The proposed Trust in Southwark raises an ecclesiological question that may someday be urgent-- is there an historical exemplar, or failing that, a model, for the rearticulation of a church after a period of anomie? Those who support the Trust sound a bit as though they want a "lustration" that purges an organised and subversive influence (e.g. the post-Communist states). Some might prefer a "truth and reconciliation" process that subjects the era past to a new and higher basis of judgement. Others might see ecumenical dialogue as a model, but there is almost no example of such dialogue resulting in a thoroughgoing reorganisation on the basis of it. All three models suppose a prior conflict between bodies of coherent thought, not the incoherence that we see in our churches today.

The In Depth Group is a theology and related group at St Mary's Barton-on-Humber for discussing things in depth. While I was there, I went along for its once a month meetings and then for a while took over presentations. It attracted those at the more liberal and discussive end of the spectrum.

Pluralist-- What is In Depth Group?

I can do better than that and display the paper I presented on J H Newman and others in context: this was read out by me and then discussed in the St. Mary's Barton (Church of England) In Depth Group. I gave the papers each month up to the point where I crossed the river and finally waved bye to the C of E. To see how the paper fits in with the others I presented then there is a choices page and it all fits into my website at Learning - Religion - Anglican and keep scrolling down until it gets to the theology papers. The 'Early Closing' bit with its 'broaderst of theologies' is because there were more papers to go but I was moving house and on my way.

When I looked at John Henry Newman in detail it was interesting how he dealt with liberality as an emerging force in the Churches

Pluralist-- Which of Newman's works do you have in mind?

When I looked at John Henry Newman in detail it was interesting how he dealt with liberality as an emerging force in the Churches - and particularly his own brother going off in the opposite direction and the arguments thereabouts. Francis William Newman is rather a hero of mine, particularly as he came to argue against the perfection of Jesus. That was a crucial break that I don't think many of those alongside him realised was necessary.

Dave-- Sorry to have overlooked your post of 2 May below.

When I distinguished between "enforcers" and "thinkers" to explain a certain phenomenon, I saw both enforcers and thinkers on both sides of several related controversies. So to my mind there were some relatively conservative persons thinking, and some relatively liberal persons just enforcing, and vice versa. Yes, I too value thinking that conserves hard-won gains, but no, I don't think enforcers on either side accomplished anything worthwhile in the Fulcrum Forum.

Newman summarised his theory of development in a single sentence in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, (1845, revised 1878) Chapter V, section vii--

The point to be ascertained is the unity and identity of the idea with itself through all stages of its development from first to last, and these are seven tokens that it may rightly be accounted one and the same all along. To guarantee its own substantial unity, it must be seen to be one in type, one in its system of principles, one in its unitive power towards externals, one in its logical consecutiveness, one in the witness of its early phases to its later, one in the protection which its later extend to its earlier, and one in its union of vigour with continuance, that is, in its tenacity.

I do find that I can follow the "seven tokens" themselves, though not necessarily in his examples, which sometimes reflect badly mistaken 19th C historical knowledge (e.g. hopelessly wrong about Luther, later Lutheran theology, and Pietism). The metaphor of organic growth is a reasonable heuristic for studying doctrinal development, and can lead to insights that could be validated in less speculative ways. However, two prior questions are-- (a) how far does his metaphor of organic growth really explain what it enables us to see more clearly?, and (b) is there any way to relate this pattern of doctrinal emergence to the person of Jesus? Apart from all other reservations, we may be reluctant to consider his claim that the seven tokens can validate emergent doctrine, if we lack good answers to these two questions to enable such consideration. 

As a case for Rome, Newman's theory is strongest against ahistorical or restorationist versions of protestant doctrine, and weakest against the self-conscious traditionalism of the East. Of course, where an evangelical church is maturely aware of the history of its own doctrine and identity, it too can tell an analogous story that is at least analogously persuasive. To enable such narratives and persuasion for a vibrant evangelicalism may well be the mission of Fulcrum.

First of all, I do have a spiritual home - the Unitarians - and some of these would count themselves as Liberal Protestants but I find the notion of priesthood of all believers inside a creedless setting a problematic concept.

The interest here again is boundaries and traditions, and I'm making a contrast between the easier to do liberal Catholicism, with all its symbolic theatre and spiritual disciplines, and the starker liberal Protestantism.

That liberal Protestantism has been an objective, open, critical, Christian form of religious theism - so a human Jesus but a primary focus of exemplary spiritual standing alongside a simple belief in God or transcendence. The liturgy of the C of E demands more than that, but people rub along with more conservative liturgies than their own beliefs.

