Thread: The New Bishop of London 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=020402

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
...has just been announced:
Downing Street announcement.

I think that this is quite a surprise to many, including the bookies. It will be interesting to see how things work out with the various factions in the diocese.

It is certainly interesting that a bishop who refrained from ordaining anyone to the priesthood so that he did not ordain any woman to that office has been replaced by a female bishop.

Would shipmates like to offer some speculation as to how things might evolve as Bishop Sarah takes up the reins?
 
Posted by Son of a preacherman (# 4181) on :
 
Press conference coverage promised shortly on the BBC2 Victoria Derbyshire show...
 
Posted by Son of a preacherman (# 4181) on :
 
Sadly that seems to have gone the same way as Mo Farah on SPOTY [Frown]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Son of a preacherman:
Sadly that seems to have gone the same way as Mo Farah on SPOTY [Frown]

[Confused] I don’t understand a word of this sentence.

But I’m thrilled for Bishop Sarah [Big Grin]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I heard her speak to a gathering of chaplains and found her excellent; deep, sharp and human. I think she is comfortable in the tricky blend of worlds where faith and government meet, which has got to be good for a bishop of London.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
Here is +Sarah's own statement.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wow. Just wow.

Good for her - but she'll need a lot of prayer and support. From all 'factions'.

[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I see pete173 has given her a warm welcome. I found her personal statement very encouraging.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I've never heard of her - but it sounds as if it is a bold and excellent decision.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Probably because she has been actually working hard at her job(s) .
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
Her statement has a good paragraph acknowledging the different traditions in the diocese, and expressing her intention of working constructively with all.

I find it interesting that she recognises the church planting not only by Holy Trinity, Brompton (charismatic evangelical) but also St Helen's, Bishopsgate (the 'mother church' of the conservative evangelicals).

The charismatics will have no problem with her appointment. They may have been uncertain a few years back, but now they are generally promoting it.

How the conevos will react is more interesting. Last week, the vicar of St Helen's gave a
'warning' that they might leave the CofE if the next bishop of London was not "orthodox on sex". Given that the other main shibboleth of the conevos is "no women in spiritual authority over men", I'm intrigued to see what their reaction will be.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We've heard similar statements about respecting different traditions from evangelicals in the past. The reality of some of them have figured in threads on this site about places such as St Sepulchre-without-Newgate, St Thomas Heigham, etc. so we wait and see.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
I just heard a news report on how encouraging it was to see a woman appointed to one of the top three roles in the Church for the first time.

I imagine HM the Q might have a view on that!
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I saw the news, and I know that she would not have been appointed if she was not up to a really challenging job (whoever it is, whatever gender).

Yes, it is great that a woman has been appointed to this role. As always, it is tragic that this is news.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Where does she stand on matters LGBTI+?
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Loved her statement

sabine
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Where does she stand on matters LGBTI+?

From The Guardian:

Mullally is viewed as supportive of LGBT equality. The new bishop said London was a very diverse city and that she hoped everyone could find a spiritual home. She did, however, endorse current C of E teaching that marriage was a union between a man and woman, saying: “I absolutely support that.”

Pick the bones out of that. Probably not inclusive enough for some. I wonder if St Helen's Bishopsgate are going to give back the keys to our building.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Where does she stand on matters LGBTI+?

From The Guardian:

Mullally is viewed as supportive of LGBT equality. The new bishop said London was a very diverse city and that she hoped everyone could find a spiritual home. She did, however, endorse current C of E teaching that marriage was a union between a man and woman, saying: “I absolutely support that.”

Pick the bones out of that. Probably not inclusive enough for some. I wonder if St Helen's Bishopsgate are going to give back the keys to our building.

Not an Anglican these days but still concerned to see the Kingdom built through the faith and example of my Anglican brothers and sisters. As an outside a few thoughts come to mind.

Notice the use of the word "current" in this context.

The big question for many in London will reflect when/if "current" policy changes, will her views change with it? In other words, are her views on marriage fixed or open to change?

If it's the latter (the cynic might suggest it's possible given the use of "current," her views on inclusivity and not being part of the evangelical stable), I'd say look out, watch this space. Jayne Ozanne, who is committed to fighting for inclusion at all levels, welcomes the appointment which would suggest that she (Jayne) sees the possibility at least - and perhaps even the certainty - of significant change under Sarah Mullaley's tenure.

Not quite, then, the appointment some may claim it to be and possibly even a Trojan horse for the Diocese. I get the impression that Sarah is rather more liberal and possibly more committed to following a broader part line from Synod, than we suspect or are being told.

It might help too if, for once, we had a church leader from somewhere other than a upper class Oxbridge or middle class background. At least one who spends rather more time in state schools than they do in public schools.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

It might help too if, for once, we had a church leader from somewhere other than a upper class Oxbridge or middle class background. At least one who spends rather more time in state schools than they do in public schools.

Winston Churchill Comprehensive School, Woking Sixth Form College, and South Bank Polytechnic. That all sounds very state school to me. She's been a nurse most of her life, which tends to expose one to the great variety of humankind at its most vulnerable.

