Forum Thread
'Irregular Ordinations' in Southwark

Hello folks. My apologies for not replying earlier; I've found being at the keyboard uncomfortable due to the heat.

Re: The Thirty-Nine Articles. I see nothing instrinsically wrong with any group of Christians setting out their beliefs. Lists are a very popular way of setting out overall beliefs, doctrines or ideas. The Ten Commandments are a list, in a sense. Lists enable our human minds to comtemplate aspects of God's mind as a method with which we can cope.

When general alarm is felt by congregation members when Predestination ( of the kind that says that a group of selected individuals have been chosen by God before time to be saved) is 'taught', it is clear that not all Anglicans read this Article in the same way.

If we are a church open to all, a doctrine like Predestination - depending on how you understanding it - could be something of a stumbling block.

I understand predestination to mean that all who are in Christ are predestined to Christlikeness. I do not understand it to mean that a certain number of humankind have been predestined by God to choose Jesus as their saviour. God may well know how each human being will choose from the time He saw them knit in their mother's womb but this is not the same Him doing the choosing.

I would also suggest that the vast majority of Christians would immediately question why we have John 3:16 etc. and then a teaching that says salvation is limited - unless of course the vast majority, say 99.9%, of humankind is predestined to be saved. Do we have the numbers? We don't.

And what of people who have never heard the Gospel such as those simple societies still extant in Amazonia who have had no outside contact. Or the people in the region described as 10:40 - 10 degrees south of the equator and 40 degrees to the north, who really have never heard the Gospel. This 10:40 region includes most of Central Asia's former Soviet Muslim Republics, the Himalayan Kingdoms, Pakistan, China, Tibet and Mongolia. Then there are the Muslim regions of North Africa and the Arab diaspora of the Middle East. Even when missionaries do get into these countries, small ethnic groups within these nations can be particularly hard to evangelise. To what, are these peoples predestined? When God's judgment falls on these people is He going to send them to Hell. Is that just? Maybe yes? I'm not so sure.

Back in the good old UK, the doctine of predestination as it is described on Reform's web site has a pleasing comfort when considered from my armchair but not when I look out of my front door and not when I consider the people who have said to me, " Karen you are a good person, you go to church but I am not good enough to go.............?!?!", or " Karen you are a christian but I haven't got the strength to give myself to Jesus even though I know He was/is real".

Over the years I have been struck by the sense of exclusion from the Church that many people feel and that they are confusing it with a sense that God has excluded them. I have learnt to recognise that people in general are not refusing Christ, nor are they refusing to accept that they are sinners; many people have a very deep or even exaggerated sense of sin. They are in fact refusing the Church. They are refusing to come amongst us - the Church. These feelings always seems to centre around feelings of unworthiness engendered by the 'respectability' of those inside the church already. I can remember feeling like that both before and immediately after I gave my life to Christ. It took me nearly four years to get into a church after I gave my life to Christ. We also now need to consider that for many people Sunday is no longer a feasible church going day - they have to work - and not just in retail outlets. Many people in lower paid or lower skilled employments are simply too tired to motivate themselves to get up and out to spend an hour in an organisation which they feel excluded from anyway.

Now I can see how what I've just written could prove that those not in Christ do fear what is going to happen to them when they die so they fearfully stay away just as Article 17 states and that the rest of us have great comfort to be drawn from knowing we are saved from an eternity in Hell but I would have to disagree.

From the conversations I have had with people (mostly working class mothers in the local park, at the school gate etc.); they are very much focussed on the here and now and their own very real feeling or idea, that they are not fit to go to church today or any day, rather than any after-life concerns or consequences. Now it seems odd to me that one the one hand we have the here and now Jesus in the Gospels living it large and this almost 'once and future king' Jesus deciding who is in and who is out - according to some Christians.

