Forum Thread
'Irregular Ordinations' in Southwark

Thank you for your post. Much food for thought, for me. And as you say, literary and spiritual giants bear witness. I didn't say Paul was restrictive, but find his wonderful letters come later, and that Jesus, is for me, the master painter /author.  I shall have to give your post further thought, but thought I'd, at least acknowlege it.

I felt my idea appeared simplistic as reflected back by you, in your first line (I don't blame you), but it may be that I am, or have somehow become that simple (hopefully not simplistic! But I don't know).  But despite the shock of seeing it reflected back in black and white, I find it is where I stand.  I find my theology gets simpler and simpler -streamlined; and that my worship similarly-- as in my PB days--only more so.  

I agree with you : no secret tradition given unto bishops. My sense of ministry has become  very functional, and I don't believe any form of structural ministry is of 'the esse of the church'.  But then for me, the esse of the church amounts to little. (Rather along the lines of JC Ryle's tract The True Church --only in rather different language--and more so).

I do find the distinction  between 'the simple message of Jesus' and (what I have come to think of as ) churchianity compelling.

Christianity is a Way and not a notion.

Anyways thats me for now!

The simple spiritual message of Jesus as against the complex, restrictive message of Paul or the Church is always an  attractive dichotomy. There are those of spiritual genius who see the message of Jesus, you may claim William Blake, Soren Kirkegaard, Leo Tolstoy, John Yoder, Dietrich Bonhoffer. In most of these cases I suspect that the final simple message is the result of a long wrestling with the texts and the tradition rather than immediate illumination or intuition.

In the traditional catholic model, I believe that the apostles and then the bishops are regarded as the guarantors and holders of the tradition. I believe that this under values the tole of the ordinary christian. For the gospels, we have an oral period of at least 20 years. It is a mistake to think that in this period the apostles were the only witnesses  and that the gospel writers simply recorded what the apostles said. The Jesus stories were told in this period many times by ordinary people and their accounts compared by ordinary people so that by the end of the period any deviant versions would be corrected. In this sense the repository for the tradition is the whole church. Aspects of this tradition have been reflected by the Church Fathers along with their own theological innovation. What I doubt is that their is still some secret tradition which is only accessable to bishops.

In the end we are all inheritors of a tradition which is  to some degree faulty. We must test this tradition in the light of scripture being aware that we will find some new mistakes of our own. We delude ouselves if we think we can put tradition behind us and star again from scratch. If we do this we are likely to be even less able to understand Jesus than the people of his own time did. We do not have the Massianic expectation and are likely to make Jesus into a prophet of the rejection of self interest, a second Buddah.

David

As I say User 974, our Eschatologies seem to differ. One day Christ will come as King in Judgement with the Sword to rule with a rod of iron. In this Christian Kingship is a shadow of good things to come. This is a different coming and office to his first coming when he came as the suffering servant as an example to individuals rather than as how to rule as a Christian King.

Statesmen throughout the ages of various religions have all taught the importance of a State religion as a focus for national unity and discipline. The decay of the West with all its social evils is the result of attempting to organise society without a religion to carry the shared values and ideals.

Much of our heritage is the product of centuries of Christian thinking. Our rules of Equity started in the Court of our King's Christian Conscience. The humanity and practicality of our Christian Common Law compared with the inflexible harshness of Roman Law. Even our Criminal Law can be traced to jurists and canonists implementing God's Ten Commandments as part of Christian Justice - a God-given absolute slowly being displaced by unprincipled laws based on fallible reason and pragmatism.

So even secularism as we know it  is as just and equitable as it is because of this Christian heritage - but with Post Modernism and the like all this is being challenged with a view to being overthrown. In America and France the new anti-Christian secularism becomes an engine of persecution because in the final analysis there is no neutrality.

Sooner or later the West is going to need a state religion and it is going to be Christianity, Islam, or some sort of neo-paganism. So, whatever may be the faults of Christian Emperors and Christian Kings, I would rather live under a Constantine, Justinian or English King supporting and protecting Christianity than a Nero, Domitian or Diocletian set on destroying Christianity and me with it.