A competent person, by what I can discover.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

It might help too if, for once, we had a church leader from somewhere other than a upper class Oxbridge or middle class background. At least one who spends rather more time in state schools than they do in public schools.

Winston Churchill Comprehensive School, Woking Sixth Form College, and South Bank Polytechnic. That all sounds very state school to me. She's been a nurse most of her life, which tends to expose one to the great variety of humankind at its most vulnerable.

A competent person, by what I can discover.

Not forgetting the South East Institute of Theological Education, which is very definitely not a Bishop Factory. (Full disclosure, I was there about the same time as +Sarah). And if you are the sort of person who wants to be dubbed by her Majesty then politics and the civil service are better paths to preferment than nursing.

Either she's extraordinarily competent, or she has a dossier of extremely incriminating material about the Crown Appointments Commission stashed away somewhere. I can't claim to have known her well, but I suspect the former is more likely.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Heard her being interviewed by Mishal Hussain on Today this morning. When MH asked her specifically about St Helen's Bishopsgate and their threat to leave etc, etc, she floundered, ending up with a non-sequitur about diversity in Hackney.

Someone needs to give +Jane some urgent training in traditional CofE flanelling.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
An interesting fact was lurking in the Christian Today article about St Helen's, Bishopsgate, which I linked to above: the associate rector of St H's, Charles Skrine, was on the Crown Nominations Commission for the appointment (probably one of the diocesan representatives). Oh, to have been a fly on the wall...

When I read the report originally, I thought it was a blast at the favourite for the appointment, Stephen Cotterell. Now, I'm wondering if it was a warning shot across the bows, knowing who was to be appointed.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I just heard a news report on how encouraging it was to see a woman appointed to one of the top three roles in the Church for the first time.

I imagine HM the Q might have a view on that!

Yes, I believe she is #2, below God.

So if +London is #3 that puts ++Canterbury and ++York in their place. [Two face]

Or bad reportage. Seems likely.

I love the footwashing bit early in the bishop's statement. [Smile]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I just heard a news report on how encouraging it was to see a woman appointed to one of the top three roles in the Church for the first time.

I imagine HM the Q might have a view on that!

Nice one! I hadn't thought of that! [Smile]
I think it was a pity that she would not give a direct answer to Michelle Hussein's question on Today this morning who asked the new Bishop if homosexuality is a sin. She responded with waffle.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Mishal Husain actually asked
quote:
Do you think homosexual relationships are sinful?
It's true that Sarah Mullally avoided answering the question, and took refuge in reasserting that there is currently an ongoing process of reflection. I might have preferred her simply to say "I'm not going to answer that now because I'm engaged in a process…" etc. etc.

[ 19. December 2017, 10:57: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Heard her being interviewed by Mishal Hussain on Today this morning. When MH asked her specifically about St Helen's Bishopsgate and their threat to leave etc, etc, she floundered, ending up with a non-sequitur about diversity in Hackney.

Someone needs to give +Jane some urgent training in traditional CofE flanelling.

Blimey, I thought only the Pope got to change their name, when appointed.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I just heard a news report on how encouraging it was to see a woman appointed to one of the top three roles in the Church for the first time.

I imagine HM the Q might have a view on that!

Grammatically,depending on how the original statement was phrased, it just might be possible to defend it. HMQ was not 'appointed' to her role.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I had that thought too, but I suppose she thinks she was "appointed" by God [Angel]

I certainly tend to think that accounts for her taking her role very seriously.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
BroJames

Thank you - I should have checked the wording. I agree with what you think might have been a better choice of words.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

It might help too if, for once, we had a church leader from somewhere other than a upper class Oxbridge or middle class background. At least one who spends rather more time in state schools than they do in public schools.

Winston Churchill Comprehensive School, Woking Sixth Form College, and South Bank Polytechnic. That all sounds very state school to me. She's been a nurse most of her life, which tends to expose one to the great variety of humankind at its most vulnerable.

A competent person, by what I can discover.

Yep she trained as a Nurse but went into management. Most of the hands on nurses I know see that kind of position as a desire to get away from the patients.

The Oxbridge comment wasn't addressed at her per se but I can see that it wasn't worded well. Apologies. My general thought still stands though - most of our Bishops male and female come from one narrow social class or grouping. A Farm Labourer on the Bishops' bench anyone?

As to whether or how well she will be accepted in London her vacillation on Radio 4 this morning on the LGBT question will have done her no good at all. One wonders how she answered that question at interview - perhaps we should be told. If she wasn't asked it then the process is not robust.

[ 19. December 2017, 13:14: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Dear me. Not yet installed, but already weighed in the balances, and found wanting.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Yep she trained as a Nurse but went into management. Most of the hands on nurses I know see that kind of position as a desire to get away from the patients.
It's a paradox that if someone is good in a hands on position the obvious reward is a management role. So quite often you encounter people who used to be really good at their jobs who are now filling roles to which they are not really suited. Or you get people who are really good at their jobs and then don't get promoted because they are not management material and then spend much of their working life seething with resentment. This is, apparently, one of the drivers of white collar crime. And it is an article of faith among those who have not the aptitude or desire to take on a management role that the bosses are useless and all the real work is done by the grunts at the coal face. I've seen this in accountancy, law enforcement and among the parochial clergy and have no doubt it exists in other sectors as well.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, there are certainly posters on this thread (and other threads) who clearly believe that the C of E hierarchy is unfit to manage anything.

