| Messages (oldest first): |
[Sort by Newest first]
|
|
Page 1/11 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| Response to Stephen Kuhrt supporting Bishop Tom |
| 1 [331] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Monday 12 December 2005 - 11:11pm |
| In the last three weeks I have received a fair amount of feedback to my article in the CEN and on the Fulcrum Web Site. As you would expect this feedback has been extremely mixed with some being very positive while others have been considerably upset by what I wrote.
In the latter case it is my use of the word "cherry picking" that has been particularly focused upon, as if it were my principal or sole objection to the Dundonald plants. This was particularly true of Darren Moore's letter to the CEN and it is significant that Andrew Nicholls also begins his response in reference to this. Abbreviated in this way, it does sound rather petty so please allow me to restate the context in which I made this remark. I have sent this response, with a fuller degree of evidence, in a private letter to Andrew.
The principal complaint that I have set out against Richard Coekin's activity is its lack of genuine collaboration with any Christians other than those who share his very precise theological standpoint. Independent feedback from a number of evangelical Anglican clergy has revealed a similar and depressing pattern in regard to this. Informed about Dundonald's intention to plant either within or near to their parish, several of these clergy have then suggested a collaborative approach only to find this suggestion ignored or rebuffed. With communication, let alone collaboration, being negligible it is hardly surprising, therefore, that the transfer that there has been from other evangelical churches into Dundonald and Fairfield has been viewed very negatively. These numbers may not have been vast in their extent but the way in which the plants have been established has given the unmistakeable message that the current evangelical churches and clergy in each area have "sold their pass" and need to be replaced. It is largely, therefore, the style in which Dundonald's plants have been established that caused me to write of many evangelical Anglican clergy perceiving them as "a systematic attempt to undermine their ministries". It is very clear from Andrew's comments that this is not his personal intention but it nevertheless seems to be part of the rationale by which his church was established.
It is rather strange to be responding to a non-conformist minister on this point because this is very much a matter of Anglican ecclesiology. Part of what being an Anglican involves is being committed to working alongside and with other Christians even if they see things rather differently. Obviously there are often limits to the extent to which this is possible but my theology of the Body of Christ convinces me that this is the ideal towards which God wants us to constantly strain. It is difficult and often very frustrating but a principle that needs to be accepted by everyone who really wants to be an Anglican.
I'm well aware that not everyone will buy into this ethos. That's fine and Christianity in Britain is richer because of the Baptist, FIEC etc churches that people can go to. Many of my closest family and friends belong to such churches. Where I have a problem is with those Anglicans who refuse to accept the principle of collaborative ministry. When Emmanuel Wimbledon stood by itself with its special status as a Proprietary Chapel this was problematic but less devastating in its effect. With the advent of Richard's planting, however, this separatist ethos has spread out in a way that many of us see as really destructive to the Anglicanism that we cherish. If the principle of collaboration is unacceptable and the Dundonald approach is to continue then I really believe the whole movement should go fully independent. That would be a position of integrity. It definitely doesn't mean I want to break fellowship with these churches. In fact a much better and freer fellowship might be established if the tension that Anglicanism appears to bring to the Dundonald churches was taken out of the equation. An alternative for the Co-Mission network is trying to have it both ways, paying lip service to collaboration while refusing to really engage with what it means. The third and much better alternative, for which I continue to pray, is that the movement will fully embrace its Anglicanism, accept us as Christian brothers and sisters and be willing to give genuine and practical expression to this belief. I am utterly enthusiastic about the Gospel and winning people for Christ but just as convinced that we need to work with each other if we are ever going to get anywhere.
The last thing I need to comment on is the "casus belli" argument. Bishop Tom Butler, to my knowledge, takes an orthodox position on practicing homosexuality but within this context he is also aware of the pastoral complexities involved. The same can be said of the House of Bishops' statement which, while it could have included a stronger prophetic critique of the Civil Partnerships Bill, did reassert the Church's traditional teaching on marriage. Bishops simply cannot respond to demands made by clergy for public statements and this is why I described Richard's demand as a "casus belli". He demanded something that he knew Bishop Tom could not give and then used this as his reason for defying his authority.
|
|
|
|
| Responding to Unorthodox Theology |
| 2 [541] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Saturday 11 February 2006 - 09:13pm |
| Hi Sue,
Thanks for your comments which are completely fair and helpful. I do feel that I should explain, however, some of the reasons why the article has the weaknesses that you correctly identify. Feedback on our articles on the website recently has indicated that while they are really helpful they are also apt to be a little bit too dense to encourage the breadth of readership and interest that Fulcrum is seeking. One of the things that I'm trying to do on the Fulcrum Website at the moment, therefore, is to encourage the writing of articles that are a bit more punchy, that give people the chance to 'tell their story' and seek to share one particular shaft of insight with our users. These articles will hopefully be no less thoughtful but a bit more 'magaziney' in their approach and less concerned to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'.
The article that I wrote was intended to encourage this sort of more accessible genre and that is why it is open to the valid criticisms that you make. I was aware all the way through writing it that I could be qualifying my statements and using slightly more precise and nuanced language but I was concerned that by doing this I would lessen the impact of the case that I was seeking to make. 'Unorthodox theology' is definitely a rather inadequate covering term for a whole range of things that evangelicals have traditionally made a defensive response to and I probably should have used inverted commas a bit more in using it. Do note, however, that I did this several times with the term 'orthodox', indicating that my questioning of what my subculture encouraged me to see as such. I certainly wouldn't want to subscribe to the impression that evangelicals have only got things slightly wrong and that liberals have simply helped us to get things totally sussed because although (as the article said) I am really grateful for much of what my evangelical upbringing gave me, I also now see much of what was presented as 'orthodoxy' as barren, out of touch, almost criminally quietist in political terms and utterly imprisoned by its cultural setting.
