Hi Jody,

I hope we can keep up the communion/confession discussion on some level at least.  I'd be happy to hear what you made of my remark that in cases where the Bible isn't held to be infallible then other sources of theology come in to fill that place more or less as a matter of course.

On the issues raised in the Uffman-Richardson discussion, I have to say at the start that I really do hope for rapprochement between CEs and OEs, since these are live isses in Evangelicalism more broadly and globally (that is, even if the Anglican communion formalizes the divisions in the future, they won't just go away outside that sphere).  Based on stated principles at least, I see no reason to assume that you folks who self-identify as OEs are heterodox.  I've made the point that I think the better label is not 'open' or 'liberal' but 'catholic', since that is far more precise.  Uffman's appreciation for 'the mind of the communion', 'waiting for each other', and process ('what we perform') over 'destination', makes this pretty clear in my mind.  And that's the point at which I'm inclined to agree with Richardson, since I do think that Uffman has to a great extent ducked the issues.  Maybe I was given an innoculation against a preference for process over destination by CS Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress -- I don't know.  And I'm not so sure that my anchor is, or ever ought to be, in 'the mind of the communion'.  This of course brings us right back to the communion/confession discussion.  But it seems like 'waiting for each' other, which of course sounds very wonderful and appeals to me on a purely emotional level (I was raised in Latin America, where you learn to wait), cannot be absolutized (if that's in fact what Uffman is doing). 

That said, I do agree with Uffman very much when calls for kind of discourse which really is fashioned in such a way as to allow a proper response.  So much discourse out there is structured in such a way as to kill discussion. 

The CE mode of killing it seems to be through a style of meeting which favours what Bakhtin calls 'authoritative discourse', a word from above, which only confronts you like an image, and which by its nature does not facilitate true discourse/dialogue because that's not what images do (they are just there, and not self interpreting).  In such a meeting, typically 50 minutes are devoted to the leader's discourse, broken up possibly by small groups in which you get to discuss things like 'the most embarrasing thing that's ever happened in church' (as was the case at a meeting for those of us who lead meetings at our church), then ending off with 5 minutes of light-hearted discussion in which a question that made the speaker reflect on what he (and it's invariably he) actually said would be like a rotten egg dropped into the middle of the room. 

We who do church in a CE mode desperately need women's readings of texts (even from the pulpit!) and feminine styles of discourse.

The OE way of killing the discussion seems to be through an appeal to unity over truth which can be subtle and not so subtle.  I've made this point many times here, but it's summed up in that popular song 'Undivided', which has a line about it not mattering if we don't agree.  Uffman of course thinks it does matter if we agree, but he somewhat undermines that conviction with a more process-oriented view of revelation which I assume he shares with Rowan Williams. 

Please let me know if you think otherwise, but I detect a generous spirit in the way Richardson interacts with Uffman.  And I'm not really sure that Uffman's remarks about an 'ontology of violence' were well calculated.  Many of us may not have a clue about Milbank and 'radical orthodoxy', but the sheer thrust of the word violence when applied to a Christian dialect which you are in principle open to learning from strikes me as disastrous.  I'm not sure we, 'as a communion', have any sense at all about what it means to speak in the categories Uffman brings in (e.g. 'insufficiently eschatological').  So I suggest, for the benefit of those who would take up the OE torch, and of CEs who might interact with Uffman but haven't been 'provided the space within which to reply', Uffman tries to interpret these terms for a wider reader. 

Just that for now, in hopes that I haven't killed the discussion in my own way.

Best,

Steve

Hi

Steve, I think that it would be good to return to the confession/communion debate at some point, but as we have appeared to come to a momentary pause on that discussion I wondered if I could introduce another topic?

in fact John Richardson brings it up on the blog he edits in response to Craig Uffman's post on evangelicalism.  permit me to copy some of John's response here (it can be found here):

'On the Covenant website Craig Uffman, in commenting on an article of his own linked from the Fulcrum website, writes this: 'I think the Gospel preached by conservative evangelicals is too often distorted by an ontology of violence. It is insufficiently eschatological and therefore does not really believe that the birth of the Messiah meant that God was acting through an infant to effect an overcoming of hostility. They see the world as a field of warfare. As a result, the substance of encounters with others with whom they differ is what Milbank calls “the asymmetrical triumph of some power over another.”'

It is statements like this which make me despair of a rapprochement between the open and conservative positions, not only because of what is said but the spirit in which it is said.'

As I suggested to John on the blog, I did not read Craig's statement as an insult, but more in the spirit of what we do here on this thread.  Trying to pin down some of the essential misfits between OEs and CEs - you are very good at saying 'OEs see it like this' and 'CEs see it like this' without it coming across as a criticism.  In light of this I thought that it might be worth us discussing this perspective which Craig puts forward regarding the ontology of violence, which I think is a valid concern.

