423 forum messages posted by
Mark Bennet
| Messages (newest first): |
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
Page 32/36 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 373 [5066] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Tuesday 9 October 2007 - 10:25pm |
| There seems to be a dual track on this thread. On Amos JA Motyer's contribution to the IVP series "The Bible Speaks Today" on Amos p 115 writes "Finally in v13 Amos implies that, had they been effectively in the presence of the God of Bethel, they would have sought to achieve a social order favourable to righteousness, but instead the social climate of the day threatened anyone who voiced an opinion contrary to its unrighteousness and self-seeking ethos. Such was the rule of lawlessness [...] that a person feared to open his mouth to protest: prudence dictated otherwise." This is far from an academic analysis, but Motyer has a respectable pedigree as a scholar. I find as a result of this that Amos is inadequately represented on my bookshelf, in contract to Hosea, Ecclesiastes and some others. I fear this will prove expensive. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 374 [5064] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Tuesday 9 October 2007 - 10:11pm |
| It seems to me that there are some dangerous thoughts here. First it is not the victory or vindication of Wycliffe or of particular individuals which should be our main concern, but the advance of the Kingdom of God. Evangelicalism has always had a high public regard for the truth (radicals such as Hauerwas suggest that truthtelling is a paradigmatic Christian virtue), and if we carry this through in practice it is essential that the truth of this situation is declared and understood. Also it is a given that sin (including wrongdoing and making mistakes through ignorance, by carelessness or by omission) has consequences - it is simply ill-conceived to think that we can "just" draw a line. When people have lost their jobs, for whatever reason, should they bear the weight of "forgiveness" while those who dismiss them (or some of their supporters) claim expediency and do nothing to "repent"? In this respect the Wycliffe authorities have engaged with the critique of critics rather less convincingly than TEC have dealt with issues raised by the primates collectively - whatever you think of the TEC response: at least it is there. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 375 [5023] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Sunday 7 October 2007 - 08:00pm |
| Silence is indeed going to be difficult to tease out, and perhaps needs another thread, because substantial reflection will take this one off topic. But two areas for theological/biblical reflection may be directly relevant.
The first is the realationship of silence to power. Sometimes people are put in positions where they are unable to speak - the silence of the powerless. For those who know Les Miserables, there is a powerful scene where the main character has a choice between speaking up to avoid an injustice and keeping silent to protect himself - the potential silence of the powerful. There are connections here, as Stephen has noted, with the voice of the prophet and all sorts.
The second is the relationship of silence to listening - because the Wycliffe story, as the story of the wider Anglican Communion, involves a listening process. Some would suggest that there are qualities of silence, and the silence that enables listening might connect with the idea of withdrawal to allow the 'other' space, even when this is risky (see eg Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace - though his physical metaphor rather takes us away from silence). But the utter silence following the earthquake wind and fire is another thing.
The theological nuances are many and deep, and I have not begun to scratch the surface. I leave you to your own reflections on these things. |
|
|
|
| Church of England on doctrinal teaching |
| 376 [4998] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Saturday 6 October 2007 - 11:52am |
| The nearest thing we have is a Doctrine Commission. This has its origins in a Commission set up by Archbishop Randall Davidson in 1922 "To consider the nature and ground of Christian doctrine with a view to demonstrating the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England and with a view to investigating how far it is possible to remove or diminish existing differences." The first report, was published in 1938, under the chairmanship of the then Archbishop of York, William Temple. This maps out extensive theological territory and gives clues as to the diversity of views and also to the limits of divergence. There have been various reports since. But such reports are controversial, because they never quite say in specific terms what those of strong conviction would like them to say. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 377 [4986] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Friday 5 October 2007 - 09:17pm |
| Matthew - I think it would be helpful, if you are going to continue in this discussion, if you could be very specific about what you would consider to be evidence in a case like this. Also, rather than continuing to talk about 'people' who have made allegations of 'illegal' acts, it would be useful to know who you are talking about and why you think they are alleging illegality. The words cognate to illegal appear very much more frequently in your own posts than in the posts put up by others, and would appear to involve your own interpretation of what others are posting. It also seems to me to be likely that the people posting on any subject like this are likely to be a few with a personal interest or their own definite agenda, though there may be many more people reading what is written, and they are likely, in general, to have more moderate or detached views. You seem to be directing your comments to the posters, rather than being aware also of the readers who do not post. What they will notice, I think, is your tendency to generalise (writing about 'people') and interpret (the concept of illegality) while others are being rather more specific.
