation in state-sponsored persecution. I could understand a focus on current performance, but perhaps this is for another thread.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Augustine the Aleut
quote:
(initially quoting mr cheesy) quote:
Sorry, I don't accept that previous bad performance is anything to do with whether they are the status as the church.
I fear that it's verging on a dead horse in spirit to mention that the same brass neck would also apply to a series of reformation churches in northern and western Europe, as well as to the CoE, in terms of their state-church links and participation in state-sponsored persecution. I could understand a focus on current performance, but perhaps this is for another thread.
I think 'past performance' is relevant when there hasn't been repentance of the root cause of the bad performance and in effect "They're still at it!" despite the said past performance. The Orthodox and RCC are still basically making the same claim to special 'interpretative competence' for their institutions as institutions - as, in effect 'THE CHURCH' long after that past performance should have discredited their claims.
And note that one of the points I made is that part of that past performance actually involved a serious redefinition of the church itself and its membership - which to my mind does call a lot of things into question till they very clearly repent.
I agree that there are state/church issue problems for many of the Reformed/Protestant groups - particularly the Anglicans perhaps. The big difference in principle there is that Reformation based churches don't - or at least shouldn't - claim any special definitive authority. Protestant churches are supposed to operate on a 'caveat' that you'll usually find in the intro to their confessions, that they consider themselves subject to the Scripture and will change if convinced they've understood Scripture wrongly. As opposed to an Orthodox Shipmate who keeps insisting to me that the Bible isn't sufficient, even though it might have kept his church from those past errors.
Yes, there are currently some Reformed/Protestant churches working here and now, not just in the past, with some version or other of 'state church' or, as at JPC, an idea that Christianity should be privileged in the state.
I agree that overall that's a matter for another thread; but it still remains a fact that this issue of the church in the state is important to the Rev Holloway at JPC, and important to understanding some of that church's behaviour.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I agree that overall that's a matter for another thread; but it still remains a fact that this issue of the church in the state is important to the Rev Holloway at JPC, and important to understanding some of that church's behaviour.
Before you give yourself a hernia, you might like to think about what you've already written about JPC and your understanding of their position on the church-state.
If your understanding is accurate, then all the guff you've written about it with relation to the creed is irrelevant, because Holloway et al believe in the very concepts you seem to be indicating are reasons for removing phrases.
It clearly cannot be the case that he doesn't care about apostolic succession, otherwise there would have been no point in having his curate-bishop "properly" ordained by bishops, he could simply have done it himself. If he believes that catholic refers to the church-state then why would he remove it from the words of the creed, if in fact he believes in it?
On a more fundamental level, if he believes that there is such a thing as the "church universal", then what is there to repent of?
It seems to me that you're so set with your idea that what you believe = genuine Christianity that you're now believing that other Christian beliefs should apologise and repent to you because they don't believe what you do. That's clearly nonsense.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Steven Langton writes:
quote:
I agree that overall that's a matter for another thread; but it still remains a fact that this issue of the church in the state is important to the Rev Holloway at JPC, and important to understanding some of that church's behaviour.
What I fear I cannot understand, at all at all at all, and perhaps I would need to exchange directly with Fr Holloway to do so, is why he remains in the CoE if he feels that the church/state nexus is a problem for him. He holds his licence of the same authority which cheerfully turned heretics and recusants over to the state for torture and execution. That they no longer do so is a good thing, but is the same authority under which he preaches, celebrates, receives direct deposit payments and will presumably some day provide his pension. It becomes less and less likely that he will be convicted of consistency in his position!!
There are Reformation churches which, as you point out, hold scriptura sola views in their statements-- however, when matched against participation in executions for heresy, I fear that their street creds swirl in clockwise direction in exactly the same way as would those of the RCC and some of the Orthodox for their participation in such. Niceties of their claims were likely lost on the poor wretches tied to stakes as the flames crawled toward them.
This having been said, the Lutheran churches have on several occasions, clearly repented of their participation in this, and J2P2 at the Millennium and, during visits to Germany, made notable statements of repentance and for forgiveness for RCC actions during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods. (apologies for not previously capitalizing Reformation)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy
quote:
If he believes that catholic refers to the church-state then why would he remove it from the words of the creed, if in fact he believes in it?
My apologies if I wasn't quite clear enough above. I too consider JPC/Rev Holloway to be rather inconsistent and trying to explain it coherently isn't easy.
My point was that the at any rate most likely reason why Jesmond would omit 'catholic' from the creed is because as very emphatic evangelical Protestants they do not want it to appear that they believe in the "Roman Catholic" style of church, nor do they agree with that part of their own church which is "Anglo-Catholic" (and in my area can sometimes be mocked by the post Vatican II RCs for appearing more like the Victorian RCC than the RCs themselves do).
And I went on to point out clearly the irony that Jesmond itself holds to the state-church idea in a way that actually makes them more 'catholic' in the really objectionable sense than most other congregations I know. There is a similar irony in Ulster Protestantism where they profess to be 'anti-catholic' while clinging more than most in the UK to the idea of Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, being privileged in the state.
I am, I think, being consistent here; the inconsistency is up there in the North-East....
I don't know exactly what Rev Holloway thinks about the 'apostolic succession'. I suspect that in the RC/Orthodox meaning he doesn't believe in it. But if he is trying to legitimise an 'alternative Anglicanism' which may for a time have to split from the English Church itself, continuity through another line of bishops might seem valuable.
Apart from holding to the idea of Christian privilege in the state, another idea I know he is influenced by is stated in a book about 20 years ago by a guy called George R Eves, titled Two Religions, One Church which sees the Church of England as a divided institution, part biblically Christian, part so liberal as to be virtually pagan. I think he is hoping to change that and restore the CofE as a biblical church - but if not, to leave in a very clear way that, if you like, publicly exposes the CofE's current 'heresy'. It's not an easy line for him to tread and I'm not surprised you're confused....
All would be easier and clearer if he were not committed to the 'Christian privilege in the State' line. He and his congregation could then just leave the CofE and go straightforwardly non-conformist - but as a person still (confusedly I agree) trying to uphold the Queen's Coronation Oath to uphold the biblical gospel, he's made himself a difficult job.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Augustine the Aleut
quote:
why he remains in the CoE if he feels that the church/state nexus is a problem for him
The 'church/state' nexus itself isn't a problem to Rev Holloway (I'm not sure he would be happy to be referred to as 'Fr Holloway'!!). He actually believes there should be such a nexus. His problem is that the CofE in its current form isn't doing that nexus properly because it's no longer a truly biblical church. He's not wanting to secede from the state church because it's a state church; he wants to restore it to being (as he would see it) a more Christian state church with more Christian beliefs in areas like homosexuality. If he must leave, I think he needs it to be clear in the process that the CofE is no longer truly Christian. And that puts him in a position of some tension. I'm not sure he can fully explain it himself....
Also by Augustine the Aleut
quote:
There are Reformation churches which, as you point out, hold scriptura sola views in their statements-- however, when matched against participation in executions for heresy, I fear that their street creds swirl in clockwise direction in exactly the same way as would those of the RCC and some of the Orthodox for their participation in such. Niceties of their claims were likely lost on the poor wretches tied to stakes as the flames crawled toward them.
The Reformation was a messy period - as lots of Shipmates will be happy to tell you, even some of the Anabaptists got things badly wrong at a place called Munster.
The trouble was that while correcting a lot of the errors/bad traditions that had developed in the RCC, the Protestants mostly did it with the help of their own state governments - like Lizzie I in England - and a lot of Reformers didn't get round to reforming Church/State relations and so carried on with practices like holy wars for the faith and burning or otherwise executing heretics. Only in the long term could they relax on this and adopt more 'plural society' views.
But it was a lot easier for the Reformers to put that right than for the Orthodox and RCC which weren't on a Sola Scriptura basis and so had a lot of institutional credibility riding on continuing to insist that their previous stance had been right. The current state of play is pretty much as I described it - they've found ways to apologise for a lot of the past, but still aren't quite willing to concede that they got Scripture wrong and are therefore not quite the guaranteed special authority they still claim.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On a more serious note, time was when virtually all Christians - barring a few Popes who spoke out again it - thought that slavery was acceptable.
So, it would seem, tacitly at least, did the Apostle Paul ...
Serious concerns about abolishing slavery didn't really get underway into the 18tj century and was initially associated with Quakers and Unitarians before it spread to evangelicals and others.
So, are we saying that because almost everyone fluffed it on that issue, they forfeit the right to have any interpretive authority or validity?
If Steve Langton or myself go out and do something daft tomorrow, does that undermine our ability to interpret the scriptures properly?
How many strikes before you're out?
Anyhow, that's by the by ...
There are certainly anomalies in the Jesmond position and yes, I can see that church-state links are part of that ...
But that's just one part of it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
The issue about the church authority needs to have its own thread - give me a month and I'll try to compose an OP to kick it off.
Yes, I know that church/state issues are far from everything about the Jesmond issues; but I've read enough related to Holloway to see that those issues are very much important to him, albeit from almost the opposite direction to me, and see that you may need some appreciation of those issues to make sense of what's going on at Jesmond.