My experience is that it can appear that CEs are caught up in a 'warfare' mentality of some sort.  There is a lot of militarised language and God seems to be heavily painted as 'judge' with very little emphasis on peacemaker.  This seems to be particularly evident in the apparent unwillingness to engage with the idea of a non-violent interpretation of the atonement (particularly put forward by liberation and womanist theologians, but more recently embraced more widely and particularly by evangelicals in the anabaptist and open traditions)  Ultimately this of course needs to go back to theology at it's most essential - is God the sort of God who establishes his will by force and control, or who establishes it by peace and partnership.  Sovereign God or Immanent God?  Brueggemann has something to say about this dichotomy, which is, I believe, a false one, but I would want to qualify the sovereignty of God out of the 'puppet master' stakes.

there are a few things in all of that, perhaps you could comment on this from your perspective......

blessings, Jody

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/theological-divide-and-liberalism.html

Interesting comment added to the above from Revd John P Richardson in which he shows likeness and difference are a worse nightmare than my kind of liberalism. Rather relevant to here, I would think.

Hang on, David H. You end by saying Evangelicalism is basically one movement, but most of your response you are saying there are differences. I realise there are differences, though these seem microsopic to the outsider of evangelicalism of any description. The interest here is basically institutional, and therefore about why this Reform compatible GAFCON and those Anglo-Catholics hovering around the Common Cause Partnership are in some trouble as having any unity. The Nicaean matter is a very broad-brush sweep of all sorts and kinds - pre Vatican II was also Nicaean.

Steve Griffin - I was suggesting that unity is not uniformity and is based more on relationship and meeting than agreement. As for links, this is the nature of the beast - I put hyperlinks for where I said something before, what I am reacting to and what I want to use to back an argument. They are a lazy form of bibliography.

If I am trying to demonstrate a liberal brand through my blog and through website materials, it is not that it expects agreement but that it is based on a method - a method of fully open discernment no matter where it goes. If you scroll down the blog you can see, for example, my reaction to an accidentally written Arian liturgy in the local church, and so the point is to have noticed this and give it as a pre-Nicaean liturgy. The essential point is that the liberalism is conversational across several boundaries, including this one. How much this one wants to converse with me, or those like me, is up to it.

Pluarlist.

You admit thatopen evangelicals and liberalism both cover  a diverse range of views yet you insist on treating conservative evangelicalism as monolithic. Most conservative evangelicals within the CofE will look to J I Packer and John Stott as recent past leaders they admire rather than Lloyd Jones. Jim Paker is one of the leaders and Evangelicals and Catholics together. I accept that there has been a tactical alliane between CEs and Anglo-Catholics on women priests but the wider mutual accetance is based on the changing presentation of Catholicism post Vatican II and a reconition of a common nicean faith. This is a genuine mutual respect which has come about as RCs have joined in local Churches Together groups, used Alpha, prduced high quality biblical scholarship and shared in fellowship throuth the charismatic renewal.

I wish you would say some  conservative evangelicals or name specific organisations. Evangelicalism is essentialy one movement which is identified by a particuar approach to scripture and mission. 

David    

Good morning, Adrian-Pluralist and Phil,

Adrian, I occasionally enjoy having a look at your extended comments, but as a rule I'm starting to think that this forum, with all the links to other sites, is like that nightmare research paper that gives an extended footnote for every other word in the main text.  I've tried to find ways to talk across the divide that separates your worldview and mine, but frankly I'm not sure how to proceed.  You write that you want unity, but you don't really care whether folks agree.  That sounds like what some Charismatic friends say (and sing), and frankly it goes nowhere.  Of course I don't expect agreement on many things that the tradition has considered adiaphora, but I do hope for, and struggle for, agreement in Apostolic basics, 'mere' Christianity, much of which you clearly reject.  So the only real way forward is for one of use to convert to the other's worldview, and while I'll hear your concern that CEs are out to control things (because that has to be true, due to human weakness), I don't think that their opponents of any stripe are especially immune in that regard.  Control comes in different modes. 

Phil,

I appreciate what you say, and your call for a formal debate.  I just wonder what that would look like here.  While this thread would be a good place to start on this forum, since those who've glanced at it will see that it's a no mud-slinging zone, the ethos of the Forum as a whole tends to be a kind of collective blog zone where you're free to comment on what you like and ignore what you like.  Centrists, understandably, are going to ignore questions I've raised below about RW's theology.  So I won't be getting the debate I'd like to have -- but then I don't get my hopes up about having it here.  But at least I've verbalized my concerns, and if anyone wants to take them up then that's great. 

Regarding one of my questions, my hunch is that OEs would agree, in principle, that Christocentrism and Trinitarianism, plain and simple, are not enough for orthodoxy.  It's implied in AG's essay, which I tried to engage.  At any rate if OEs read a Process-theologian like John Cobb Jr, or a panentheist like de Chardin, I would hope they'd be persuaded that someone can subscribe to a kind of Trinitarianism and Christocentrism while severly undermining those doctrines with a less-than-Apostolic view of revelation.  For now it seems to me that CEs are more alert to these concerns, and that for political reasons OEs are not inclined, in the present circumstances, to critique RW's views.  Fair enough.  But productive discussion about what to do and think about GAFCON, Common Cause, etc., cannot happen as long as we're avoiding this basic issue.  