You might also be able to provide us with some factual information about the numbers of male and female Church of England ordinands in each year of their training at Wycliffe this year - this is data routinely collected and published from all colleges, but it will be some months until this year's data is out. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 378 [4966] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Thursday 4 October 2007 - 09:16pm |
Matthew - just to be absolutely clear about this, in the worlds I come from in the various parts of my life so far, the dismissal of a person, in this case Elaine Storkey, while laid-down disciplinary and grievance procedures have been initiated but not completed is an act which prima facie requires an explanation by the employer.
That explanation is first of all, of course, due to Elaine herself, and not to the various people who post messages on blogs. As I have tried to point out to you twice so far, the first-hand information about this is there on the Hall Council side. I am not making unfounded allegations of wrongdoing, and I am not basing anything solely on press reports. Rather I am making a judgement on the basis of acts which have indisputably happened (the dismissal of Elaine in particular but also of others), and the absence of any explanation where one is prima facie required.
It will not do to ask me for further information to substantiate my position - I do not have it, and the reason I do not have it is that the people who do have it have chosen not to give it to me. Of course they owe me personally no explanation, but it seems that others who are due an explanation may not have received one. I make no judgement about whether an adequate explanation will be forthcoming except to suggest that if no explanation is given, the natural tendency would be to believe that there isn't one.
I also think you would also be better to use the word 'unlawful' rather than 'illegal', because illegal tends to carry connotations of criminal wrongdoing, which are not alleged in any way. In an analysis of the power dynamics here, it is sometimes necessary for those acting from a position of power (the employer in this case) to bear the burden of explaining the use of that power - there is some deep theology here, with strong links to the OT law and Samuel's warnings to the people of Israel about having a king as well as the way of the cross. This rather anticipated Marx and the Trade Union movement! And it also bears some reflection whether we Christians should be more concerned about an action being unlawful, or alternatively being ungracious. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 379 [4933] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Thursday 4 October 2007 - 08:21am |
| Matthew. Your cited Act gives the worker the right to be accompanied by a person who fits the criteria whether or not the employer wants this to happen. It also says that this person may address the meeting and confer with the worker - therefore not just there to take notes. It says nothing to prevent the employer permitting a worker to take a friend or supporter along. I wonder what the Wycliffe Hall procedures say? And even if they did not say that a friend could attend, permitting this would I think be regarded as good practice. I still don't see why, with your concern in a previous post for 'first hand evidence', you continue to ask Pete Broadbent to explain why Wycliffe Hall Council (assuming this to be the employer), of which he has no first-hand knowledge, have behaved in the way they have. I think it is reasonably clear that there is a strong suggestion that the Hall Council has not given adequate reasons to those dismissed - I'm sure Bishop Pete would like to know the answers as much as the rest of us, but I'd be surprised if he were in a position to give them. Speculating, as Custard has done, that those dismissed have done something wrong or unwise, is precisely the kind of damage to reputation (defamation by implication) that proper procedures, due process, confidentiality etc are designed to try to avoid. Dismissal on properly investgated grounds involves an assured factual base. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 380 [4923] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Wednesday 3 October 2007 - 10:26pm |
| Matthew - I rather think it is up to the Hall Council (or the employing body, whatever that was/is) to state the grounds for dismissal - so rather than asking friends of those dismissed what the grounds were (and one has suggested there were none), why not ask the Hall Council to put the reasons on public record? After all they are the principal actors in this, the grounds, if they exist, are in their minds and records, and they have given no adequate public account of their actions. There would then be no allegation of unreliable sources. Let's have a public and attributable statement giving specific reasons. |