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Dear me. Not yet installed, but already weighed in the balances, and found wanting.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ

Not true. Comments and reflections are based on experience of the individual in present/past roles. Such experience can be a good guide for future expectations
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I had that thought too, but I suppose she thinks she was "appointed" by God [Angel]

I certainly tend to think that accounts for her taking her role very seriously.

Don't have knowledge of her, aside from the links - is she on the evangelical end? which I get from the "commitment to follow.... as a teenager".

(I was not serious enough to commit to much as a teen, except to try to survive being a teen.)
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I had that thought too, but I suppose she thinks she was "appointed" by God [Angel]

I certainly tend to think that accounts for her taking her role very seriously.

Don't have knowledge of her, aside from the links - is she on the evangelical end? which I get from the "commitment to follow.... as a teenager".

(I was not serious enough to commit to much as a teen, except to try to survive being a teen.)

I assume np you are enquiring about Sarah Mullally - though the post you are quoting is about Her Majesty the Queen!
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Good heavens BroJames - yes the bishop not the queen! (Goose ball that I am!)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I hope that both HM the Q and My Lady of London believe that they are in God's hands, at any rate!

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BTW, +Sarah served her curacy here, which may give those interested some idea of her churchmanship. Open evangelical/MOTR, perhaps?

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

I think it was a pity that she would not give a direct answer to Michelle Hussein's question on Today this morning who asked the new Bishop if homosexuality is a sin. She responded with waffle.

A pity maybe but certainly not unsurprising. Any self respecting Bishop who wants to hold on to their newly acquired mitre needs all the guile of a politician.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I would agree with that, were it not for the sheer cockupedness that politicians give us...

+Sarah will indeed need wisdom, and serpentian guile, along with a GSOH....

(What is it with St. H's, Bishopsgate? If the C of E really is pants filled with smelly poo, why don't they hand back the keys, and go where the underwear is pure?).

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Drat - some of us in this diocese were hoping to poach her for our vacancy.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Drat - some of us in this diocese were hoping to poach her for our vacancy.

Another Evangelical is on his way
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
>> cockupedness <<

Sigmund noticed you gave the Finger to those who would corner the Bishop. (so naughty!)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Bishops Finger
quote:
What is it with St. H's, Bishopsgate? If the C of E really is pants filled with smelly poo, why don't they hand back the keys, and go where the underwear is pure?
[Overused] [Killing me] [Overused]

Presumably something along the lines of the notorious "mormon chastity pants" we first heard of during the Joyce McKinney scandal???
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'm glad somebody else remembers those- I usually get blank looks when I refer to them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps that's what was indeed at the back of my mind when I posted, God help me.....

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Just read the transcript of the Radio 4 interview. Oh dear.

She must have known the question was coming: why such fudge and hesitation in response?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Do you have a link?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Just read the transcript of the Radio 4 interview. Oh dear.

She must have known the question was coming: why such fudge and hesitation in response?

Perhaps she fudged her answer because she doesn't suffer from the unequivocal certainty either way that benights so many others who have such an itch to pronounce on the subject.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
As you say, Oh dear.

Whenever I hear the cant about the church reflecting diversity (by which the speaker often means sexual orientation) and about showing "love for all" the one thing they don't mean is true love for people who are LGBTI.

I'll begin to take these people seriously when they have the guts to tell some of our brethren in Africa (and people on the ConEvo side in this country, for that matter) that they cannot be considered to be Christian while they show such hostility and aggression towards homosexuality.
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As you say, Oh dear.

Whenever I hear the cant about the church reflecting diversity (by which the speaker often means sexual orientation) and about showing "love for all" the one thing they don't mean is true love for people who are LGBTI.

I'll begin to take these people seriously when they have the guts to tell some of our brethren in Africa (and people on the ConEvo side in this country, for that matter) that they cannot be considered to be Christian while they show such hostility and aggression towards homosexuality.

At least I haven't heard the phrase 'hate the sin, love the sinner' for some time - or am I living a very sheltered life? I love the fact that the Bishop of London is to be a woman and can only pray and hope that her LGBT supporting credentials are not hidden for too long. I have known some ConEvos and they are very hard to please! Someone with Bishop Sarah's background is surely perfectly formed to deal with these and other 'difficult' Christians. In the meantime, we will wait until she has been enthroned.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Unfortunately the true ConEvo is likely to take even less notice of +Sarah than they have of +Richard. After all, people who argue in favour of "headship" and "complementarianism" are probably not dancing a celebratory jig at her appointment.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
Any idea what (if anything) she thinks about the whole St Sepulchre's Musicians' Church hoohah?

[Edited to move an apostrophe]

[ 20. December 2017, 10:32: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
 
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

(What is it with St. H's, Bishopsgate? If the C of E really is pants filled with smelly poo, why don't they hand back the keys, and go where the underwear is pure?).