Going may give you some amusement - but it may also deprive you of insight into what's going on up there. Things which, I agree, seem rather irrational from the kind of standpoint other Shipmates take; they don't look fully rational to me either, but in terms of understanding I've been specialising in that kind of thinking and analysing it - my insights might help if you bother with them.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The 'church/state' nexus itself isn't a problem to Rev Holloway (I'm not sure he would be happy to be referred to as 'Fr Holloway'!!).
I should apologize for being mischievous-- I am of the ancient clergy nomenclature school which would call him Mr Holloway and never Reverend Holloway. Rather than focus on the issue at hand, I wrote Fr Holloway as a passive-aggressive way of dealing with this. Too many years in the bureaucracy!!
I am not certain if I need to apologize for also misunderstanding Mr Holloway's viewpoint on the church/state nexus. It took me a reread of the entire thread as well as other material floating around the web and it took your note to make it clear(er). Consistency and clarity are not his strong points, and while I often pull the legs of my RC clerical friends for their Thomist backgrounds, I wonder if we should not spend a few months running our ordinands through some philosophy course to help them with their logic and their explanations.
In the meanwhile, we have a wandering bishop with no church, no mandate, no clear role and AFAIK the entire motive for his consecration was political. Cyprian of Carthage would be spinning in his grave, and one hopes that the head would be spinning at the same speed as the body.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve Langton, I think we are all very aware of your views on church-state relations so please spare us a separate thread on the issue.
It is pertinent to Jesmond, as are wider ecclesiological issues, of course.
I'll get my coat lest anything else I say makes your promised / threatened thread more likely ...
It's not that I don't believe you've got anything pertinent to say on the matter, simply that I've heard it a trillion times ...
There are other issues to discuss.
Please don't PM me on it either.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the meanwhile, we have a wandering bishop with no church, no mandate, no clear role and AFAIK the entire motive for his consecration was political. Cyprian of Carthage would be spinning in his grave, and one hopes that the head would be spinning at the same speed as the body.
Though possibly in the opposite direction.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Going may give you some amusement - but it may also deprive you of insight into what's going on up there. Things which, I agree, seem rather irrational from the kind of standpoint other Shipmates take; they don't look fully rational to me either, but in terms of understanding I've been specialising in that kind of thinking and analysing it - my insights might help if you bother with them.
Or it could just be that you're so blinded by your own analysis that you can't comprehend that someone who appears to be partly working to your agenda of creating a church with more Christian beliefs in areas like homosexuality doesn't also on some level agree with you about the church-state.
Rather than coming up with a complicated explanation of how Holloway is inconsistent, a simpler explanation is that you are simply wrong. That Holloway believes some of the crap that you spout but fundamentally disagrees with you on the church-state, that he isn't being inconsistent, that he is in fact simple to understand etc and so on.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am not certain if I need to apologize for also misunderstanding Mr Holloway's viewpoint on the church/state nexus. It took me a reread of the entire thread as well as other material floating around the web and it took your note to make it clear(er). Consistency and clarity are not his strong points, and while I often pull the legs of my RC clerical friends for their Thomist backgrounds, I wonder if we should not spend a few months running our ordinands through some philosophy course to help them with their logic and their explanations.
It seems to me that it actually isn't so difficult to understand. Holloway believes that the Anglican church is at the heart of the Christian country of England, but that it has accepted dastardly Roman Catholic and liberal ideas which means that God is judging it and the country.
It isn't that he doesn't believe in the structures and privilege of the CofE, it is that he totally believes in them and feels - as a form of reforming messiah - only his followers and he can bring renewal and right theology to turn the church around, and by extension the country. For those reasons he's justified in doing whatever-it-takes to take back the church and the country.
I guess that there is doubt in his mind that come the revolution when conservative Evangelicals take a hold of the CofE, the daughter churches he has set up will come back into the fold.
quote:
In the meanwhile, we have a wandering bishop with no church, no mandate, no clear role and AFAIK the entire motive for his consecration was political. Cyprian of Carthage would be spinning in his grave, and one hopes that the head would be spinning at the same speed as the body.
I suspect he's building the equivalent of a shadow government, ready to step in to roles within the CofE when the thing collapses under the weight of its own gay-loving sinfulness.
[ 23. May 2017, 07:35: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel
quote:
Steve Langton, I think we are all very aware of your views on church-state relations so please spare us a separate thread on the issue.
Absolutely NOT what I said. What I actually said was...
quote:
The issue about the church authority needs to have its own thread - give me a month and I'll try to compose an OP to kick it off.
That is, the question of institutions like the RCC and Orthodox claiming to have some kind of "special authority" so that "the Bible isn't enough" and that when they speak, in effect you can't appeal to the Bible against them.
Not to mention the secondary issue that despite a lot of nasty insinuations from Shipmates, I'm absolutely NOT claiming that kind of special authority for myself. You can always appeal to the Bible against me, just make sure you've got good reasons behind you. My position is never "I have spoken, that's it!" but rather "And check it out for yourself...."
The church and state issues will be relevant to that thread as part of the evidence that those claims by some churches and their leaders to "special authority" are horrendously mistaken.
And BTW, yes people are allowed to make mistakes - and I do and I know it. My point was that if you claim special authority and then make a mistake on the level of Crusades, Inquisitions, thousands and thousands of deaths, not to mention leading Christians to be the killers in all too many cases - then you don't get to carry on claiming the special authority. You have to settle for having the same 'under the Bible and accountable to it' authority as the rest of us.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And BTW, yes people are allowed to make mistakes - and I do and I know it. My point was that if you claim special authority and then make a mistake on the level of Crusades, Inquisitions, thousands and thousands of deaths, not to mention leading Christians to be the killers in all too many cases - then you don't get to carry on claiming the special authority. You have to settle for having the same 'under the Bible and accountable to it' authority as the rest of us.
I suppose the difference here is whether you see Christianity as a raft onto which you climb - which has to be manufactured in the exactly correct way - or the river on which you're riding.
I suspect that many who read the bible see the church as being a version of Israel in the OT - making mistakes, wandering around in the desert, in exile etc - so being "in the truth" doesn't mean that you make no mistakes, that you don't have special authority, etc and so on.
Moses has "special authority" after all. That doesn't mean that the people of Israel avoided all mistakes under his watch, or that he always made the right call.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, that.
Besides, the Bible isn't a 'stand-alone' document. It emanated from within a tradition and for the purposes of helping to both define and spread that tradition ...
(Or Tradition if you prefer)
It's no good complaining when the RCs and the Orthodox don't use the Bible in the same way as you do. They'd simply say that you aren't using the Bible they way they are - in the context of a Tradition ...
You are using it in the context of a small t tradition ...
Which is fine, providing that you are aware of that and don't think your tradition somehow magically trumps anyone else's simply because it's your tradition ...
But I can easily wait another month before reading your pontifications on the matter.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel
quote:
Which is fine, providing that you are aware of that and don't think your tradition somehow magically trumps anyone else's simply because it's your tradition ...
And of course I am so aware, and any idea that my tradition "magically trumps anyone else's" is exactly what I'm NOT about. Don't you pay attention?
The problem is simple. Yes there are different Christian 'Traditions' and 'traditions' in interpreting the Bible. (the Bible itself is a 'tradition' in a slightly different sense). But these various traditions contradict one another and to put it bluntly
quote:
THEY. CAN'T. ALL. BE. TRUE.
And the differences have practical implications which are pretty important - often even nowadays to the extent of being matters of life and death, persecution, and all kinds of unnecessary problems between church and surrounding world.
We therefore need, not to just keep endlessly repeating as you do the obvious fact that there are these different Traditions/traditions, but actually to make the effort to assess them and try to work out where the truth is. And note, not 'who is right' because I certainly don't think any of the assorted 'traditions' are anywhere near perfect, including my own.
Your approach doesn't advance that discussion one nanometre and so is absolutely useless and BTW increasingly boring. You have at least demonstrated the need for a thread on the subject - but please only participate thereon if you've something useful to say instead of this useless repetition of the useless obvious. By the way, the "they can't all be true" phrase is an actual quote, not just using the format for emphasis; I can't trace the original thread and post now, but my memory is very insistent that the person I'm quoting is called 'Gamaliel'. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Also, LION, on a thread about the affair at Jesmond issues of state and church are pretty central to what's happening both at Jesmond and for the wider Anglican church, and if Rev Holloway gets his way could have far wider effects. In this context it's very much not a but a serious live issue. Again, if you've nothing actually useful to say....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And of course I am so aware, and any idea that my tradition "magically trumps anyone else's" is exactly what I'm NOT about. Don't you pay attention?
The problem is simple. Yes there are different Christian 'Traditions' and 'traditions' in interpreting the Bible. (the Bible itself is a 'tradition' in a slightly different sense). But these various traditions contradict one another and to put it bluntly
quote:
THEY. CAN'T. ALL. BE. TRUE.
No, and you are quite reasonably trying to decide which of competing ideas are correct. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is a pointless task or a stupid idea.
The problem is that there are people "out there" in the world and people on these boards who are not using the categories that you are using, who don't use the biblical texts in the way that you are using and don't think like you think.