Elaine Storkey complains that some are doing their utmost to undermine RW's efforts.  But it seems to me that our divisions here below are just a reflection of the ones in the highest councils of the church.  There's the church of Katherine that has embarked on a new religion, although centrists will not put it that way because they still think that TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are at least Trinitarian and Christocentric (back to my basic question), and that on that basis we can still break bread together at Lambeth.  The church of Peter is not prepared to break bread where there is serious division, and that makes sense to me.  The church of Rowan wants to keep the ship together, and all I can assume is that institutional concerns, careers, tradition under the 'catholic' banner, etc., are coming into play just as much as questions of truth.  At the same time, because we're human, the church of Peter is not necessarily going to be off the hook when it comes to those things.  That's where it gets messy, and sad, because the ecumenist in me is left realizing that I'm forced to choose sides, when I have brothers and sisters in both churches, and even lurking in the church of Katherine but who for whatever reason don't feel they can come 'outside the camp' (Heb 13:13). 

Best,

Steve 

I have commented on the Craig Uffman article at Covenant:

http://covenant-communion.com/?p=385

I agree in part and do not in part. My piece brings liberalism and myself into the argument, but also discusses why I think there is a New Reformation (Craig Uffman does not) and why there is this increasing divide between two evangelicalisms.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/theological-divide-and-liberalism.html

Jody & Steve

I continue to hope for a formal, structured sustained debate on Fulcrum (or elsewhere) on these vital topics, with active participation by recognised scholars and theologians as well as ‘ordinary’ Christians. But even without that I am prompted to post again by some significant exchanges on ‘conversation across the divide’ and ‘Being Biblical?’. I hope I am not butting in to this exchange  prematurely.

To say that the Bible is ‘utterly trustworthy’ to use Steve’s (and, assuming he is quoting accurately, Bishop Wright’s) phrase expresses for me the conviction (in spite of all the issues about manuscripts, variant readings, limits of the canon, grounds on which the canon is accepted etc.) that when the Bible says that God is something, or said something, or did something, or will do something; or when it says that Christ is something, or said something, or did something, or will do something, then it is true that they are, did say, did do, will do that thing. That is not the only conviction about the Bible that ‘utterly trustworthy’ expresses, but it is one of the chief things. So, from this point of view, the Bible gives us a God and a Jesus Christ. The hope and aim is to experientially repent towards, have faith in, be forgiven by, be delivered from the wrath of, know, obey, love, be loved by (more delightful than wine), hold converse and feast with (he will come in to us and eat with us and we with him) submit to, fear this God and this Jesus Christ. There is no other.

 Phil Almond

Hello Jody,

Calm but busy, juggling various commitments.   How are things with you?

Thanks for coming back to this question.  It could be a problem with terminology, maybe, and specifically the difference between 'sources of theology' and 'source(s) of revelation'.  Without trying to reach for a textbook answer, let me write off the top of my head.  

In my experience, talk about infallibility usually deals with the generally-acknowledged 'sources of theology' (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience), and whether or not any of these might be considered infallible. 

Jesus is clearly the Word in the primary sense.  So I'm not trying to bypass him in speaking of the Scriptures as infallible.  But since he's ascended, and what we have to deal with are mediate sources (guided by the Holy Spirit, certainly), I wonder if it even makes sense to raise the question of infallibility with respect to Jesus.  In one sense he simply is revelation, rather than a source (among others) as such.   

I think I'm following 'the Great Tradition' when I say that I have no trouble attaching the word infallible to Scripture and not to the other sources of theology.  In fact, it seems to me that if the Bible isn't held to be infallible then one (or more) of the other sources will be, in the sense of being our reliable guide(s) to revelation. 

Does this make any sense at all?

yours,

Steve

Hi Steve

hope the start of the new year has been calm for you.

I wondered if we could go back to the question of my previous post, which I don't think you answered in your response (unless I missed it...) about the only true infallible source of revelation being Jesus.

in one of your posts you suggested that the only infallible source of revelation was Scripture and I guess I would question what you mean by that.

x Jody

Hi Jody,

Thanks for your remarks.  I think in many ways we're back to that communion/confession discussion, as you say, and I'm not sure where to pick up on that...

You say: 'I simply don't understand the word 'infallible' when it is put next to the Bible'.   I realize the term is troubling for some, but as far as I can tell it's synonymous with 'utterly trustworthy' (NTW) and the like.

The fireworks are going off, telling me it's 2008, so best wishes to you, and to all, for the New Year!

Yours,

Steve

An observation and a question on Michael’s (User 556) posting Sunday 30 December. Not to give a view on the question of the right understanding of Genesis 1-11, but to observe and ask:

It is of course true that there are individual evangelicals in the Church of England who believe that a literal understanding of these chapters is the right one. The question I ask is whether there is any evidence that any Church of England group (e.g. Fellowship of Word and Spirit, Church Society, Reform) is committed as a group to any particular understanding of Genesis 1-11. I further observe that in the case of Reform there is evidence that Reform is not committed to any particular view. This evidence may be found by reading the ‘Genesis and Creation’ entry in the ‘Truth Matters’ part of the Reform Website.

Phil Almond