Because even the smelliest poo-filled pants never smell quite so bad when you have a guaranteed free home, stipend, and a pension.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Alas, I am cynical enough, in my dotage, to believe that that is true.

[Disappointed]

If such persons had the honesty and integrity to leave, and to go and work at making tents, I'd have some respect for them. It's not just the Con-Evos, but the F-in-F characters who (for example) carried on episcopal duties in the C of E whilst planning to cross the Tiber once they'd got pensions etc. sorted.

[Disappointed] again.

As regards +Sarah, let's wait and see. General opinion seems to be that she is a Good Egg (and I got that from our Madam Sacristan, who is F-in-F, but always respectful of those with whom she disagrees!).

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Just read the transcript of the Radio 4 interview. Oh dear.

She must have known the question was coming: why such fudge and hesitation in response?

Perhaps she fudged her answer because she doesn't suffer from the unequivocal certainty either way that benights so many others who have such an itch to pronounce on the subject.
Then she'll alienate everyone instead of just some. FWIW her use of the word "current" in this context is one to watch.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Just read the transcript of the Radio 4 interview. Oh dear.

She must have known the question was coming: why such fudge and hesitation in response?

Perhaps she fudged her answer because she doesn't suffer from the unequivocal certainty either way that benights so many others who have such an itch to pronounce on the subject.
Then she'll alienate everyone instead of just some. FWIW her use of the word "current" in this context is one to watch.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Alienating everyone appears to be the CofE way. I suppose it's equality in action. You could say the new Bishop of London has started as she means to go on, which is just as well.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Heard her being interviewed by Mishal Hussain on Today this morning. When MH asked her specifically about St Helen's Bishopsgate and their threat to leave etc, etc, she floundered, ending up with a non-sequitur about diversity in Hackney.

Someone needs to give +Jane some urgent training in traditional CofE flanelling.

Blimey, I thought only the Pope got to change their name, when appointed.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps she fudged her answer because she doesn't suffer from the unequivocal certainty either way that benights so many others who have such an itch to pronounce on the subject.

If she does have a more nuanced view of what is actually a very complex subject, then that is to her credit, in my view. But it is not suited to the kind of interview where sound-bites are sought and nuance is eschewed.

(I remember with delight when Rowan Williams said on the Today programme, "I'll need to think about that" and paused for a noticeable time. I also like it when they two people on about a subject, hoping for an argument, but they agree with each other!)

I would have preferred a response which revealed that an important part of the job of a bishop is to hold together people who have strongly held views which are in direct conflict (and some of whom regard alignment with their view as a test of Christian Orthodoxy). Therefore to express a simple view would destroy any hope of doing that.

She has a significant amount of work to do because in her person she represents a view on another dead horse issue.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whenever I hear the cant about the church reflecting diversity (by which the speaker often means sexual orientation) and about showing "love for all" the one thing they don't mean is true love for people who are LGBTI.

I suspect that in respect of the Diocese of London, 'diversity' is in relation to theology, but also ethnic and cultural diversity. London is one of the most diverse cities in the world.

The presence of ethnic minorities in churches is one reason for the strength of the Diocese of London. It also has to be said that the strength of the diocese is also the result of the strength of the HTB network and the conevo network, both mentioned for their church planting in +Sarah's statement.

In the years 2011-2016, church attendance in the (Diocese of) London grew by 1.1%. However, that the other side of the Thames in Southwark fell by 10.7% over that period. There are no great differences in environment between the two diocese, so one does need to ask why there is a difference.

+Sarah will want, rightly, to maintain the success of London. To do that she will need to hold together a diverse crowd.
Maintaining the success of the
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Just read the transcript of the Radio 4 interview. Oh dear.

She must have known the question was coming: why such fudge and hesitation in response?

That is interesting - thanks for posting that.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
SvitlanaV2 said:
quote:
Alienating everyone appears to be the CofE way. I suppose it's equality in action. You could say the new Bishop of London has started as she means to go on, which is just as well.
What a miserable post. As I said before, the poor woman is weighed in the balances, and found wanting, before she's even installed. I'd like to see some of the whingers and moaners make a go of the job.

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
SvitlanaV2 said:
quote:
Alienating everyone appears to be the CofE way. I suppose it's equality in action. You could say the new Bishop of London has started as she means to go on, which is just as well.
What a miserable post. As I said before, the poor woman is weighed in the balances, and found wanting, before she's even installed. I'd like to see some of the whingers and moaners make a go of the job.

IJ

Point taken. However - and there's got to be a however - she should have started as she meant to go on by being transparent. If she doesn't know, then say she doesn't know. I (and I suspect others share this view) are more suspicious of those who won't say what they believe than I am by those who do say even if I disagree with them.

Equally, we judge potential by experience as well as by opportunity and potential. Tbh I'd say 2 years in Crediton (a liberal diocese IIRC) isn't the best preparation for the 3rd seat in the hierarchy. It's a very strange appointment on that basis unless there's something else in the mix.

By saying she agrees with the current position on SSM - which we all know is under scrutiny and only ever likely to change in one direction- she's possibly preparing the ground to accept a new perspective (ie when a decision is made to accept SSM and it becomes the current current). It's a political approach not a prophetic one.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
It's not usually a good idea, when embarking on a new post, to start by backing a faction opposed to your appointment into a corner.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
To what faction, and to what corner, do you refer?