So when we say "other ideas exist", it isn't because we think you are unaware that other ideas exist, but because it is impossible to make you see that there are different approaches and different ways of looking at the same thing and that different, serious people have come up with different conclusions. You reject these people because they're not proving something to your satisfaction but are clearly blind to the idea that the categories of truth that you are using are not the ones others are using.
And constantly trying to help you understand that others are using very different ways to understand the faith other than your approach is quite tiring. And ultimately futile because you have such bias against ideas that you don't like or haven't thought of.
And the differences have practical implications which are pretty important - often even nowadays to the extent of being matters of life and death, persecution, and all kinds of unnecessary problems between church and surrounding world.
We therefore need, not to just keep endlessly repeating as you do the obvious fact that there are these different Traditions/traditions, but actually to make the effort to assess them and try to work out where the truth is. And note, not 'who is right' because I certainly don't think any of the assorted 'traditions' are anywhere near perfect, including my own.
Your approach doesn't advance that discussion one nanometre and so is absolutely useless and BTW increasingly boring. You have at least demonstrated the need for a thread on the subject - but please only participate thereon if you've something useful to say instead of this useless repetition of the useless obvious. By the way, the "they can't all be true" phrase is an actual quote, not just using the format for emphasis; I can't trace the original thread and post now, but my memory is very insistent that the person I'm quoting is called 'Gamaliel'.
But Steve, surely you can see that people look at the world in different ways to you. Surely you can understand, for example, that the Orthodox faith puts a higher value on their thousands of years of doctrinal development than something someone thought of 300 years ago.
Nobody is saying that you have to like it, but surely you can understand that simply pushing a particular theological view which you say is biblical has no traction when others are not using the same basic premises that you are using. They say that the bible can only be understood in context, you say that you can understand it in isolation. Those two ideas are so contradictory that it is almost impossible to have any kind of conversation.
It is like someone talking about the sound of one hand clapping and you replying that that's a daft thing to think about because obviously one hand can't clap. Unless you are in the tradition and thought patterns where that makes sense, you can't understand why it might be important. But that's irrelevant as to whether it might be true.
quote:
Also, LION, on a thread about the affair at Jesmond issues of state and church are pretty central to what's happening both at Jesmond and for the wider Anglican church, and if Rev Holloway gets his way could have far wider effects. In this context it's very much not a but a serious live issue. Again, if you've nothing actually useful to say....
But what useful have you really to say that you haven't already said? The Jesmond example maybe says something about their understanding of church-state. They also agree with you on some issues. You can't understand how they can believe in those things whilst also believing in the church-state.
OK. You've said that several times. What else is there to add to that analysis?
[ 24. May 2017, 10:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
THEY. CAN'T. ALL. BE. TRUE.
Yebbut. It doesn't follow from that, that the Steve Langton version is more true than anybody else's.
I accept, by the way, that it also doesn't follow that it can't be. I'm just querying whether there is any particular reason why that version should just happen to be the MORE. TRUE. one.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Say hello to the Vincentian Canon.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Say hello to the Vincentian Canon.
But that's not talking in a language Steve understands. I don't understand how hard this is to understand - he doesn't accept the RCC as an authority.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I realise that Mr.C, but the Vincentian Canon long precedes any church schisms.
[ 24. May 2017, 16:03: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I realise that Mr.C, but the Vincentian Canon long precedes any church schisms.
OK, HRB, but Steve's problems with the RCC and Orthodox are not about finding something that is pre-schism.
To me this is symptomatic of the problem; everyone is talking past each other.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I realise that Mr.C, but the Vincentian Canon long precedes any church schisms.
OK, HRB, but Steve's problems with the RCC and Orthodox are not about finding something that is pre-schism.
To me this is symptomatic of the problem; everyone is talking past each other.
Maybe so, but you do have go through examining the underlying assumptions first (which is what is happening here though it's hardly complete). Talking past each other occurs mostly when more is at stake in underlying matters than in the ostensible disagreements. But it's grim I know.
Ultimately if Steve wishes to dismiss what the church has always believed etc. that for him to say, not me. But contrariwise, his assertion that Orthodox and Catholics cannot be debated on the subject of the bible is self-evidently nonsense. I've done it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'll be responding to other points later, having only just got in and caught up on the day's posts, but a quick one on this
by Enoch
quote:
Yebbut. It doesn't follow from that, that the Steve Langton version is more true than anybody else's.
I know, I know, I know. Seriously, I KNOW!! My protest here is that instead of constructive discussion which might well end up showing me where I'm wrong, all I'm getting from some people, and one in particular, is this not-news-to-me and basically useless vague repetition that "there are other Traditions/traditions" as if simply saying that answered everything.
Like I said above, they can't all be right; a lot of the differences are potentially really problematic even in the modern world. We need discussion and we're not getting it....
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
They can't all be right, but after a few hundred years of burning each other at the stake, not to mention more peaceable going for each others' jugulars, no-one's any closer settling it.
Don't really see much point. Who knows, eh?
For what it's worth, I reckon it's more a question of no-one being right. I suspect some are more wrong than others (probably reasonably non-controversial to mention Westboro Baptist at this point), but there's the nagging feeling that we're so far away from the real truth that it's like getting excited about being on Saturn rather than Neptune, because we're so much nearer the Sun.
As long as the truth is better than anything any of us comes up with, then I'll take it. It's the people insisting it has to be a whole lot worse who worry me.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Yes, I think Karl has it. I have my own tradition - but though it's how I understand the Faith, I don't think other traditions and their rightness/wrongness matters to a huge degree. Obviously there are the more extreme ends of this, eg Westboro, where it's easier to say 'this is wrong'. But we're all wrong - we're all far off the mark, and I think it's knowing that which is key. Westboro and their ilk do not know that, and it's part of their sin.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
No-one being right works at the most general level. But when you come down to detail there is loads that is agreed. So is a comment that works only at the most general level any more use than a chocolate teapot?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But when you come down to detail there is loads that is agreed.
That's such a weird statement. It seems to me that almost everything is not-agreed, there is very little shared understanding across all of Christianity.
And what does "agreed" mean anyway? Is there a majority vote?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Say hello to the Vincentian Canon.
But that's not talking in a language Steve understands. I don't understand how hard this is to understand - he doesn't accept the RCC as an authority.
Actually the 'Vincentian Canon' is something I do understand. As per HRB's link, it is
[QUOTE}The threefold test of Catholicity laid down by St Vincent of Lérins, namely ‘what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all’. By this triple test of ecumenicity, antiquity, and consent, the Church is to differentiate between true and false tradition. [/QUOTE]
I guess you must all have missed a previous thread where this was raised and I pointed out what it meant in terms of the 'state church' idea.
Vincent's 'dates' are early 5th Century; on the available information he died before 450CE, though probably not long before. I think it's a reasonable proposition that if something failed Vincent's Canon at the time of Vincent (even if he himself didn't fully realise it), then it effectively fails forever after – the church believing a 'false tradition' for several centuries after 450 can't really convert it into a true tradition....
Yet the point is that the 'state church' idea was not something that was believed “ everywhere, always, and by all”. In 450 it was a novelty going back less than a century. The Church only became a state church in the Roman Empire in 381 by a decree of (not the Church but) the Roman Emperor Theodosius. At the time of the initial involvement with the Empire via Constantine the Church was strictly speaking only 'tolerated' along with the pagan religions. It is true that Constantine so favoured the Church that over the 70 years or so to Theodosius' decree it had slipped into a dominant position by in effect a creeping corruption; but that's hardly a sound basis of doctrine.
For its first three centuries, to approx 300CE, the Church followed a different belief about it's relationship to the state; the doctrines taught in the NT itself. And I think it is clear that if in 311 Constantine had tried to jump straight to the later Theodosian position, the Church itself would likely have opposed that. I'm trying to find the letter I know exists from a Christian apologist to a pagan correspondent which shows the state of play in the late 3rd Century – the late 200s, that is. I must remember this time to make sure I get it copied into my 'Sources' file so I don't have future problems finding it.
And if you read history fairly closely it is also clear that there was over the succeeding millennium more than a bit of tension over all kinds of aspects of the state church idea. One I particularly like is the poem by Gower from the time of Chaucer which seriously queries the ethics of the Crusades! Not everything changed at once – but again, history says that by a millennium after Theodosius things had got so bad that in the West many RCs were querying how their church had ended up, thus provoking the Reformation. And in the era of the Reformation, it was the Anabaptists who rediscovered the original biblical teaching (not just only invented it 300 years ago as one Shipmate suggested above) and sought to apply it against such unChristian things as Crusades and other holy wars, Inquisitions etc.
Like I said – the state church idea fails the Vincentian Canon test because it was a recent novelty in Vincent's own time. And even over a millennium later, that's still a fail....
There is another thing I think needs to be said at this point. Another way the state church idea fails is because it actually in effect redefined the Church for the benefit of the worldly state. The Bible defines the Church as the people born again by personal faith; after Theodosius, the Empire said everyone born in the Empire was a 'Christian' by imperial decree - “or else...!”
I believe that despite this God protected the faith considerably – for example the New Testament was already so settled (the Gospels since c140CE, most of the epistles from a similar period) that the Imperial Church couldn't get rid of it. But the basic question remains – after that radical redefinition, the church isn't the Church as described in the NT. So how much authority over the Bible can a Church have which hasn't even managed to get right the basic idea of who the Church is and how you become a member?