|
|
|
| conversation across the divide |
| 381 [4907] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Wednesday 3 October 2007 - 06:29pm |
| Steve Griffin - from some perspectives there may be a logical priority of confession over communion. I think from others Communion would be seen as grounded in the being of God (the Doctrine of the Trinity) and therefore absolutely prior to anything human or created. |
|
|
|
| wycliffe hall |
| 382 [4906] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Wednesday 3 October 2007 - 06:14pm |
| Matthew. Given that Mrs MacInnes, who has resigned, has stated on public record her concern with due process was a material factor in her resignation, your thinking that this was not the case is really rather beside the point. You need to be careful in reading comments from colleagues too - the word 'legal' does not appear in Custard's quotation from Richard Turnbull. Custard refers to disciplinary procedures, which I understand were in process in respect of Elaine Storkey - and no-one has suggessted that they were invoked in the case of the Goddards. For most of us due process involves exhausting the laid down procedures before dismissing people. And if, as you suggest, disciplinary issues weer at the root of this, no doubt the procedures would have been invoked. There may of course be other factors at work here. I have to say that in my role as a parish priest I am an ex-officio school governor. If WE were to dismiss SCHOOL staff in this way we'd rapidly have no school left! Given that the dismissal of staff involves depriving them of income and often of reputation, there are appeal procedures and safeguards in there to avoid abuses of power. Sometimes they seem to headteachers to be rather inconvenient. I also believe that the modelling of practice here is likely to be terrifying bishops who have seen the way in which abrasive management has caused their most difficult pastoral problems with parishes - though occasionally it is necessary, few have the wisdom to discern the right circumstances, as borne out in practice. |
|
|
|
| Reform: Planning for A Split in the Church of England |
| 383 [4878] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Wednesday 3 October 2007 - 10:20am |
| Peter H. You may be interested to know that the inherited catholic episcopal model of the Church of England, which is deeply embedded in our formularies regards the local church as being the diocese with the Bishop as chief minister (hence the shared cure of souls between priest and bishop). We declare our formularies to contain nothing repugnant to the Word of God - and Canon A4 affirms that those who are ordained bishop are to be accounted such. If seeking alternative oversight were to imply that the Bishop of the Diocese were no longer accounted a Bishop that would be a serious matter. The minster model being advocated by some as a way of working in closer collaboration between christians worshipping in different centres also sees locality differently. The equation of the local church with each particular congregation therefore makes some significant assumptions. Bishop Pete is right to draw attention to widely differing ecclesiological assumptions operating here - they seem to have received inadequate analysis and are therefore confusing an already difficult debate. |
|
|
|
| Reform: Planning for A Split in the Church of England |
| 384 [4863] Posted by: Mark Bennet |
Tuesday 2 October 2007 - 11:02pm |
| The last time people of evangelical tendencies thought they had church law taped was in the ritual prosecutions of the late Victorian era. The result was unedifying for the protagonists and for the Church. On the other hand, evangelical scholars like CFD Moule, whose inspiring obituary is linked on the Fulcrum News section, have given the best of their lives, their teaching and their passion to the whole church (including, I note, both our current archbishops). I learned much from his writing and from his students. Tactical advantage and power games may seem attractive in the apparent heat of battle, but (as Screwtape would tell you if you asked) the real battle is joined elsewhere, and is on a much greater stage. |
|
|
|
|
Page 32/36 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
|
|
Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill
Commons Report and Third Reading Briefing. CofE Website, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013
Tory rebellion on amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples will 'cost οΎ£4bn and take two years' Guardian Online, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
