| Messages (newest first): |
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
Page 3/4 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to Bishop John Howe |
| 25 [5235] Posted by: John Marshall |
Thursday 25 October 2007 - 11:35am |
Steve Griffin wrote: "Lambeth 1948, resolution 54, did not receive, unambiguously, CSI bishops priests and deacons as Anglican bishops priests and deacons, presumably because CSI stated explicitly that bishops are not of the esse of the church."
Was it not more a matter of the CSI not reordaining any ministers who had not been episcopally ordained? I am ancient enough to remember grubby cards at the back of some Anglo Catholic churches as late as the 60s saying in effect that because of its defective ministry, members of CSI would not be welcomed as communicants. We may think, from the perspective of 60 years later that CSI was actually prophetic in its approach to reconciling ministries, but in the ecclesiastical politics of the time, I think the ambiguity of which Steve writes was much more to do with the view many took of the status of the former non-Anglicans than with the theologogical position of CSI on the necessity or otherwise of bishops |
|
|
|
| Re-imagine the DEF |
| 26 [5121] Posted by: John Marshall |
Tuesday 16 October 2007 - 02:21pm |
| Though I would not be a candidate for membership of a DEF (rather a long way up the candle!) I decided to check out the DEF in my own diocese. There is a website - but no information on it beyond the name of the secretary. The diocesan yearbook has only the name of the secretary, and the chairman is listed as "vacant". The secretary is a member of the Council of CEEC. This gives me a certain feeling of unease: does it have something of the odour of a rotten borough about it? I shall talk to some of my evangelical brothers and sisters in the diocese and find out what is going on... |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 27 [4904] Posted by: John Marshall |
Wednesday 3 October 2007 - 05:04pm |
| Matthew's post makes me think "Curioser and curioser." One would assume that disciplinary procedures have at least two stages to them. That several staff members should have received warning and subsequent dismissal suggests a seriously malfunctioning organisation.
And what does one get dismissed from a theological staff for? Heresy? Unacceptable devotional practices? (Shades of Church Association evidence to the 1906 Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline "The accused prostrated himself before the Communion Table...") Immorality? Associating with people from Other Permanent Private Halls? Being seen emerging from Pusey House, or even St Mary Mag's? Using the Jerusalem Bible? The mind boggles.
On the other hand, having been on a theological college staff team over 30 years ago, I do recall a Principal who was out of his depth threatening members of staff with dismissal for the most trivial reasons seen as challenges to his authority. The issue was settled only by his being kicked upstairs to be a member of perhaps the most dysfunctional cathedral chapter in the kingdom. I fear there is to be more (metaphorical) bloodshed yet. |
|
|
|
| Lambeth Conference 2008 |
| 28 [4383] Posted by: John Marshall |
Wednesday 5 September 2007 - 11:52am |
| Francis
That is an extraordinarily priggish response to a perfectly fair question from Ken Sawyer.
I wonder where you gather your experience of the Church of England and its leadership. I think you would find that the view differs greatly between, say, St Helen, Bishopsgate, or other hothouses of a Sydney-style evangelicalism, and Cleckheaton, or Cheltenham or Mansfield. A few months ago we bumpkins had a course of five talks/discussions led by our diocesan bishop on Christian belief. He's going round the diocese doing this. I don't believe he is unique. Bishops don't simply spend their time drinking claret with the Rotary Club while chaos reigns outside. |
|
|
|
| When should a bishop ordain? |
| 29 [4157] Posted by: John Marshall |
Friday 20 July 2007 - 12:31pm |
| The Ordination rite in the BCP is still the default, and is one of the doctrinal standards of the Church of England.
There is a rubric, close to the end of the Ordering of Deacons which reads thus:
Then shall the Bishop proceed in the Holy Communion; and all that are ordered shall tarry, and receive the Holy Communion the same day with the Bishop.
That seems pretty clear. |
|
|
|
| Defining Evangelicalism |
| 30 [3909] Posted by: John Marshall |
Wednesday 20 June 2007 - 03:41pm |
| Maybe this will make Stephen feel even more unsound, but as one who would not claim the appellation "evangelical" (firmly Aff Cath, in fact) I have no problem with the Fulcrum statement on the Bible. It seems to me to be very Anglican.