I know that hasn't answered everything from (by the time I post this) yesterday's posts on the thread. But it's a long one already and I'd like chance to relax a bit before bedtime....
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I guess you must all have missed a previous thread where this was raised and I pointed out what it meant in terms of the 'state church' idea.
Perhaps that's because many of us give up on reading through your posts as soon as we hit the (inevitable) discourse on the "state church" idea.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
mr. cheesy wrote: quote:
And what does "agreed" mean anyway? Is there a majority vote?
There is - it's called an Ecumenical Council.
I realise if you have been looking at disagreements then it's easy to forget the settled bits but they do exist, honest.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There is - it's called an Ecumenical Council.
I realise if you have been looking at disagreements then it's easy to forget the settled bits but they do exist, honest.
I'm sure this depends on your observation point, but I know for absolutely sure that not only do a large number of churches that I'm aware of not care about the ecumenical councils, even where they do agree with the statements they mean something quite different to the doctrines derived from the by the RCC and Orthodox.
The idea that everyone agrees on the points in the ecumenical councils seems to be blind to the realities of belief of a very large cross-section of Christianity.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'm essentially not free to engage here much today, between extra stints in our drop-in to cover for people involved in a family wedding, and participating in our local manifestation of the 'Thy Kingdom Come' initiative, though I'll try to keep in touch with anything you post.
Can I ask you to do a bit of thinking on one point?
You're all going on about my views on state and church - but AFAICT, there is practically nobody on the Ship who believes in the 'Tradition' of the post-Theodosian state church anyway. Not even as much as that Holloway guy with his agenda of a 'privileged' Christianity in the state, and even he doesn't want people to be forced to believe. Even my most vehement Orthodox challenger is an American who very much believes in their constitutional Church and State separation and looks to me to be very much at odds with mainstream Orthodoxy as a result.
In reality you all appear to be closer to the Anabaptist position than to the medieval RC position, or traditional Orthodoxy, or to pre-18thC non-Anabaptist Protestantism. Even the Anglicans who belong to what is still formally a state church wouldn't AFAICT want to go back to how it was in my youth, in the days of the Mary Whitehouse campaigns. What is your beef with me in the first place?
After all, all I'm basically saying is that Jesus and the Apostles got it right about church and state relations even if that later got a bit obscured by the Roman Imperial interference and the complacence of a church that liked the worldly influence that resulted from that interference. I'm also saying that it's not just Christianity and the state - it's also about other religions and the example Christians set to those religions - and that's particularly acute right now as a citizen of Greater Manchester. Even the left-over rags of our state church compromise the fight against Islam's extremists.
Where are you getting your own church and state views from if not from Jesus and the Apostles in the NT? If you claim to be a Christian surely you should want to follow Jesus' teaching and that of his immediate followers....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In reality you all appear to be closer to the Anabaptist position than to the medieval RC position, or traditional Orthodoxy, or to pre-18thC non-Anabaptist Protestantism. Even the Anglicans who belong to what is still formally a state church wouldn't AFAICT want to go back to how it was in my youth, in the days of the Mary Whitehouse campaigns. What is your beef with me in the first place?
The beef, quite obviously, is that most of us are quite capable of believing in a church with a tradition going back thousands of years without thinking that we need to arm our bishops or bash people over the head or burn people at the stake.
The problem here is you, not us. You don't seem to be able to compute how the rest of us manage to do something that is perfectly reasonable to us.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The problem is that Steve Langton doesn't understand that by adopting a church-state paradigm Theodosius did not thereby reinterpret creedal formularies for all time.
Therefore, it is perfectly possible for Mousethief, as an Orthodox Christian living in the USA to believe in the separation of Church and State.
That might put him at odds with Russian Orthodox people in Putin's Russia, but it doesn't necessarily put him at odds with the broader Orthodox Tradition per se.
It's not as if the RCs or the Orthodox tinkered with the Creeds in some way to include church-state links as a non-negotiable for all time.
Yes, it is true that the RCs and the Orthodox and the Anglicans have tended towards church-state links and synergies - often with deleterious effects.
No-one here is saying otherwise.
Just as no-one here, as far as I can see, is saying that church-state links HAVE to be a defining part of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism or any other form of Christianity.
It's a fixation that exists in Steve Langton's own head as he's convinced himself that the acceptance of church-state links are the big be-all and end-all for certain Christian traditions / Traditions and responsible for almost every problem and evil that exists.
If the only tool in your tool-kit is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail.
I may have bored SL rigid with my responses to his myopic posts but I'm not sure he even understands the points I've been trying to make.
Nor the points anyone else here is trying to make for that matter.
I was teasing when I said that I can wait a month for your separate post on this issue, Steve Langton. I can wait much, much, much longer than that, thank you very much as I've probably heard everything and anything you can possibly have to say on the issue.
Yes, it is pertinent to this thread. I accept that. But there are other issues and I'd rather talk about those. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in the others ... it's just that I've heard them from you about a million times.
Enough already.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
No-one being right works at the most general level. But when you come down to detail there is loads that is agreed. So is a comment that works only at the most general level any more use than a chocolate teapot?
Yes, I think it can be. It might be beneficial to remember that one's attachment to a particular church is not inherently adherence to the truth.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The problem is that Steve Langton doesn't understand that by adopting a church-state paradigm Theodosius did not thereby reinterpret creedal formularies for all time.
Actually SL does understand this. It's actually rather the point of what I'm saying.
Also by Gamaliel;
quote:
Yes, it is true that the RCs and the Orthodox and the Anglicans have tended towards church-state links and synergies - often with deleterious effects.
Exactly; the Orthodox and RCC, the people who do claim special authority so that 'the Bible isn't enough', have ended up making 'church-state links and synergies' for centuries, and enjoyed the privileged position of those links for centuries, while the 'deleterious effects' have been massive, criminal, lethal, persecutory in the name of Jesus, and so on and on to the point where it was basically obscene. And better and humbler biblical interpretation would have saved them and the world from that - but their supposedly superior "Tradition" didn't save them or the world.
But in the here and now, oh yes they're finally admitting they got it wrong. Which would be well and good IF they would also admit that it makes a nonsense of their claim to a superior 'Tradition', and that really they're on the same level as everybody else with the Bible as the authority they should check against and that others are entitled to check out for themselves as well. And note that your account does basically admit that about their situation.
But they don't do that. They weasel out. Bigtime. They want to carry on claiming that 'the Bible isn't enough' and they still have the superior tradition. So they make the kind of claim that you put on their behalf above; and you've seen MT do it on this very forum. Somehow all that mayhem they've been involved in 'technically' didn't involve the claim to special 'Tradition' - as in "Oh it didn't actually get into the creeds so it doesn't count". Try telling that to some of the victims - if you dare....
And yes, I did notice you mentioned the Anglicans. They are technically in a slightly different position because they don't make a 'superior Tradition' claim but rather the Protestant claim to be subject to and correctible by Scripture. But still - they're still an established church hanging on to the rags of their privilege, when it would be better for everybody if they would just admit they were wrong - and unbiblical - about that from the start. (And I don't think Rev Holloway would hang around long to trouble them if they did that...!)
I've also been giving the Vincentian Canon thing some further thought and concluded it is actually deeply flawed - though it does do a pretty good job on showing that the 'tradition' of the state church was a false tradition and a recent novelty in Vincent's time. I'll come back to that one, it's quite interesting....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Steve Langton, I'll say it again. The Church of England is established. No other church in the Anglican communion is.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry Gee D. The established church is rather prominent here in the UK, its establishment significant to many questions including the one this thread is about.
But can we rely on the non-established Anglicans to point out to the English lot how heretical the establishment is?
And there look to me to be quite a few bits of Anglicanism (mostly perhaps in the GAFCON or whatever fringes) which may not be legally established but are still trying quite hard to have a 'Christian country' not far enough short of an establishment....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
What heresy?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gee D
quote:
What heresy?
too long to answer tonight...
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
I don't think that follows at all.
But I also think that present-day establishment is more or less irrelevant. It's a historical artifact. Or are you claiming that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are really that different?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
What heresy?
too long to answer tonight...
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
Some individuals may, but I very much doubt that any of the churches in the Communion other than the C of E have given it even a moment's thought since it became an impossibility in the then Australian colonies by around 1845-1850.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
What heresy?
too long to answer tonight...
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
Can't speak for anywhere else, but Canadian Anglicans, having laboured for over a century with the notion that they were somehow in someway still established, have pretty well given up on it. Indeed, I think that many Canadian Anglicans are not aware that Anglicanism was once established (sort of) in several provinces.
I think the only real vestige of it is for state funerals, where we are the default facility for non-RCs. Friends of mine in the country club circuit inform me that our former dominance is no longer remembered.
I cannot ever recall hearing anyone defend the idea for religious or missiological reasons. Perhaps other shipmates might have, as I move in louche and semi-artistic circles, and could contribute more.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What heresy?
Erastianism? [You could also argue that Article 37 is Romans 1 taken to an extreme].
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think you are over-simplifying and caricaturing things Steve Langton with the claim that the RCs and Orthodox think that the Bible isn't 'enough' ...