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Drat - some of us in this diocese were hoping to poach her for our vacancy.

Another Evangelical is on his way
It's not yet decided.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I also like it when they two people on about a subject, hoping for an argument, but they agree with each other!)

You mean like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Drat - some of us in this diocese were hoping to poach her for our vacancy.

Another Evangelical is on his way
It's not yet decided.
Not officially, no.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
SvitlanaV2 said:
quote:
Alienating everyone appears to be the CofE way. I suppose it's equality in action. You could say the new Bishop of London has started as she means to go on, which is just as well.
What a miserable post. As I said before, the poor woman is weighed in the balances, and found wanting, before she's even installed. I'd like to see some of the whingers and moaners make a go of the job.

IJ

She hasn't been founding wanting by me. By no means.

But the very fact that she's already attracted criticism from different quarters of the CofE (according to this thread) makes my point for me. She can't be seen to belong too firmly to any one 'camp'. As a result, none of them are going to be entirely satisfied with her.

This isn't a criticism of her but a comment on the reality that faces her, in an institution that welcomes diversity but harbours fierce disagreement as well.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Bishop's Finger, I had St Helens Bishopsgate in mind.
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
+Sarah will be missed in Devon and is taking on a role that no-one I've spoken to would touch with a sterilized pole. She is greatly respected by the liberal charismatic wing of the Church here, who are numerous, but dispersed. The Anglo Catholic wing in London should rejoice that they have a Bishop who gets 2nd stage faith and many of the writers from the Roman Catholic ship; even if they don't like the female packaging.
If as a Church we are about to enter 'Interesting Times' we need leaders who have a proven track record of working in pressured time constrained situations such as midwifery. I will be praying for her unlike many who call themselves Christians who will be looking to get rid of her.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@irreverend tod - well said. +Sarah certainly needs prayer.

BTW, I understand her Christian name is pronounced Sah-Rah rather than Sair-Rah, IYSWIM.

@Eirenist - I thought Bishopsgate was what you meant, but wasn't certain. The corner is of their own painting.

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
. The Anglo Catholic wing in London should rejoice that they have a Bishop who gets 2nd stage faith

Is this something to do with Fowler's stages of faith?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The corner is certainly of the conevos own painting, but she has left them the option of extricating themselves. If they choose to stew in their own juice, that's their decision.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed.

IJ
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
Leo - more Richard Rohr I think. At it's most basic and what we are teaching our youngsters is that the "I'm right (and going to heaven) and your wrong (and going to hell) idea is best left to three year olds. It could well be Fowler as well, if you give me a reference I can go and read up on it.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Well you can see Fowler's Stages on this page. I would not associate Anglo-Catholicism with stage II. I suspect you would have to work on something like my take on element's of faith rather than stages to make it fit at all or be very condescending to Anglo-Catholics.

Like all faith traditions Anglo-Catholicism has space for people at all stages/elements. Admittedly some stages/elements are more comfortable within a specific tradition than others. I am drawn by quite a bit of what is space for Stage V faith within Anglo Catholicism. Some may be in Scott Peck Stage II which is allied with Fowler III is a better fit.

Jengie

[ 21. December 2017, 20:25: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Eirenist
quote:
The corner is certainly of the conevos own painting, but she has left them the option of extricating themselves. If they choose to stew in their own juice, that's their decision.
For many years there have been mutterings and outright condemnation of the way some AC priests have played fast-and-loose with the rules about liturgy, calendar, etc and that has been absolutely right.

It is a great pity that the same rigour hasn't been applied to those ConEvo clergy who do the same thing but in the opposite direction.

Worse, some on the ConEvo scale have taken great heart from not only the lack of pastoral discipline but from the way they have been able to use sheer weight of numbers to force their way through into the mainstream.

IMO the difference between the two extremes is this: while the most die-hard ACs are prepared to live-and-let-live with the traditional MOTR (19502 style) CofE tradition, the same cannot be said of some ConEvos who have taken every opportunity to denigrate the MOTR brand as lacking in conviction, not offering 'certainty' and generally being rude at best, hostile at worst.

What is forgotten is that you can find AC parishes everywhere, from city parishes to the smallest outposts; the ConEvos, by contrast, stick to the urban landscape there their activities have the greatest population to work on/with, all the while braying loudly that the 'virtue' of their belief and practice is borne out by their numbers.

I wish +Sarah well. I only hope she is made of sterner stuff than some of our bishops and calls the bluff of congregations such as St Helen, Bishopsgate.

And the next time there is an episcopal vacancy to be filled it is past high time that an AC bishop was appointed, regardless of the colour or flavour of the diocese.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not being an Anglican, and now living to the west of the Severn, I'm not qualified to comment on matters in the Diocese of London (although I lived there for many years).

However I do wonder how many of these very rigid ConEvo folk and churches there really are? For many Evangelicals are much more open and moderate, and I suspect the same would be true of the HTB-type folk. I know St. Helen's is a big church and has a high profile - but may we be in danger of giving it a greater measure of influence than it actually has?