If for a multitude of socio-economic reasons, such as social class or geographical location, most people not going to church this does not give us permission to scour scriptures for key passages from which we can create excuses for our failure to share God's love by baptising and discipling all the nations ( making learners). The scriptures cannot provide for that which is contrary to God; they do not give us permission to create theories or permission to have the audacity to call these ideas a comforting doctrine. Nor is church-going modelled as a remnant of middle class respectability and middle class socialising, proof of salvation. If people do not come to know Christ as the Saviour why can't we (A) accept they have made that choice and decide to not seek a one size fits all explanation / reason / doctrine and (B) instead look very carefully at ourselves as Church and (c) we could perhaps acknowledge that we often leave a bad taste of Jesus in people's mouths by the examples we set and the things we say. And yet, I have been at prayer meetings where people have prayed about the 'Offence' of the Gospel - good soundbite - proves to the other christians at the meeting that they are red hot etc. but are they sure that this is what they really want together with it's consequences such as REAL persecution. Easy to pray the 'offence' in our church halls but Christians in real persecution situations are not nearly so bullish or aggressive with the Word, sorry scriptures but instead call on Jesus and wait for move of the Spirit whilst showing love and gentleness and humility to their persecutors.

It is very easy to appeal to the educated graduate type of person with a logical argument, which via proof texts, allied to a world view, such as the breakdown of modern society and family breakdown, (not a particularly historically or even biblically accurate view of mankind's behaviour - by the way), all proving the authenticity of scripture and therefore Jesus. Scipture first, then Jesus?!?!?

Such types of people have been trained by their education and sometimes their own families to look for logical lines of argument as tests or proofs and to disregard the 'subjective'experience as not being a good test or proof. So therein lies the emphasis in CE on Word Minstry - Proving the authenticity of Jesus by proving the authenticity of your primary source record, in this case the bible. Unfortunately post conversion CE does not sufficiently steer people away from this way of thinking which is essentially carnal, ie always seeking proof etc., which carries risks of arrogance, aggression and placing the scriptures ahead of Jesus.

Most in Anglican CE would speedily distance themselves from the equally conservative Word of Faith movement from the USA but they have a great similarity; the deification of the Scriptures. CE are very quick to recognise and point out this fault of our WoF brethren but do not recognise it in themselves! Having partaken of both groups teaching styles I say that their similarities are greater than their dissimilarities; WoF perhaps, has a bit more Holy Spirit action and a more palatable approach to female subjugation. Neither group recognises the Word for what the Word really is - Jesus - and instead they both believe that the "Word" is the Scriptures. Before I got sucked in by this stuff, I was gently warned by an Anglican vicar that there are some people who worship the book (the Bible), how I wish I'd fully understood her comment as a warning prompted by God's Holy Spirit. I had to learn by consequences.

More than enough.

Dear Karen,

Re Assent to Thirty-nine Articles, especially, Article 17.

As the laity, we are only required to believe the Creeds, it is the Clergy who assent to the Articles, but that does not mean agree that they are true!

Today, the word assent as found in Canon A2 implies much less than consent - simply an agreement that the Thirty-nine Articles as the formal Doctrine of the Church of England are a reasonable Scriptural position. Assent does not imply consent or that the person assenting holds those views out of personal conviction. However, perhaps it should be taken as an agreement to teach that doctrine and no other when acting as a representative of the Church. Even so, it would be not too unreasonable to avoid teaching on Predestination if one thought it unhelpful.

For myself, I find the Thirty-nine Articles, taken as originally intended to be a fair expression of my own faith, though in accepting the Judicial verdict on Article Six, I additionally hold the higher Reformed view of Scripture. With respect to the Homilies, having not studied them in detail I am taking them generally as to the general thrust of their teaching.

Interestingly, From Elizabeth-I through to Victoria, the Act of Parliament only required subscription "to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the confession of the Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments". This was intended to be an undefined subset of the Articles for the relief of the Puritan clergy. This was later frustrated by the additional requirements of Episcopal Ordination and conformity to the Prayer-book in 1662.

To close on another historical note, the original Anglican Via Media, was that of Bishop Joseph Hall on his return from the Synod of Dort. He advocated the middle way between Calvinism and unpelagianised Arminian theology.

With every good wish

Alan ;-)

Hi Karen,

Are you objecting to:

a: The view that Chtistian faith imvolves a body doctrine which gives a world view?

b: The CE interpretation of this?

c: Particular CE teaching involving headship and the docrines of grace?

d: The teaching of these matters to young christians?

or e: The way these are taught and the "psycology" of conservative groups?

David

Hi Karen and JohnR

The text of the Article as quoted is corrupted towards the end. It should read: 'So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.' I'm not 100% sure what this means. Is it a good thing to be a 'downfall' or a bad one? OED explains 'wretchlessness' as recklessness. Why doesn't the article go the whole Calvinist hog and embrace reprobation here? It seems to be suggesting that the idea of predestination may be so depressing that it encourages repentance.