It's not that they don't think that the Bible is 'enough' but they don't think that the Bible stands 'alone'.
The Bible never has stood 'alone'. It emerged from within a tradition in order to serve the needs of that tradition and to help develop and propagate that tradition's particular faith position.
So what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever to anyone outside of a Protestant paradigm.
Even within a Protestant paradigm it would only make sense if there were a single set of interpretations that everyone agreed on.
The Bible is never 'alone.' It can't possibly be. We can't approach it outside of the context of whatever traditions have shaped and moulded us.
The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and doesn't exist in a vacuum.
But there's no point in pursuing that point as you clearly don't understand it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
I don't think that follows at all.
But I also think that present-day establishment is more or less irrelevant. It's a historical artifact. Or are you claiming that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are really that different?
1) I don't believe that it necessarily follows - but in asking "what heresy?" Gee D was rather suggesting it might. That is, that the Anglicans in Australia might regard it as a case of establishment being impractical at present but not actually unChristian and so perhaps still possible in future if the practicalities in their opinion changed.
2) I agree that the establishment is a shadow of its former self and increasingly ineffective at its supposed/claimed purpose. Unfortunately it still exists and that actually creates real present day problems - the Jesmond Parish Church situation being just one - which problems don't just affect the Anglicans themselves. Most seriously at the moment it confuses and compromises how Christianity looks to Islam, and our efforts to preach a better Christian alternative. And with Islam itself offering a non-Christian 'establishment', it also affects how Christianity looks to English people.
3) The trouble with the CofE/CiW thing is that the two bodies are still pretty intertwined - a recent ABC, Rowan Williams, was from the CiW - and I suspect you'd find most people aren't even much aware of the difference. Another confusion that helps nobody, basically.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But as a question, does that mean that the non-established Anglicans would basically believe in the possibility of being 'established' themselves if the opportunity arose?
I don't think that follows at all.
But I also think that present-day establishment is more or less irrelevant. It's a historical artifact. Or are you claiming that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are really that different?
Quick note: the CinW isn't established- indeed it was disestablishment in 1920 that caused us to erect a separate Province. That said, there are certain vestiges of establishment- the right of to be married in the parish church, a duty to maintain churchyards, and prisons in Wales have to have a CinW chaplain (they can have others too, but that's the one they have to have). But the CinW has if anything regained ground as a 'national' church, especially under the last Archbishop, who was a major civic figure.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It's not that they don't think that the Bible is 'enough' but they don't think that the Bible stands 'alone'.
I don't think Protestants see the Bible standing 'alone' in the very isolated from everything sense that you seem to be implying.
I've read enough Reformers and Puritans to be aware that they bring wide scholarship and knowledge to their interpretations. As per my Tyndale quote, they read the Bible in an 'ordinary' way which means very much not 'alone/in isolation'.
The 'alone' in 'Sola Scriptura' refers rather to the Bible's position of authority. It is the ONLY ultimate authority to which the Church and its traditions are emphatically subject. This is about the Word of God in opposition to the 'traditions of men' which may risk making the word 'void', obscuring and controverting its actual meaning by dubious claims to 'Tradition'.
To say
quote:
The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and doesn't exist in a vacuum.
is clearly right. The point is very much that it exists out here in the real world to be used and interpreted by real ordinary people. It very nearly was 'in a vaccuum' in a different sense during the medieval RCC which kept it from the people and left the people with little chance to 'test the spirits' of the RCC by checking it against what the Bible said. And that 'checking' by the people, and trusting the people to do that, in opposition to self-serving institutions claiming quasi-magical privileged interpretative competence, is the real meaning of 'Sola scriptura'. When I interpret, as I've said, it is always on the proviso "check it out for yourself". And of course the checking isn't done in a vacuum.
And to be blunt, the record of those institutions which have claimed any kind of special competence is a pretty bad record. Which, Gamaliel, you ought to understand but too often don't seem to.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
) I don't believe that it necessarily follows - but in asking "what heresy?" Gee D was rather suggesting it might. That is, that the Anglicans in Australia might regard it as a case of establishment being impractical at present but not actually unChristian and so perhaps still possible in future if the practicalities in their opinion changed.
I was suggesting nothing at all, "rather" or otherwise. You'd asserted a heresy and I was challenging you to say what that heresy was. You still have not.
Nor did I say anything which could lead you think that Anglican Australians consider that establishment is simply impractical at present but may be possible in the future. What I said and what I repeat is that they do not think at all about the establishment of Anglicanism in Australia either at the present time or some time in the future. Much the same in every other church in the Communion save the C of E.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suppose I deserved the riposte that I 'don't understand' something when I had earlier accused Steve Langton of a lack of understanding of another issue.
But please, Steve, don't presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. Of course I bloody well understand the poor track record of those historic Churches that have, historically allied themselves too closely to the state. I've never said otherwise.
Equally, I recognise that 'sola scriptura' differs from 'SOLO scriptura'.
At the risk of making assumptions, I'm not always convinced that you do.
However ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gee D
quote:
I was suggesting nothing at all, "rather" or otherwise. You'd asserted a heresy and I was challenging you to say what that heresy was. You still have not.
I first wanted clarification on your/your church's position on establishment. But OK, as another Shipmate has pointed out, the technical name for the CofE's heresy is 'Erastianism', combining church and state in such a way that at least originally the state governs the church - and as I understand it there are still areas where the state, though no longer the nominally Christian state originally assumed, is needed for the CofE to do some things.
From my viewpoint the CofE's position is just part of a wider heresy which goes back to the 4th Century CE, and which manifests in all kinds and degrees of combining church and state, from the totalitarian position going back to Theodosius through to more modern positions which seek at least a special privilege for Christianity in the state, as per Rev Holloway and the Christian Institute. The heresy consists in defying Jesus' statement that his kingdom is 'not of this world' and trying to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus.
One of the big reasons it's a heresy is that if you consider John 18 where Jesus describes that kingdom 'not of this world', it is pretty clear that if Jesus had instead said he did indeed intend any of these versions of a 'Christian state' Pilate would have had to find him guilty in Roman terms and would not have gone to all that effort to try and release Jesus. And a Jesus dying a deserved death in that way would at the very least considerably muddy the idea of his innocent/undeserved death for our sins.
There's more to it. But I'll await comment on that....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Equally, I recognise that 'sola scriptura' differs from 'SOLO scriptura'.
Trouble is, in terms of authority it pretty much is 'solo Scriptura' - there is no credible alternative on offer.
The only Christian institutions with any such claim are the Orthodox and the RCC - and they have pretty much self-discredited by the 'poor track record' of their alliance with the state which they're now largely backtracking from. And of course they themselves affirm the Bible as word of God....
And bluster about Jesus as the ultimate authority tends to neglect the simple fact that basically we know him through the Scriptures. Any other Jesus is basically making him up to suit what you want - the 'our Jesus' phenomenon I've previously referred to in 'Liberal' theologians.
Whether you use the language of 'Tradition' or 'paradigm', you're back to "They can't all be right" - so where do you go to judge between them?
We've had above the standard bluster about there being different interpretations of the Bible. True up to a point but there's still massive common ground - CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" with some differences in emphasis but little in substance.
The 'big' differences between the mainstream churches, at least until the 19th-20thC growth of the 'liberal theology' movement, are actually in a small area ultimately relating to the problems of the church and state isssue. Issues of Church and state as such, issues of church government, and the issue of credobaptism v paedobaptism. When we're dealing with the 'Mere Christianity' stuff we work together a lot even over those differences.
So how do we sort those differences - well, back to the Bible, basically. As I say, what other credible authority is there really for what Christianity is supposed to be? Not that we are 'confined to' the Bible - but that the Bible is the test of whether we're going in the right direction with things.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I was about to stop reading this thread as its repetition is becoming dead-horsey in my eyes, but I began to wonder if any ordinations carried out by episcopus vagans would be recognized by the CoE. It appears that the consecration itself was not by CESA/REACH-SA rules so the bishop is truly vagans, not part of any disciplining or supportive province or college of bishops, no diocese, and no responsibility.
This might put a deacon or priest made under this arrangement in an ambiguous situation should they seek to be hired by a CoE parish.
EV ordinations have generally _not_ been recognized in the CoE, although I recall reading of an instance between the wars where a conditional ordination was used to regularize a candidate. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the House of Bishops in 1982 took a position that no ordination by a separating church would be recognized.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I believe that Augustine is right regarding EV ordinations being generally not recognised. The whole subject is fascinating (if rather obscure, and, perhaps, nerdy!).
Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church by Fr. Henry R. T. Brandreth (first published in 1947 by SPCK) gives details of many of these chaps, and their conspicuous lack of success in being anything other than general nuisances to the Church as a whole. It will be interesting, in this context, to see how 'Bishop' Pryke's episcopal ministry develops.
IJ
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
I was suggesting nothing at all, "rather" or otherwise. You'd asserted a heresy and I was challenging you to say what that heresy was. You still have not.
I first wanted clarification on your/your church's position on establishment. But OK, as another Shipmate has pointed out, the technical name for the CofE's heresy is 'Erastianism', combining church and state in such a way that at least originally the state governs the church - and as I understand it there are still areas where the state, though no longer the nominally Christian state originally assumed, is needed for the CofE to do some things.
