|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/721
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Evangelical / Anglicanism, Church of England Other articles by Stephen Kuhrt are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 301 comments on this article Fulcrum Newsletter May 2012Why the ‘Southwark Ministry Trust’ is not the solutionby Stephen Kuhrt
It Within Southwark Diocese, most of us describing ourselves as evangelicals are agreed that we are facing a major problem. A diocese of considerable diversity that has for several years maintained a balance between its different traditions has very suddenly appeared to lurch in one direction. This has come about through seven successive senior posts within the diocese all being given to liberal-Catholics. Hopefully for evangelicals in Southwark, this imbalance is temporary rather than indicating something more permanent. But it is definitely serious and has created a good deal of damage to the perception of how evangelicals are viewed and valued. At an extremely delicate time, these appointments have also created a very specific anxiety about so many of the leadership positions within the diocese now being held by those committed to a revisionist position on homosexuality. It is for these reasons that I have been among those who have criticised the imbalance within the Southwark appointments and strongly communicated this upset and dissatisfaction to our Bishop, Christopher Chessun. At the basis of this response has been a commitment to what I see as the ‘principled comprehensiveness’ of being part of the Church of England. Part of what the ‘principled’ aspect of this involves is being prepared to make strong protest when decisions are taken that are seen as wrong or misguided and being committed to patient and ongoing pressure to reverse them. Part of what the ‘comprehensiveness’ side of this involves, however, is an equal commitment to remaining fully embedded within a diverse church partly because of the conviction that evangelicals equally need those of other traditions to tell us (just as strongly) when we go wrong as well. This approach forms a large part of what I understand to be the ongoing ‘spirit of Keele’. The First National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC1) held at Keele in 1967 was when evangelical Anglicans decisively committed themselves to ‘getting stuck in’ to the Church of England. Led by John Stott, there was a strong spirit of ‘for better, for worse’ about this commitment and the context in which it was made is very significant. Homosexuality was clearly not the major issue it is now. But in almost every other way the Church of England was far more liberal with creedal orthodoxy amongst its bishops, for instance, being far weaker than it is today. The understanding of the evangelicals who gathered at Keele, however, was that this situation would only change through their being fully committed to involvement in the church’s structures and accepting the frustrations and disappointments, as well as the successes and opportunities, that would result from this. One of the heroes of this period was Colin Buchanan (later an evangelical bishop in Southwark) who for many years was a lone evangelical voice on the Church of England’s Liturgical Commission. Whilst doubtless a frustrating and somewhat lonely place to be, Colin’s feisty character (and formidable intellect) combined with an ecclesiological commitment to being fully involved. The result of his patient and ongoing pressure and, when needed, firm protest, was the orthodoxy of much of the liturgy with which we worship today. Another example of this was John Smallwood, an evangelical layman who worked for the Bank of England and took early retirement to apply the Keele vision, in his case primarily through deep involvement in the finance of both Southwark Diocese and the Church of England. Something similar is true of the large number of evangelicals currently serving within Southwark as Area Deans. The positive results of this have been considerable and have sprung from the determination to stay and ‘fight another day’ when battles have been lost and the recognition that giving up on that ecclesiological commitment to full involvement is never an option. Continuing to be fully involved ensures that the opportunities remain for the diocese (and not just its evangelical churches) to be renewed through the ongoing influence of its evangelical members. Just as crucially, it also keeps the channels open for evangelicals to be changed by what our brothers and sisters of other traditions get more right than us. It is for these reasons that I regard the recently established ‘Southwark Trust Fund’ as a mistake and urge my fellow evangelicals within the diocese not to join it. The Trust involves churches paying the diocese for their clergy and some other costs but committing their excess money to a fund that will only be used for supporting those other churches and ministries regarded as ‘orthodox’. There are several problems with this. Whose evaluation of this ‘orthodoxy’ will such decisions rest upon? Will, for instance, poorer churches supporting the full ministry of women and who see social justice as intrinsic to gospel ministry be regarded by those making these decisions as orthodox? The stipulation that the Trust will provide for all those who can ‘genuinely’ sign the Jerusalem Declaration suggests further interpretation will be involved here. But the major problem with the Trust is ecclesiological rather than practical. Its organisers strenuously claim that it is not ‘separatist’ because they will officially remain within the Church of England and Southwark Diocese. But the reason many do regard this is a separatist development is because the Trust forms a clear retreat from the Keele commitment to both ‘principled comprehensiveness’ and ‘full involvement’. If widely supported, it will damage not only what evangelical Anglicans have to give but what they to receive from being full members of the Church of England. My perspective on this is that of a vicar whose parish is being asked to pay around £300,000 for two stipendiary clergy (only one of whom is also housed by the diocese) each running a church. I have major issues with the ‘subsidy culture’ that asks for such a crippling amount and is so discouraging to church growth. Due to the recession and other factors we are actually going to find impossible to pay this amount this year. There are other aspects of being part of Southwark Diocese that I also find immensely frustrating, not least the events that have happened recently. But, like many other evangelicals I am convinced that the answer is to remain fully committed to both ‘principled comprehensiveness’ and ‘full involvement’. The problems are very real but evangelicals must remain fully embedded within Southwark Diocese, hold our nerve and battle for the changes that are needed. The ‘Southwark Ministry Trust’ will fail to do these things and is therefore not the right solution to the problems we currently face. _____________________________________________________________________________ Stephen Kuhrt is Vicar of Christ Church, New Malden in Southwark Diocese and Chair of Fulcrum
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 12 December 2012 - 11:20pm Thank you for the update, LondonVicar, but why is the Trust paying the Diocese anything, and why would such a payment trickle from parish to parish? Posted by: LondonVicar Tuesday 11 December 2012 - 07:12pm The plant is at the request of David Isherwood. Two new pieces of news: 1) the first payment from the Trust has been received by the Diocese. Payments are trickling through to the Diocese from Trust churches supporting other Trust churches. 2) others, in other Dioceses, are interested in forming similar Trusts, because of the disillusionment with Diocesan quota schemes. That is all I know for now. Posted by: Swithun Sunday 7 October 2012 - 05:20pm Thanks for your general admonition, LondonVicar. Noted along with the generalised 'revisionist' and 'ear-pleaser' rhetoric. I was actually interested in the process on the ground: still unclear -- is it just a clergy-person moving into Holy Trinity or is he accompanied by HTB lay people to help the colony? If the websites are up to date, Canon Isherwood is still the Rector of one of the other churches who might therefore have some anxieties about the future. Posted by: DavidR Sunday 7 October 2012 - 11:02am Londonvicar - you write: 'the meaning of the word revisionist [is] self-evident: those who seek to revise the faith, according to modern more'. Well that's a relief then. I thought you might be calling me a revisionist - but my seeking to renew the faith, like yours, is through a continued, searching reflection on the Word of God. I trust I have no more interest in 'modern more' than you do. Londonvicar, 'Revisionist' is a label. It is name calling. The word itself is contentless so how can you assume anyone else knows what you mean by it? On this thread I have to presume you are applying to a person with whom you disagree with on single issue of faith and teaching. But its meaning remains self evident only to those who choose it label those who have a view they disagree with. It invites a wholesale judgement on someone's faith, ministry and character based on one area of disagreement. It therefore usefully defines those 'outside' the world we belong to and consider to be 'true'. It therefore calls us to no courtesy or respect for those we disgaree with, no need to listen or to understand further... 'Every label is a libel'. And 'itchy ears'? You move from one generalisation to another. Of course conservative believers can suffer from this as well er ... 'revisionists'? Hearing what you want to hear - what confirms your own world view and excludes others who will disturb it. There is no security like that .... It is a security that does not require me to meet, question, explore, re-open, be challenged or unsettled. I find plenty of that in conservative religion I have been part of. ('Conservatists' - how would that work as a counter claim?) The issues being debated here are very important. We are seeking to live in understanding and obedience to God's Word. Thank you for your part in that debate. But may I beg you to find a different way of speaking of those you disagree with. It honours no one. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 6 October 2012 - 06:58pm As always, LondonVicar, thank you for your news and views. Is there any preferable alternative to parish boundaries as you find them in the Church of England? Most who have posted here in Fulcrum have seen them as a useless encumbrance to evangelism. But Clapham presents a case in which they can be seen, in the posts below, as protecting a delicate evangelistic initiative from interference. On this side of the pond, canonists have argued that, where they exist in TEC, parish boundaries precisely define a duty to evangelise. Since TEC began to reorganise itself last July, and since both boundaries and evangelists are vanishingly rare over here, I wonder whether Anglican evangelicals in a place where the Church is actually growing would vote for the system they have, given the chance to do so? Posted by: LondonVicar Friday 5 October 2012 - 01:38pm How those other churches think of a parish invited plant into HT Clapham is, I would gently suggest, irrelevant. HT Clapham have invited a plant to rejuvenate them. And that is their business. They are to be commended for it. Would that more churches had the courage to do that. Rather than expect the rest of us to subsidize them massively for often what is an uninspiring work. Posted by: LondonVicar Friday 5 October 2012 - 12:36pm I would have thought that the meaning of the word revisionist would be self-evident: those who seek to revise the faith, according to modern mores. Perhaps I should have used the term 'ear pleasers' instead ? 2 Timothy 4:3 ~ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. Posted by: Swithun Tuesday 2 October 2012 - 05:04pm The Clapham situation seems different from a plant (except in the commercial espionage sense) -- Holy Trinity Clapham has been moving in a generally Evangelical direction for a long time, certainly from before I left the area, which is quite a while ago. I wonder how St Peter's (AC) and St Paul's ('revisionist' by some lights) are feeling about it? Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 2 October 2012 - 08:43am Londonvicar I am assuming you have a particular 'local' situation in mind. Fair enough. But can I ask what you mean by the word 'revisionist'? It seems to have replaced the word 'liberal' on these threads and it is just as much a label that boxes and pigeon holes. Thanks. Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 1 October 2012 - 10:57pm I am sure that the language of revisionism is one of the things which adds to the mutual respect of the various parties involved. Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 1 October 2012 - 05:02pm Often opposition can come from local revisionist incumbents. So I know of a large evangelical church wanting to plant. But revisionists are pushing every other solution (including less financially viable options), to prevent a morally conservative church doing a plant. Don't forget HTB are planting into Clapham at the request of the incumbent. They are not taking over a redundant parish by permission of the Diocese. That has not happened for 25 years south of the River. (The last one was St Mark's Battersea Rise) Posted by: Dave Saturday 29 September 2012 - 10:33am This is what is happening in Clapham: http://www.htb.org.uk/news/article/jago-wynne-and-htb-members-initiative-join-holy-trinity-clapham When evangelicals are operating within their own parishes and provide their own additional funding, bishops seem to co-operate. The problem is failing and redundant churches churches. Here HTB seems to have built up a creative relationship with Richard Chartris. It would begood if this could spread to surrounding dioceses. Dave Posted by: LondonVicar Thursday 27 September 2012 - 11:40am My understanding that the plant into Clapham came at the initiative of the current Rector, David Isherwood, not the DIocese. But others may know more. You also assume that the SGST is 'working against the Bishop'. It is not. It is saying that it wants to fund orthodox Gospel work through parishes in the Diocese. Rather than fund revisionism. I would have thought that what Jago and what SGST are doing are but two sides of the same coin. Posted by: James Laz Wednesday 26 September 2012 - 09:30am Jago Wynne has recently led a new plan from HTB to Clapham, with the approval of the Bishop of Southwark. Doesn't this perhaps illustrate that it is possible work with the Bishop rather than against him? Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 25 September 2012 - 12:06am Thank you, London Vicar, for keeping us posted. Good Stewards, winning cricket team... Southwark seems to be a happening place! Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 24 September 2012 - 11:27am I promised to give an update re the Trust. I hear that some 4-5 PCCs have already voted to join the Trust. So all is not dead, it seems. But wheels grind exceedingly slow in Anglican circles, even in alternative ones, ha ha . Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 27 June 2012 - 07:24pm Davidr, The scripture says test all things. As Christians we are to correct, and encourage other believers (ie 1 Tim 3:16) But the key point is when you write "what you believe scripture says" We know what scripture says, we can read. Context and interpretation give us the meaning. It is when people try and claim scripture doesn’t mean what it consistently says and claim it means the opposite of what it says that we know we are dealing with unbelief. Your statement implied Jesus teaching meant the ‘enemy occupying power’ There is no mention of this and that is almost certainly what His audience might have thought. The distinction Jesus makes is rendering back what is of Caesar to Caesar and what is of God to God. Therefore you have a choice with income tax, is it to God or the state? Would you like to answer? Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 27 June 2012 - 09:27am DavidW You write 'The benchmark I am using is what scripture says, not differences of people’s opinions'. I agree with you. I respect your total concern that scripture be central in your beliefs. I seek to do the same. I presume you do not mean that you never listen to sermons, or take part in bible studies, or seek the wisdom of more mature Christians, or read Christian books and use commentaries to guide your understanding of scripture. Having done that I think you are saying you then seek to come to your own conviction about what you believe scripture says. Is that correct? If so then it is an approach I entirely respect - and it is my approach too. Posted by: Rogelio Tuesday 26 June 2012 - 02:24pm I thought Pluralist would be happy with the Southwark Good Stewards Company as an enhanced expression of CofE pluralism. Posted by: Dave Monday 25 June 2012 - 06:05pm Bowman, The company was incorporated on 24 April 2012 see http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/4a65fc3dcc31049ef58e286e6d0ec519/compdetails and registered as a charity on 21 June 2012 see http://opencharities.org/charities/1147774 and http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1147774&SubsidiaryNumber=0 The trustees are Paul Perkin, Christopher Davis, Brian Wilson and Richard Paice. Posted by: Bowman Monday 25 June 2012 - 01:17am Apart from news reports, the Southwark Good Stewards Company Ltd is still invisible online. However, villagers will recall that LondonVicar was expecting it to launch on July 2. Has there been any comment from the Bishop of Southwark? Meanwhile, Andrew Brown in The Guardian. We shall see what we shall see. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 23 June 2012 - 09:08am DavidR, The benchmark I am using is what scripture says, not differences of people’s opinions. No I do not think you have honestly reflected what you wrote. You wrote "in the teaching of Jesus meant submitting to the tax demands of an enemy occupying power" That is specifically implying the enemy occupying power is what Jesus teaching meant. T You wrote " You wrote. "In fact I do not think this verse can be used to teach the universal rightness of paying taxes at all. " If you don’t see a universal right to pay taxes, do you see a universal right to support funding the fellowship? What would be the criteria for your decision? For me, it would be the Biblical testimony for the church, and an acceptance of having to render to the world what the democratic process requites regarding the paying of taxes. Now you said you are making a general comment but the question was specific. I accept that for you there may be a limit, and that you are not clear about it but for others of course there is a limit based on what the Bible says. I do not think there is any parallel between 'rendering to Caesar' - ie paying taxes to an occupying power - and my tax paying in today's UK. " How come? The distinction Jesus makes is rendering back what is of Caesar to Caesar and what is of God to God. Therefore you have a choice with income tax, is it to God or the state? he relationship between the Kingdom and the world doesn’t need any discussion where the difference is described in the Biblical testimony. Posted by: Bowman Friday 22 June 2012 - 09:41am The simplest explanation for the dichotomising that Pluralist mentions is that it is more important to several villagers to distinguish friends from foes than to seek or renew alliances. When is that a reasonable behaviour? When one is under serious threat, it helps to avoid danger. Or, when one is finding a new identity for oneself, it helps to ascertain its centres and boundaries. It seems that both sides of our discussions have these motivations, not only with respect to Southwark, but also with respect to That Topic and women's ordination. On a collective level, we may be seeing among Anglicans what we have already seen in nearly every other sort of Christianity-- a division (e.g. the Raskol) between those who want to adhere to a crystalised ideal that is still powerful to them (e.g. Avvakum Petrov, the Zealots of Piety, and the Old Believers in 17th C Russia), and others who feel that it is urgent to develop further into a church that they see as more mature (e.g. the Patriarch Nikon and the Moscow Sobor of 1666-1667). Before our own time, few could imagine the division we see today, and many probably thought that both the ideal of Anglican comprehensiveness and a traditional respect for the individual conscience would make any such division very unlikely. Not so long ago, the Church of England and the Anglican Communion were seen as living models of the reunited Church that might someday be. But here we are. In retrospect, it seems that the idea of comprehensiveness did more to rationalise the institutionalisation of centrifugal schools of piety and practise than to encourage deep centripetal influences that might have drawn all of the root systems into common ground. Readers of these threads may be able to judge for themselves whether respect for the individual conscience is strong enough on either side to forfend further division. On the level of the individual-- At some points, this debate has seemed to be a collision more of temperaments than of principles-- between those who are communitarians willing to take modest risks for the common good, and those who are individualists wary of the moral dangers of association. It is fruitless to try to prove to someone that he is obliged to adopt one's own temperament instead of the one that God gave him. And, unsurprisingly, there are, for each temperament, verses in the scriptures that resonate powerfuly, whilst leaving others of different temperaments rather less excited. Since it seems possible that God has intended the actual diversity of human constitutions, it may be best to respect them. So what should we expect from discussions in a forum like this? Shouting over the rising wall doesn't seem helpful. Several things might be better, especially these two-- (a) It would be better to see each side take the identified weaknesses in its position seriously, rather just talking past them rather more loudly than before. This is always prudent, of course, but it is more so when each side of a controversy has had telling criticisms of the other's point of view, and when both sides presume much that is not actually known. Indeed, someone respected by many Christians, even today, once suggested that they all remove the planks from their own eyes before picking out the motes from those of their brothers. Doing this is, not an admission of error to others, but evidence that one is wise enough to be circumspect. (b) If Anglicans cannot yet be a model of reconciliation, then perhaps they might still be a valuable model of magnanimous division? For an example of how not to do this, one need only look at the busy lawyers of TEC, ever in court to throw another dissenting congregation out of the church that their fathers built so that a relative handful can occupy it instead. To what good purpose? For the Church of England to do better than TEC has done, each side will need to take the integrity of the other side seriously rather than seeking to discredit or undermine it. As for the Raskol mentioned above, scholars have found that the Old Believers were in fact correct on the points disputed with the Patriarch Nikon, and in 1971 his successor begged their forgiveness for the persecutions suffered by their ancestors in the 17th C. Officially, the two bodies are reconciled, but not united. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 21 June 2012 - 01:06am Bowman, I have no opinion on the subject you introduce, restorationism verses flexibility, but on the question of a blueprint you might be barking up a fruitless colour-tree because most folk here think in terms of black and white. 'Either it's true or it is not', 'read it in the book and don't subsidise false teachers' and so on. No assumptions get challenged, no one unpacks anything, for whom all is black and white. Crowds may follow but crowds can be seen saluting in unison. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 20 June 2012 - 09:20pm DavidW Thank you for your thoughtful responses to mine. I appreciate it. Can I briefly respond in turn to some of the points you make ... 'It seems to me that whenever we come to any scripture the revisionist position has a crucial difference.' Hard to respond to such a generalised statement But it is not just 'revisionists' (your label) is it. Faithful evangelicals differ with eachother over the meaning of scripture, sometimes very sharply don't they? Jesus and Rome. I am clear there was an attempt to make Jesus take sides over paying taxes to what his audience would have regarded as an 'enemy occupying power'. I said no more than that. 