How about 'curious'? OED sense 1b gives a usage current between the Romance of the Rose (1400) and Aubrey 's Miscellany (1697) that seems to fit: anxious, concerned, solicitous but more likely is 2. meaning excessively fastidious about food, clothing, matters of taste. Perhaps you don't think this matters? The meaning 1b would give us the real stink of calvinism -- the more you worry about not being saved, the less likley it is that you are! But I expect it's closer to 2. High living and luxury are incompatible with the life of the redeemed.

There is a general point here too, isn't there? We have to make a historical effort to understand parts of the BCP; just as we do in relation to the Bible and the creeds -- 'consubstantialem patri' isn't 'one in substance' any more but 'of one Being', because we don't think in terms of substance and accident. For many of us, it's high time that 'et homo factus est' became 'and was made human' because for our sensitivities 'Man' can no longer be assumed to include women (and homo doesn't mean vir); when the issue is gendered like that, of course, it has enormous theological significance. And similarly , for different historical reasons, many think it's time to remove the Western addition of the filioque (and the Son) in relation to the creed's statements about the Holy Spirit -- as is, I believe, usual in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Similar considerations hold for the positive bits of Article XVII. We don't (all) think in terms of the rather rigid mechanism and logic in which it is set out: but that doesn't stop us affirming and sensing the work of God's grace preceding our dim understanding of His work in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, 'from before the foundation of the world' and in the Body of Christ continually now. But I might well have my fingers crossed if I had to  affirm that the curious were plunged by the Devil into wretchlessness and despair at the thought of God's action. Mercifully, no one is ever going to ask me to. Tony

Karen,

I think there are several reasons why John R responded to your message by focusing in on the issue of predestination. Firstly because your previous message raised too many issues in too personal a manner to allow for general discussion. In that message you seemed to be objecting to both the method and content of CE 'discipling' as well as the individual styles of unnamed CE leaders as well as some CE reactions to OEs and others as well as details about 'CE training programmes and ministries', as well as your own troubling experiences of some or all of the above. (None of which, by your own comment, are specifically connected with the subject of this thread).

Secondly, because as regards content your objection to CE discipling seems to revolve around the definiteness of the content which is communicated in such settings. There is, by your account of CE, a 'particular set of approved doctrines' from which young Christians are warned not to depart. Fundamentally this is about 'the creation of a worldview' in which the Bible is central and authoritative (even over things fondly believed for a long time).

Here the 39 articles are absolutely relevant inasmuch as on any reading they seem to convey the idea that the Christian Faith as the Church of England has received it has some definiteness of content which reflects a worldview in which the Bible is central and authoritative. That may of course explain why CEs are 'conservative' - they still believe that there is a particular set of approved doctrines (reflecting the Bible's own teaching) to which those who are ordained in the Church of England give their assent.

Hi

Predestination can also be understood as the predestination of the Church, as a body, to be the vehicle by which God brings blessing to the world.

There is a certain amount of choice by the individual as to whether they choose to be included in the Church, but God has called everyone.

This Church, with fluid boundaries, into which all are invited, has been chosen to bless the world.  Those who choose another way already stand condemned because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Is that polite dishonesty?

Jody

Thankyou John R for your comments on "Assent" and "The Lost Message"on the other threads and the Article XVII below. If there is error in the Lost Message then it should be pointed out but in Love.

The Article XVII and "assent" are a considerable issue. I'm personally not sure that this Article is right, so even if I was eligable to be ordained, just say, I'm not sure that I could swear to uphold this Article so I wouldn't/won't put myself in that situation. I have been confirmed as an adult in the CofE but I wasn't really cogniscent of this Article. It was perhaps shown to me but I can't remember. I'm now wondering why we require oaths and assents in light of what Jesus said about being foresworn.

Oaths or assents could be a sign of agreeing to church rules but I think many people see it as more a statement of belief. Is it possible to agree to uphold something even if you don't personally believe in it. Possibly but I don't think that that would be right morally and would surely bring a person into conflict at some point.Has anyone thought of doing an anonymour poll to see how many clergy agree with this Article?