I honestly don't know the answer to that ... but the Evangelical scene in my own denomination is in fact slowly and subtly changing and I suspect that may also be true in the CofE.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Having been to several services in Creamtealand in which Bishop Sarah has played a key role, I can confidently say that she is a very wise choice.

One of her strong abilities is to be approachable by people from all walks of life, including those who have the simple curiosity of a child. Hearing her explain to one such person how her bishop's staff came apart so she could travel with it, springs to mind. So special and yet so ordinary. I wish her well.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Well, we're glad of her, and will be doing our collective best to support her in leading the Diocese. There will be early engagement with the ConEvos and the Trad Caths, and agreement on the terms of engagement with the Bishops of Fulham and Maidstone. Holding the Diocese together is what we do. Thanks for your prayers for us! [Biased]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As I remarked earlier, our Madam Sacristan (who is firmly of the F-in-F persuasion, for theological rather than misogynistic reasons) has nothing but good to say of +Sarah, and she (Madam) knows whereof she speaks.

That being so, the omens are good, but nevertheless much [Votive] [Votive] [Votive] for +Sarah, +Pete, and the rest of the London team.

What price a female ++Canterbury or ++York next time round?

[Snigger]

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Female Cantuar or Ebor? I don't think so because I don't think ++Justin will go the distance. There have been too many mishandlings and there are worrying clouds about things like Iwerne, not to mention the George Bell business.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, you may be right, but I live in hope!

[Biased]

IJ
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
Jengie - thanks for the ref. The 2nd stage I was thinking about is more what has been outlined by Richard Rohr in his book The Divine Dance. Our adjacent FiF priests are big fans and it informs their teaching. In fact we are in much greater talk and collaboration as a result of finding out our similarities as a result of discussing this book than any diocesan initiative - it's an odd world.

On the subject of a female ++, can we have a heads up. + Sarah was 66-1 against and we could have sorted out the parish finances for eternity if we'd known!
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I think if I'd put money on it would have caused a major insider trading scandal...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Leo - more Richard Rohr I think. At it's most basic and what we are teaching our youngsters is that the "I'm right (and going to heaven) and your wrong (and going to hell) idea is best left to three year olds. It could well be Fowler as well, if you give me a reference I can go and read up on it.

While Rohr is very popular, I think he's a heretic and don't give much credence to the stuff I've read from him.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Leo - more Richard Rohr I think. At it's most basic and what we are teaching our youngsters is that the "I'm right (and going to heaven) and your wrong (and going to hell) idea is best left to three year olds. It could well be Fowler as well, if you give me a reference I can go and read up on it.

While Rohr is very popular, I think he's a heretic and don't give much credence to the stuff I've read from him.
Please explain why you believe that Rohr is a heretic as opposed to someone you don't agree with
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
See his stuff about the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

Like all heresy there's usually an emphasis on things that orthodoy has underplayed - the following seem to fit that bill:

Salvation = finding your true self

Holy Spirit is another term for ‘inner compass’

All faiths lead to God

Jesus sought to awaken us to something similar to Buddha’s 4 noble truths
He seems to distinguish Jesus and the Christ
He is inclined towards panentheism - “The first body of Christ is creation itself.”
We are all Christ’s because we are all anointed

God is not just a dancer; God is the dance itself – so the Trinity is more like a verb than a noun.

‘the Three are formed and identified by the outpouring and uninhibited flow itself.’ – so is the ‘flow’ the Father? And is not the Father part of the Trinity?

‘For the sake of our minds, it’s helpful to identify three persons,…..even the three names are largely ‘placeholders,’ and a thousand beautiful names for God can be interchanged with each of them.” So is the Trinity merely imagery?

And is the 4th place in Rubilev’s icon reserved or us? Are we destined to be part of a quaternity?

He believes that grace has always been ‘inherent in creation ‘ – no original sin then?

We need to love our shadow side – salvation though tears

The incarnation saves – no need for blood sacrifice

A masculine god results in male woundedness – seeing God as mother is more healthy
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Well, I think it's fine to think of God as a Mother - I don't believe in a gendered Deity, except in the person of the Son - but there's a lot in that list that does seem heretical.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Although he's mentioned a lot, I've not actually read as much Rohr as a lot of other people have. Does he really say all those things?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
meant to add: Jesus is suppose to be followed, not worshipped, according to Rohr..
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although he's mentioned a lot, I've not actually read as much Rohr as a lot of other people have. Does he really say all those things?

Yes - I've read a lot of his stuff
 
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Well, I think it's fine to think of God as a Mother - I don't believe in a gendered Deity, except in the person of the Son - but there's a lot in that list that does seem heretical.

Not to a Quaker,which is probably why a surprising number of Friends enthuse about him.Perhaps, he should come and join us.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Sorry, Amor. I should have specified that there's a lot that looks heretical from an Anglican viewpoint.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Well, I think it's fine to think of God as a Mother - I don't believe in a gendered Deity, except in the person of the Son - but there's a lot in that list that does seem heretical.