'you have missed the difference between the world and the Kingdom.' I am actually quite clear on this point but I suspect we do not agree on the relationship between the Kingdom and the 'world'. That would need a longer discussion. Caesar would represent paying income tax. I do not think there is any parallel between 'rendering to Caesar' - ie paying taxes to an occupying power - and my tax paying in today's UK. In fact I do not think this verse can be used to teach the universal rightness of paying taxes at all. I do not think it is the point Jesus is making here (and for what its worth neither does Tom Wright in his commentary). you are acknowledging other churches and Christians should indeed withhold any funding for Southwark diocese if they feel that is the time to draw a line. Am I correct? I didn't quite say that. I was making a general comment. I agreed there may be a limit. But I am not clear the line has been reached and I need to give more thought as to what that line might be, how it is recognised and who agrees that it is so. I made clear that I supported Stephen's position of staying within, not withholding funding. Finally - you and I have different convictions about 'the issue'. Call me a revisionist is you wish but I am an evangelical. Scripture is central. My main frustration with the Southwark hierarchy is not that they are 'liberal' or 'revisionist' on 'that issue'. It is the insensitive, self defeating, exclusive promotion of people from one particular tradition to the senior leadership team of a diocese. This is poor leadership in any context but it is simply provocative in a context with Southwark's history. I still find it breath-taking. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 20 June 2012 - 09:17am Nersen 'your argument was clear but weak'. I can only apologise for my inadequacies. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 20 June 2012 - 09:13am DavidR-- While I do agree with Nersen that the Church should generally respect the reservations that individuals may have concerning obvious changes in historic Church teaching, I too have found it difficult to see parish-deanery-diocese-province-church relations in quite the same way. But rather than recite my own arguments yet again, I'd like to pose a question to you as one who knows evangelicals in the Church of England far better than I do-- what concessions, if any, should the Church of England make to retain in its communion those who read the scriptures in a restorationist way? By "restorationist," I mean those who believe that the New Testament is a relatively complete "blueprint" for the church, and do not mean persons who believe that the New Testament supplies, instead, criteria for recognising the everchanging Church in divers times and places, nor persons who believe that the Church possesses some dynamic principle that discloses itself over time. I ask because the comments below have largely been an unacknowledged debate over whether parishes joining the Southwark Good Stewards Company Ltd are wrong to choose what is being defended as a restoration of First Century practise that trumps any other way of doing things that may later have evolved or been adopted. At some points, this debate has seemed to be a collision more of temperaments than of principles-- between those who are communitarians willing to take modest risks for the common good, and those who are individualists who are wary of the moral dangers of association. The latter have been keen restorationists, as defined above. One strongly suspects that these temperamental biases would emerge on almost any social topic that we could find to discuss. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 20 June 2012 - 09:11am Davidr, It seems to me that whenever we come to any scripture the revisionist position has a crucial difference. As though there are two completely different faiths here. The context of Matthew 22 is that some Jews were for paying the taxes, but the Pharisees did not want to pay to an enemy occupying force. You seem to have attributed that attitude to Jesus, yet there is no indication in the NT as far as I can see of Jesus referring to the Romans as an enemy occupying force. Jesus makes the distinction of Caesar and God. This is entirely in line with the rest of the NT, the Kingdom of God is not of the kingdom of the world. But there I see your point perhaps, though you have missed the difference between the world and the Kingdom. Caesar would represent paying income tax. The funding of activities in Southwark however would be subject to God’s purposes and not the world’s. At the moment it should be fairly obvious that the objection is to stuff being rendered in Southwark that the world, the current society, is affirming, which was also in operation in Roman culture of the NT times. It is of the world and not the Kingdom of God. It couldn’t actually be any more obvious to anyone able to distinguish between the world and the Kingdom. You propose that "there may be times when we must draw a line and protest at what our money is going to and perhaps withdraw our own support over an issue or policy." Which I take as your answer to my questions, so that you are acknowledging other churches and Christians should indeed withhold any finding for Southwark diocese if they feel that is the time to draw a line. Am I correct? Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 10:04pm Davidr, your argument was clear but weak, not applying scripture to issues it addresses but to justify what you think on another issue .....a sensible discussion is possible..... but your attempt to use texts re tax to argue for paying for teaching even if one considers it incompatible with scripture isn't persuasive given what the NT says re how to react to false teaching ...... Which ain't to subsidise it Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 06:42pm Nersen, please, I am trying to take part in a discussion here. I am not interested in 'point scoring'. I do not feel you have understand my argument at all and I am sorry if I didn't make it clearly enough for you. Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 09:43am DavidW Thanks for your response. But I reckon 'Render to Caesar' may support my point rather than yours. The text needs its context. 'Render to Caesar' in the teaching of Jesus meant submitting to the tax demands of an enemy occupying power. They would have had no control or influence over where their money went. Tax collectors were hated remember. There would have been many in the audience who would have felt shocked and let down by Jesus. They were expecting a call to withhold, to dissent. How can God's people give their money (and therefore submit) to such a Godless earthly power? But that is what Jesus told them to do. It is a call to willing complicity. It was a call to not separate when many expected the opposite. If you want to feel the shock of his command try to imagine Jesus standing in the midst of all those who will be at the meeting launching the Alternative Fund in Southwark and declaring - 'Render to Southwark what is Southwark's'. (and please, it is the shock I am illustrating here, no more) I fully accept that that there may be times when we must draw a line and protest at what our money is going to and perhaps withdraw our own support over an issue or policy. But let's beware of proceeding as if we are called to establish some place of 'pure giving' in a 'pure church' where my money will only be used for what I personally believe to be Godly and 'scripturally supported' causes. In fact even as I give money to good and right causes I am already deeply complict in the wider patterns of its use and misuse. Perhaps this sounds obvious or even patronising. That is not my intention. But in the context of this thread I just observe that historically Evangelicals have found it easier to argue for separation on contentious issues than to stay 'in', to risk complicity and seek to influence within (money and all). It is this that I hear Stephen and others arguing for within Southwark. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 08:55am Davidr, your not even succeeding in point scoring..... We are told to pay taxes..... In scripture. We are also told to have nothing to do with false teachers...... You seem to want to wriggle out of the latter...... But fail to show a single relevant verse in the NT which challenges those setting up the trust fund? Posted by: DavidW Monday 18 June 2012 - 05:30pm DavidR, Regarding your reply to Nersen. Your reply not only plays devil’s advocate, but seems to be asking us the question being posed to you. LOL On the one hand with the state you propose the requirement to accept the outcome and pay taxes, but on the other you support those who go against the mind of the communion. Besides Jesus said to pay taxes to the state, so how would that need to have to square with God? Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 18 June 2012 - 11:42am Mark, the context of how Paul opposes Peter on the issue you raise and how he refers to false teachers in Galatians, Philippians and elsewhere is helpful.... But not for trying to justify payments to anyone teaching anything incompatible with scripture Posted by: DavidW Monday 18 June 2012 - 08:29am DavidR, I think falling in line with the mind of the communion as a whole is democratic. Besides income tax is handled by the world as Nersen points out... give unto Caesar. But if you support going against the mind of the communion and scripture then I dont see why you would be bothered about those who decided not to pay income tax. Posted by: DavidR Monday 18 June 2012 - 08:11am Nersen, my point is that unless you take 'Render to Caesar' to mean 'I have to give money to the State but am in no way responsible for how the State uses it', then you and I are inevitably suppporting causes and paying salaries of people we would seriously not agree with on Christian grounds. We are complicit by nature of our citizenship in a liberal deomcracy aren't we? I wonder how you square that with God and with your own conscience? The very society that gives me the exciting freedom to vote and shape policy and influence it according to my own beliefs, requires me to accept a significant degree of compromise over choices made that I disgree with - but to stay positively engaged. Something similar happens in our membership of the Christian church. There is no 'pure' membership on offer except without total withdrawal. Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 17 June 2012 - 10:25pm Nersen I wonder what you make of Paul's collection for a Jerusalem Church dangerously associated with circumcision as a necessary part of the Christian faith ... ? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 17 June 2012 - 09:00pm Davidr, can you see a difference between rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..... and the voluntary church giving of which the NT speaks? Posted by: DavidR Sunday 17 June 2012 - 02:21pm DavidW and Nersen you have agreed that 'we're complicit if we pay to support anything incompatible with scripture'. I presume you pay income tax? I presume you even think this to be a good democratic thing to do. And if you do I wonder whether the principles that permit you to pay income tax (and thus to fund areas of social, military or eocomic life you might well not agree with - as well as those you do) might inform the principle of paying your share in a diocesan 'tax'? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 17 June 2012 - 08:21am Hi Bowman, most operate the communist, unsustainable quota/share system but more areas are thinking of moving to the simple, fair solution in London and your Tec diocese. The reality is that without the money from treasure stored up over centuries, the CofE is not viable financially in its current, failing form....And that treasure is being stretched to pay for a lot of houses and wages despite years of failure by some.....this is exactly how businesses go bust....denial re failure, good money after bad. The inherited assets run out at some point..... Maybe after most of the people run out.... I don't blame the people given the woeful quality of some vicars. Investing in failure despite years of evidence of steep decline ain't a good strategy for the cofE or tec. And the cofE is very screwed up re old man- made rules eg some making articles of faith re parish and diocesan boundaries. .....which I cannot imagine Christ respecting ...... given they're man made rules.....but some worry more if someone crosses a parish boundary than if another teaches anything incompatible with scripture......fruit of a dysfunctional organisation that has been undermined from within for decades..... No surprise some evangelicals no longer want to pay for those who infiltrate and then go against the mind of the church and scripture at will..... Subsidising them has produced zero good..... Probably why scripture tells us to have nothing to do with some teachers in the church....and to use our brains (1Cor5:12). Posted by: DavidW Saturday 16 June 2012 - 08:11am NersenPaul, You wrote "Davidw, I think we're complicit if we pay to support anything incompatible with scripture, in the cofE or not. " Yes I agree with you, and scripture supports that as shown Posted by: Bowman Friday 15 June 2012 - 09:16pm London diocese does things better (especially for growth) with churches asked to cover their own costs (perfectly fair) and then to make a voluntary contribution to the common pot and free to make partnerships with other parishes with whom they want to partner in genuine fellowship. Sensible, healthy, not penalising growth, and in line with the NT, voluntary giving. Is this unusual in the Church of England? This sounds like my TEC diocese, except that there is a synod- established formula for benchmarking giving to the diocese, so that there are no freeriders. My parish just met on Wednesday for eucharist and dinner with a bishop from Uganda about a medical initiative in his diocese. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 15 June 2012 - 08:11pm Hi Bowman. As always, I appreciate your honesty and fairness. Re the common pot, what we have in the NT is voluntary contributions between churches in agreement, in fellowship with each other. Therefore, I cannot support institutionalised demands to support whoever the institution wants even if it is going against the mind of the church or your own conscience. London diocese does things better (especially for growth) with churches asked to cover their own costs (perfectly fair) and then to make a voluntary contribution to the common pot and free to make partnerships with other parishes with whom they want to partner in genuine fellowship. Sensible, healthy, not penalising growth, and in line with the NT, voluntary giving. Davidw, I think we're complicit if we pay to support anything incompatible with scripture, in the cofE or not. Posted by: Bowman Friday 15 June 2012 - 06:25pm Nerson-- In the past four centuries, the Church of England has had several para-ecclesial funding mechanisms driven by religious differences. Speaking broadly, historians have usually seen them as the work of committed churchmen with theologies out of favour at 10 Downing Street. The Trust is now similar to these precedents in being larger than a single diocese, but different from them in that their dissent is directed within the Church of England itself at a time when the church has a functioning polity with a common pot that it controls. As you know, I do agree with you with respect to individuals who cannot accept a change of official church teaching, but your latest post takes aim at the common pot itself. Interesting. Do you think that the Church of England should evolve into a patchwork of trusts supported by rival groups? No common pot at all? That sounds like a snarky question, but I am serious about it, since the relative absence of competition is sometimes cited by Pluralist's colleagues in the sociology of religion as a key factor in the difference between overall church participation in the US and Europe. The claim is that competition in the US enables niche-finding that ultimately reaches more people overall than in Europe. But it is hard to see competition going that far in a state church. A Church of England without a common pot might look like Massachusetts after the Revolution-- each town here voted annually whether to be Congregationalist or Unitarian for the year, and the church and the taxes went to the winner. The resulting instability led to the breakup of America's last established church in the 1830s. Posted by: DavidW Friday 15 June 2012 - 03:25pm NersenPaul, According to the labels you use, could it be thenin the Southwark Diocese that where revisionists are teaching against the mind of the communion, evangelicals should go against the rules of the church and withold any funding or contributions? That would seem reasonable, all of one or all of the other, what do you think? Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 15 June 2012 - 01:14pm One solution is for southwark to drop the soviet style quota system which penalises growth to fund terminal revisionist decline .... But it won't as revisionists have stitched up control of the diocese very nicely...And are very pleased to tax evangelicals to fund revisionists.....nobody else will fund them....hardly any attending..... Understandable that some dont want to fund any teaching they consider incompatible with scripture..... Still no answer from anyone for why they should from biblical teaching to the NT church. London has a much more sensible and fair system...which encourages growth..... And makes no trust fund necessary currently.... So, there are Anglican solutions possible....... But they don't suit the revisionists who've gained control of Southwark with evangelicals paying for them...... Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 13 June 2012 - 08:49pm Thank you, LondonVicar, both for your news and your comments. As the web has few sources of information about this, I hope that you will continue to keep us posted as things develop. Posted by: LondonVicar Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 10:38pm Bowman: The Trust is being launched on July 2nd, I believe. So I guess quite a number of the DEU members will be there then. As well as others from other Dioceses, I understand. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 11 June 2012 - 08:25pm Roger, thx for your reply - we needn't go round in circles.....I've asked a very simple question.....do you not agree that people (all people) don't have to fund any teaching they believe to be incompatible with scripture...not disputable but incompatible? Nobody's given any reason below from scripture to say we must....it's a simple principle that nobody should be compelled to fund teaching they think is incompatible with scripture, is it not? Posted by: DavidW Monday 11 June 2012 - 05:16pm Another David, I can see I am not only more familiar with the word 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Cor 6.9 but with the Bible holistically. It is a compound word but mirrors the septuagint of Lev 18:22. So its translated correctly in all the Bible translations but I prefer ‘men who have sex with men’, than ‘homosexual offenders’ Besides what difference would it actually make even if it wasn’t with all the other condemnations? It is true that 1 Cor 6 as with 1 Cor 5 makes reference to other offences, but the specific one in 1 Cor 5 regarding the expulsion is sexual immorality. Your point about that which even pagans dont tolerate is interesting as Leviticus does attribute incest to pagans at that time, according to this epistle paganism in Corinth and that time didn’t have it. Posted by: DavidW Monday 11 June 2012 - 05:05pm Roger Hurding, Thanks for the reply Roger, You said you don’t think so and then seem to have affirmed the opposite. If the text says those who claim to be Christians, then that can only imply they weren’t; that they were to be expelled also implies they werent supposed to have been calling themselves Christians. Yet you referred to them as ‘those Christians’ As Jesus in the gospels says that when disciples do as He teaches, they are in Him and He in them (ie as in John 14-16) I see the epistles are saying the same thing, and thus not ephemeral. Galatians 5 faith expressing itself through love. So when you say being in Christ cannot be lost through sinning I would agree but wilful sinning means one is not in Christ in the first place, which is what 1 Cor 5 is saying. How relevant to the current situation! Now 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is addressing believers, the passage starts at the beginning of the chapter that those in Christ who build their lives etc. So that is not relevant to those in 1 Cor 5 who are not in Christ, and not brothers and sisters. I was referring to all unrepentant sexual sin in 1 Cor 6 as described. What is the point of having the ‘mind of the communion’ test an issue if when the mind of the communion finds it unacceptable, you carry on including it? I was just testing to see if you would tolerate the same sort of attitude from others on whatever they might believe, such as allowing incest. It seems not. Posted by: Another David Monday 11 June 2012 - 02:05pm @DavidW, you do know that the word 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Cor 6.9 (and also 1 Tim 1.10) which a number of modern translations use something related to 'homosexual', is a word which is very hard to translate, partly because it seems to be a word which Paul himself invented. Luther and others translated it as 'masturbators', and the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" which is probably the same thing. I think a wise Bible student would not make too much of that apparent reference to homosexuality. 1 Cor 6 as with 1 Cor 5 make reference to other offences, in particular greed/covertessness - which is (in my view) a much more prevelant and deep set problem in our modern society, and also the Church. Should we also exclude those from our churches who exhibit the acquisitive materialism of our age? Another interesting aspect of 1 Cor 5 is that the offence of the couple was not just that they were engaged in sinful behaviour, but that was "of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate" - and that in the infamously licencious Corinth. So, it was not a case of these bringing in external standards of behaviour. Rather, the Church was tolerating behaviour which would bring it into justified disrepute with outsiders. What goes on in our Church which rightly brings it into disrepute? Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 11 June 2012 - 12:18pm Thanks for your post, DavidW. I think there is a danger of you, Nersen and me going ever so gently round in circles! Even so, let me try to respond to your queries. 'the text says they called themselves brothers but as they were expelled they surely weren't to be considered brothers. Right? Yet you referred to "those Christians". The text doesn't say they were brothers or Christians, it implies they weren't.' I don't think so. 1 Corinthians 5:1 uses the phrase, '...there is sexual immorality among you' and v.11 says, '...anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexaully immoral or greedy...' It seems that Paul regards being 'in Christ' as not an ephemeral affair that can be lost through sinning, for even the man who was committing incest was to be excluded from fellowship 'so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord'. This accords with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 that those in Christ who build their lives with 'wood, hay, straw' will be 'saved, but only as through fire' (vv.12,15). 'Now I thought we weren't supposed to be discussing homosexuality, should we not get approval from the forum to discuss it again?' Yes, that's fair enough. Stephen, in his original article that started this thread, only referred to That Topic in passing when he wrote, 'Homosexuality was clearly not the major issue it is now.' Nersen, though, on 7th June referred to Lambeth l.10 and, on the same date, you wrote, 'However, surely other unrepentant sexual sin identified in 1 Corinthians should also be treated and dealt with by expulsion?' I have to admit I thought you were alluding here to That Topic in 1 Corinthians 6. Do correct me if I was wrong. Either way, I apologize to all for engaging with the matter. I am more than happy to continue with the moratorium. 'If you are going to dispute the meaning of 1 Cor 6 are you ok for others in your church to dispute the meaning of 1 Cor 5 and condone incest?' That's a good query but, as I understand it, there isn't the same ambiguity about the meaning of the Greek word porneia (used 14 times by Paul in ! Corinthians) when 'a man is living with his father's wife', that there is with malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9. 