Also I think it is interesting that you have honed in on my comment about Predestination which was one provocative comment amongst many! This happened once before, on this thread I think, with another poster who particularly drew this matter out from a number of issues I had brought up. It's just that I don't think that predestination in the Bible is the same as the Predestination described in the Article.

Hi karen

Your experience of CEs seems to be so different from mine. I was converted at a boys camp run primarily by people from an FIEC camp. My early teaching came from the Scripture Union through Sunday school materials, the school christian union (ISCF), park missions (CSSM) and Daily Bread notes and the CYFA group (CPAS). Later at university I went to St Ebbes and was involved with the OICCU (UCCF). At the same time I had the great privilede of attening college chapel, organised by Revd Michael Chantry. The variety of sources and constant guest speakers prevented any one line being pushed to the exclusion of others. The problem was rather that different teachings were presented as christian and they all sounded good but it the differences between them were not immediately apparent. The chapel brought me into contact with other Anglicans who could only be described as anti-CU, anti-St Aldates and most of all anti-OICCU. When talking to them any spouting of the party line was immediately ridiculed and proof texts were treated with scepticism . The main descipling group was the St Aldates beginners group and I never heard the type of criticism you refer to made against it although my chapel friends probably did call it brain washing.

I have subsequently been very hurt when attending a Charismatic Anglican church whose vicar I trusted and who then put his friendship with David Jenkins above his loyalty to the gospel. In this church I found home groups oftern very frustrating as they seemed to be a sharing of ignorance rather than knowledge. An over enthusiastic home group leader caused me to doubt the reality of my faith because I did not speak in toungues. Problems caused by my employer who was also a home group leader made it impossible for me to find  the support I so despirately needed in the Church and I lost may faith in God's love and good purposes towards me. I had to cross diocisan lines to begin to have my faith restored when I went to St Mary's in Cheadle and became involved in the Navigators. The rector of St Mary's at the time was Revd James Aire, a Keswick speaker. This was the nearest thing to returning to St Ebbe's.

I have found only in the conservative evangelical church the Gospel that God saves us. It was while we were still far off, spiritually dead, that God chose to come close to us convicted us of our sins and made Jesus real to us. In all other branches God has left clues of his presence for us to find but it is upto us to go on our quest for God and if we are lucky we might be saved. Thus it is taught that God provides the means of savation but in the end we save ourselves.

The truth is that young Christians need to find out what is in the Bible for themselves. It is only through a good knowledge of the Bible that we can discern truth from a lie and realise when we are being led up the garden path by some extremist. The real danger in the church today is self appointed apostles and prophets who claim to have heard from God and so put themselves beyond criticism. You cannot hold a reasonable conversation with people who are being brainwashed in the New Churches. At St Ebbes and St Mary's we were always encouraged to have our Bibles open and check what the preacher said against scripture. I cannot recall spoting any major gaffs. The preaching was mainly book by book empasising God's rich provision on Christ and wisdom for christian living. I was aware of a range of doctrinal views held by members of the congregation. In this cool rational atmosphere the meaning of scripture could be discussed and klnolege shared. I would contrast this with the New Churches where an hour of enthusiastic worship stirs the emotions and the sermon has a text but the Bible is rarely referred to but is based on anecdote and peronal revalation. 

Just on the predestination issue, (Karen writes, "It [Conservative Evangelicalism] is all about small scale, tight knit conversion of an exclusive remnant i.e. the Predestined"), what do we do make of Article XVII, Of Predestination and Election? Doesn't this set out the Anglican position clergy accept in the Declaration of Assent? To save folks looking it up, I've copied it below:

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

I'm not convinced that the brand of discipling as introduced by Anglican CEs,( I'm NOT speaking about Co-mission here but generally) in recent years as a response to Alpha, is in fact discipling so much as thought control, in the sense that you - new little christian - must believe the bible through this particular set of approved doctrines.

Now I'm quite sure there is nothing new in the doctrines as taught in CE - we have our Reformed traditions after all - but it is the way this is being done that smacks of something new and different, except it isn't new, it is well - a sort of neo-Puritanism- and we all know what happened to them - Small boat- Atlantic - New World - Turkey Dinner - Shoot or Be Shot - Salem - Is Anyone Bovvered Anymore? It is all about small scale, tight knit conversion of an exclusive remnant i.e. the Predestined.