From my viewpoint the CofE's position is just part of a wider heresy which goes back to the 4th Century CE, and which manifests in all kinds and degrees of combining church and state, from the totalitarian position going back to Theodosius through to more modern positions which seek at least a special privilege for Christianity in the state, as per Rev Holloway and the Christian Institute. The heresy consists in defying Jesus' statement that his kingdom is 'not of this world' and trying to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus.
One of the big reasons it's a heresy is that if you consider John 18 where Jesus describes that kingdom 'not of this world', it is pretty clear that if Jesus had instead said he did indeed intend any of these versions of a 'Christian state' Pilate would have had to find him guilty in Roman terms and would not have gone to all that effort to try and release Jesus. And a Jesus dying a deserved death in that way would at the very least considerably muddy the idea of his innocent/undeserved death for our sins.
There's more to it. But I'll await comment on that....
I doubt that the present C of E is in fact Erastian, although there were occasions in the 17th and 18th centuries when it came very close, most notably after the Glorious Revolution.
Your interpretation of "my kingdom is not of this world" is, to put it mildly, idiosyncratic.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Idiosyncratic and, I would say, dualistic. On previous discussions Steve Langton has gone almost as far to suggest that Christians shouldn't get involved with local or community politics or serve in the police force.
To be fair, he conceded with a 'don't know' when I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate for me as a Christian to be involved in our town council.
But the fact that he even had to umm and ah about it shows the extent that this fixation of his has in his imagination.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Gamaliel: quote:
Idiosyncratic and, I would say, dualistic. On previous discussions Steve Langton has gone almost as far to suggest that Christians shouldn't get involved with local or community politics or serve in the police force.
As I understand it, this is the traditional position of Anabaptists. They have believed that secular politics is "of this world" and under the influence of Satan. So as Christians we should be concentrating on serving the Kingdom sacrificially, not getting involved in any kind of politics that wields power over others.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
... The whole subject is fascinating (if rather obscure, and, perhaps, nerdy!). ...
Agreed as regards all three adjectives. The only thing wrong with that sentence is that the word 'perhaps' should have been omitted
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Gamaliel: quote:
Idiosyncratic and, I would say, dualistic. On previous discussions Steve Langton has gone almost as far to suggest that Christians shouldn't get involved with local or community politics or serve in the police force.
As I understand it, this is the traditional position of Anabaptists. They have believed that secular politics is "of this world" and under the influence of Satan. So as Christians we should be concentrating on serving the Kingdom sacrificially, not getting involved in any kind of politics that wields power over others.
Well yes, but as a town councillor I'm hardly wielding power over others ...
I don't get paid for it and whilst I'm not whipping out my violin, it can be 'sacrificial' having to sit through purgatorial committee meetings or deal with people's problems ... which is what we are supposed to be there to do.
That's the whole 'dualistic' aspect of the (extreme) Anabaptist position that gets my goat.
It can lead to isolation and also to a pietistic holier-than-thou attitude which is singularly unattractive.
Of course, not all Anabaptists are like that and I have a lot of time for the principles behind the whole thing ... if not for the way it has tended to be worked out in practice.
But then, the same applies to all other Christian traditions of course.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems to me that the non-cooperation with earthly powers thing makes a lot of sense in certain circumstances.
But is a miserable failure in many others - if you don't like war or the decisions that a government is making, then the solution in a democracy is to vote them out and to make a stand against them. Refusing to co-operate is counter-productive in the kinds of situation where pacifist and pro-peace voices are rarely heard and where the loudest voices are those promoting violence.
To sit down and shut up whilst one sits on your hands in many situations is tantamount to allowing them to do it without any visible opposition.
Of course it is complicated and of course these are difficult times and difficult choices. But simply using an old principle developed in particular circumstances to refrain from political activities in all times and in all places seems pretty stupid.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I have previously said that in some respects I'm still working out the details of Christian involvement with the state, particularly in a modern democratic situation. It remains however emphatically the case that the state should not be formally Christian or the Church in an established or otherwise privileged position in the state.
One of the problems from the 4thC onwards has been that instead of a straightforward Church/World dichotomy we have had a three-way situation with Christians having to deal with 'the World' both in Christian and non-Christian states, and also with a nominal Christianity in some states which is involved with the world in the wrong way altogether, and even in the modern world is often unhelpfully trying to hang on to the rags of former questionable power and influence. This putting it mildly 'muddies the waters' for the attempt to being God's message to the world, especially in a non-Christian land which happens to see your 'Christian' state as 'the enemy'.
My current position is that I believe Christians need to be careful in their worldly involvements until this is sorted out, and also that where this is really clear Christians can be quite considerably 'in the world' - but not to be what Peter called 'allotriepiskopoi', roughly translated as 'bossy-boots in other people's affairs'.
I do in fact still vote, though increasingly disillusioned about how much use it is. And the point, mr cheesy, is very much not to 'sit on one's hands' but to be making other useful contributions to the world.
'Holier than thou'? We are as Christians meant to be holier than those around; but not in a 'superior' attitude. People who make that accusation need to be careful that it's not just an excuse to avoid being holy themselves. And it's worth saying that realistically, the claim to an established or privileged position for the church in the state is a rather spectacular claim to be 'holier than thou' - especially when that privileged position leads to Inquisitions, holy wars and other persecutions....
Early Anabaptists were quite involved in affairs - much of the later isolation of Mennonites and Amish was precisely because they were persecuted by the worldly churches.
My interpretation of Jesus' "kingdom not of this world" is based on the realities of the situation where he first said it. It is only 'idiosyncratic' in the sense that later people running state churches have had to ignore those realities and come up with vaguer and more 'airy fairy' interpretations which blunt the effect of Jesus' words. But Why else do you think Pilate - of all people - went to so much trouble to try and release Jesus? A Messiah who wanted to set up a 'this world' kingdom for his religion was exactly what Pilate was supposed to prevent....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Steve, I've a lot of sympathy with your suspicion of the dread embrace of the church of God by worldly powers that be. I also have zilch belief in the notion that setting up a godly state has anything to do with building the kingdom. I think that has always been, and remains a tempting delusion. If that had been what the kingdom was about, that is what Jesus would have done. Either he would have seized power without going to the cross, or would have done so immediately after the Resurrection in stead of ascending to heaven, as a righteous king, who would never die and would be alive today ruling the world from Jerusalem.
He didn't. Therefore we have to accept that embracing earthly powers is not the way to incarnate the kingdom of heaven.
However pure it might be, your Anabaptist 'don't touch them with a barge pole' approach is not the only answer to the dilemma of how to relate to earthly polities.
Has it occurred to you that what is not good for the church, may be better for the state than the alternative? That the price may be either a valid bargain or even be unavoidable? Have you considered what some of the alternatives are?
Until very recently, the choices have never been between an established church and a wholly secular state. The choices have been between a state that has chosen to link itself with some sort of Christianity, and one that has linked itself with some other religion, civic heathenism like Imperial Rome, Islam like Ottoman Turkey and almost all the Middle East now, the aggressively Hindu BJP Party in India, or militantly persecuting atheism as in post 1917 Russia.
Given that choice, has it occurred to you that having an established form of Christianity, for all that it can be bad for the church, might be less bad than the alternatives? And wouldn't you prefer to live in a state that aspired to respect some sort of Christian ethic, rather than one that had no such aspiration? And has it occurred to you what the implications of an official apostasy might be?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Enoch;
quote:
However pure it might be, your Anabaptist 'don't touch them with a barge pole' approach is not the only answer to the dilemma of how to relate to earthly polities.
Actually there is no "'MY' Anabaptist 'don't touch them with a barge pole' approach". There are some on the Ship who persistently try to paint me as the worst kind of backwoods Amish separatist or UK-style 'Exclusive Brethren' type, and I'm not that at all. And as for 'purity' that's definitely Gamaliel's hang-up, not mine....
I'm so 'pure' and 'exclusive' that I attend a Methodist Church based railway club, regularly help out at an Anglican Church's annual 'Railway Extravaganza', and only a few nights ago was involved with my Baptist Church in a joint effort for "Thy Kingdom Come" with a local Anglican Church.
I'm much with the way Mennonites have done the UK - not establishing lots of formally Mennonite Churches, but working with many similarly minded churches and organisations and running a centre formerly in London but now based in Birmingham which makes key Mennonite/Anabaptist ideas avauilable. It is implicit in that style of mission to be recognising fellow-Christians in other denominations, and also to be willing to look at various Anabaptist traditions and lifestyles developed in the past and consider their continuing usefulness. Anabaptists have never exactly been a bunch of clones anyway....
Democracy is a recent thing - though owes quite a bit to non-conformist UK/US groups; and Anabaptists are to some extent still trying to work out the limits of how to properly involved. But the really basic ideas of no formal church-state involvement, and pacifism, are not likely to be changed. And I think we see 'influence' in a different way to Anglicans. I've just had a set of questions from an Anglican in the Midlands and I'm struggling to answer because it's making so many assumptions I wouldn't. I'm kind of having to ask him a different set of questions back in order to get my point across.