Some have opted for a kind of 'performance' Protestantism, non-objective and like a drama or a story, but it tends to conserve and just do. I never quite understand this, as it involves a condition of self-illusion or submission to something you don't actually believe in as a total. But again it is easier to do this with a lot of symbolic, Catholic smoke and spiritual discipline, a kind of Christian content orthopraxy - where spirituality followed offers its own reward almost in a Buddhist sense.

My own position is not Christian in that I don't set out to maintain a minimal form of Christian religious theism. Faith should be compatible with the wonder and awe and our smallness in the face of the large scientific and even social scientific narratives of the day, drawing on all kinds of religious traditions. I do know of a few people who try to have this position in context of the C of E but I can't do it - it is too far a stretch. That doesn't stop me from being friendly with them.

When strong evangelicals say they won't mix with unbelievers in their midst, I often wonder where they draw the boundary. Presumably the latter people, but they are very few. What about liberal Protestants or liberal Catholics, or whole tradition but non-objective postmodernists as described above. You can start to draw boundaries against many people who function well within the C of E and its available liturgies.

Pluralist,

In one sense the church is essentially traditionalist. The church exists as congregations and denominations to proclaim and pass on religious beliefs and practices which have inspired people in the past or have been found helpful. Liberalism is the theological testing of these beliefs by enlightenment standards. The result is either a modified tradition which still works for people or great intellectuals preaching in empty buildings. Thus the description of modern Anglicanism etc is more helpful.

The question then is who are these liberal churchmen who own this ecclesiology which Fulcrum disapproves of and what are its characteristics? Is this a democratic theology decided by votes? Or a postmodern let us all believe what works for us but don't contradict anyone else?

Dave

Hi Pluralist. Are you saying that you do not know any protestants who believe that they are liberal, or are you saying that you do know such protestants, but that you have discerned that they are not actually liberal? I ask because, as may be your point, "liberal" does not have a clear referent in village usage. Apart from all that, sorry-- and surprised-- that it has been so hard for you to find a spiritual home!

I wonder what Liberal Protestantism looks like? How would you know it if you saw it? I know what liberal Catholicism looks like, in that it partly denies it is liberal. It becomes very symbolic, quite theatrical, very liturgical, takes the 'whole tradition', uses the Bible with some critical sensitivity. I participated in such a parish for a time, and increasingly decided I didn't go along with it. But when you ditch the drama, or (to give it a more positive explanation) its spiritual discipline, what then of liberal Protestantism. I recall a Methodist minister friend who ran a fairly standard Methodist service and then did a critical biblical and ethical sermon. I'm not sure how well it came over, whether it looked like he was engaged in a personal search, or if he was encouraging others, or even losing them. The 'liberal' Catholic's sermons were, in the end, questions for you to answer yourself. The question is whether a liberal Protestant is devoid of props to uphold whatever it is he or she is supposed to uphold.

I'm told that simple, straightforward, preaching etc. is the priesthood of all believers, and the liberal Protestant fits into that, although I reject that label for myself as I don't identify myself as a 'believer' but rather a facilitator - I take such justification from education. But clearly the liberal Protestant is involved in much decentralisation, in terms of belief and making decisions.

It is not clear sometimes where one draws the line between a loyal group of a particular piety (e.g. a confraternity) that still relies on a larger body to uphold the "sacred canopy," and a larger body that has tacitly delegated concern for the sacred to its constituent tribes (e.g. ecclesiolae in ecclesia), having itself withdrawn from the sacred to become a real estate trust with a brand name, some residual tradition, normal corporate politics, and a job market for clergy. A multiplicity of tribes guarding visions of the sacred that live in perpetual tutelage under others who scrupulously share none of these visions is not a church.

Thus, a seemingly bold "tribal" initiative to organize around something sacred as the "trust" itself retreats from it may be, after all, the natural response on which the whole system of relations has long depended. That would not only not be an aggressive design-- to which the beliefs and affiliations of others pose a natural limit anyway-- but could even be seen by some as "enabling" dysfunction at the center by making it easy for the trust to withdraw ever more easily into mere dispirited corporatism.

If one does not admire Sir Humphrey Appleby as the very model for a contemporary bishop, then one wants to draw a line between the realism that can deal with power and the cynicism that cannot deal with anything else. Where is it? Certainly the regard for sacred things that the faithful have is not found on the cynical side of it.