I think you misunderstand how much of our secular West has been formed by Christian thinking and then just remember how quickly Nazi Germany became brutal and unchristian when neo-paganism was promulgated. Realise how much subtle pressure and persecution against religious aspects of life are emerging in America, France and even the UK under the farce of secular impartiality.

I would rather be ruled by a Christian King with a conscience and the safety valve of a Royal Pardon than a soulless state without conscience where bureaucrats have no authority to show mercy or exercise common sense.

Lawrence,

I soooooooooo know what you mean!

There's this 'book meme' thing which goes round the blogsphere, and one of the questions is, 'Which book do you wish had been written?'.  I'd so like to have seen, 'My life and other disciples - the Aramaic version.  by Jesus of Nazareth'.

I think Steve Chalke (and Brian Mclaren) have been trying to do just that, in reclaiming the 'ethical message' from excessively dogmatic Evangelicalism.  Of course this 'perspective of Love' never really 'disappeared' since it has been the inspiration for many of the churches greatest Saints (and not a few pre-reformation....) and my explorations into Orthodoxy have uncovered the same rich vein within the 'theology of creation' (tied up with holistic stewardship) which is so well developed in this tradition.

I think the NT provides us with the most amazing mandate for love and transformation and it is to our shame if we fail to grasp the vision and run with it!

Go well,

Richard

Hi Richard, thanks.

I take your powerful point.

I know what you mean about the kerygma (Bultmann,et al).  And of course, this includes that 'the church' or churches, ( or christian groupings, traditions) gave us the gospels,  informed / mediated  / moulded by versions of the kerygma.

church  for me is when 2 or 3 are gathered together ....  I think, I think that is enough.  Also, I think I find various 'windows' to his spirit, to his kingdom / republic.  I believe there is something to be  apprehended  in the gift of the present.

I also  recognise that Jesus'  first / only tongue was Aramaic, and that the gospels are in koine.

However, when I read the message of Jesus in the synoptics, I find a message, which is very different from the message of today's Church. I am speaking particularly of the Beatitudes, sermon on the mount / plain, and the parables.  How I wish this message, Jesus own message would be  given priority.  For me the distinction I drew is in fact, very important, for my spirituality.  I regret the loss of the Aramaic tongue and that world of Jesus,  that Jewish world, so  small besides the Greek world and culture.  I value those few Aramaic words and thrill at the thought that these words were actually on his lips.  Imagine if A Tale of Two Cities could now only be read in say, French, or Dafydd ap Gwilym was available in English translation alone.

 I don't know if this hangs together, but I'd better post it, for what its worth. : -)

Lawrence,

Obviously there is some in what you say re: petty arguments within the 'family of Christ' :-(

However, I just had to pick you up on one thing...

'And I DO mean the teaching OF Jesus and not the Churhes' teaching ABOUT Jesus'

We would have no record of the 'teachings of Jesus' if it wasnt for the records of the early church which articulated his 'teachings'.  I know it's been said a thousand times before (by better people than I) but one simply can't divide the 'teachings of Jesus' from the kerygma of the early church.  Jesus himself left no textual evidence of his thoughts, only a group of Apostles through whom these ideas would be proclaimed.

Now I'll be the first to say that this doesn't give 'The Church' a 'carte blanche' to make up what it likes about Jesus, however we must take seriously the Apostolic tradition as we see it worked out and communicated throughout the ancient world - there is no other 'window' to Jesus than this.

The uncomfortable thing that this raises (for any potential 'revisor') is that the Apostolic tradition is much more than simply ethical/moral teaching (the '50 wisdom sayings of a Jewish prophet' - er...not! pace Gospel of Thomas) but includes structure, praxis and sacrament all of which - we must simply assume - reaches back into the ministry of Jesus himself (c.f. the Johannine passages about being the 'bread of life').

Nope.  One can not have Christ without having the Church and vice versa.  Sure, the Church has always been 'incarnated' within Sinful and Fallen cultures but if we accept that if - in Christ - God is able to transform fallen creation, then we must be open to the suggestion that the same promise exists for the church.  Deep ecclesiology indeed.