I totally agree with you about not believing in a non-gendered Deity but understand your exception as a reference to Christ as the Incarnate Word when the choice was all but inevitable. That's the problem with the first part of your sentence though - it immediately forces an understanding of God as a gendered person, albeit not the gender traditionally assigned. A better way to express it is to say that it's fine to think of God as including the positive qualities we associate with a mother, and those we associate with a father. But even that's limiting the limitless.

[ 25. December 2017, 02:32: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
That's better put than I managed, Gee. Thank you.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thank you - the difficulties of discussing what is beyond our knowledge and our language!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although he's mentioned a lot, I've not actually read as much Rohr as a lot of other people have. Does he really say all those things?

Not often I agree with leo; but having read a few Rohr books I recognise about half of the statements he highlights - and the rest a fairly obvious extrapolation once you accept Rohr's premises.

I'm not sure exactly why he has such pull in the particular circles that he does - I assume its because they start with his writings on the Enneagram.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I don't think I've ever heard of Rohr. But I'd consider myself a reasonably orthodox Anglican and a lot of leo's list seems defensible, although not all of it.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
See his stuff about the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

... this sends my Dan Brown alarm blaring ...
quote:
Salvation = finding your true self
Surely a fairly mainstream idea, even if it does sound like something from a self-help manual? See the ending of The Last Battle.
quote:
Holy Spirit is another term for ‘inner compass’
If he means the Holy Spirit causes what we would call the 'inner compass', I could go along with that, although I don't see why we would attribute it to the Spirit rather than the Father and the Son. (Giovanni Guareschi states somewhere that the voice of the crucified Christ in his Don Camillo series is the voice of his conscience.)
quote:
All faiths lead to God
Depends what you mean by that. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says 'The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." ' But it sounds like Rohr goes further than this?
quote:
Jesus sought to awaken us to something similar to Buddha’s 4 noble truths
[Paranoid] Whatever one thinks about the compatibility of Buddhism and Christianity, I don't think the Four Noble Truths can easily be found in Christ's teaching - or if they can, they're not central.
quote:
He seems to distinguish Jesus and the Christ
I think I'd agree that since 'being Christ' was an aspect of Jesus' role, rather than the whole of it, a distinction can indeed be made.
quote:
He is inclined towards panentheism - “The first body of Christ is creation itself.”
Debatable, but I don't think that's panentheism. The body of Christ in the sense of the Church, the Eucharist, or Jesus of Nazareth's flesh and blood, are all created things.
quote:
We are all Christ’s because we are all anointed
Mere Christianity has a whole section on how Christianity entails becoming 'a little Christ'.
quote:
God is not just a dancer; God is the dance itself – so the Trinity is more like a verb than a noun.
That sounds like a poetic way of expressing the Scholastic idea that God isn't just one entity among other entities (albeit an entity with special powers), but rather the ground of our being and the reason why we have entities.

quote:
‘the Three are formed and identified by the outpouring and uninhibited flow itself.’ – so is the ‘flow’ the Father? And is not the Father part of the Trinity?
If 'flow' refers to the divine essence, then the quoted part sounds to me more like a restatement of the orthodox belief that the Persons of the Trinity are distinguished solely by their relations to each other, and not by their properties or by their relationship to humanity.

quote:
‘For the sake of our minds, it’s helpful to identify three persons,…..even the three names are largely ‘placeholders,’ and a thousand beautiful names for God can be interchanged with each of them.” So is the Trinity merely imagery?
The quoted section sounds (to me) more like he thinks the names for the Persons of the Trinity are merely imagery. That is, we call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit rather than (say) Alpha, Beta and Gamma because the images of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are more convenient to us.
quote:
And is the 4th place in Rubilev’s icon reserved or us? Are we destined to be part of a quaternity?
I've just looked up Rublev's icon on Wikipedia and am totally stumped by this one.
quote:
He believes that grace has always been ‘inherent in creation ‘ – no original sin then?
I think one can believe grace is inherent in creation without denying original sin. (The Scholastic position, AIUI, was that since existence is a good, a thing that exists is good at least inasmuch as it exists, but that doesn't prevent it from being bad in some other respect.)
quote:
We need to love our shadow side – salvation though tears
That sounds like something from Jung? I don't know anything about Jung but I didn't think he was actually considered heretical.
quote:
The incarnation saves – no need for blood sacrifice
Stepping gently around the PSA debate ... That said, while I don't think we are required to believe any particular model of atonement is better than another, a model that removes the cross altogether does seem a little extreme.
quote:

A masculine god results in male woundedness – seeing God as mother is more healthy

I can see reasons for and against imagining God to be either masculine or feminine, but I'm not sure about 'male woundedness' as a concept ...
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
The Anglo Catholic wing in London should rejoice that they have a Bishop who gets 2nd stage faith and many of the writers from the Roman Catholic ship; even if they don't like the female packaging.

Some of us love it. Don’t generalise b
 
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Sorry, Amor. I should have specified that there's a lot that looks heretical from an Anglican viewpoint.

Is there such a thing as an unifying Anglican viewpoint on heresy. My impression is that that frequently the heretics are in the next parish or the next pew.