Will our 'influence' as this guy sees it confuse things like what the Church is, what being a Christian is? I'm increasingly worried by the fact that most people I hear these days talking about "Christian Britain" are right-wing racists opposing Islam and immigrants and refugees - and yet almost uninvolved in actual church life and fellowships apart from the proverbial 'baptisms weddings and funerals'.
I made the point somewhere a few threads ago that it is possible to discuss the basics of Church/State separation without going "the whole Anabaptist hog" and getting into every detail of every extreme thing any Anabaptist has ever done or believed. I hope on this thread we can do that and I'm rather annoyed that Gamaliel and mr cheesy raised such issues in their recent posts.
It's an important idea in Anabaptism that as 'resident aliens' we follow the idea of Isaiah's prophecy to the exiled Israelites that they seek the good of the nation they've been deported to and make lives as involved as possible with the society, while still putting loyalty to God first.
I see the temptation to join with the state to do good things; but in the long run I think it is better to keep church and gospel unconfused and to see the biggest good in terms of faithfulness to God, without which the worldly good is not worth so much anyway. I'll come back to this; for now, how do you react to what I've just said??
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Going back to a couple of contributions on the previous page directly about the wandering bishop thing;
I don't believe Rev Holloway will succeed in his project. I've tried to draw attention to the part that seems to be played by his ideas of a privileged Church in the state, and I think that will also be his downfall.
Obviously the current tactics are very much against the odds, unlikely to succeed in ordinary terms. I think he expects to beat the odds because his biblical faithfulness will guarantee divine support and ultimate success even if perhaps initially via a semi-martyrdom. And the trouble is, his idea about the privileged church is biblically unfaithful. And the further trouble, as I read the 'signs of the times', is that this is the era in which God has finally run out of patience with those who keep defying his word in that particular way. In the past a generous God could tolerate it for the sake of other gains; but now the sums no longer add up.
Holloway's plan is to save the CofE, in effect - but realistically the CofE is already doomed. If it doesn't seek voluntary disestablishment before the accession of Charles III, I can't see it lasting long as an established church. It will either be involuntarily disestablished anyway or become so vague and wishy washy as to be risible.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You can be as annoyed as you bloody well like, Steve Langton but I stand by what I posted.
On the poor old, dear old CofE, though, I do think their position is unsustainable in the longer term. In some ways there's a lot more synergy between thee and me than you think.
But that's basically far as it goes.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can be as annoyed as you bloody well like, Steve Langton but I stand by what I posted.
My annoyance on this occasion is specifically about the way you and mr cheesy appeared to bring in a wider view of/opinions about Anabaptism to a discussion where they aren't really relevant. The case that there should not be 'established' Christian Churches or the lesser idea of a 'Christian country' can be made, as I said, without necessarily 'going the whole Anabaptist hog' and it's not necessary to discussion of the Jesmond situation. We can stop a long way short of a full Mennonite position, let alone that of the Amish or Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren, and still have a serious biblical as well as rationalist critique of what's happening in Newcastle.
Coming back briefly to the 'holier than thou' business. It is commonplace today to compare some aspects of the Anabaptists to the monastic movement and to some of the lay spiritual movements in Medieval Catholicism - simply an aspiration to live a more Christian life than a surrounding world which even when calling itself Christian visibly fell way short. Many Anabaptists would admire St Francis for the simplicity of his original intentions, or the Benedictine movement. And of course monasticism/friarism (is that a word?) could be subject to the temptation of the wrong kind of spiritual pride - but the aspiration wasn't all bad. At least one modern non-RCC 'monastic' movement is associated with the Anabaptist Network.
As I said, there's a need to be careful that raising the 'holier than thou' thing isn't just a way to avoid the challenge of being oneself holy.
And for a really bad case of 'holier than thou', try Mary Whitehouse....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I don't disagree with any of that, Steve Langton and my attitude towards both Anabaptists and monastics is that I'm glad they're around.
I don't know if you saw that BBC documentary about Franciscan friars in Bradford over Easter? I was impressed with those fellas.
I don't want to get into the 'Christian nation' thing again here - we've done that one to death and I'm surprised it's not a Dead Horse by now ...
But I would say that there is a subtle difference between societies which might, by dint of critical-mass, consider themselves predominantly Christian and those where this is then enshrined in law with penalties or privileges involved ...
After all, what is a Hutterite community or a monastery, for that matter, if it isn't an attempt to set up an exclusively Christian community?
But that's another issue ...
On the holier than thou thing, one might suggest that you're entering into value judgements yourself as to who is or isn't living as holy a life as you think they should ...
One doesn't have to be like Mary Whitehouse to be holier than thou ...
Just as one doesn't have to be a full-on Anabaptist to entertain reservations about church-state 'establishment' links.
Again, hopefully without going over old ground, I may remind you that self-righteousness was identified by the very eirenic Puritan, Richard Baxter, as the besetting sin, if you like, of Anabaptism.
He identified other besetting sins for all the other churches and groups around in his day ... the RCs and the 'Greeks' as well as the various Protestant bodies.
Obviously, he didn't mention his own moderate form of presbyterianism as worthy of censure ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But the point isn't that any Christian tradition is free of its down-sides and propensities to topple over into error or extremism in some way - but that we live in a fallen world and as a human as a well as divine 'institution' the Christian Church is bound to fall short of the ideal - not that this is an excuse for complacency.
I'd certainly agree with you that there's an odd kind of 'Britain ought to be a Christian nation of the same stripe as our church ...' thing going on up at Jesmond.
But there are other factors and issues at work there too which make the whole thing problematic.
Such as expecting the wide Church/denomination it belongs to to dance to its particular tune just because they think it should.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry to double-post, but has anyone else noticed how often Steve Langton cites Mary Whitehouse?
As though she is some kind of paradigmatic example of the busy-bodiness that betokens 'state religion' ...
As if Mary Whitehouse too is a product of Constantinianism or Theodosianism ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
But what the heck ...
Yes, I think Mary Whitehouse did act in a holier than thou and less than helpful manner ...
But she isn't the first person to have done so, nor will she be the last ...
Get over her already. Move on, there's nothing to see ...
Tangent over. As you were ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'd certainly agree with you that there's an odd kind of 'Britain ought to be a Christian nation of the same stripe as our church ...' thing going on up at Jesmond. But there are other factors and issues at work there too which make the whole thing problematic. Such as expecting the wide Church/denomination it belongs to to dance to its particular tune just because they think it should.
It's not all that odd, it's actually just that Holloway takes the Church of England and its place in the state seriously and expects it to live up to its traditional teachings rather than living down to the morass of contradictions it currently represents. And that's rather the problem - he is expecting the CofE to dance to its own tune, not his....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There is an inherent contradiction in your position, Steve Langton, a blind spot.
I can see what you are getting at but you seem to have a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't approach to the CofE' which you don't apply to your own tradition.
If a Mary Whitehouse or a Jesmond parish act in a controlling or busy-body kind of way you blame the system rather than the individuals.
If an Anabaptist or some kind of independent Christian does so then it's clearly not systemic but an aberration and something to do with the individuals rather than their own context or system.
Also, it seems to me, that whilst Jesmond's approach to the CofE may still be stuck in the 17th or 18th centuries to some extent, so is yours.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not carrying a candle for the CofE necessarily, simply pointing out that the tune it's now playing is rather different to the one it played back then.
Of course, establishment is fraught with difficulties but it's just part of the problem here.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
If a Mary Whitehouse or a Jesmond parish act in a controlling or busy-body kind of way you blame the system rather than the individuals. If an Anabaptist or some kind of independent Christian does so then it's clearly not systemic but an aberration and something to do with the individuals rather than their own context or system.
Not sure you're comparing like with like here. Look, any association like for example the FA does have coherent rules that the members are supposed to work to. That also applies to Churches of all kinds. So churches like other associations will be somewhat 'controlling' of their own members; and yes, being human means that sometimes that will be over-controlling/busy-body.
But 'establishment' pretty much implies that idea of 'allotriepiscopacy', controlling outside the church as well. And that part of their system needs to be challenged and is biblically simply wrong. It's not just a 'being human' aberration in a basically good system, it is a bad system which then aggravates the 'being human' into an even wider problem than it should be.
also by G;
quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not carrying a candle for the CofE necessarily, simply pointing out that the tune it's now playing is rather different to the one it played back then.
Not disagreeing. But that's like what the problem is for Holloway - it's as if the 'Vegetarian Society' has gone so far from its principles that it now holds meat-eating banquets, and seems unaware of the contradiction. And your comment
quote:
Such as expecting the wide Church/denomination it belongs to to dance to its particular tune just because they think it should.
pretty much translates as you being surprised that there are people who think the Vegetarian Society ought to live up to its name. As in, it's not just "because they think it should", they're actually asking the Society to dance to the tune it's supposed to dance to. Pretty much the same with Jesmond.
Of course the Christian faith isn't quite as 'single issue'/uncomplicated as vegetarianism. And the problem is that Jesmond/Holloway are calling for BOTH a return to basic biblical Christianity AND at the same time to continue the unbiblical policy of a privileged place for Christianity in the state. Precisely because he is calling for the CofE to live up to its principles, what he's doing suffers from the same conflicted position as the wider Anglican church.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
pretty much translates as you being surprised that there are people who think the Vegetarian Society ought to live up to its name. As in, it's not just "because they think it should", they're actually asking the Society to dance to the tune it's supposed to dance to. Pretty much the same with Jesmond.