However, I was blacklisted by OICCU on my first weekend at uni, because I expressed some hesitation about the apostolic authorship of 2 Peter... |
|
|
|
| Wycliffe Hall |
| 31 [3771] Posted by: John Marshall |
Tuesday 5 June 2007 - 09:54am |
| Darren asks "The point is however, are you saying you would rather support the status quo in Southwark, or get behind solid Bible teaching & mission?"
You present a false dichotomy. I know little of Southwark and live a hundred miles away, so that isn't my concern. You argued that the bishop was heterodox. The evidence you cite is a book I have not read, and, to be honest, never actually noticed when it was published. But isn't that evidence to the contrary of what you assert? If it really were heretical, I suspect that a degree of fuss would have been made in the press.
As for the allegation that said bishop "promotes immorality", the best you can offer is an assertion that he has TOLERATED certain things. There is a substantial difference.
Both your allegations are potentially libellous, bearing in mind that this is a public forum. I would simply beg you not to say such things unless you are really sure of your ground, and could, if necessary, defend yourself at law. |
|
|
|
| Wycliffe Hall |
| 32 [3760] Posted by: John Marshall |
Monday 4 June 2007 - 04:00pm |
| 1345 writes: "The Bishop denies fundamental doctrines and promotes imorality" (sic)
Can we have chapter and verse, please? It's so easy to make a charge that such-and-such a bishop is unorthodox - but I strongly suspect that the charge would actually stick in less than half a dozen cases in the last century. Sometimes the charge is made on totally spurious evidence (e.g. some alleged that David Jenkins said the exact opposite of what in fact he said), sometimes on misunderstanding of theological nuance.
The suggestion of PROMOTING immorality is a serious charge. What does he do? The mind boggles. |
|
|
|
| Wycliffe Hall |
| 33 [3637] Posted by: John Marshall |
Thursday 24 May 2007 - 09:42am |
| According to Crockford, Ms Hendry is a permanent deacon, and Ms Raikes was ordained priest.
I observe, en passant, that none of the three of the women on the Faculty at Oak Hill is responsible for a major theological discipline. Does this imply that it's OK for women to teach the touchy-feely things like pastoralia and "spirituality" (however that is defined) but not about bible or doctrine? |
|
|
|
| Primates' Meeting in Tanzania February 2007 |
| 34 [3027] Posted by: John Marshall |
Monday 26 February 2007 - 10:06am |
| No. Pluralist, your history is not quite correct. Until 1776 the North American Colonies were part of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. After the War of Independence, the Anglican churches wished to have their own bishop. However, it was required in England that a bishop at his consecration should swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, which clearly could not be done in this case. Whilst everyone was generally faffing about (sound famililiar?) pretending to find a resoluion to the problem, the tiny Scottish Episcopal church (which was still subject to penalties itself following the 45 Rebellion) came to the rescue. Seabury was thus ordained bishop in Aberdeen on 14 November 1784. However, the new American church still petitioned for bishops to be ordained in England, and in 1786 the otherwise not very memborable Archbishop Moore got an Act through Parliament allowing consecrations to take place without an oath of allegiance to the Crown. As a result Bishops White and Provoost were ordained by Moore at Lambeth Palace Chapel on 4 February 1787. |
|
|
|
| Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) |
| 35 [2412] Posted by: John Marshall |
Wednesday 17 January 2007 - 04:20pm |
| Jody wrote: And the bed and breakfast thing doesn't wash with me either to be honest.
Last night, UK Gold ran the old Fawlty Towers episode about the Psychiatrists. (better than the 10 o'clock news!) I wonder why it was that I couldn't get the "bed and breafast" objectors out of my mind as I watched?
cryptogram |
|
|
|
| A covenant for the Church of England. |
| 36 [2117] Posted by: John Marshall |
Tuesday 19 December 2006 - 10:34pm |
| That Richard makes an interesting and worthwhile point is evidenced by the responses. I just add that it has long been so. A century ago people referred to "London Brighton and South Coast Religion" (parodying the name of the railway). Though primarily it was an anglo-papalist phenomenon, it has a parallel in the evangelicalism of Mr Kensit which also flourished in those parts (think Brighton, Eastbourne, Bournemouth...)
I've always worked north of the line from the Solent to the Wash and found the air a good deal clearer and have rejoiced to make many close friendships in Anglican churces of traditions very different from my own. |
|
|
|
|
Page 3/4 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