All the best,

Richard

I find nothing christian in Constantine or Nicea.  These rulers did not live by the teaching of Jesus.   And I DO mean the teaching OF Jesus and not the Churhes' teaching ABOUT Jesus.  Even now I find little interest in the church in Jesus own message.  (Cf  the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount / plain ).  Governements and states would be hard put to be chritstian, for long. Notwithstanidng William Penn's bold experiement.

The teaching of scripture is so clear that we have, broadly 3 schools of anglican evangelical,  3 schools of anglican catholic, various schools of liberal and radical theology, and also liberal evos, liberal anglos, etc.

Then beyond anglicanism, scripture is so clear that there is everything from RC to eastern Orthordox  through to Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Brethren,Independent,Unitatian,  to Salavation Army and Quaker.  Sacramentalist to none sacramentalist.  Sprinking, dunking to nothing, if you like!  Or wafer, to bread and wine, to bap and ribenna- if you will.  From sacramental Adoration, benediction & Reservation through to, thrown out to the birds !

Then, Politically those who see 'Constantine' and the state as agents of God, and those who see the wickedness in high places. Those who espouse the Pacifism of Jesus' clear teaching, and of the early church; and those who will live (and die) by the sword.

I wonder who is to excise whom ? :-) Believe me , having seen some excisions in my time, I have no stomach for it. It leads to cruelty and great waste. Isn't ecumenism about valuing all of the above--and more? Isn't anglicanism about containing and valuing much of the above ?!

In Penmachno they were once, so keen on doctrinal purity, that to this day, this one street village has 2 Methodist chapels--one Calvinisitc and the other Wesla.  Both long ago became irrelevant, to people working the land, tennant,subsitence farmers, along with the parish church which holds its services in a foreign tongue (English).  This is how churches become irrelevant and people never hear the message of Jesus.  And I DO mean Jesus' own neglected, inconvenient message.  So much easier to worship him and ignore his message.  -- Constantine and his successors'd be out the door straightway !

To User 974 - Our Eschatologies differ - I actually believe Constantine was a good thing - it was the partial and imperfect fulfilment of the Kingdoms of this world becoming the Kingdoms of Christ. Constantine, Justinian and other emperors showed the way of ruling as Christians in a fallen world conscious of being vice-regents under God. Constantine saw the corruption of the Roman Church and move his capital to the more orthodox East and founded New Rome.

The history of the Church may be marred by sin, but that is because of the paradox that God places his treasure in earthen vessels and overrules all things to the good of the elect who are called according to His eternal purposes.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness - and that includes those warning about those who secretly corrupt the word of God, speaking perverse things draw disciples after themselves not sparing the flock and so forth. Messy as the struggle against heresy is, it is a necessary struggle demanded by the clear teaching of Scripture - if you have a problem with this you have a problem with historic Christianity, which is a Faith rooted in history with a doctrinal content from a God who deigned to dwell among us, save us from not in our sins by teaching us not only THE WAY, but also THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE - a life that was Holy, harmless and undefiled and separate from sinners.

With every good wish,

Alan ;-)

The history of 'the Creeds' is hardly edifying , let alone godly--as we know--  Constantine and all that. 

As George Fox said, "Christianity is a Way, not a notion."

C.f  J C Ryle's tract 'The True Church'.

David,

One could with Jeremy Taylor suggest a return to the Ecumenical Creeds as the test of a preacher's orthodoxy, but that would still unchurch the Baptists when you take "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" as originally intended.

The early Church came up with the Ecumenical Creeds as the answer to misbelief about the Triune God as the object of worship, and similarly, at the Reformation the Reformed Churches attempted to purify the ministry by excluding those holding other doctrinal errors.

As you say the Reformed Creeds have always been seen as secondary standards - the Word of God being the ultimate standard. This was Chillingworth's point when he put forward the Scriptures as the Protestant's equivalent of definitions of Trent - that in which we all agree on as authoritative despite any minor difference in our Confessions is the Bible and the Bible alone (as a safe way of salvation) is the religion of Protestants.

However, these Confessions were the authoritative declarations of the respective churches expected to be believed and taught by the clergy until and unless they were found needing to be corrected. The 1560 Scotch Confession makes this explicit when it says "Protesting (testifying) that if any man will note in this our confession any Article or sentence repugnant to God's Holy Word, that it would please him of his gentleness and for Christian charity sake to admonish us of the same in writing; and we upon our honour's and fidelity, by God's grace do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God, that is, from His Holy Scriptures, or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amiss."