You're definitely right that the article is in danger of setting up Tom Wright as the new John Stott but again this is part of a very pragmatic desire to get evangelicals (a) engaging with his theology and its exciting implications and (b) learning even more valuable lessons about the fruits that come from engagement rather than defensiveness. What I hope it will do is to win a few more evangelicals over to the truth that you express so well: we all need each other. That is why I briefly made mention of a theology of the Body of Christ which to my mind is crucial to this whole area.
|
|
|
|
| 'Irregular Ordinations' in Southwark |
| 3 [866] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Monday 5 June 2006 - 07:22pm |
| The Archbishop has hardly "overturned" the requirement "that the Appellant gives written undertakings to the Respondent as to his future conduct" (John Richardson previous post). He has simply said that a separate promise in these terms is not required "since the Appellant, through his counsel, has reaffirmed his obedience to the law". The Archbishop is clearly at pains to emphasise this when he adds "The onus placed upon the Appellant to conform to the discipline of the Church, which clearly underlies the reasoning in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the report, is in no way lessened by my decision not to require specific undertakings from him". |
|
|
|
| 'Irregular Ordinations' in Southwark |
| 4 [967] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Monday 19 June 2006 - 03:39pm |
| Those following the controversy over the Surbition Ordinations and their fall out may be interested to read the letter sent on 15th June by Bishop Tom Butler to the clergy and lay leaders of Southwark diocese and posted on Fulcrum newswatch. The final paragraph is particularly significant.
|
|
|
|
| 'Irregular Ordinations' in Southwark |
| 5 [979] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Tuesday 20 June 2006 - 08:48am |
| It would be good to have some reactions on this thread to the Bishop of Southwark's recent letter to the clergy and lay leaders of the diocese (see Fulcrum's newswatch service). In particular, what do users make of the last two paragraphs? How should they affect the way in which this controversy is being interpreted?
|
|
|
|
| Mother Jesus |
| 6 [1011] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Thursday 22 June 2006 - 09:50am |
| Hi Tony,
A link is indeed provided to the Bishop's full sermon on Fulcrum's newswatch service. We have been keen to post as much as possible about the Convention on the newswatch service and that includes a certain diversity in the way it has been covered!
|
|
|
|
| Mother Jesus |
| 7 [1022] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Thursday 22 June 2006 - 08:07pm |
| Just to clarify, the Bishop's sermon was posted on the Fulcrum website on 21st June - the twelfth of the items put on newswatch that day under the title 'Homily of Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori at the Joint Session of the 75th General Convention's House of Bishops and the House of Deputies'. |
|
|
|
| 'Irregular Ordinations' in Southwark |
| 8 [1271] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Tuesday 11 July 2006 - 06:56pm |
| User 992 says "Richard Coekin himself has shown way more restraint, self control and godliness than those around him in Southwark who have simply demonstrated jealousy and envy".
For the umpteenth time, and as I said in the CEN this week, I can categorically promise that I am jealous and envious of nothing whatsoever to do with Richard Coekin.
Stephen Kuhrt |
|
|
|
| Fatherhood, human and Divine |
| 9 [1701] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Friday 29 September 2006 - 01:00pm |
| The vital question, however, is what form of ministry are these women being trained for? |
|
|
|
| Fatherhood, human and Divine |
| 10 [1711] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Saturday 30 September 2006 - 11:32am |
| Jeremy is right here about not disparaging courses and those on them. There are ordinands I know on courses who are working with far greater intensity than some of those I have met attending theological colleges. In fact, particularly if they had already done "Cornhill", the attitude of some CE's at my college towards their training bordered on complete contempt. I remember one of them saying that he was doing the bare minimum that was needed to keep the tutors off his back. |
|
|
|
| A covenant for the Church of England. |
| 11 [2148] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Friday 22 December 2006 - 09:04am |
| Well I'm curate of an evangelical church and during the last three years I have received two lay readers from the liberal tradition on placement. They were encouraged by Southwark diocese to come to an evangelical church precisely to broaden their perspective on worship and ministry. The key thing is that a few other evangelical churches were unhappy to receive them chiefly because as part of their placement they had to preach a sermon, which these churches saw as unacceptable. I was more than happy to trust them to do this and what both of them produced was absolutely fine - thoughtful and completely orthodox. |
|
|
|
| The Cross and the Caricatures |
| 12 [3454] Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt |
Wednesday 25 April 2007 - 07:59am |
| Is an important difference here that supporters of classic Penal Substitution see Jesus' death as primarily dealing with God's wrath while those proposing a revisionist position are suggesting that it is more biblical to see Jesus' death as dealing firstly with sin and removing God's wrath as a consequence of this. In other words the revisionist position is saying that the Cross is propitiatory (dealing with God's wrath) but only because it is first expiatory (dealing with our sin). This understanding still affirms the full gravity of sin and God's wrath but presents us and our condition as the primary problem that needs to be dealt with rather than God and the way that he sees us. The anxiety that many of us have about classic penal substitution is that (1) it appears to make God's attitude towards us the primary problem that needs to change rather than us ourselves and (2) it therefore goes on to provide a very weak basis for Christian ethics and a radically changed lifestyle since the motive for this is usually limited to gratitude. Steve Chalke's reaction against Penal Substitution in its current form was surely in part because he recognised that the way it was being understood was reinforcing a Christianity that is anything but radical - and what many of us find so exciting about Tom Wright's understanding of the atonement is that, because of its emphasis on Jesus' representation of us as well as his substitution for us, it moves the "in Christ" basis of Christian ethics (seen very strongly for instance in Romans 6) into a far more prominent position. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1/11 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