On the assumption you picked that analogy out of somewhere that analogies don't usually emerge from, I looked up the Vegetarian Society's aims on their website.
And while their aim is that everyone becomes a vegetarian, there isn't a hint of denouncing meat-eaters as heretics, demanding that occasional meat-eaters are expelled from the organisation or creating a de facto 'shadow Vegetarian Society' from the inside, duplicating the functions and offices of the original.
In fact, the Vegetarian Society's mission statement reminds me a lot of the current CofE: seeking to explain, educate and persuade, rather than rendering apostates into mulch.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Delighted to hear that the Vegetarian Society is tolerant and non-coercive; but I still think they'd face considerable problems with their veggie members if they went in for
quote:
hold(ing) meat-eating banquets, and seem(ing) unaware of the contradiction.
And whatever it may look like to the typical woffly modern Anglican, if people are taking the Bible seriously a lot of the current Anglican Church could look rather like that....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Delighted to hear that the Vegetarian Society is tolerant and non-coercive; but I still think they'd face considerable problems with their veggie members if they went in for
quote:
hold(ing) meat-eating banquets, and seem(ing) unaware of the contradiction.
And whatever it may look like to the typical woffly modern Anglican, if people are taking the Bible seriously a lot of the current Anglican Church could look rather like that....
The problem with crap analogies and using them to talk about the Thing, rather than just talking about the Thing, is that you end up tying yourself in knots.
Every Anglican church I've ever been to, and trust me, it's a lot, have always preached Christ. All you're doing is the 'taking the Bible seriously = what I believe' sum. Bluntly put, I don't believe you're an authority in what the Bible means.
So let's get back to talking about the Thing. That'd be great.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Every Anglican church I've ever been to, and trust me, it's a lot, have always preached Christ.
Yebbut - which Christ? My info is that at least some are preaching a Christ 'mistaken' in comments he made relevant to a DH subject; and to say that, they're either denying Jesus' divinity, or producing a theory of the Incarnation which pretty much makes Jesus fallible despite being God Incarnate. And of course their claim that Jesus was 'mistaken' boils down to a further claim that they know better than Jesus what he should have taught.... Can that really be 'preaching Christ' - or is it rather superficially taking Jesus' name to actually preach their own ideas against him?
And it has some problems for evangelism too. Those taking such a view are so busy being happy that they've found a way round Jesus to 'win' the DH argument, they don't realise that a religion whose leader is that unreliable, and whose God couldn't incarnate himself as a reliable teacher, is pretty much in the category of "Who in their right mind would put faith in that God/Jesus anyway?"
also by Doc Tor;
quote:
All you're doing is the 'taking the Bible seriously = what I believe' sum. Bluntly put, I don't believe you're an authority in what the Bible means.
I don't believe I'm that much of an authority in myself. The Bible is the authority. I expect people to check out my interpretations for themselves. That's how the Reformation worked - not because Martin Luther was "an authority" but because when people read the Bible for themselves they could see the RCC was wrong in all kinds of ways.
And as regards the 'Thing' here, clearly it's a major part of this 'Thing' that Jesmond/Holloway believes a particular view of Church and State. So here's an opportunity for you to try out using the Bible as an authority. Go to the Christian Institute website, check out the sections on how Christianity ought to be privileged in the state, and see whether you agree with Holloway that that position is 'biblical'. NOT because I or any other 'authority' tells you what the Bible says, but checking it out for yourself.
Of course if you find the Holloway version unbiblical you'll pretty much have to conclude that the CofE's own version of that idea is also unbiblical from square one in Tudor times right down to now....
PS - I'm not sure - though I strongly suspect - that the CI interpretation is Holloway's work; but even if not his own work, it's fairly clear he agrees with it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You're simply taking several hundred words to say what I've already said in a few, and believing that proves your point.
If they don't preach 'your' Christ, they're not preaching Christ. If they don't believe your interpretation of the Bible, they don't believe the Bible.
And if Holloway/Jesmond/Christian Institute don't agree with the Anabaptist position on church/state affairs, they're not being Biblical. Trust me, Holloway is very strong on the 'plain meaning of scripture', a phrase he's inordinately fond of repeating. He disagrees with you on what that is, and you're as guilty as he is on the 'every man a pope' charge.
It leaves the pair of you proof-texting your way to a stalemate. And at some point, the pair of you will need to acknowledge that the Bible has always been interpreted in a collegiate setting, whether that was formally or informally. And hopefully under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Steve, I've met this dialectic before, and I didn't regard it as valid then. Even if you are able to persuade me that the Xs or the Ys are wrong, it is neither rational nor persuasive then to say, 'I've persuaded you that X or Y is wrong. Therefore it follows that what I'm telling you must be right'.
However many people may try that one, in whatever context, it's still a non sequitur.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Steve, if you nust push your analogy, Holloway et al. are more like a militant vegan wing within the vegetarian society declaring ovo-lacto-vegetarianism to be contrary to the principle of avoiding animal cruelty, and therefore ovo-lacto-vegetarians not to be vegetarians at all and forming their own committee and officials in place of the compromising egg and cheese munchers.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I have checked your interpretation of the bible, Steve. It is bollocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A better analogy might be the debate that's going on within CAMRA (Campaign for More Real Ale) as to whether 'craft beers' should be given consideration alongside traditional cask ales - or whether CAMRA should also look at traditional ciders and perry alongside ale ...
Steve Langton seems to think that because 'this Church of England by law established' was established in the 1550s it somehow has to remain shackled to the very different conditions and principles that operated back then ...
So Anglicans are damned if they adhere to the 39 Articles and some kind of Erastian understanding of the links between church and state - and damned if they don't ...
The only way they can 'win' in Steve's view is by not being Anglicans and being Anabaptists instead.
Because, as any fool knows, the Anabaptists are the most biblical people around on the planet ...
Posted by Envo (# 18797) on
:
Apologies for coming late to this thread, but, as an occasional worshipper at JPC, permit me to clarify certain matters discussed in various postings earlier.
1. I have before me last Sunday's Order of Service at JPC, which includes the phrase "We believe in one holy catholic {Note - lower case initial letter} and apostolic Church."
2. Last time I took Communion there, not so long ago, I was given a piece of what looked like common or garden sliced, white bread.
3. ~£4 million assets - a look at the accounts of the Jesmond Trust on the Charity Commisioners website shows that almost all of this amount is categorised as 'Tangible Fixed Assets' (i.e. Plant, Equipment, Land and Buildings) and is thus presumably not available for day-to-day spending.
4. The accounts of the JPC PCC (Note 4) contain an item under 'Expenditure: Staff - Diocesan Contribution' of about £76K. Presumably this is the 'statutory' required contribution to higher authority?
I also note that the AMiE website has updated its refernce to Jonathan Pryke from 'Revd' to 'Rt Revd'.
I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of the above (scriptural, fiscal or otherwise), but merely seek to clear the air on these matters.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Welcome aboard, Envo, and thanks for the points raised.
Re your point 4, I think this might refer to the stipends of the clergy, which have to be met, rather than the Parish Share or Quota, which is voluntary (at least, it is in this southern Diocese).
Perhaps someone else in the Newcastle Diocese could clarify, as these things do vary from place to place.
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The monies paid to the diocese represent the stipends for the three CofE clergy - David Holloway, Jonathan Pryke and Jonathan Redfern - plus 10%. That's all Jesmond have paid to the diocese since they declared 'impaired communion' with the bishop in, I think, 1997. So 20 years.
Also, the first I knew of the Jesmond Statement (as it was called) was on the radio. It wasn't discussed in church, or in home groups, and the PCC had rubber-stamped a resolution giving Holloway carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. So they didn't know either.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It appears that the pro-apartheid schismatic group formerly known as the Church of England in South Africa has taken it upon itself to consecrate a hardline conservative evangelical bishop in ++Sentamu Ebor's province of York. While not a GAFCON project it is clear that this is a consequence of Canterbury's appeasement of schismatics in North America, and that you can never be homophobic or sexist enough to satisfy this faction in the church.
Behold the man. what a boring old man - no eye contact and unable to speak clearly into a microphone - I don't think normal Anglicans have much to fear from him. He also mistranslates the 1 Cor passage.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
That's Martin Morrison, not Jonathan Pryke.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's Martin Morrison, not Jonathan Pryke.
What? They've got 2 bishops?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
No, Martin Morrison is a bishop in the SA schismatic church.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
That's how the Reformation worked - not because Martin Luther was "an authority" but because when people read the Bible for themselves they could see the RCC was wrong in all kinds of ways.
Oh come on! That is a primary school level understanding of the Reformation. Granted, it is what many hard line Christians claim the Reformation was, but just like their reading of scripture, they will happily espouse the 'authority' of some aspects to the ignorance of others. To ignore the social and political aspects of the Reformation is ridiculous and the religious aspects do not solely sit where you suggest either. You're completely ignoring the understanding of where power rests in the church, individualism vs community, materialism vs sobriety etc etc etc. Reducing the Reformation to the authority of scripture is frankly a lie.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0