I believe it was only the Independents or Congregationalists who protested against subscription to Creeds and Confessions as a term of ministerial communion - most others have accepted them as useful in maintaining the Theological integrity of a church, something we seem to have lost sight of over the last century and a half.

Hi Karen,

Before answering your latest displayed post, may I draw attention to my new thread I have submitted (THE LAMBETH 1920 APPEAL [TO ALL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE] AS THE BASIS FOR UNITY) inviting people to brainstorm this as a useful starting point to get our bearings. This witnesses to a generosity that accepted non-Episcopal Ordinations and irregular Consecrations may valid and owned of God implying more generally that such things might be according to law (licit) but invalid, or contrary to rule or law and nevertheless valid as well as both valid and licit or invalid and illicit.

As this is of more general application than simply the alleged Southwark Ordinations I have, as I say, submitted this as a new thread.

But to return to this thread and your contribution. First as to the meaning of Article XVII on Predestination. Richard Laurence, Regius Professor of Hebrew and later Archbishop of Cashel gave the 1804 Bampton Lectures showing this article as put forth in 1552 was Lutheran in origin, and suggesting the caveat against incautious parading was in response to Melancthon's concern found in his letter of 1548 to Cranmer. These dates are important because by 1535 Melancthon and Luther had retracted the former High views of absolute Predestination.

Anglicans have held a number of interpretations including the Wesley brothers' unpelagianised Arminianism expressed by Charles as "The unchangeable decree is passed, the sure Predestinating Word, that I who on my Lord am cast, I shall be like by sinless Lord, was fixed from all eternity, all things are possible to me."

However it was also Charles Wesley who wrote "No man can truly say, that Jesus is the Lord, unless [God] takes the veil away and breathes the living Word." Which is little different to a Calvinist Hymn writer who wrote "Hear the terms that never vary, to repent and to believe, both of these are necessary, both from Jesus we receive."

So it all comes down to man's utterly lost state due to the Fall, and his inability to turn and save himself (Articles IX, X, XIII), that is his being dead in trespasses and sins and his need of a real metaphysical regeneration bringing the Faith in God that Justifies. All this is asserting the need for personal Divine intervention leading to the New Birth we can not produce in ourselves anymore than anyone baptises themselves - salvation is outside our control.

For a modern review of these matters, may I suggest the Polish Catholic Philosopher Leszek Kolakowski in his book "God owes us nothing - a brief remark on Pascal's Religion and the Spirit of Jansenism" which reopens the debate as to whether the Western Church made a serious error in rejecting Augustine and embracing Semi-Pelagianism by attributing too much to free will.

Moving to your second point, to what extent we should honour the older Confessions. From a personal point of view, people are free to accept or reject them as their own belief, that is part of the Protestant idea of the Bible alone being the Religion of Protestants. They are only the witness of what those who draw them up believed. They also are, so far as anyone since has owned them, a witness to what such people believe.

However there is a second use of Creeds with regards to gifts to Charity. When people give money or property to the promulgation of Christianity, they have every right to assert the essence of the kind of Christianity they wish to support to limit the use of their gift only to those who agree with them. I think we should honour that.

In this context, should some person or group of persons gift a Church or other property on the condition that the doctrine of John Wesley, or Richard Baxter or the Westminster Divines should be taught and only a minister willing to so teach is to have the use of that Church, then I for one think that is reasonable. It would be a dereliction of duty if the Trustees take property given to promote one form of Christianity and divert it to support some different form.

In the same way, so far as the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles is required to be taught as a condition of the use of any Anglican property, it should be honoured and the honourable thing for someone to do should he change his mind, is to leave to found or join some other communion in harmony with his altered understanding of the Bible.

So, in this sense it has to do with morality, the use of property in agreement with the donors conditions on which the property was given. Should no one be found to use it as originally intended, then is the time to get Parliament to divert it to its closest proximate use. In this way we honour the memory and keep faith of those who have gone before, without doing violence to the consciences of any in the present. That is why we tollerate dissent.

With every good wish,

Alan