Most CEs I have met seem to have great difficulty with other evangelicals who think/believe outside the CE approved box because they are inculcated with the fear of error which they have been taught to dress up as discernment which presents as fearfulness and also as arrogance, depending on the person. Take Note!

Now CE big name teachers may well reject this or be unable to see what it is that I am talking about but then they might not be hearing what I'm hearing from my vantage point amongst ordinary Christians who have been on the receiving end of the CE training programmes and ministries - small 'c' conservative and open evangelical lay people who are being made to question their basis of a lifetimes belief as now wrong or not biblical. Who think they are going bonkers, who can't understand why they now hate going to church because they can't quite put their finger on the oh so subtle shift from teaching which emphasises God's love to mankind towards an emphasis on his wrathful demand for propitiation. This in turn is emasculating them and turning them into easy prey for those who seek power in these church. What I am saying is what I have seen. This 'discipling' is as much about the creation of a worldview within the believer according to particular CE concerns such as their preoccupation with sex as it is about what is in the bible. It is also about convincing people that the bible is inerrant not as a point of belief so much as a method of conversion to Christ which is not what Jesus Commissioned. Discipling means go make learners - not people who simply absorb "truths". This style of teaching now permeating CE is stultifying the spiritual lives of christians. And readers of a CE persuasion, please do not assume that I'm after a full blown Toronto alternative just because I criticised what is going on in CE at the moment - I am more than capable of criticising Toronto, Alpha and Emmaus ( even though I quite like Emmaus) too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) It is high time that those who are prominent in Anglican CE took a long hard look at their 'achievements' so far and perhaps weighed their fruit and how much it is costing people like me. But hey, that doesn't matter when you believe that this is war and not cricket, yeah? I'm just collateral damage.

David Bantings commments in the Reform press release of 13 June are as follows:

Richard Coekin has been responsible for a wonderful growth in church planting in London, he said. He provides dynamic and faithful church leadership and we should be celebrating the way God is using him, rather than putting obstacles in his path. If we are to explore 'fresh expressions' of church, then Richard provides one model for a way forward.

Unfortunately, the church's 'quota' system for allocating curates, coupled with its present financial constraints, means that growing churches will always be held back by those who are more concerned with central allocation of posts than with the needs of growing churches. Ministers like Richard, who are keen to see the gospel spread, will always find such constraints deeply frustrating, especially when their parishes are willing to fund any additional posts. The situation is exacerbated when parishes find themselves in impaired communion with their bishops on doctrinal grounds.

This whole business has been an exercise in frustration. It is now clear that revocation of a clergyman's licence cannot be regarded as a proportionate penalty in a case such as Richard's. If the church is to avoid these difficulties arising, an urgent review must be undertaken of the ways in which the present system of funding, training and then allocating assistant clergy posts could be freed up. We must move to a system that is much more driven by parishes and where funding is made the responsibility of individuals and parishes, rather than dioceses.

I do not understand the objection to discipling in the quote Jody refers to. At its simplist it is no more than an acknowlegement that the great commission is to make disciples rather than converts. I do not know how co-mission organise this but I understand the normal practice is bible based discussions in small groups based on a gospel or thematic study. I you are suggesting something more than this a more appropriate word sould be shepherding and this led to no end of problems in the early days of the charismatic movement in some house churches.

does anyone know if any of the local clery still support co-misssion or would it now be more than their job is worth to say so?

I offer thses thoughts as much to myself as to others, as I feel, following on from Ken's witness here, that much of our thoughts and writing are war-like, contain the seeds of conflict. I and We can only turn to the Light of Christ again and again.   I hope the following will be found helpful :---

31. We are called to live `in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars'. Do you faithfully maintain our testimony that war and the preparation for war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.

32. Bring into God's light those emotions, attitudes and prejudices in yourself which lie at the root of destructive conflict, acknowledging your need for forgiveness and grace. In what ways are you involved in the work of reconciliation between individuals, groups and nations?

33. Are you alert to practices here and throughout the world which discriminate against people on the basis of who or what they are or because of their beliefs? Bear witness to the humanity of all people, including those who break society's conventions or its laws. Try to discern new growing points in social and economic life. Seek to understand the causes of injustice, social unrest and fear. Are you working to bring about a just and compassionate society which allows everyone to develop their capacities and fosters the desire to serve?