There is the paradox of a woman Bishop in a diocese where there a churches that do not accept that women can become priests; the Akinowla-Robinson stand-off; and churches for whom being unevenly matched means contemplating marriage to someone attending a parish from a different strand of the C of E.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm quite happy sharing a pew with a heretic - after all, I am one myself.

It simply means having a different point of view.....opposed to the prevailing view, perhaps, but with a legitimacy of its own.

I hope - otherwise I am a Hell-bound Heretick!

IJ
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amor:
Is there such a thing as an unifying Anglican viewpoint on heresy. My impression is that that frequently the heretics are in the next parish or the next pew. ...

Oh, probably not. But some of the beliefs mentioned in that list don't seem very Christian.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

He believes that grace has always been ‘inherent in creation ‘ – no original sin then?

What's wrong with this?
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I said "some of" them.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I said "some of" them.

I understand. I was responding to leo's post. The timing in relation to yours was just coincidental.
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
This thread is a mystery to me. Obviously Bishop Sarah, from all accounts, is a good choice. If the church appoints her as a diocesan bishop how, as a priest or layman in that diocese, can you say that you don't recognise her as your bishop?

Surely if that is your attitude the church would basically tell you to bugger off. It is a ridiculous situation to be recognised by some in your diocese and not others.

[ 28. December 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
This thread is a mystery to me. Obviously Bishop Sarah, from all accounts, is a good choice. If the church appoints her as a diocesan bishop how, as a priest or layman in that diocese, can you say that you don't recognise her as your bishop?

Surely if that is your attitude the church would basically tell you to bugger off. It is a ridiculous situation to be recognised by some in your diocese and not others.

I think there should be a reciprocal arrangement where those of us who think equality really matters can refuse to recognise the ministry of card-carrying opponents of womens' ordination [Biased]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:

Surely if that is your attitude the church would basically tell you to bugger off. It is a ridiculous situation to be recognised by some in your diocese and not others.

Flying bishops (PEVs) are still a thing.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
This thread is a mystery to me. Obviously Bishop Sarah, from all accounts, is a good choice. If the church appoints her as a diocesan bishop how, as a priest or layman in that diocese, can you say that you don't recognise her as your bishop?

Surely if that is your attitude the church would basically tell you to bugger off. It is a ridiculous situation to be recognised by some in your diocese and not others.

I thought that the government appoints CoE diocesan bishops? In any case, a cleric opposed to OWP simply acknowledges her authority as his ordinary, a legal position, and carries on as before with the PEV providing sacramental and pastoral episcopé.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That is so.

In practice, the PEVs and their respective Diocesan Bishops (the PEVs cover very wide areas of the country) seem to work amicably together, in the usual typically Anglican fudge...

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
And is the 4th place in Rubilev’s icon reserved or us? Are we destined to be part of a quaternity?
I've just looked up Rublev's icon on Wikipedia and am totally stumped by this one.
The 3 in the icon look out at us, inviting us to sit in 4th place.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The 3 in the icon look out at us, inviting us to sit in 4th place.

But that doesn't have to be interpreted as making us a fourth member of the Trinity. That is understandable just as the invitation to enter into communion with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and to come up higher.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The 3 in the icon look out at us, inviting us to sit in 4th place.

But that doesn't have to be interpreted as making us a fourth member of the Trinity. That is understandable just as the invitation to enter into communion with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and to come up higher.
Referring to the notes I took at a seminar on Orthodox art and theology at Bossey in 1975 (why throw anything away!), this is the interpretation which Boris Bobrinskoy gave us.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That's how I've heard Rublev interpreted, and IMHO it seems eminently sensible.

IJ
 
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Amor:
Is there such a thing as an unifying Anglican viewpoint on heresy. My impression is that that frequently the heretics are in the next parish or the next pew. ...

Oh, probably not. But some of the beliefs mentioned in that list don't seem very Christian.
Not to you, clearly, within Quakerism, as I said before they wouldn't seem extreme. Indeed sone of the stuff mentioned is what got us persecuted in the seventeenth Century. Presumably, though you migntn't see us as being very Christian, either.

Rohr has been quite a tall poppy within the Roman Catholic Church in the US for a longtime, since well before the Ratzinger Papacy, yet he, apparently, managed to avoid censure from Ratty or his minions. I find that rather odd given the way that the Liberation Theologians and Hans Kung were treated.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I apologize, Amor. I'm afraid I only have a very basic knowledge of the Quakers.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The 3 in the icon look out at us, inviting us to sit in 4th place.

But that doesn't have to be interpreted as making us a fourth member of the Trinity. That is understandable just as the invitation to enter into communion with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and to come up higher.
Indeeed - this week's collect says we are his children 'by adoption and grace' and the orthodoxen talk of theosis but Rohr seems to take it further - we become part of the Trinity -a quaternity.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeeed - this week's collect says we are his children 'by adoption and grace' and the orthodoxen talk of theosis but Rohr seems to take it further - we become part of the Trinity -a quaternity.

I agree. If Rohr is saying that we become a fourth member of the Trinity, that is not orthodox with either a large or small 'O'.

Theosis is, even though some Prods are uncomfortable when they first encounter it.

[ 30. December 2017, 17:17: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0