'at the moment I don't see the logic of your position, the precedent your views are setting is that it doesn't matter what the mind of the communion is as a whole, your views are to be included. What then if a majority or minrity of the Communion's mind was to expel you on that basis?' I feel our main debate needs to be in interpreting scripture and, thereby, testing whether the 'mind of the communion ' is being true to God's word. This inevitably leads to a certain diversity of understanding among believers as we seek to build on the one foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). You, Nersen and I share that one foundation. Let's build on him. Posted by: Bowman Sunday 10 June 2012 - 08:54pm Has the Southwark Good Stewards Company Ltd made a presentation to the Southwark Diocesan Evangelical Union? Are any parishes known to have joined it? Posted by: DavidW Sunday 10 June 2012 - 03:37pm Roger Hurding, Now could you clarify please your response to Nersen’s question. Your response "those Christians who persist in living in the sexual immorality so prevalent in Corinth are to be excluded too." Firstly the text says they called themselves brothers but as they were expelled they surely weren’t to be considered brothers. Right? Yet you referred to ‘those Christians’ The text doesn’t say they were bothers or Christians, it implies they weren’t. Now as top your answer, did you mean they should be expelled from the church of Corinth alone or the church as the body of believers? Verse 11 says 'anyone', which implies the body of believers as a whole. Now I thought we weren’t supposed to be discussing homosexuality, should we not get approval from the forum to discuss it again? Until then you will have to accept both what 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 6 actually says, namely that 1 Cor 5 condemns a man sleeping with his father’s wife, and 1 Cor 6, men who have sex with men. If you are going to dispute the meaning of 1 Cor 6 are you ok for others in your church to dispute the meaning of 1 Cor 5 and condone incest? Either way I think you are creating another gospel there. But as with Nersen’s point, are you prepared to let others come to decisions contrary to what the Bible says and what the majority and official position of the church believes? Because at the moment I dont see the logic of your position, the precedent your views are setting is that it doesn’t matter what the mind of the communion is as a whole, you views are to be included. What then if a majority or minority of the Communion's mind was to expel you on that basis? Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 9 June 2012 - 03:40pm Roger - words can be hotly debated with integrity...but we are not dealing with debate but people in the church going against church positions...without integrity - and getting subsidised for decades. When the church has a position and the mind of the Communion has not been changed even with decades of clever people trying, when that mind says that some acts are 'incompatible with scripture' (sinful), why should people who agree with that church position pay for others who teach that the same behaviour is not 'incompatible with scripture' but just fine - given they consider those acts sinful according to scripture, why pay for others to teach the opposite? Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 8 June 2012 - 02:10pm Thanks Nersen and DavidW for your responses. You both ask, 'but isn't it true that unrepentant sinning is not acceptable in the church?' I can only refer you to my posts of 4th and 6th June. In the latter with respect to 1 Corinthians 5, I write that as well as the banishing of the man who committed incest, 'More generally (v.11), those Christians who persist in living in the sexual immorality so prevalent in Corinth are to be excluded too.' DavidW, you also ask, 'surely other unrepentant sexual sin identified in 1 Corinthians should also be treated and dealt with by expulsion?' You, and by implication Nersen, make a good point here as in the wider context of 1 Corinthians 6, where St Paul continues his discussion, we see the introduction of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai in verse 9 (the latter word is a Pauline neologism). However, it is in the understanding of the meaning of these words that the difference in our conclusions about homosexuality is highlighted. From your previous posts I conclude (correct me if I'm wrong here) that you see one or both of these words as condemning all same-sex sexual activity as sinful. Even so, the exact meaning of the Greek here is hotly debated, as we have discussed on previous threads. For example, a number of commentators see malakoi as referring to boys, who may well also be slaves, engaging in sexual acts with men and arsenokoitai as indicating those men who indulge in sex with these boys. In that case St Paul is here condemning abusive paedophiles. All in all, I would say that we can be clear that, in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, St Paul condemns incest, adultery and engaging with prostitutes, but his precise view on same-sex activity is more debateable. Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 8 June 2012 - 01:54pm DavidW, in response to my post of 6th June, you wrote, 'Here you seem to be using bibliolatry to form an opinion....If you are going to do that then it should be noted that Christ's point here is that the scriptures point to Him as the saviour and they don't see it when studying.' We clearly agree that the scriptures point to Jesus, yet the Jews referred to in John 5 seem blinded to that. As I put it in my post, they elevated 'the word above the Word'. In their worshipping the text rather than the Lord of the text I used the word bibliolatry. Is that not a reasonable use of the word? Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 8 June 2012 - 06:22am Bowman, the most important question is how many revisionists have depended on subsidies for years, as so few attend, and why are growing churches in the cofE taxed highly by huge diocesan demands when perhaps investing in growth and not decline is a good idea . Posted by: Bowman Thursday 7 June 2012 - 03:59pm Have any parishes joined the proposed Trust? What percentage of the Southwark budget goes to true teaching? Posted by: DavidW Thursday 7 June 2012 - 12:53pm Roger Hurding, I would also value an answer from you regarding Nersen’s question. “but isn't it true that unrepentant sinning is not acceptable in the church?” If true then all unrepentant sexual sin should result in expulsion. However, surely other unrepentant sexual sin identified in 1 Corinthians should also be treated and dealt with by expulsion? Alternatively seeing as other unrepentant sexual sin is being treated by some as a cultural issue of the time, surely the unrepentant incestuous sexual activity in 1 Cor 5 is only for the culture of the time, the NT times and not today? Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 7 June 2012 - 10:43am Roger, you seek to avoid the principle in 1 Cor 5 by trying to limit its application to incest.....but isn't it true that unrepentant sinning is not acceptable in the church? Now, you may have decided that activity Lambeth 1.10 calls incompatible with scripture is fine in rare circumstances but the mind of the Communion has not been changed.....in decades..... So, why (from scripture) should large evangelical churches in southwark pay hundreds of thousands to fund revisionists who teach anything they believe to be incompatible with scripture ? Posted by: DavidW Thursday 7 June 2012 - 08:39am Roger Hurding, You wrote “(John 5:39,40). Here Jesus seems to be challenging a bibliolatry that elevates the word above the Word.” Here you seem to be using bibliolatry to form an opinion. If you are going to do that then it should be noted that Christ’s point here is that the scriptures point to Him as the saviour and they don’t see it when studying. One must also understand that Christ fulfilled the OT law and prophets and also that Christ taught (as in John 14-17) that to know Him one needs to seek to do what He teaches; if that’s bibliolatry then good for bibliolatry. Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 03:28pm Iconoclast, thanks for your comments and queries. The context of my, 'Surely this fits with Bowman's point that Christ is our referent rather than the minutiae of scripture, especially where that scripture is revisited by Jesus and his Spirit' was that of Jesus's reviewing the Mosaic Code in his Sermon on the Mount: his, 'You have heard what was said...But I say to you...'. I realize I could have put this less ambiguously so I'm grateful for your questions. There is perhaps a similar emphasis when Jesus said to those Jews who criticized his Sabbath-breaking, 'You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life' (John 5:39,40). Here Jesus seems to be challenging a bibliolatry that elevates the word above the Word. I am certainly not demoting Paul and the apostolic witness for these are truly Christocentric. And I do not see Romans as a compilation of minutiae for Paul writes as 'a servant of Jesus Christ' (Romans 1:1), proclaiming 'Jesus Christ our Lord' (1:4). I am sorry if my use of the word 'minutiae' has been misleading. I was referring to a mistaken approach to the fine print of the text rather than to the text itself. Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 03:16pm Nersen, you write, 'Roger, you gloss over too easily the reality that sexual sin is a reason in the new testament to expel some from the church...' This was in response to my comments that in 1 Corinthians 5, there is 'A clear case of incest [that is] to be strongly condemned and the offender banished from fellowship. Even so, such a banishment is ultimately for his good, "so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord" (v.5). More generally (v.11), those Christians who persist in living in the sexual immorality so prevalent in Corinth are to be excluded too.' Here I sought to be faithful to the context of Paul's injunctions to the Corinthian church and, with regard to the sexual sins Paul refers to, used the words 'strongly condemned', 'banished', 'banishment' and 'excluded'. How does that 'gloss over too easily' what Paul says? On balance, it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 5 has more to say about a complacency that ignores serious sin than the topic of false teaching. What do you think? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 02:16pm If I was the Bishop of Southwark or one of his supporting bureaucrats you might have grounds of accusing such of false teaching, but I doubt he agrees with me regarding the non-existence of resurrection and incarnation, or the absence of uniqueness or definitiveness of Jesus. I'm quite sure he reads and upholds the creeds and all the Anglican formularies. This idea of false teaching appears to me to be a whipped up frenzy. Basically, evangelicals don't do very well in Southwark, but then liberals don't do very well in Carlisle and I don't hear liberals talking about witholding money or finding alternative structures on the border with Scotland. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 08:53am NersenPaul is correct to keep asking about scriptural support for false teaching. Its the crux of the matter. Sure the NT instructs in matters of leadership and authority, but in conjunction with expelling false teaching. What we have in the Anglican Communion perhaps is a church structure that cant expel false teaching, and thus thriving strong and determined elements of false teaching using the church structures to hold believers to ransome. The correct course of action for an individual or minority would probably be to leave the church, but where the tail is waggging the dog, as in the false teaching at Southwark, it would probably be right to either arrange for tithes and offerings to be for specific purposes or for withold them. What do you think? Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 08:16am Carl We are off thread but thank you for continuing to engage with me. I am in no doubt you are a person of deep faith and a passionate commitment to Christian truth. But I do think you open yourself to being misunderstood by your use of 'open' and 'closed' language. 'A closed mind' in popular understanding is more often evidence of defensiveness, dogmatism and prejudice. It is not a virtue. I am sure that is not your position! Your firm, definite 'closed' language on issues and people does conjure up a picture of a faith secured by a row of permanently locked safes - each marked with a particular topic - 'adultery', 'mormons', 'homosexuality', 'John Dominic Crossan', 'Christian swingers' .... 'Open', as I use the word, does not mean open to anything. Why should it? I'm not stupid and scripture is central for me. Why assume if you leave one safe door slightly ajar the end result will be the complete unravelling of everything and anything goes - 'God is love' could mean 'God is hate' and look here come 'The Bible means whatever you want it to-ers', the Mormons, Christian Adulterers and 'Swingers for Jesus'? All welcome. They aren't of course. It is possible to be hospitable in Christ without being accommodating. In fact it is our calling. You write 'I know your arguments'. Very big assumption Carl. I doubt it actually. You have never asked or checked. These forum threads are very difficult places on which to discuss complex subjects and words are clumsy and misleading things especially when we are talking about things that matter most. So is there a locked safe with my name on it then? I don't want you to let go of the integrity of your faith. I am really grateful for it. But I beg you, please be slower to turn the key in the lock and assume you 'know'. Thanks again ..... Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 08:09pm Hi Bowman- thank you.... your aknowledgement of the importance of conscience is strangely not forthcoming from others claiming to be evangelical; it's not really a controversial thing to defend the right of evangelicals not to fund teaching (or activity) they consider incompatible with scripture - especially if they're in line with the mind of the Communion. Church structures surely shouldn't trump conscience, nor Simon's bizarre suggestion that fear of retribution should be a factor. The new testament is clear that there are times to exclude and not be associated with some because of their life and teaching - it's interesting how all that teaching is ignored by some ... Maybe people wanf to work within the atructures....with what success in southwark? Not even token evangelical promotions recently ..... But evangelicals are still supposed to pay for the housing and wages of people they believe to be teaching what they consider incompatible with scripture? Makes no sense.... and nobody shows anything below from the new testament to show they ought to when such serious scriptural disputes exist... and the NT does say we should sometimes split because of the actions or teaching of some in the church. Even if evangelicals were to lose jobs, homes, positions etc, should we not always dissociate from any teaching we believe not to be disputable but incompatible with scripture? Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 01:08pm DavidR, Sorry but I dont see any theology in your post of "Saturday 2 June 2012 - 09:42am and I dont know anyone else who would see any there, I am not therefore surprised that the discussion is difficult. Point 1 As to your wrong assumptions about Apollos, the text doesn’t say his theology was significantly incomplete, indeed a thorough knowledge of scripture and accurate teaching of Jesus suggests otherwise. That isn’t false teaching. You wrote "I do not find it clearly taught in the NT at what point 'inaccurate' teaching becomes 'false teaching' – " which is hopeless, why are you are looking for scripture to support your wrong assumption. False teaching is described in the NT as things contrary to the NT. Point 2. Whether you find it hard to believe or not, the wheat and tares is explained. Those in the world, not the church, are the tares. If you look at Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 we see how the church should treat false teaching and sin. You wrote "What else can this parable mean? Why did Jesus teach it? I think it at least warns us against some kind of attempt at 'theological cleansing' – " This parable doesn’t warn the church to do theological cleansing, the tares are in the world. Passages such as Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthian 5 instruct the church to do theological cleansing.. indeed of the sort you are promoting. Do you see that now? Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 12:37am Acts xv 28. Posted by: Bowman Monday 4 June 2012 - 10:51pm Evangelicals who use the tactic of withholding money from the diocese as a short-term advantage need to remember that church structures can play the long game: you don’t have to be a prophet to imagine a scenario in twenty years time where the evangelical presence in the C of E in Southwark has been all but wiped out. --Simon Morden, 14 May Hi Nerson-- As usual, I enjoy both the style and content of your posts, even when their reasoning is not easy to follow at every point. Thank you for persevering. To my mind, the strongest point that you make-- and it is urgent-- is that some sort of allowance must be made for individual scruples that are grounded in interpretations of the scriptures that have been official teaching in the Church of England. You usually cite I.10 in this connection, but could just as easily have cited earlier canons or Lambeth Conferences before it. Your concern is distinctly different from those of either a part of the church where a school of thought happens to prevail or an individual with a novel interpretation of scripture never before authorised as doctrine in the Church of England. Therefore, neither ecclesiology nor hermeneutics are directly on point for the concern for individuals with traditional views that you raise, and a classically Anglican respect for the individual conscience very much is. To that extent, I agree with you. The Trust is another matter in which ecclesiology actually is the central issue. Simon's point is well-taken, but I suspect that LondonVicar would say that the long game is already being played against the survival of evangelicalism in Southwark. What then are Southwark evangelicals to do if they see the Peace of Westphalia falling across the land as diocesan bishops (according to Gareth Vaughan Bennet, as a result of the "new" dynamic of the Crown Nominations Commission) adopt the principle cuius regio, eius religio? Insofar as that evident pattern across England is already an abandonment of traditional Anglican comprehensiveness the appeals to that principle here can seem pretty hollow. I think LondonVicar would argue that this threat requires a more-than-individual response that protects the local evangelical culture. The principle of the Trust is that it breaks the geographical logic of a peace that is perceived as false. My main objection to that wily tactic is that it also appears to break the public Body of Christ that is proleptic of Christ's reign as described in the scriptures. Whilst shrinking the influence of the public Body they have, the Trust would appear to enrich relatively private parishes as monocultural as the diocese threatens to be, which the people of Southwark probably already have in abundance. Dave's argument for erasing parish boundaries so that evangelical ministries might spread to new areas is another, perhaps a more fruitful, disruption of the same geographical logic. In either case, some sort of theological justification is a test to be passed. Now, my only connection to Southwark is that the founder of my college was baptised in its cathedral, so I cannot match the tactical insight of those who actually know the place. I have appreciated the posts of those who do. However, thinking of "renewing the evangelical centre," it does seem to me that another long game might be played that evangelicals, the Anglican tradition that has always cared most about the lost and the suffering, could likely play from strength-- developing a robust ecclesiology which offers a compelling alternate vision of public ministry that attracts support from beyond the evangelical frontier. Posted by: Iconoclast Monday 4 June 2012 - 10:03pm Roger Hurding ,you wrote: Surely this fits with Bowman's point that Christ is our referent rather than the minutiae of scripture, especially where that scripture is revisited by Jesus and his Spirit. Are you implying here, that for example Paul's teaching is in some sense less referential than Christ's? Or that any other apostolic teaching for that matter is in some way insubordinate? I would hardly call say- the book of Romans with all it contains 'minutiae" would you? It seems highly referential to me. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 4 June 2012 - 09:55pm Roger, you gloss over too easily the reality that sexual sin is a reason in the new testament to expel some from the church, not to accommodate and excuse sin (to expel, dissociate as in 1 Cor 5). You and some others may have decided the mind of the Communion is wrong re certain sins but have not changed it ....it stands....there is no reason from scripture (given below) for evangelicals in southwark to fund those who teach anything incompatible with scripture.....Quite the opposite. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 4 June 2012 - 09:43pm Roger, Christ was not a revisionist rabbi going against scripture ....but He had the authority of God when He spoke ....authority not shared by you or others when you condone anything incompatible with scripture as revealed by the Holy Spirit...after all. Perhaps you'd answer the simple question Davidr fails still to answer: if you believe some are teaching something incompatible with scripture (not disputable but incompatible) and perhaps they are going against stated church positions too(not just your opinion), why from tge new testament teaching to the early church should an evangelical feel compelled by scripture to fund such teaching? Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 4 June 2012 - 05:00pm I agree DavidW that Philip, in engaging with the Ethiopian eunuch, was clearly obeying the command of Jesus as described in Matthew 28. And yet there is a clear sense that in the Acts of the Apostles we see several instances in which the early Christians were adjusting their beliefs and practice to the leading of God's Spirit. The example DavidR gave of Peter's vision (Acts 10) is relevant here. Peter firmly believed what Yahweh had said in the giving of the Law with regard to avoiding unclean food and so he was 'greatly puzzled' (v.17) as to the meaning of a dream that contradicted that law. God was calling him to an obedience that meant disobeying the injunctons of Leviticus. Here there is a sense that Jesus was profoundly revisionist (see his Sermon on the Mount) in his reinterpreting of the Mosaic Law. And that call to revision was further mediated through his Spirit in the unfolding story of the early Church. Surely this fits with Bowman's point that Christ is our referent rather than the minutiae of scripture, especially where that scripture is revisited by Jesus and his Spirit. Nersen, thank you for referring me to 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. The whole chapter certainly particularizes certain blatant sins that, where there is no repentance or desire to amend sinful lives, the Church needs to take seriously. A clear case of incest is to be strongly condemned and the offender banished from fellowship. Even so, such a banishment is, ultimately for his good, 'so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord' (v.5). More generally (v.11), those Christians who persist in living in the sexual immorality so prevalent in Corinth are to be excluded too. Similarly, the unrepentantly 'greedy' are to be dismissed. Assumedly, these are those who are relentlessly grasping and covetous, seeking to feather their nests at the expense of others. 'Idolaters' are to be similarly treated. Presumably, these include Christians who make gods of money, sex, power, luxury, the accumulation of possessions in order to impress, or, generally, whatever usurps the lordship of Christ. 'Revilers' must include all who abuse others, those who engage in character assassination. 'Drunkards' can prove another danger to Christian fellowship. I expect these include those who drink escessively and persistently with no desire or intention of seeking help to ovecome their addiction. As I understand it, the word 'robber' here implies violence. This must include the covert violence of wife- and child-beaters, as well as the overt violence that hits the headlines. It's worth reiterating that the aim of all this potential exclusion is the ultimate welfare of the offender (as in v. 5).At the same time, we need to heed Jesus's words about not judging (Matthew 7:1-5). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul differentiates between the wrongful judging of those outside the Church (v.10) and the appropriate, godly judgment made on our brothers and sisters who persist in unrepenting and blatant sin - sin, in the instances he describes, that destroy the lives of others. With regard to this thread, I suspect that none of the above is relevant in the lives of those clergy in the Southwark diocese we are discussing. Once again, as Bowman reminds us, the touchstone of faithful teaching is what is believed about Christ: 'For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ' (1 Corinthians 3:11). Posted by: carl Monday 4 June 2012 - 01:25pm DavidR If your understanding of scripture is not perfect then there must be a sense in which you must remain open to new understanding and to possibly changing your mind. Corect. But as knowledge increases, the limits of change become more pronounced. The boundardies become more fixed and immovable. There is no possibility of infinite change. The question is one of authority. How do I validate the change? To what do I turn to know truth from falsehood? All we have been given is Scripture. My ability to change thus becomes limited as my knowledge of Scripture increases. This is why I spoke of being able to know Scripture with sufficiency. I have confidence that I know what it says and using that knowledge I limit the changes that I would allow myself to make. But it sounds as if you are saying you will only discuss scripture with me if I use your hermenuetic. My response is to agree that hermeneutics are key so that is where our discussion must start. There is every profit in this. I discuss Scripture across hermeneutics all the time, but only in an apologetic context. To study with and learn from someone requires agreement on the purpose and nature of Scripture. There is nothing that John Dominic Crossan can teach me. There is nothing I am willing to learn from him. He represents a vain and worthless philosophy. He speaks unsound doctrine to itching ears. Why then should I receive him? And how do you know? I know your arguments. I know the testimony of Scripture. I know the limits that it imposes on your ability make your case. The arguments for homosexuality depend upon 1) denying the authority of Scripture, 2) denying the knowledge of Scrpture, or 3) norming the Scripture to an externally derived prior conclusion that homosexuality is a moral good. You can't get it from the text because it's not in the text. You have to escape the text to make your case. You have closed all the doors and windows beforehand. You give me no way in. Why is it not possible you might come to adopt my hermenuetiic as biblically valid? What is it about 'that subject' that you have to close down so completely before even a discussion starts? It's no different from many other subjects. I have closed down the the subject of adultery as well. Should I receive the testimony of Christian swingers ... yes, they do exist ... because of their new biblical understanding of wife-swapping? To credit these arguments, I must conclude the Scripture is an incomprehensible book and that everything I know is perpetually open to question. But in doing so I sacrifice the only available authority that allows me to adjudicate between competing claims. This is the doubt that is at the center of Liberalism. It is the assertion that man can never truly know with sufficiency; that he is doomed to seek after a truth he can never grasp. It is the vision of the blind men and the elephant that reduces God to a passive inert silent beast who never reveals and who can never be comprehended. I hear you reacting all the the time to these posts from a rigid pre-determined viewpoint. You do not risk real discussion. 'the matter is closed'. Yup that is how it feels. No one has an open mind, DavidR. No one. People are 'open-minded' about other peoples' presuppositions but never their own. So, yes, I have a rigid pre-determined viewpoint. That means I believe something. That means I am willing to defend it. But the most 'open-minded liberal' is just as fixed and rigid in his viewpoint. He is just fixed and rigid about different things. Tell me. Should I be open-minded about the existence of God? Should I be open-mined about the deity of Christ? Shoud I be open-minded about the fact of the physical resurrection. There are people who call themselves Christain and yet deny these things. They will use the words of the Creed but as empty shells into which they pour whatever understanding they desire. Should I receive their new understanding? Should I sit and learn with them? What sayeth the Scripture? carl Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 4 June 2012 - 09:52am Hi Bowman - to deal with the Principle (that Davidr avoids together with all NT teaching re not being united with all in the church based on their life or teaching), if any of us believe what some teach or do to be 'incompatible with scripture' on any issue, ie not disputable but incompatible (perhaps even with the support of the mind of the Communion or the creeds) , is it not reasonable, actually obedient to NT teaching, not to be united with those people? A simple principle. For those who believe matters are disputable, let them fund teaching the mind of the Communion, not I, calls incompatible with scripture if they want but I see nobody below can come up with anything from scripture to say evangelicals in southwark must fund teaching they believe to be incompatible with scripture. Christ wasn't united with all just because of the religious club they joined, nor did he teach unity with all eg wolves dressed up in the vestments of sheep were to be avoided - not fed. Did he not talk of bringing division too - and the religious establishment found him rather unclubbable. Christ's teaching on unity has to be taken with his teaching on division and judgment. It's not fair to limit the issues to 'judaisers' as in the NT, the principle is applied more widely (1 Cor 5:9-13, for example). You make a good point about still being in the same cofE even if not paying for revisionists' decline but given the mind of the Communion is what it is and revisionists seem to be able to mouth the words of creeds even if they feel free to undermine the same at will, perhaps it's the revisionists who should leave and found a church with which they agree? But when so few attend or donate to hear revisionists, being housed and paid by the CofE to undermine it from within is easier if lacking in integrity - it is easier, especially if evangelicals fund them even to teach what they believe to be incompatible with scripture. You and I and Davidr would not donate to a white supremacist church, or those who pick up serpents in the Appalachians, or those who mix up their teaching with voodoo ..... My reason for not doing so is based on the principle that I am not to be united with those who teach or practice what's incompatible with scripture ....and that includes funding them - it's telling that nobody has made a strong scriptural case against the southwark trust fund - because it's scriptural (and common sense) that nobody, let alone evangicals) is compelled to fund any teaching they believe to be incompatible with scripture Posted by: DavidR Monday 4 June 2012 - 09:37am DavidW I did not mention feelings at all in my last post to you. It is all about theology as far as I am concerned. But I did express concern about the tone in which you routinely respond. It makes discussion very difficult. Your last post was actually addressed to Roger Hurding not me in fact. Let me respond to two of your responses to mine. 1. Taking Apollos as an example - if he knew only the baptism of John then his theology was very significantly incomplete. (I am not clear if you are saying in a previous post that it is possible he was expelled for a time? There is no evidence for that. Did I misunderstand you). My point was this: there was clearly a great deal of incomplete, faulty or erroneous teaching around in the early church (as today). I do not see any evidence in the NT that expulsion was the main or automatic response. I suggested, I think as a matter of observable fact, that Acquilla and Priscilla are examples of another way of responding to teaching that is in error. In so doing they actually released a powerful ministry to greater effectiveness. I do not find it clearly taught in the NT at what point 'inaccurate' teaching becomes 'false teaching' - and at what point the response to 'false teaching' tips over and requires the final sanction of expulsion. There are no actual examples given. Show me a verse or passage if I am wrong. So whilst I agree that the church needs some mechanism for finally excluding teaching that ultimately denies Christ there is no blueprint or procedure for this in the epistles even though they clearly had to take this action from time to time. Please do not assume from this that I am wanting to accomodate dodgy teaching. I am not. I am simply point out that it is much harder to be clear how the NT dealt with this problem than some imply on these posts. 2. Wheat and tares. I think I asked a perfectly reasonable question in relation to this teaching from Jesus. I find it quite helpful to try to imagine Paul and some local elders faced with a community of mixed faith and error discussing how that parable should guide their actions. It should be guiding us too. What else can this parable mean? Why did Jesus teach it? I think it at least warns us against some kind of attempt at 'theological cleansing' - though I agree this teaching sits in tension (then and now) with the need to take action where teaching clearly tips into a willful denial of Christ. I hope this takes our discussion further. Thank you for engaging with me. Posted by: DavidW Sunday 3 June 2012 - 05:58pm DavidR, May I ask, is this just about feelings as far as you are concerned, or does scripture figure at all. In my last post I cited several passages of scripture and put forward the reasoning, I don’t see you have addressed those scriptures at all in you last post, just your feelings about what you perceive my motives as. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 2 June 2012 - 10:07pm I'm sure you wouldn't have funded or associated with those false teachers who gave support to apartheid in South Africa just because they didn't get other major things wrong....I don't think its fair to limit the issues as you suggest and if someone believes an issue is not disputable but certain teaching is incompatible with scripture, it makes no sense for them to fund it...... If they think it's incompatible with scripture...... Nersen-- A most useful example. As I recall, the Reformed community's debate over the censuring of Afrikaner churches was difficult because they wanted to act from a Christian, rather than a secular "human rights" perspective, and the eventual position that the image of God in human persons must be honoured in Christ was not accepted without a long, honest struggle over its implications for covenant theology. Meanwhile, of course, they were very awkwardly in communion with a church with an evil doctrine and way of life. In the end, most of the Reformed churches broke fellowship with the Afrikaner churches altogether because faith in Christ had been compromised (i.e. because they actually did get other major things wrong). And that's the criterion. Where it applies there is no middle ground. To me, the tendency to approach matters of the day from either the left or the right and then to seek scriptural "support" for these prior positions is pathological. This sickness has a remedy-- Christ is the unity of all things, including Christian doctrine. If something is so evil (or so good) then this must surely be visible in a christocentric perspective, and so I insist on this and urge others to do the same. Lambeth I.10 makes the same demand with respect to That Topic. Meanwhile, two things are troublesome about the proposed Southwark sequestration. One is the notion that there is a middle ground of being in communion with "false teachers" whilst not financially supporting them. What in heaven or on earth can that possibly mean? Why one if not the other? The other is taking any such step without a clear situational confession that faith in Christ requires it of those involved. GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration seems more an ecclesiastical fashion statement than a responsible confession of faith for the people of Southwark and England. The CEEC's statement has several problems, but is at least on point. However, if any parishes join the Trust, they may draft something better. Perhaps you can explain the fairness issue that you see? Posted by: Bowman Saturday 2 June 2012 - 07:48pm It does the heart good to see Paul Ricoeur in our discussion; can Hans-Georg Gadamer be far behind? My thanks to all below who have commented on the general problems of understanding our sacred texts. Alas, as Shakespeare observes, even the devil quotes scripture for his purposes. Alongside the challenges of the art of interpretation that are ever with us, the proposed sequestration in Southwark also poses the problem of the criterion of Christian identity. If the Diocese of Southwark actually is the Body of Christ, then sequestration is schism from the Body. One does not leave the Body over perceived error; one stays and combats it. St Athanasius did not propose alternate finances. St Cyprian questioned whether individuals who received the sacrament but withheld their contributions had in fact received the Lord. The casual prooftexting that is usually harmless is not equal to the seriousness of this matter. Here, the person and work of Christ is the only criterion recognised by God, and the interpretation of scripture in the Body of Christ is either subject to that criterion, or it is not Christian at all. Perhaps it is, instead, Hypsisterian? DavidR's and Roger's examples are glimpses into the world in which witnesses to the Resurrection were not rare. In that world, we see them making sense of life as it then appeared in that holy wisdom which they acquired when they grasped the fact and the significance of the Resurrection. It is because they sought that holy wisdom and lived by it that they were in Christ. Those who merely believed in God and interpreted the scriptures in the new Christian way were not Christians; they were the eccentric Jews who were criticised by the rabbis of the Talmud. The very roughness and incompleteness of the apostolic writings reminds us that the Resurrection is not real because their scriptures say it happened; rather the scriptures are useful insofar as they make sense of life, given what God has done in Christ. Interpretation that makes that kind of sense is wheat; the rest is chaff. Persons who have taken sides on That Topic have sometimes been loose in their treatment of scripture, and the criticisms of those who have pointed this out have found their mark. However, there is another sort of error-- treating the scriptures as a divine thing even apart from Christ (i.e. as the Quran is said to be prior to the alleged prophet Mohammed and true apart from anything he did), so that there is not even a prima facie case being made that one who knows that God raised Jesus from the dead can, from that knowledge, recognise a proposed interpretation as truth from God. In its simplest form-- which is not unreasonable-- we hear the error criticised by those who question interpretations that appear to bid believers to act in ways that are nothing like the gospel accounts of Jesus's ministry. In a fuller form-- which was not unknown to the Reformers-- we hear the error criticised when an interpretation of a bit of scripture is offered without any account of how it can be seen to be part of the whole purpose of God that we know from all the rest of the scriptures. Alas, this criticism has also found its mark, and it is actually the more serious of the two. Interpretations of the scriptures that real Christians can receive as truth from God are true, if and only if, Jesus was raised from the dead, and they are falsehoods if he was not raised from the dead. For Christians, that sola Christi is the principle of the canonical scriptures, and the test of wisdom, and there can be no other beside it. Satisfying that principle is, if you will, a task beyond mere construal of the text, important as that is. If there is a plausible relation of a proposed doctrine to the Resurrection, one whose life turns on that event will listen to it, of course. However, given St Paul's curse on any other gospel, even if it should be preached by an angel from heaven, is it not unwise to believe just anything that can be strung together with quotes from the apostolic writings? The catastrophe for those who know the risen Lord is that contemporary churchfolk are so accustomed to the idea that the scriptures have a reality prior to that of the eternal Son that they do not see secular textclobbering in the Church for what it is, and have fallen unwillingly into practical disrespect for the one Word that is above all words. Of course, as noted above, not every creature would see this as a catastrophe... Beware the "interpretation" that "anyone" can understand. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 2 June 2012 - 07:21pm Carl I really appreciate you responding so fully to me. This will have to be briefer but here are a couple of ways i would continue discussing with you. 1. If your understanding of scripture is not perfect then there must be a sense in which you must remain open to new understanding and to possibly changing your mind. Add the word 'theoretical' if you like. 2. 'We must begin with the same hermeneutic. There would be no profit in such study because we would begin with completely different conceptions of Scriptural authority'. But it sounds as if you are saying you will only discuss scripture with me if I use your hermenuetic. My response is to agree that hermeneutics are key so that is where our discussion must start. There is every profit in this. 3. 'On the subject of homosexuality, the matter is closed. You could theoretically change my mind, but you would have to adopt my hermeneutic and demonstrate by exegesis that my understanding was flawed - that I did not apply my own principles correctly. This you cannot do.' And how do you know? You have closed all the doors and windows beforehand. You give me no way in. Why is it not possible you might come to adopt my hermenuetiic as biblically valid? What is it about 'that subject' that you have to close down so completely before even a discussion starts? Well not only does it mean I can't offer you my biblical reflections - you can't offer yours to me either. I hear you reacting all the the time to these posts from a rigid pre-determined viewpoint. You do not risk real discussion. 'the matter is closed'. Yup that is how it feels. Posted by: carl Saturday 2 June 2012 - 04:06pm DavidR I assume you do not claim your understanding of scripture to be perfect No, I do not claim to know Scripture prefectly. I am a limited finite creature. To know Scripture perfectly is beyond my ability. I claim instead that I know Scripture sufficiently. That is why we need to talk and study the Word together. Correct, but with an important condition. We must begin with the same hermeneutic. How would I talk and study Scripture with John Dominic Crossan? There would be no profit in such study because we would begin with completely different conceptions of Scriptural authority. We do not share any agreement on its ontology or purpose. [Y]our claim to a particular interpretation is not in itself any guarantee of its validity either. First of all, it's not just me. The fact that I must make private judgments does not mean my judgments are produced in a vacuum of my own creation. I know the pedigree upon which I stand. Second, I do not accept this implicit idea that Scripture is an inherently incomprehensible book. It is not simply a facilitator of "spiritual process." It was given to communicate Truth to man. The necessary conclusion therefore is that man can receive Truth from Scripture. Comprehensible objective truth about God, man, Christ, and what God requires of us. Otherwise, we must conclude that God is incapable of communicating to man the very Truth He desires to communicate. There are matters that I simply consider closed on the basis of the testimony of Scripture. When a man comes to me with new understandings about these matters, I do not immediately doubt my own understanding. I doubt him. On the subject of homosexuality, the matter is closed. There is no reasonable doubt in my mind regarding the testimony of Scripture on this matter. No more so than there is about adultery. You could theoretically change my mind, but you would have to adopt my hermeneutic and demonstrate by exegesis that my undertanding was flawed - that I did not apply my own principles correctly. This you cannot do. The new understandings about homosexuality invariably proceed from a new hermeneutic. That is why the conflict has no resolution. Furthermore you also seem quite unable to allow that anyone else's position may have any integrity or flow from genuine faith Objective truth is not subject to a man's integrity or genuine faith. Mormons have both integrity and genuine faith. But their faith is vain, and their integirty profits them nothing because they do not know Objective Truth. By what authority may I say these things? Can I know the testimony of Scripture sufficiently to reject the teachings of Joseph Smith or should I engage him on his new understanding? Should I consider that he might be right and I might be wrong? Should I consider the matter closed and send his teachings away? If I can know Scripture with sufficiency on matters related to Mormonism, then why can I not know it with sufficiency on matters related to homosexuality? This is the question you must answer. Because it leads me right back to the "process" question. Scripture is not intended to lead men on a permanent quest for an ever-receding, ever-changing truth that is always just out of reach. It's not about self-discovery and self-revelation. It's intended to communcate God's truth to man. A truth that doesn't change with the generations. carl Posted by: carl Saturday 2 June 2012 - 02:57pm DavidR Bob and Bill - this is an entirely pragmatic argument. There is no theology, gospel, faith, trust, grace, sacrifice - nothing that makes this discussion Christian actually. It wasn't so much an argument as a statement of fact. Summarized thusly: 1. Bill holds his money as an individual. 2. Bill decides to give his money as an individual. 3. Bill sets whatever conditions he may desire for receipt of his money. 4. BIll is directly responsible to God for his decisions. Some would like to modify the above as follows: 1. Bill holds his money as an individual. 2. Bill submits to church authority the decision about giving his money . 3. Bill abdicates to the church authority the responsibiltiy to set standards for receipt of money. 4. The church authority is directly responsible to God for its decisions about Bill's money. I can understand why self-interested church authorities would want to keep Bill's money flowing. But those church authorites do not have to ability to bind Bill's conscience against his will. They cannot command BIll to support that which he does not want to support. Bill's judgment about the worthiness of the supplicant to receive the gift must always be dispositive. More important, church authority cannot remove Bill's moral responsibility before God regarding the use of his money. Bill can (for example) give money to his own parish and trust the leadership to use it wisely on his behalf. Bill is still responsible for the use of that money. He is still responsible to monitor and evaluate the stewardship exercised on his behalf. If the leadership in his parish fails in that trust, then he must act accordingly. That might mean he withholds money. It might mean some othert course of action. But any such action must originate in a private judgment. You can't escape it. You can't collectivize out of existence Bill's responsibility to make private judgments about the use of Bill's money. This principle extends upward. The authorities in a parish are responsible both to their parishoners and to God to use the money entrusted to them in a wise manner. Temporal authorities above them cannot command them to give to an unworthy cause. Instead they are responsbile to monitor and evaluate the stewardship exercied on their behalf. That includes the responsibility to act accordingly if said stewardship is found false. Again, any such action must originate in a "private" judgment. Again. you can't collectivize out of existence the parishes' responsibility to make private judgments about the use of the money entrusted to it. Now, you can scream 'congregationalism' if you like, but a Christian is first and foremost under the authority of Scripture. He must not fund either an heretical bishop or the heretical churches that bishop plants. Neither can a Christian abdicate the responsibility to determine from Scripture the presence of such heresy. Authority cannot command obedience to heresy. Neither can it strip a Christian of his right and responsibility to recognize it. carl Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 2 June 2012 - 10:03am Hi Bowman - I'm sure you wouldn't have funded or associated with those false teachers who gave support to apartheid in South Africa just because they didn't get other major things wrong....I don't think its fair to limit the issues as you suggest and if someone believes an issue is not disputable but certain teaching is incompatible with scripture, it makes no sense for them to fund it...... If they think it's incompatible with scripture...... Roger and Davidr - you like examples which studiously avoid all NT teaching re not associating with some in the church (let alone subsidising them for decades) because of their life or teaching ...... What do you make of 1 Cornthians 5:9-13 for example? Posted by: DavidR Saturday 2 June 2012 - 09:42am DavidW 'All your theological arguments are completely faulty.' Ah woe is me. And of course you may yet be proved right. But why do I feel, yet again, that you only want to demolish my theological offerings (and thus my faltering faith in Christ) rather than reach out to me and help me understand more truly. If you see my blindness so clearly why can you not be kinder - more curious and enquiring of those you disagree with? Instead the tone is relentlessly dismissive and hostile. You make 'being right' so unattractive. Bowman Thank you for yours. I am not sure what the 'favour of a citation' is but you are more than welcome and I am honoured. Nersen. I think it possible that 'Lambeth 1:10' is present as a virus on your computer. This explains why it appears every other line you post and even more frequently when the rest of us are actually talking about something completely different. Fortunately for us it doesn't seem too infectious. Just a thought. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 2 June 2012 - 09:31am Roger Hurding, Like DavidR you seem only willing to address the points that you agree with, from those you agree with. This is simply driving the division to permanent. As to Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. I agree that we understand that eunuchs were forbidden to enter the temple and the barrier is broken, but hardly a God given revision when the Son of God has been healing and accepting eunuchs, more like correcting the religious leaders would you not agree? As to Acts 15, it is hardly revision when Peter is only hearing and recalling what Jesus taught as seen in the gospels? Ie Matt 28, As to our disagreement revolving around 'interpretation', no that is your disagreement, our disagreement revolves around belief and false teaching. You wrote "The other group sees them as limited to certain cultural contexts." Which from what the scripture says is false teaching. You wrote "Both groups seek to be subject to scripture, or, rather, to the Lord of scripture." One group claims ‘interpretation’ is being subject to scripture, the other group points out that such assumption contrary to scripture is, according to scripture, false teaching. Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 1 June 2012 - 09:51am Thank you DavidR and Bowman for your helpful clarifications of the extent and limits of the notion of false teahers in the NT. Beyond the touchstone of a denial of the deity of Christ there seems to have been considerable latitude in listening to and debating beliefs and understandings that were questionable. Just to add to the excellent examples given by DavidR: Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Initially God's revelation was directed primarily to the Jewish people yet here is Philip called to share the good news with a black African. Further, as I understand it, eunuchs were forbidden to enter the holy places under Israel's law and yet that barrier is now broken down. Here is another instance of a God-given revision. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Here again, both through Peter's recall of his dream experience, described by DavidR, and the testimonies of Barnabas and Paul, there is a fresh revision in the early Church's approach to Gentile converts, offering a compromise towards their new behaviour in Christ. Much of our debate on this thread and others seems to hinge on our approaches to interpreting the bible. Paul Ricoeur talked of 'first' and 'second' 'naiveté' in the hermeneutics of the text. In the first naiveté there is an unquestioning acceptance of the 'plain meaning' of the text and a tendency towards literalism. In the second naivité a 'hermeneutics of suspicion' has developed in which the text is questioned, not for its veracity, but for its context and its original intention within that context. Much of our disagreement seems to revolve around these two mindsets. It is not so much an interchange between conservative and liberal, or between traditionalist and revisionist, as a debate between two levels of interpretation, both deeply respecting the text. So often the rock against which we stumble is that of the 'anti-gay' texts. One group takes them at face value for all time and in all circumstances. The other group sees them as limited to certain cultural contexts. Both groups seek to be subject to scripture, or, rather, to the Lord of scripture. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 31 May 2012 - 07:26pm I have suggested before a vision for 'theological evangelism' (though I recognise this could sound patronising to those fellow Christians who do not call themselves evangelical. That is not my intention). No one has picked it up. I am wondering why. Evangelicals are outreach people. We love the lost. Why then, at this point, is there such an enthusiastic crusade to expel rather than find ways of meeting and talking and wrestling with scripture together and journey together deeper into the light of truth? DavidR-- A superb post. (1) I would be much obliged to you for the favour of a citation for your proposal of theological evangelism. (2) Our experience of discussion on these threads is patient of the interpretation that truth has not been the point of it for most participants. Rather, the curious term "revisionism" itself reveals the cultural relativism at the heart of their anxiety for a received subculture that is meeting an unfriendly challenge to its continued validity from another subculture of equal self-confidence. And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night. The anxiety is understandable, and because the received evangelical subculture has made and continues to make contributions worth defending, it would be unfair to see only pride in this. However, both the contributions and the defence depend on an ecclesia semper reformans semper reformanda that is hard to live and hard to learn. Our discussions are the result of a reflexive confusion of ephemeral human conservatism with eternal divine orthodoxy. (3) Meeting and talking and wrestling with scripture together in order to journey together deeper into the light of truth is probably possible among Christians only when the final coherence that is given to the scriptures by the fact of the Resurrection is treated, not as a platitude, but as a criterion. Your examples demonstrate that criterion in action. (4) The idea that Anglican churches owe their health to a perpetual equilibrium of partisan influences, each correcting the others, may work well when opinion mainly divides by taste and temperament, but it has also institutionalised a low cultural relativism that fails us in just those times in which nothing but the divine criterion will do. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 31 May 2012 - 04:50pm Carl Thanks for your response but for me it raises more questions than it answers. 1. Bob and Bill - this is an entirely pragmatic argument. There is no theology, gospel, faith, trust, grace, sacrifice - nothing that makes this discussion Christian actually. 2. 'The mere existence of an alternate interpretation says nothing about the validity of that interpretation.' Of course it doesn't. That is why we need to talk and study the Word together. Of course the same applies to you - your claim to a particular interpretation is not in itself any guarantee of its validity either. In fact the whole rest of your response to me depends entirely on your assumption that you and your viewpoint is the correct and 'orthodox' one. If you are not right (and I assume you do not claim your understanding of scripture to be perfect), or other viewpoints are actually possible - this all falls apart. Furthermore you also seem quite unable to allow that anyone else's position may have any integrity or flow from genuine faith (however flawed it mqy be). Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.But I am struggling to read this any other way. But I will be interested to hear how you engage with some of my posts on scripture. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 31 May 2012 - 02:08pm Davidr - all your examples once again omit clear (not silent) NT teaching re making judgments (1cor5:12) on teaching in the church and not having anything to do with fals teaching. So, re Apollos, St Paul clearly made a judgment that Apollos and he differed on disputable matters...... That's different to supporting in any way people you believe to be teaching anything incompatible with what God has revealed. Now, if you think it is disputable whether Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what it calls incompatible with scripture, then you are free to pay for those who teach the same activity is just fine by God ...... But I see nothing below which shows those supporting the trust fund are not doing what scripture says (eg in 1 cor 5) in not paying for yet more years and decades for teaching they believe to be incompatible with scripture. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 31 May 2012 - 01:42pm Bowman, The NT doesn’t define false teaching as only something that is core, it describes it as things contrary to the Biblical testimony given. Where for example false teaching advocates sin, how can it continue be the gospel of salvation? Anyone confessing sin would be confessing what they see as sin and not the sin Christ has died for. That does deny the work of Christ. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 31 May 2012 - 01:36pm DavidR, With respect you are still not addressing specifics put to you and in addition you are adding more points which need to be challenged. Firstly, does the scripture say that Apollos wasn’t at some point expelled, or is that another ‘interpretation’ Whether he was or not, should he have been? The scriptures quoted such as 1 Cor 5 and Matthew 18 indicate such a course of action with false teachers? You say his teaching obviously contained significant error, but the scripture indicates the opposite. In Acts 18 it says he was teaching accurately, elsewhere it is people who were falsely claiming they followed Apollos, there is no indication of any false teaching, indeed in Titus Apollos is affirmed. Sure Priscilla and Aquilla befriended him in Acts 18 but only to broaden his knowledge. So your claim is hopeless, Apollos is respectfully and lovingly befriended and theologically engaged with, not because he was false teaching but just to teach him further. As to the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13, why do you ask to know how the NT church and Paul read this parable when it says the weeds are those in the world and the wheat are those in the Kingdom, we know what Paul wrote, 1 Cor 5, and we know what Matthew wrote in chapter 18. All your theological arguments are completely faulty. As to Peter, the NT records how he recalls what Christ taught in the couple of instances his thinking went astray. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 31 May 2012 - 09:00am (1) Has any parish actually joined the proposed Trust? (2) Does not the principle of proximity determine that a teacher is the one responsible for the content of teaching? If one disapproves of the way an army fights a war, should one withold taxes assesed to pay for that? (3) Is there a persuasive rationale for using the phrase false teachers in a sense broader than that found in the scriptures? The only principle of communion in the Church is the person and work of Christ himself, and denial of that person and work is a necessary and sufficient reason for expulsion from the Church. Thus-- (a) The NT references to "false teachers" refer to heretics of the 1st C who denied the person and work of Christ. (b) The advised 1st C reponse to the denial of the person and work of Christ seems to have been a total severance of ties to false teachers, not continued ties with them through a sequestration of funds. (c) Use of the NT phrase "false teachers" to describe the Diocese of Southwark implies that heresies of the 1st C that deny the person and work of Christ are being taught there, which would not be inconsequential-- (i) If the teachings of the Diocese of Southwark deny the person and work of Christ as the opponents of the apostles once did, then "false teachers" in the sense used by the English translators of the NT are present. In that case, maintaining communion of any kind is intrinsically impossible, and the Trust maintains far too much of it. (ii) Conversely, if the Diocese of Southwark affirms the person and work of Christ, then whilst error may be present there, as it is everywhere in the Church militant, there is no "false teacher" there in the NT sense of that phrase. In that case, there is no NT authorisation for novel and irregular arrangements, and a sequestration such as the proposed Trust appears to be mere insubordination and so an occasion for repentance and discipline. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 31 May 2012 - 08:53am By way of summary here are some of the scriptural questions that Southwark situation throws up for me. I have mentioned these before on this thread and others (so please - no more 'no scripture' claims). 1. Why was Apollos not expelled as a false teacher? (Acts 18) . He was potentially a big problem as his ministry and personality was rivalling Paul's(1Cor 1). HIs teaching obviously contained significant error - but we do not know what exactly. Instead of ejecting him Priscilla and Aquilla befriended and engaged with him theologically and biblically and led him through to truer understanding. His ministry was thus renewed rather than lost. I note that here is a different NT way of facing false/erroneous teaching. Apollos is respectfully and lovingly befriended and theologically engaged with. I have suggested before a vision for 'theological evangelism' (though I recognise this could sound patronising to those fellow Chstians who do not call themselves evangelical. That is not my intention). No one has picked it up. I am wondering why. Evangelicals are outreach people. We love the lost. Why then, at this point, is there such an enthusiastic crusade to expel rather than find ways of meeting and talking and wrestling with scripture together and journey together deeper into the light of truth? 2. The parable of the wheat and tares. Matt 13. It would be interesting to know how the NT church and Paul read this parable as they struggled with whether and when to expel people from fellowship for false teaching. The parable surely cautions against attempts at religious or theological 'cleansing' and purity by trying to uproot the 'false' in the midst. 'Letting them grow together' may in the end be less damaging to the whole? It seems Jesus doesn't recommend it. But if it wasn't Jesus that said it I suspect we would be quick to set that aside as hopelessly accomodating in this present debate. 3. Of all the groups denounced as false teachers in the NT the one we know perhaps most about are the Judaizers. Paul is at his fiercest in denouncing them.They clearly caused huge trouble. But we have to note that their error is not a revisionist or liberal one (to use Southwark labels). Their error was being too conservative. Their error was not avoidance of scripture but the wrong reading and narrow interpretation of it. They were actually not biblical enough. So the NT warns conservative bible believers that error and false teaching is not just what 'Liberals' do. 4. The story of Peter and Cornelius would have surely rung revisionist alarm bells for the first Hebrew Christians. A whole core tenet of Jewish faith and practice overturned on the basis of a dream. Peter is summoned back to Jerusalem - the elders there seemed to function as a kind of regulatorary body for theology and practice. They have a thorough biblical and theological review of what has happened. The result is that the mind of the Jerusalem communion changes. 5, A more general question. What is the NT tipping point at which confused or erroneous belief becomes 'false teaching'? When does engagement cease and separation begin? Do we actually know? Do we know the process they went through and who was involved? It is not recorded for us. What was the false teaching exactly? Do we know what exactly was being denied or distorted of the faith? Do we know what was essential to them and could not be compromised and what was 'allowable' (second order) though imperfect and needing correction? More generally I note most of the NT we have is a response to all kinds of theological confusion and error. Clearly most were not expelled. It must be the exception not the rule. I will stop there .... not claiming any of this clinches things one way or the other. It just flags up for me that this debate is not straightforward in practice or in scripture. Discussion welcome ... thanks in anticipation. Posted by: carl Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 07:02pm DavidR The issue of funding or with-holding funding in the light of this is also practical and a matter of faith. It needs debating. There is nothing to debate. There is no collective component to the decision. If Bob asks Bill for money, Bill is free to set any conditions on Bob he desires. Because Bob is a supplicant, the burden of proof falls upon Bob to establish his worthiness to receive support from Bill based upon Bill's conditions. Bob may not like those terms (principally because Bob cannot meet the conditions set by Bill) but that is just too bad for Bob. He is not entitled to anything from Bill. There is no authority that can command Bill to provide support to Bob against Bill's will. One may discuss with Bill the correctness of his terms, but he cannot limit Bill's freedom to do with his money as he pleases. You can't make Bill support Bob against Bill's wishes. Or they could be people who, like many of these threads, are no longer comfortable with the inherited reading of certain core texts on this and are studying scripture and seeking wisdom for a way forward? The mere existence of an alternate interpretation says nothing about the validity of that interpretation. I can claim that Macbeth is a post-modern feminist critique of the Patriarchy. That doesn't make the claim credible. In a similar way, the present lack of comfort with "inherited readings of certain core texts" does not mean that proposed alternate readings have any validity. The hermeneutics have been changed. This is not a case of "We didn't exegete the text properly." This is a case of "We have adopted an external norm that makes the traditional reading of Scripture repugnant. Therefore we are going to confrom our exegesis to this external norm." The controversy does not proceed from legitimate doubt about what Scripture says. It proceeds from an explicit rejection of the Scripture being allowed to say what it plainly says. Thus do men establish their own traditions and nullify the Word of God. I find the enthusiasm for labelling them 'false teachers' and calling for complete withdrawal of support for them without any sign of careful and respectful enquiry of facts unacceptable. As I said above, the burden of proof is on the supplicant. It's not hard to meet that burden of proof - assuming the supplicant is orthodox in his understanding. But then there are many who would respond "I don't want you to judge me by your standard of orthodoxy. I want you to judge me by my standard of orthodoxy." Yes, I bet they would, and I can understand why. But the world doesn't work that way. carl Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 01:58pm Nersen, I am writing about oranges and you just keep criticising me for not talking about bananas. It just all seems to come back to bananas for you. It's all bananas. And for the last time - I do not support false teaching. I do not knowingly teach or encourage others to teach things 'incompatible with scripture'. But we disagree on what constitutes 'incompatible with scripture' on certain subjects. And to say I don't use scripture in these discussions is complete bananas. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 01:11pm DavidR, With reference to your post of Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 10:03am I, and others, understand your views on current revisionism as theological difference, but do you accept that many do not see it as such, but rather a core departure from the faith? I don’t see the debate going anywhere whilst each completely opposite position is merely repeated at the other. When revisionism does not accept what it calls "the inherited reading of certain core texts" many see this as denial and unbelief, The false teaching is thus the result of thinking the opposite of what the texts says. Is there any teaching you would call out as false, and if so what is it and what would your reaction be to those representing your church and speaking it? As to your question whether a single issue denies the uniqueness of Christ, the centrality of the cross or the centrality of scripture, well yes it surely could. In principle what for example if that single issue was belief that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God but merely a prophet. Would you accept that belief as Christian on the basis of it being a re-examination the "reading of certain core texts"? Even making the statement "Have they denied the ...... centrality of scripture?" begs the question surely they have if they are not accepting what the scripture says. Being ‘comfortable’ with what the scripture says doesn’t change what the scripture says. I look forward to your response Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 11:57am Davidr, if you are willing to pay for some to teach what you believe is incompatible with scripture (not disputable, what you believe is incompatible with it... on any subject), you might as well teach the same..... Or listen to the NT which suggests we have nothing to do with those who teach what is incompatible with what God has revealed... St Paul didn't slap St Peter on the back and say he disagreed re kosher snacks but hey it's all interpretation... We are to challenge false teaching and when there's no repentance for years and decades, we're never told to pay for it nevertheless ...are we? Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 11:49am John, are those who criticise the trust fund not to be asked for their reasons from scripture? None given below, that's why I ask....given the NT says lots about how to deal with false teaching....it's a fair question. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 10:03am I am wondering where this thread has got to. The new Bishop of Southwark, himself from the liberal catholic tradition, has, in a short space of time, filled six senior posts in the diocese with people who share his own theological tradition. He is not the first Christian leader to do this.( a diocese near me went entirely Wescott/Cuddesdon within two years of a new bishop from the same stable. It was as insensitive as it was unneccessary but has moved on from the wound of that and is growing). And evangelicals are just as prone to tribal behaviour. How much it is do with insecurity than theology I am not sure? But it is very human mistake to make. The issue of managing serious theological differences and of the limits of diversity is a serious one. The issue of funding or with-holding funding in the light of this is also practical and a matter of faith. It needs debating. But I personally find the NT offering very little direct guidance on. They just clearly had the same problem. What makes the Southwark situation more volatile is the present preoccupation in the church with homosexuality. We are told that all those appointed share a 'revisionist' (not my label) approach to this subject. This could actually mean that these six are wildly, off the wall enthusiasts for all kinds of alternative relationships. Or they could be people who, like many of these threads, are no longer comfortable with the inherited reading of certain core texts on this and are studying scripture and seeking wisdom for a way forward? But they are judged on one single issue are they? Have I missed something? Have they denied the uniqueness of Christ, the centrality of the cross, the virgin birth or the centrality of scripture? No one has quoted their sermons, or things they have written. No one has spoken of their faithful faith and ministry in the church. There is a kind of blanket condemnation here. I find the enthusiasm for labelling them 'false teachers' and calling for complete withdrawal of support for them without any sign of careful and respectful enquiry of facts unacceptable. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 09:58am John Martin, Hi. NersenPaul’s question relates to what scripture says about false teaching so in this case the Bible is more like a telephone directory from which to extract data for immediate use, than not. (though I wouldn’t use such a description) The NT frequently teaches disciples not to associate with false teaching, so certainly not to fund false teaching. We notice in the NT that it is false teaching going on within the church, so invocking church rules as a cover is probably how false teaching gets in the church in the first place. For me as well this is the central and fundamental question to the whole thread, yet you are asking for the discussion to move on ignoring it. Posted by: John Martin Wednesday 30 May 2012 - 08:40am Nersen you say to David R: what's off topic is your repeated failure to answer the question regarding whether those proposing the trust fund are going against scripture....Or actually being obedient to it.... You know very well the Bible is not like a telephone directory where you can always extract data and put it to immediate use. Insisting on asking for chapter and verse on a topic like the Southwark Trust is not just futile....it runs against the grain of how Scritpture is to be used. There are various Scriptural themes that provide a context (truth, unity etc) and all are trajectories that don't necessarily harmonise into a coherent answers to contemporary issues. So please move on from this line of discussion. Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 29 May 2012 - 08:12am DavidR, Thank you for responding to my point. You wrote “If someone reads 'God is love' and decides to interpret that as meaning 'God is hate' they are clearly wrong.” I don’t see how by definition that can be interpretation. I have not heard someone say a 30mph speed limit was interpreted as 40mph, and the same with other issues that have been discussed. I don’t think it can be interpretation, but rather denial. So from your examples Bible believing Christians can indeed come to different conclusions about women in leadership, because different texts from what they say, describe women in leadership and describe women not to be in leadership, but the case with homosexuality is like saying “God is hate” when the text says “God is love.” So to Nersen;’s point, how would you treat ‘God is hate’ from someone who claims to be Christian and speaking for Christianity? Would you call it revisionism and accept it as a valid view, or distance yourself from it as false teaching? Hence, should one finance false teaching. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 29 May 2012 - 06:30am Davidr, what's off topic is your repeated failure to answer the question regarding whether those proposing the trust fund are going against scripture....Or actually being obedient to it.... Why avoid the question so many times? You raised points about SK rather than answering that question re what scripture says... SK's view is not quite as authoritative as scripture, I'm sure he'd agree. The question remains - how, from what the NT church is taught re false teaching, can evangelicals fund teaching they believe to be incompatible with scripture? Posted by: DavidR Monday 28 May 2012 - 04:05pm Nersen. I wrote directly about evangelicals and the Southwark Trust proposals. That's 'off topic' is it? Let's try talking about something else. Going anywhere nice for your holidays this summer? DavidW - sorry didn't mean to not respond. My point is that whoever reads scripture interprets what they read as they do. There is no reading without interpreting. That is what we mean by 'understanding'. It's the same for whoever reads the Bible. That means you may have accurate interpretation or inaccurate, true or false - or, more often, something inbetween (unless you claim to perfectly understand everything it says). If someone reads 'God is love' and decides to interpret that as meaning 'God is hate' they are clearly wrong. It is a wrong interpretation. But that is a daft example. There are other topics - important ones such a divorce, or women in leadership, or homosexuality - where evangelical, bible-loving Christians read the same texts, seek the way of Christ in it all and honestly differ in their interpretation of the Word. I find that self evidently true. It is true among my closest friends. You talk as if this should be logically impossible. I think the NT itself, the history of the church - and especially the history of evangelicals suggests otherwise. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 28 May 2012 - 11:36am Davidr, yet another off topic point.... Below, you'll see that nobody,including Stephen, has given a scriptural reason for funding teaching they believe to be incompatible with scripture.... Posted by: Charles Read Monday 28 May 2012 - 10:50am Nersen - sorry rto be brief here today, but you are not actually engaging with what I said - I was arguing for a very evangelical theological method - test everything by scripture. You seen to me to be more pragmatic... Posted by: DavidW Monday 28 May 2012 - 09:54am DavidR, You have not addressed the point I made. I agree with you that when we say 'the scripture teaches' about something - that is a work of faithful interpretation on our part", but provided it is interpretation. To ‘interpret’ scripture one has to interpret what the text says. One cannot interpret something as good that the whole of the Bible describes either as bad, or excludes. Such has happened and it is not ‘interpretation’ but is false teaching, denial and disbelief. What we have is some in the church false teaching and claiming it is 'interpretation'. This is the problem here, it is all very well you saying "obedience to the word is central" but does that mean any ‘interpretation’ for you, or is there any ‘interpretation ‘ you would say is not the word? Hence Nersen’s question. Posted by: DavidR Monday 28 May 2012 - 07:35am Nersen, thanks for responding. We have the luxury of arguing at a distance on this issue don't we? The most significant critic of the Trust in Southwark is actually a senior evangelical leader there - Stephen Kuhrt. This from the leader of one of the largest evangelical churches in the diocese and with a quota of £300K. He surely has more reason than many for wanting another arrangement but he does not support it. 'Catastophic' is one word he used for its potential effect. Can I presume you believe he is making the same mistake as me - ignoring NT teaching, funding false teaching, arguing from silence, going against the 'mind of the communion' etc ...? Would you say to Stephen what you said to me - 'If you fund such teaching, you might as well teach the same.....'? Then I note that on the 'Orthodoxy' thread you recently wrote, 'Fulcrum [leadership] positions are biblical ..... And the Fulcrum team do greatly valuable work for evangelicals' witness in the CofE..... And take heat for their convictions....for which I'm grateful to them'. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 27 May 2012 - 12:54pm Davidr - what I have noticed is that you (like all who are critical of the trust fund) have not given any scriptural reason for evangelicals in Southwark to fund people for more years and decades who teach what the mind of the Communion says is incompatible with scripture..... that is what this thread is about....how about dealing with it in the light of scripture. You (and others) have also simply ignored all the NT teaching re not associating with false teaching (just repeating the red herring about who decides what is false as if we do not have creeds and church positions like Lambeth 1.10 which some (with no integrity) merely ignore as you criticise those who seem to be obeying scripture in not paying for false teaching for yet more decades with zero gains. Now you want to talk about interpretation etc..... but I do not buy the postmodern nonsense about words not meaning what they say and possibly meaning the opposite to what they say - that is, in any case, irrelevant to this thread........ why not engage with this thread is you have a case from scripture to persuade the evangelicals in Southwark to carry on paying in so revisionists can be funded to do their teaching incompatible with scripture? Posted by: DavidR Saturday 26 May 2012 - 09:35pm Nersen, I can fully understand you feeling I have signally failed to make a persuasive case for all the points you raise. Totally unconvincing. Not even near. The reason is of course that I wasn't talking about anything on your list actually. I was talking about something else. Didn't you notice? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 26 May 2012 - 06:50pm Revisionism thinks that language is slippery and multi-layered. Take the most narrow school of historiography - the documentation approach of the likes of Arthur Marwick. That does not escape the problem of shifting meanings, the task of interpreting (say from film) what Marwick calls witting and unwitting testimony. He would stay close to documents but others would say what angle they come from, their power-relations, what they miss out. Crucially all the documents must be primary sources - documentation made to record the witting testimony (and the New Testament contains no primary sources). Marwick hated sociology, but sociology does research that is either regulative (large and quantitative) or valid (its truth in small group meanings) and you soon find out that the quantitative questions are value laden never mind the impression of fact as well as the interpretive effort necessary in validity forms of research. There are no simple meanings. A person who a few hundred years ago wrote "This sight was awful" would have meant today "This sight was awsome." The rigid document hunters have to know this. If they don't, then sticking close to the text (that passes the primary record test) will lead them astray. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 26 May 2012 - 01:23pm Davidr - well, here is the explanation for you..... you say everything is interpretation when you fail to make a persuasive case..... so, I pointed out that you are just avoiding clear wording which does not fit with what you have been arguing...... you have failed to show anywhere in scripture which commands us to give money to teachers who are going against the teaching of the church ..... and have simply not engaged with what scripture says (very loudly despite your assertion of arguing from silence) about judging teaching in the church (1 Cor 5:12) and having nothing to do with it. You clearly have no case from scripture to argue against those in Southwark who after decades of seeing revisionists take money from evangelicals shamelessly but teach what is incompatible with scripture, have decided that they will give to a trust (they will give) and that money will go to people who are not going against 'the mind of the Communion'...... some very unsuccessful point-scoring attempts from you but no argument from scripture at all from you (or anyone else) against what those in Southwark are proposing so that they are not forced by a man-made system to fund teaching incompatible with scripture. If you fund such teaching, you might as well teach the same..... just as damaging to those unfortunate enough to hear that misleading teaching. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 26 May 2012 - 11:16am DavidW 'Interpretation depends on what the scripture says, in context, of the passage, the scripture as a whole, to whom it was written and why'. I totally agree. Absolutely. Of course it does. No point missed there. But the point I am making is that every time we say 'the scripture teaches' about something - that is a work of faithful interpretation on our part. I feel I need to say again that I am firmly evangelical in my theology of scripture. It feels as if any discussion about how we read the Word is assumed to be part of a revisionist plot to undermine or avoid the Word. I am not into that. And to be honest I don't know anyone who is. DavidW and Nersen please - we are on the same side at this point. Obedience to what the Word is central. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 26 May 2012 - 08:45am DavidR, "Nersen, ‘only interpretation’" This misses the point. Interpretation depends on what the scripture says, in context, of the passage, the scripture as a whole, to whom it was written and why. Would revisionism agree 'God is hate' is interpretation, even though it is not written in the Bible but 'God is love' is? Thats exactly what revisionism is doing in some cases already discussed. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 26 May 2012 - 08:20am Nersen "So, you join the Mark Benet 'we cannot understand words' camp" Well yes I suppose I do at this point. Because I simply cannot understand how any of this post-grammatical, dot-peppered ramble from another planet bears any relation to what I actually posted to you. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 25 May 2012 - 09:58pm Davidr - postmodernism is so 1990s! So, you join the Mark Benet 'we cannot understand words' camp.... fine.... if you are convinced by that.... but Lambeth 1.10 still says certain practice is 'incompatible with scripture'.... (not that unclear, is it?) and few buy doing intellectual backflips to try and pretend it means the opposite (open revisionists certainly don't bother, they have the courage to say they are going against scripture when they....go against scripture!).... and when scripture only ever condemns any activity, I do not dare tell anyone that it is possible to interpret it to be just fine by God...... if He never says so (in any circumstances)........ and I notice Christ was not too impressed by the pharisees' attempts to avoid being obedient while being religious (Mark 7:9-14) ...He demanded that they obey both the letter and the spirit of the law........ but He ain't no postmodernist.....no an excuser of sin as Mark 7 goes on to explain. Posted by: DavidR Friday 25 May 2012 - 10:37am Nersen, ‘only interpretation’ …. This is all interpretation actually. The pretence lies in claiming otherwise. We read, hear or see only as an interpreting of it. Interpreting is the way we make sense of what we read or hear. There is no such thing ‘a plain statement fact’. Interpretation is all. Anyone who speaks more than one language knows what a sensitive process communication is. Even as you read these words you are applying your own process of interpretation to what I have written and to the way I am writing and by doing so you are creating your sense of my meaning (which may or may not be what I am actually saying). I do the same with yours. That is what makes understanding possible (or impossible) – but always partial and flawed between us. I could draw a metaphor from my own life experience and say we are all hearing impaired. If nothing else it should warn as to be slower to assume the accuracy of our understanding and be willing to keep checking longer. For unless you can interpret well you will not be reading well and you will not understand what I am trying to say. And what is true of our exchanges is even more true for reading the Bible. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 24 May 2012 - 11:54pm Charles.... It does not follow that because church teaching can err, people are free to ignore it at will, does it? If one disagrees with Lambeth 1.10, then change the mind of the communion....... But there is no integrity in merely ignoring the position of the church..... And no sense in trying to pretend it doesn't say some activity is incompatible with scripture. And if some teach what the church says is incompatible with scripture, why on earth should evangelicals who disagree with them pay for them to mislead people?? Nothing in scripture to say they should.... Quite the opposite. Posted by: Charles Read Thursday 24 May 2012 - 02:28pm Nersen - forgive me but you seem to have lapsed into being a Catholic by accident! Classic Anglicanism (as in the Articles) accepts that church teaching can err (and has on occasions) so everything must be tested by scripture. Now you may conclude that on this issue the teaching of the church does accord with scripture - but the thelogical method is important because one thing we need to test against scripture is our own interpretation of scripture. At NEAC4 a (then) prominent evangelical Anglican told us that not only is scripture inspired but so are certain interpretations of scripture. This is not actually the classic evangelical view. I was converted to Christ in the Pathfinder group at St John's Shenstone and nurtured in faith there - and was taught this basic principle of evangelicalism then, aged 13! I suspect there are few Pathfinder groups doing that sort of thing now.... Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 24 May 2012 - 12:33pm Davidr, yet again the pretence that we are only talking of interpretation.....Rather than people going against the teaching of the church.....and the church catholic in the last 2000 yrs.. I wonder why you, Simon Morden et al think its convincing to pretend that, for example, Lambeth 1.10 does not call some practice is 'incompatible with scripture'..... Not my interpretation, it says that....read it. Now, given the open teaching against this 'mind of the Communion', why (from scripture) should evangelicals fund those teaching that the same behaviour is just fine, even though they never show it is ever ok on scripture? I bet you don't answer yet again..... Well, you pay for false teaching if you want..... You might as well teach the same if you pay for others to teach it Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 23 May 2012 - 11:41pm DavidR, No, sadly for you, we do not disagree on what scripture teaches, false teaching is not what scripture teaches but what it doesn’t teach. I can read what the Bible says. As to your remark "however strongly I may trust my interpretation more than yours." where it is what scripture says, you are trusting your 'interpretation' rather than the word of God. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 23 May 2012 - 11:19am DavidW We disagree on what scripture teaches on some issues. OK. I can live with that - however strongly I may trust my interpretation more than yours. And just for the record - the fact that I disagree (often strongly) with you on what we think scripture teaches on some issues does not mean I regard you as a false teacher. I confess don't have the same confidence as to how you regard me. But I can live with that too. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 23 May 2012 - 09:45am Setting up the trust fund must be seen as a political act. It is a way of saying to the bishop that we are here and we have poser over the purse strings. The trust has on paper noble purposes. Money given to the trust will be well spent. The problem is the decision not to pay part of the quota or share. Now churches are already doing this for one reason or another, falling collections necessary repairs, perhaps gifts to emergency collections? The nuance of whether this if to be regarded as a gift or a contribution or a tax is confusing. Anyway, if churches act in a broadly consistent way the clergy get paid. If churches start reducing their quota payments in a systematic way the likely effect is increased quotas, trimming of budgets and and ultimately failure to make salary payments. The "false teachers" we need to worry about are those who have attracted a following. They are likely to have large and active congregations and able to generate their own funding. The financially failing churches may be failing for many reasons.They may be in a declining area, they may have an aging and declining congregation. The vicar may be ineffective. All things the bishop should be doing something about, if anyone can, but not situations which will in anyway be helped by reduced funding. The problem with churches that are not effective in mission is that under the Anglican system they block off areas of the map from others trying as Anglicans. Dave Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 22 May 2012 - 08:59pm DavidR, You have said "These churches were not avoided or expelled " But that doesnt address the point. The scriptures given refer to individuals who were carrying on in sin, within the churches, who were to be expelled, not the churches. So we have examples in scripture of false teaching which of course includes sexual immorality. In 1 Cor 5 we have a specific example but we have other examples of sexual immorality. Even 2 Peter 2 warns that false teachers introduce heresy, that is stuff contrary to what the Bible says. That is not difficult to spot if people are presenting issues contrary to what the scripture says and without any scripture to support what they are saying. Not unlike the content of your last post. These people still call themselves brothers. 1 Cor 5. You wrote "I would never support funding of false teachers." Anyone defending the financing of Southwark with the false teaching going on there is by definition doing so. You wrote "As you are aware - because you keep repeating 'Lambeth 1:10' to them - there are plenty of evangelical Christians (including an number who debate on Fulcrum) who have come to a more open understanding of some of the issues of faith and life we are facing at present. " So they say, but to the majority it is false teaching. "This plainly baffles you. I know you don't agree with them." The scripture shows they don’t agree with scripture. Nothing baffling about that; it means it is false teaching. Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 22 May 2012 - 02:55pm Nersen I'm repeat myself!? Well I am in good company. But I've offered my thoughts on this clearly as I can on this one. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 22 May 2012 - 11:40am Davidr...yet again you repeat yourself but ignore questions about the fact that there have been decades of people in the cofE openly teaching eg what is 'incompatible with scripture' in terms of what the ABC calls 'the mind of the Communion' and also going against other church positions often ....your failure to deal with that old reality does not give your argument any credibility...... We are not dealing with a new or rare phenomenon. Unless you agree with those who teach what is incompatible with scripture, why (from scripture) should evangelicals fund them ? I guess you have no answer from scripture so you'll fail to answer the question yet again? Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 22 May 2012 - 09:12am Nersen, Irish coffee - sounds great to me. I hope my post to DavidW clarifies my position. I would never support funding of false teachers. But I am suggesting that deciding who and what constitutes 'false teaching' at a level that neccessitates expulsion, financial penalty and total avoidance is quite another matter. As you are aware - because you keep repeating 'Lambeth 1:10' to them - there are plenty of evangelical Christians (including an number who debate on Fulcrum) who have come to a more open understanding of some of the issues of faith and life we are facing at present. This plainly baffles you. I know you don't agree with them. You remain completely unconvinced by their arguments. They are unconvinced by yours too. But are they really the dire enemy that the NT warns about? And what do you, or any others, think of my call to 'theological evangelism'? Posted by: DavidR Monday 21 May 2012 - 07:30pm DavidW 'Christ's NT teaching says false teachers should be expelled and loved as pagans, and you say they are not false teachers'. I have said nothing of the sort and I challenge you to find where I say anything like that. Let me try again. I fully accept that then, as now, there is a problem with false teaching and with what to do about it. There has been no time in church history where this has not been an issue actually. I observe that most of the NT epistles are written to correct the beliefs of communities that are in error or confused in some way. These churches were not avoided or expelled - though they were at times strongly warned or rebuked. The epistle writers engaged with them and their leaders and sought to bring them to truer biblical faith. Apollos was teaching false doctrine - though we do not know what. He was not expelled either. Two more mature Christians took him aside and engaged with him theologically. We have a NT model here that more often suggests engaging with error where we find it - theological evangelism if you like. I accept that some were apparently beyond appeal and churches were counselled to avoid them. But we actually know very little about these people, what they actually believed and the process by which this decision was arrived at. It is a process we are exploring in our time and I agree there are times it is neccessary. The enthusiasm of some on this thread for assuming 'false teacher' is the self evident and only appropriate label for someone they disagree with a particular topic and that 'expelling', 'avoiding' or financially penalising them is the only fate on offer in the NT is as worrying as it is unbiblical. It falls far short of gospel graciousness or 'any love for the lost' that evangelicals pride themselves in having. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 21 May 2012 - 06:54pm Davidr...Irish coffee may be needed! I responded to your assertion re arguments from silence by referring you to all the very loud NT teaching which says have nothing to do with false teachers..... Which cannot include funding them! You do indeed continue to ignore that noisy teaching and questions re applying it to Southwark after decades, for example, of evidence of people going against the mind of the Communion....why (from scripture) should evangelicals fund them to teach anything incompatible with scripture? (I wonder if you will at last answer the question.....or distract again?) Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 21 May 2012 - 09:48am David R: The aim of the Trust, as I understand it, is to preserve and fund and flourish orthodox work. The aim is not to bankrupt the liberals. That may be a consequence. (Although I think unlikely actually). But it is not the aim. Posted by: DavidR Monday 21 May 2012 - 09:13am Nersen. Greetings. Thanks for your response but if we were sitting talking over coffee - which I often feel I would much refer as a way of discussing these topics - I would point out to you that you have not responded to the points I have made. I can agree with all you write - and do - but I think I am still asking questions that need a more careful response. Mine's an Americano by the way - just in case ... Posted by: DavidW Monday 21 May 2012 - 08:05am DavidR, To sum up NersdenPaul's last post. Christ's NT teaching says false teachers should be expelled and loved as pagans, and you say they are not false teachers, should not only be included in the fellowship, and also funded. Is that right? Posted by: John Martin Sunday 20 May 2012 - 09:34pm David W. We know where we both are. So let's leave it there. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 20 May 2012 - 08:59pm Hello Davidr, it's simple..... The NT says we should support gospel work.... But it also says that not all who claim to be doing gospel work are genuine and we should judge (1 Cor 5:12) and have nothing to do with false teaching.... In Matthew 7, Christ warns that we must look out for wolves dressed as sheep.... He doesn't say feed them for obvious reasons! Now, unless you are not sure re Lambeth 1.10, for example, after decades of patience in Southwark, why on earth (or from scripture) should evangelicals fund those who teach what 'the mind of the Communion' says is incompatible with scripture? Posted by: DavidW Sunday 20 May 2012 - 08:27pm John Martin, I as an Anglican would agree with your Baptist friends, but I don’t with you. The church is not equal to Christ, the church isn’t the risen Son of God and cant save. Therefore it is baptism into Christ by the water and the Holy Spirit that makes us baptised also into the fellowship. Here we are washed by the Holy Spirit and made clean. Here we are clothed with Christ, dying to sin that we may live his risen life. And We thank you, Father, for the water of baptism. In it we are buried with Christ in his death. By it we share in his resurrection. Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in joyful obedience to your Son, we baptize into his fellowship those who come to him in faith. Posted by: DavidR Sunday 20 May 2012 - 07:05pm 'The early Church only subsidized churches that [sic] agreed with.' Where is 'subsidy' used in the NT to describe the relationship between churches? Is it really another word for fellowship? 'I think it is plain old common sense!' OK. Maybe. But please note how often other biblical reflections on these threads get thoroughly mocked if they can't produce actual textual evidence for their belies and are assumed to be making it/being revisionist etc. You are making a claim with far reaching consequence for the church today for which you have no actual explicit biblical evidence. I didn't think we Evangelicals based our faith on 'common sense'. But if we can then perhaps others should be allowed to as well. 'I wonder whether a key text in all this is: 'the worker is worth his wages'.' Sorry. I think you are taking that text completely out of context here. 'The CofE has depended on subsidies far too long. And not taken stewardship seriously.' This is all so sweeping. Who are you talking about? Stephen's church ? My church? For all it's imperfections the CofE system helps to support and fund an amazing range of ministry and mission initiatives that would otherwise simply not survive. You want that do you? And what is the Alternative scheme in Southwark if not a form of 'subsidy' - and for signed up members only at that? 'If Free Churches don't pay their way, they don't exist. If they can't pay, they don't survive.' And that's good is it? Let them die if they can't afford to live the gospel. I'm confused now. I thought it was just the Liberals we wanted to bankrupt? Posted by: John Martin Sunday 20 May 2012 - 05:03pm David W. Yes, my Baptist friends who believe baptism should accompany personal confession of faith have been putting that line to me for years. That's one view. Posted by: DavidW Sunday 20 May 2012 - 03:19pm DavidR, In response to your question to Carl. "Does the Bible actually say that anywhere Carl?" Yes as already shown on this forum. Posted by: DavidW Sunday 20 May 2012 - 03:17pm John Martin, A false distinction on your part. The two are not two faces of the same coin. If you look at the scripture you will see the baptism is by water and in the Holy Spirit, not in the church, and it is after confession of faith in Christ, not in the church. Incorporation into the body of believers, the church comes after a confession in Christ. Then here from then liturgy "May God, who has received you by baptism into his Church" And neither do I intend to be arguing such a fundamental core belief any longer. Posted by: LondonVicar Sunday 20 May 2012 - 02:33pm The early Church only subsidized churches that agreed with. They were hardly going to fund teachers they were denouncing. I don't think that is eisegesis. I think it is plain old common sense! I wonder whether a key text in all this is: 'the worker is worth his wages'. The CofE has depended on subsidies far too long. And not taken stewardship seriously. If Free Churches don't pay their way, they don't exist. We need to move, and move quickly, to the situation like in the Diocese in Europe. They pay for their ministers, and there is v little Diocesan machinery. If they can't pay, they don't survive. Or they have some house for duty perspn. Posted by: DavidR Sunday 20 May 2012 - 11:47am Greetings Nersen. Could I check I have understood what you are saying correctly. You are in no doubt that in its financial giving the NT church did not give money to those it regarded as teaching false doctrine. And they would have withdrawn financial support from any it once supported who began to teach what they regarded as false doctrine. Is that correct? We agree that there are no recorded examples in the NT of churches discussing this or actually doing this. Nor are there any texts urging local churches to withhold giving for these reasons. None of the writers of the epistles teach or urge this action or make this specific connection. You do not believe you are arguing from silence though. You believe that the clear concern of the NT church for true doctrine simply makes it inconceivable that they would have given money to false teachers. Have I summarised you accurately? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 20 May 2012 - 12:18am So, only institutionalist but no biblical arguments below to fund teaching incompatible with scripture....and biblical teaching ignored re having nothing to do with false teachers .... Classical revisionism, selective....unconvincing. Funding teaching incompatible with scripture is as bad as teaching people it's just fine to go against scripture if the 'Garudian' disagrees with it ...... Indefensible for any non-revisionist meaning of 'evangelical'....as the lack of scriptural arguments for funding those undermining church biblical teaching from within below shows.......... Posted by: DavidR Saturday 19 May 2012 - 08:22pm Carl Thanks for responding - but I do think you have drawn back a bit from your earlier post. You now say 'my observation is not being presented as divine revelation. I am certainly not saying it is always true.' You were far more definite in your earlier post. 'If I hear teaching X, then I am going to go looking for teaching Y, and I am almost certain to find it.' (my italics). Almost certain is an extremely strong claim to make May I make two comments about this approach. a. The impression given is that once you have confirmed that yes - as it almost ceetainly always is - Y is also hopelessly dodgy - you don't need to take x seriously. So no discussion happens. No real meeting. No compassion for the 'lost'? Don't you wish to reach out theologically and find a way of guiding them to a fuller understanding of the faith? Most of the NT is an attewmpt to reach and clarify true faith and doctrine - it wasn't simply thrown out and avoided. They engaged with it. b. I can't help thinking that that is to start from default position of suspicion. So if I offer a view on x that you disagree with aren't you are already looking over my shoulder 'almost certain' you will find my kit bag full of heretical views of everything core to the faith - y. Ah yes, typical Liberal/false teacher/revisionist (delete as applicable). That makes me feel you will never discuss x with me on its own terms - or really listen to why I might find another point of view persuasive rather than yours. You start with a bias. c. It is surely apparent that those posting on these threads who are exploring a different interpretation of traditional topics x are far from the Liberal/apostate/explain away of ignore the bible on y. We are working with scripture and seek to be faithfully orthodox in our understanding of Christ, atonement and the centrality of scripture - the lot. My suspicion is that means you always start from a place of suspicion rather than trust (or even respect) when you meet people interpreting scripture differently from you. for opinions you don't agree with. Posted by: LondonVicar Saturday 19 May 2012 - 07:50pm Bowman asked: "What do you see as the cohesive force in the Trust to prevent that? If you see one, is that force for cohesion strong enough to include non-evangelicals?" From what one can read so far re the Trust, it appears to be the Jerusalem Declaration which is the cohesive force. That is a a Declaration that many conservative minded Anglicans have been happy to sign. Three illustrations: 1) Those originally in Jerusalem were not all evangelical by any means by the look of their dress 2) Those at the FCA launch in London - Bishop John Hind was among them. 3) Those who have been ejected from The Episocopal Church. CANA is a pretty broad theological bag. On that basis, I would be pretty confident that those who are united against revisionism would hold together. They seem to have elsewhere. Posted by: carl Saturday 19 May 2012 - 02:00pm DavidR Does the Bible actually say that anywhere Carl? Why should I expect the Bible to say that? Correlations are observations, and my observation is not being presented as divine revelation. I am certainly not saying it is always true. I am certainly not asserting causation. I am asserting that there is a strong correlation between revisionist ideas on secondary topics, and revisionist ideas on primary topics. If you hold to the former, you will strongly tend to hold to the later. The common cause is (typically) the liberal understanding of truth that undergirds both. This could be simple prejudice and an inability to cope wioth the thought we disagree on things in the body of Christ. The Christian faith is not infinitely malleable. It is not a process of religious self-discovery where Christianity is but one among many religions that might facilitate a man's spirtual journey. Christianity has content. It has essential content. If you deny that essential content you testify against your own proclamation of Christian Faith. We know that essential content because it has been revealed to us. Revelation is the only way we can know Truth with sufficiency. Man cannot ascend to heaven to investigate the things of God. The post-modern world has denied the existence of revealed truth. It seeks instead to find some measure of truth within itself. It talks about the 'spirit doing a new thing' but it has no means to establish the validity of that assertion. In practice, that assertion becomes an ex post facto justification for men acting on the desires of their own heart. That is the source of this conflict between the two sides. Its about far more than 'disagreement in the Body of Christ.' It's about the nature of the Christian faith. If a man says to me "There are many roads to God" then he testifies against himself. If a man says to me "Jesus was not God incarnate but simply a man" then he testifies agianst himself. If a man says to me "Jesus did not die to suffer the punishment of God's wrath against sin" then he testifies against himself. If a man says to me "Jesus did not come forth physically from the tomb in the flesh on the third day" then he testifies against himself. If a man says to me "I shall stand before God in my own righteousness" then he testifies against himself. If a man says to me "There are many who will die denying the Christ and yet still be redeemed yet unaware" then he tesitifies against himself. He testifies clearly that he is not my brother in Chrust. He testifies clearly that he does not know God. These are the teachings Y for which I go looking if I hear some teaching X that makes me suspicious. And I almost always find them in some form or another. carl Posted by: John Martin Saturday 19 May 2012 - 10:59am David W. "baptism into Christ, not into the church." A false distinction. Baptism into Christ and incorporation into his body the church are the two faces of the same coin. It won't do to try to make a distinction between them. I don't intend to be drawn further on this theme. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 18 May 2012 - 10:09pm Davidr, once again, you repeat a red herring.... And ignore inconvenient questions. .. ...there are church positions (no fictitious group making up new hurdles)....So, unless you think, for example, that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong, why on earth should evangelicals pay for the false teaching in southwark which condones what 'the mind of the Communion' says is incompatible with scripture? Posted by: Bowman Friday 18 May 2012 - 09:55pm LondonVicar-- Thanks for the link to Premier, and your other posts in this thread. Stephen's view that splitting usually leads to more splitting is widely shared. What do you see as the cohesive force in the Trust to prevent that? If you see one, is that force for cohesion strong enough to include non-evangelicals? DavidW-- Thanks for restating your question. The obligation of avoiding That Topic has probably made it difficult to frame. My first response to any moral claim is the one we see in the New Testament-- how is this claim about life after the Resurrection vivified by the person and work of Christ? Jesus was not just a prophet; the scriptures are not like the Quran, and the apostles, by definition, knew that. The scriptures are mainly relevant as the witness to that eternal ministry, not as an authority independent of him. Those who know the scriptures in the Lord, talk about the Lord. The persons with whom you disagree do not even answer my prior question, and so, by default, I have nothing to check against the scriptures and cannot agree with them. To be fair, many with whom you do agree see passages that support their view, but cannot explain why people who knew that Jesus was raised from the dead found it urgent to write them. Both are examples of thought estranged from the christocentric world of the New Testament, though, being submissive to different social forces, they fall on different sides of the secular polarisation of our time. So the serious crisis across Christendom is at bottom an eclipse of christology, aggravated by the social polarisation in some societies, that inevitably drives a rather worldly dissensus on the use of the scriptures. Is that surprising to any reader of the New Testament? Where lines in the sand are drawn merely on the basis of a preferred abstract authority in the modern manner, there is usually incoherence on both sides of it that can be attributed to the eclipse of Christ by the lines themselves. Likewise, there is usually at least the seed of a better development to be found on both sides, openings to both grace and judgement. The social loyalties and passions surrounding most controversial questions tend to obscure this from those who argue them. Carl's method of using Xs to find Ys is very astute, though one must be looking for the right Ys in the first place, and that is not consistently possible for most of those whose thought is captive to prior social ideologies. It is a tool, but it is not a substitute for what is always the prior question for those who acknowledge only Jesus as Lord-- how is this claim about life after the Resurrection vivified by the person and work of Christ? As Christians persist in making this question the first and decisive one, they follow the Lord more closely. Leaving the immaturities of partisanship behind, they unite with others who also place allegiance to Christ above any allegiance to the carnal thinking of this divided age. They are in Him, no longer blown about like leaves in the shifting wind. Posted by: DavidR Friday 18 May 2012 - 06:40pm 'Certain teachings are strongly correlated with counterfeit Christainity'. Does the Bible actually say that anywhere Carl? What is there to stop one group or individual with an obsession about one particlar topic simply constructing their own equation 'x is there y must be behind it'. It doesn't follow at all. This could be simple prejudice and an inability to cope wioth the thought we disagree on things in the body of Christ. And if the Bible really is so perspicuous why do evangelicals find it so hard to agree on isues such important issues divorce or women's ministry, or the authority of scripture - to name but a few core issues.. Posted by: LondonVicar Friday 18 May 2012 - 08:34am Stephen Kuhrt said yesterday on Premier that the Southwark Good Stewards Trust would be 'catastrophic' for the Church of England. http://www.premier.org.uk/news/current/Controversial%20funding%20pot%20catastrophic%20for%20CofE.aspx Do you agree? Or is it revisionist theology that will prove to be catastrophic for the Church of England ? Posted by: DavidW Friday 18 May 2012 - 08:23am I can second Carl’s excellent observation "In practice, however, certain teachings are strongly correlated with counterfeit Christainity. If I hear teaching X, then I am going to go looking for teaching Y, and I am almost certain to find it. It is teaching Y that will deny an essential of the Faith - essentials we can know because the Scripture is perspicuous in such matters. It is teaching Y that will cause me to sever fellowship. " Bowman, But let me make this plain using Carl’s point (Hopefully Carl will forgive me for making such a crude analogy) Is there anything that is clear in scripture? If some of us were to say Jesus never actually said anything about stealing from the poor, would you be comfortable to accept such teaching in your church? I mean if you offered passages of scripture against such a view and we had nothing to support it except to say that not everyone agreed with your translation, or the context, or that the passages didn’t mean what it said or what you think it meant, would you be happy that as a Christian belief when asked? Otherwise, if not, I don’t see how it could be one faith, one body. Posted by: WATERANGEL Friday 18 May 2012 - 08:10am "i would never place myself under the authority of a woman?" Did God ask you too, NO he asked you to walk side by side or work together as equals. For a Bishop or ArchBishop are only as "authoritive" as people give them the respect to be so. this is also proved in politics, you can be the prime minister, but if people will not work with your authority and the public will not respond to you it is merely untill the next vote. I think that this authority thing is a total misapplication of the Gospel. It is used in isolation without taking into account, all the other instruction given by God the father Jesus the Son and it totally overlooks the Holy Spirit. Corinthians tells us quite clearly, that we should respect one another, But to me the most important thing about the Bible is that it was is and will be an evolving Gospel, as we see with the writers the old testament of laying down the ground rules, so that the human race has a framework to work too. The ground rules were adapted by god through his son, because God saw that the people misused them to userp and use people as slaves. Things do not really change that much though. God made the first judge a woman so that the men could say i am the authority and i have a womans permission to say so.. The minute you say "i would not work under the authority of a woman" you are in danger of not being able to hear Gods word in totality and therefore in danger of misapplying it and therefore also in danger of putting people at risk because they also cannot hear the gospel in completion..Sometimes God calls us to work and live in situations we do not understand, but untill it is done it does not become clear. Now if someone will not work in a situation because they are frightened, that has to be acknowledged, because that is different from saying i refuse to listen to the whole gospel and will only share and implement the bits which i am comfortable with. Peace be with you Carl and dont worry i have no authority what so ever in fact my whole existence is pretty pointless really based on the fact that all i want is for people to work alongside one another in peace. Angela Posted by: DavidW Friday 18 May 2012 - 08:08am John Martin, Sorry but I dont think you have addressed the point I made at all. According to the scripture its baptism into Christ, not into the church. Baptism into Christ makes one part of the church. The confession of faith is in Christ not the church. Sure the covenant of ancient Israel was God's initiative and created a people, but the covenent was with God. And my point again, which you didnt address, was that faith in Christ is faith in His teaching and 1 Cor 5 is part of it. Otherwise to be fair, the false teacher is the one claiming the believer is wrong.. Posted by: carl Friday 18 May 2012 - 01:05am Bowman [E]rror with respect to other doctrines, though we should surely combat it, does not necessarily have the same utterly vitiating effect on the bonds between Christians You are correct according to the general principle. A good example in my own case would be Women's ordination. I would never place myself under the authority of a woman but I wouldn't break fellowship over the contrary perspective either. As you say, people can be sincerely wrong about some things without consigning themselves to hell. We are all limited finite creatures. But not all errors are created equal. When men are sincerely wrong about things the Scripture unambiguously and clearly calls sin then to legitimize their corrupted teaching would be to create scandal for the church. When leaders teach such things, they tempt people to sin, and do so while wearing the mantle of church authority. You must defend those boundaries even from - especially from - other Christians. This is why the man who had his father's wife was put out of the church. Surely the elder who dared to legitimize such an arrangement would be just as guilty. In practice, however, certain teachings are strongly correlated with counterfeit Christainity. If I hear teaching X, then I am going to go looking for teaching Y, and I am almost certain to find it. It is teaching Y that will deny an essential of the Faith - essentials we can know because the Scripture is perspicuous in such matters. It is teaching Y that will cause me to sever fellowship. carl Posted by: John Martin Thursday 17 May 2012 - 09:49pm David W you say: "Baptism into Christ is primarily into a covenant with Christ rather than the church as you seemed to imply." That's bad ecclesiology. We belong to Christ and integral to that is being part of his body, the church. The covenant of ancient Israel was God's initiative and it created a people. No "implying" at all. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 17 May 2012 - 07:17pm John Martin, In reply to your response to NersenPaul, you must have it the wrong way round. Baptism into Christ is primarily into a covenant with Christ rather than the church as you seemed to imply. If "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." Eph 4.3-6 then there is one faith and 1 Cor 5 is part of it. Otherwise to be fair, the false teacher is the one claiming the believer is wrong.. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 17 May 2012 - 04:40am Carl-- The most valuable posts in the forum are the ones in which persons say enough about their views and their stories that we are challenged and enabled to make sense of points of view that are not our own. Personally, I have an ecclesiology that is quite different from yours, and for that very reason it is a privilege to have such a full presentation of your views. I suspect that they are not unrepresentative of the views of other people who matter to me, and it is useful that you have made your own take on them clear. Thank you! On your point below that there cannot be agape or koinonia without true teaching-- about Christ and the gospel, yes. I have just had three hours of great fellowship that were only possible because all of us have a clear grasp of both of those and can understand each other in Him when we open the Word. St Paul's vehemence for the gospel, whether rhetorical as St John Chrysostom says or actually angry as Martin Luther says, marks off the special status of those doctrines. The creeds respect that limit, and so, tentatively, should we. However, error with respect to other doctrines, though we should surely combat it, does not necessarily have the same utterly vitiating effect on the bonds between Christians (e.g. baptisms performed by Donatists), and so that calls for the exercise of diakritikos-- 1 John iv 1, of course, but also Hebrews v 14! It's not wise to suppose that just because people differ, they err, and because they err, there is no fellowship. The natural variability of human nature is enough to account for much of the difference that some attribute to doctrine, and that is always the null hypothesis to be disproven by evidence that is not just self-referential. Whilst evangelicals are often excellent in some distinctive ways,other kinds of Christians are not just failed attempts at evangelicalism. Furthermore, the effects of teaching and practise, whether good or bad, can be seen empirically, so that one can and should make an evidence-based judgement about this. Here I think it is important to recall the profound opposition of vice (Galatians v 19-21) and virtue (Galatians v 22-23) that St Paul characterises as phanera (i.e. apparent, manifest, obvious; Galatians v 19). If you think on it, you may discover that your confidence in your own judgement owes as much or more to St Paul's teaching on this as on any close study that you have made of the thinking of the local provocateurs. Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 10:12pm John: I did say humanly speaking, ie. with what we do - preach the Gospel. Of course the Gospel begins in the Trinity. In the will of God. And in election (Eph 1). But you have not answered my point re the biblical attitude to false prophets and how that translates over into the NT. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 07:41pm Hi John, we have (of course) to read scripture in the context of scripture.... while you're right that people were never told to withhold tithes, when we are told in the NT not to associate with false teachers......we are not told to pay them nevertheless .... Wolves dressed as sheep, someone warned us to beware....He didn't tell us to feed them...and He didn't let institutional unity hold him back from throwing out people behaving wrongly in the temple.... But, I know....he wasn't an Anglican! Applying biblical principles to southwark, after decades of evangelicals funding teaching incompatible with scripture, it hardly seems unreasonable for people to choose not to do so...... Revisionists should pay for their own false teaching if they must try and subvert the church from inside ..... Posted by: John Martin Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 07:10pm London Vicar, you say "no, John, ecclesiology begins with the Gospel." Tell me, where does the Gospel begin? If Hebrews 11 says Abraham & Co were saved, then the Gospel starts a long way back. We start with the Eternal Tri-unity. Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 03:09pm no, John, ecclesiology begins with the Gospel. For it is the preaching of the Gospel that calls into being the church (from a human perspective anyway). People are converted and come into the family of God [and are given baptismal sign sure]. What we are talking about is leaders of the church who are preaching a false gospel (ie no repentance from particular sins). So they are false teachers. 'have nothing to do with them' etc. re OT: the false prophets were denounced. 'Do not listen to them; they speak lies' (Jeremiah 14:14 etc) The people were to ignore them and return to those who were teaching the truth. Same for the NT church. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 12:24pm Bowman, The only definite teaching on giving the church seems to come up with is a muted proclamation of the 3 pillars of the prosperity gospel, tithing, the storehouse principle and divine multiplication. This being applied as 10%, before tax and without allowing for gift aid ( tax relief paid directly to the charity), to the local church on the basis of which God will bless and prosper you. As they do not hold to the view of the Old Testament this is based on, it is watered down. Apart from this, a spirituality of giving does not give the sort of guidance stewardship committees want. John, If we look at the Jerusalem collection, we have an exercise of apostolic authority which is quite different from the manner of episcopal authority in the CofE. Paul makes an appeal on the basis need, Christian love etc and leaves it to them to obey the leading of the Spirit. If they had replied "sorry we could not give much to Jerusalem, Barnabas, cleaned us out last month with his collection for Antioch", this would not have been a challenge to his authority. This passage indicates the independence of the local church under the guidance of the apostolic community rather than the exercise of personal authority by a bishop. Dave Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 12:12pm Can I state again that I completely agree we are personally responsible for the use of resources entrusted to us. I also agree that the Southwark situation throws up real issues about giving. We need this discussion. But I think we are also responsible for the words we use too. The root meaning of the word 'private' - pr+vtus - means 'to take away from/remove from the public sphere'. It also means to rob - pr+vre - hence deprive. Its most obvious use in our times has been precisely about exclusive, privileged and excluding claims to ownership over and against the common life/public sphere. I do not find that a helpful word to use in discussing the exercise of Christian responsibility at all. I wonder where people find the equivalent of that word in the scriptures? The closest I can think of are the texts condemning the withholding of resources by the wealthy and thus the depriving of support and care for the poor and needy (eg Amos 5 and 6 the Prophets and Luke 6). That withholding is a private understanding of wealth - ie one that is defined as resources withheld/held apart from the life and welfare of the wider community. My understanding of life before Christ is that nothing I have is private actually. It is all held in trust for the common good under the Lordship of Christ and on those terms I am acountable. I am a steward not an owner. I believe this to actually flow out of the life of the Trinity which is revealed in Christ as a non-possessive, non-grasping life - each poured out to the gift and glory of the other (Phil 2). Nothing in God is 'private' either. So I think we need a different word. I have been urging the word 'personal' as a more helpful and gospel way of exploring the spheres of shared responsibility. It is also an immediately 'relational' word - and in disucssing divisive issues we always need reminding we are talking about and with real people. I know others have not agreed with me but I hope this clarifies better where I am coming from on this. Posted by: John Martin Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 07:26am Nersen you say: what is 'disturbing' is that you and some others don't want to engage with scripture when it doesn't suit your position below - like 1 Cor 5:12 and 2 Cor 6:14-15 (and the contexts of both letters regarding dealing with false teaching)....... I suggest this is not where we start the conversation from Scripture. The whole context for a biblical ecclesiology begins with Covenant and its hallmarks and in the NT in the oneness of the church grounded in the unity of the Trinity and the covenant hallmark of baptism. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling,5one Lord, one faith, one baptism,6one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." Eph 4.3-6 And the Scripture gives us a lot to reckon with. The prophets lamented how Israel had disregarded the Covenant but never said the righteous remnant should separate from the nation, or refuse to pay their tithes, nor did they ever say, "You have gone so bad that God says, 'Forget about circumcising your boys!' Posted by: carl Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 04:59am London Vicar I am an Engineer. I am not ordained. And what's worse, I am an American. carl Posted by: carl Wednesday 16 May 2012 - 04:53am DavidR It is not. There is no such thing a "Liberal' as a self evident mono-category of belief or behaviour Yes, there is. I encounter it all the time. I don't much like the word 'Liberal' because of the political connotations, but Liberal Chistianity is a distinct religion. It is founded upon the twin pillars of metapyhsical doubt and the presumed goodness of man. You take to yourself the absolute right to define and totally judge the faith, theology and life of others. When someone asks me to contribute money, he forces me to make a moral judgment. I couldn't avoid making that judgment even if I wanted to avoid it. I have to answer the question "Is it the right thing to do?' How do I answer that question? I must apply a standard. It is preferable if I consider that standard before I am forced to make the judgment. In this case, I pre-judge the Christian character of the religion he represents. I don't judge him. I judge his belief system, and I do so according to the standard of Scripture. I know what a Christian must believe. I know what a Christian cannot believe. That is the first fundamental parsing that must occur. I cannot and will not give money to a non-Christian religion. It is my moral responsibility to make that distinction. It's important to realize that this standard applies to everyone. You don't get a pass because you happen to occupy a position in a traditionally Christian church. I am wise enough to know that there are many counterfeits who claim the name of Christ. I don't care if you use the right prayer book, or follow an orthodox liturgy. I don't care if you hold a position of authority. I care about what you profess and believe. If you deny the essentials of the Christian faith, then I will not support you. I will consider you the purveyor of a false religion. This judgment binds no one but myself, and you are free to reject it as you see fit. Apply any standard you desire to answer this moral question. But if you wish me to change my mind, then you are going to have to do more than appeal to community. You must forget the spurious accusations about 'claiming rights' and 'seeking control.' You must instead explain why someone who denys the resurrection, or the atonement, or the divinity of Christ is in fact my brother. Instead of claiming a de facto community, you must first establish a basis for community that is not purely organizational. Bishop Spong is in the organization and he is a functional atheist. And you state you would prefer that anyone you disagree with simply ceases to exist! If a man represents a false religion, why should I possibly want that religion to prosper? Should I as a Christian hope for the prospering of Mormonism? All that means is that people are led away from God. Why should I want that to happen? What possible motivation would I have to hope that the ministry of the Mormon church would grow? Should I not hope instead that Mormons would find the truth and leave the LDS as a result? Is it not my Christian responsibility to work for exactly that end? Likewise with Liberalism. I do not wish to see prosper a false religion that pulls people away from God. So, yes, if I determine that a man preaches a false religion, I desire to see his ministry and church cease to exist. That's why we evanglelize, isn't it? To move people from falsehood to truth? carl Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 08:46pm The ethic of giving to God as a member of a religious body is not the same as the ethic of giving to a charity ("charity") as a member of the general public. In the latter case, mere consideration of the consequences may be the only available criterion (e.g. does the music school give good piano lessons?). Jews, Hindus, Druids, etc can often agree on that. In the former case, recognition of God as the ground of one's existence brings one into a reality beyond the self, for that is what it means, in a religious sense, to believe in God. The religion in which one believes necessarily frames the act of giving to God, for the framing of the meaning of actions is what religions do, and giving is a fundamental human act that no religion can ignore. Therefore, when a religious believer is giving money to God, he is still "navigating" in that reality which he believes is from God, and which he cannot change ("stewardship"). Regretfully, no major church has produced a good map for these navigations in our time, which is both money-conscious and contentious about religion. But it really does seem that the reality of the Body of Christ is prior both to the giver and to the giving. If one does not recognise a Body of Christ prior to one's own giving, then one is not giving as a Christian. Giving to God only as "charity" is blind in one way, and giving to God as a way to play politics in the temple is blind in another way. But, as we know from the gospels, God does love the blind, whether they have money or not. Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 07:25pm DavidR, I disagree with you about ‘privacy’ Part of our essential prayer life is in private. Furthermore, I am not sure there is so much ‘rampant individualism of contemporary consumer culture’ under the guise of Christian conscience. I find that the usual criticism for this is of merely glorifying God in the same way the world idolises things. Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 07:21pm Bowman, It is a polarisation alright, but I don’t feel any bitterness on my part, though some may feel it. I see no value in another gospel which is really no gospel at all; whether that be ‘evangelical’ or ‘liberal’ or whatever term. If its false teaching as a departure contrary to the scripture and another gospel and another Jesus, its not the fullness of Christ or the body of Christ. Would you not agree? Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 07:19pm Bowman, It is a polarisation alright, but I don’t feel any bitterness on my part, though some may feel it. I see no value in another gospel which is really no gospel at all; whether that be ‘evangelical’ or ‘liberal’ or whatever term. If its false teaching as a departure contrary to the scripture and another gospel and another Jesus, its not the fullness of Christ or the body of Christ. Would you not agree? Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 05:32pm Davidr - what is 'disturbing' is that you and some others don't want to engage with scripture when it doesn't suit your position below - like 1 Cor 5:12 and 2 Cor 6:14-15 (and the contexts of both letters regarding dealing with false teaching).......And lots of verses which always subordinate institutional unity to what God has revealed and actively teach no unity with false teaching. If the church has a position, eg Lambeth 1.10, unless you think it is wrong, why on earth would any evangelical fund anyone to teach what is incompatible with scripture? Especially when the situation has persisted for decades. No reason (in scripture) for evanglelicals to be paying for people to be misled.....just institutionalist arguments which don't seem to get that we are talking of an old, entrenched set of false teachers..... It's not time for talking nicely while paying for them to teach what is incompatible with scripture......no scripture regarding dealing with false teaching supports that and none has been given below. I expect you might ignore the question again but hope you will think on your avoidance below of lots of verses in the nt re how to react with false teachers..... Why do they not apply in the cofE today after decades of the accommodation of false teaching? Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 11:21am Carl, I confess to finding your words disturbing. You place yourself entirely at the centre of everything and insist you are the sole judge of the truth or error of everything around you. No one will be in 'community' with you unless you allow them to be. Well we can safely assume in a community like that you can speak without fear of contradiction. You write: 'The analogy to Liberalism is exact'. It is not. There is no such thing a "Liberal' as a self evident mono-category of belief or behaviour (capital letter!). Like Evangelical or Catholic the word needs careful defining. It is not one thing. You write: 'I have pre-judged the boundaries of the community such that he (?) exists outside those boundaries.' Yup. That's it exactly. You take to yourself the absolute right to define and totally judge the faith, theology and life of others. And you state you would prefer that anyone you disagree with simply ceases to exist! Pre-judged! You don't even have to take the time and trouble to actually meet 'him' and check if you have understood 'him' correctly. (Is it me or is it cold in here?) You write: 'The argument from community assumes the community already exists. It presumes that someone has the authority to define that community for me.' 'Authority?' This seems to be all and only about safeguarding the entirely independent exercise of power and rights for you. Community exists because God is love. Mercifully it is not you or me who holds the membership list. Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 02:51am DavidR is surely right about the effects of some self-absorbed explanations for the Trust. But even if one doubts the wisdom of the Trust, as I do, LondonVicar does describe a potentially potent antidote-- real collective decisionmaking amongst Christians, potentially including non-evangelicals, that could be understood as an occasion for the agape and koinonia seen in the scriptures. Whether it actually is that or not may depend, under God, on how the discussions are framed and led. Whether the diocesan structures in Southwark can offer anything comparable is worth discussing. For the past several months I have been following the progress of a group of Presbyterian churches in the US that have been pooling their "quota" payments to fund a new denomination for reasons that would surely sound familiar to evangelicals in Southwark. Listening to the hopes, fears, and dreams of its leadership, and reading several of its key documents, I have been reminded of several villagers, of course ;-) but also struck by the sheer relief that these Christians feel at being able to resume a normal, creative ecclesial life after years of being deadlocked with liberals in their parent denomination. One writer notes, for example, how the theological dissensus led to processes so dysfunctional that examining candidates for ordination became a meaningless formality. The nearest parallel in my life experience to this is the experience of Orthodox Christians who disaffiliated from Orthodox churches under Communist control to cultivate their spiritual disciplines in provisional jurisdictions with mutual understanding and without fear. LondonVicar has asked a fair question-- where does one draw the line between the comprehensiveness that Stephen rightly defends and compromise of the gospel? The appearance of false teaching is not a feasible place to draw the line for the reasons that Simon Cawdell has given and a few more besides. Below I have offered a novel but scriptural position that the degradation of the Church's inner life is a criterion that applies to actions on all sides in ecclesial disputes. It has the advantage of not abstracting language from life. Posted by: carl Tuesday 15 May 2012 - 12:55am Giving money to a religious organization is always a moral decision. A private individual exercises 100% control over the disposition of his money. He and he alone makes the decision to open his wallet. He may seek advice. He may seek council. He may seek guidance from those he respects and trusts. Ultimately, however, he must make the choice. He is responsible for the moral outcome. That is why I called it a private decision. The responsibility adhers to the money and cannot be transfered by the individual. If you want to frame this discussion in terms of community, then the giver assumes the right to define the boundaries of the community before he makes the gift. Assume a member of Krishna approaches me and says "I am doing God's work, and I would like your financial support." I would say "No, you are a member of a false religion. It would be wrong of me to support you with money. You would only use it to lead people away from God." I am individually responsible to discern the falsehood of his religion and withhold my money from him. There exists no community between us because we do not worship the same God. The analogy to Liberalism is exact. If a Liberal approaches me and says "I am doing God's work, and I would like your financial support." I would say "No, you are a member of a false religion. It would be wrong of me to support you with money. You would only use it to lead people away from God." Again, I am individually responsible to discern the falsehood of his religion, and withhold my money from him. I have pre-judged the boundaries of the community such that he exists outside those boundaries. He becomes a proper recipient of evangelism and not support. Indeed, the ideal outcome from my point of view would be that his ministry and church cease to exist. The argument from community assumes the community already exists. It presumes that someone has the authority to define that community for me. This I emphatically deny. Because it is my decision to give, and because the responsibility of that decision attaches to me personally, I will define the boundaries for my giving. That will of necessity exclude Rev Jeffrey John Clone and his parish of St John Spong the Lesser Anglican Church. I have the ability to discern false churches. The Gospel is not a complicated doctrine locked up in systematic theologies I know the content of the Gospel, and I can make sound judgments based upon that knowledge. In fact, it is my responsibilty to do so. carl Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 14 May 2012 - 10:58pm which Diocese are you based in Carl? Are you ordained? Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 14 May 2012 - 09:29pm The last point has some validity. The charge of consumerism could be levelled against those wanting to join the Trust. However: Those joining the Trust will not, in the main, be individuals. It will be PCCs - ie corporate bodies - ie local churches So there will be a corporate decision as to whether to join the Trust or not. And a corporate decision as to whether to support only those leaders/churches which subscribe to the JD. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 14 May 2012 - 07:25pm Davidr, it is the same new testament which encourages us to look to the needs of others which also tells us to have nothing to do with false teaching (eg 1 Cor 5-7).....is it not? Just because revisionists attract so few and even fewer who give, it does not follow that given the church (not I) has a position, eg in line with the 'mind of the Communion', that evangelicals must fund those who teach anything incompatible with scripture.....given the NT says we should have nothing to do with false teachers......it makes no sense to to fund teaching which we and the mind of the Communion snd the church catholic through 2000 yrs sees as incompatible with scripture ......not sure how that can be justified from the NT (it hasn't been below) Posted by: Dave Monday 14 May 2012 - 06:21pm Carl, Simon,DavidR There is some argument over the word private. I wonder if individual or personal would suit better? The story of annanias and Saphiral, does give us freedom in how we use our property and money. The problem arose due to dishonesty. Privacy is a natural desire. Some value it more than others. At the other extreme some people want to tell you their full medical history and every detail of their day. A very private person may be fully involved in the local community, if people respect his prvacy. One oposite term is "public figure" which I suppose means someone the press deems we have a right to know about. Dave Posted by: DavidR Monday 14 May 2012 - 04:37pm Carl .... and others. I understand and shre the concern behind this debate but I actually do not think that 'private' is a Christian concept at all. There is no such thing as a private individual. The notion of 'private' continues to have disastrous effects on our capacity for community and relating in our culture. The gospel liberates us into community and the sacrifice of corporate life and away from isolation and even idolatry of 'privacy'. Forgive me for stating my point so strongly but I have a real concern that the rampant individualism of contemporary consumer culture is reappearing in places under the guise of Christian conscience and leaving us unable to make corporate decisions as the body of Christ. Well perhaps this all sounds pedantic. Let me stress I completely agree that I have personal responsibility for the way I manage my money as with all other parts of my life. I trust I take that as seriously as you do. But my money is never private. In fact it is never mine at all in one sense. To think that way at all may be the root of the problem. Posted by: Bowman Monday 14 May 2012 - 04:10pm Hi DavidW. The immensely frustrating situation in Southwark, coupled with the bitter polarisation over That Topic, can tempt one to overstate the problem. A problem overstated can lead to a solution oversimple and overdrawn. Bishop Mark Lawrence (Diocese of South Carolina) has been prosecuted by the liberal leadership in TEC (he has been acquitted, for now), and has battled them in the House of Bishops in behalf of views that you share. Here (at 39:39) he explains the continuing value that he sees in liberalism. If he is right that Anglican Christians are something less than their best in Him without all four of their constituent streams-- evangelical, holiness, catholic, liberal-- then it is unwise for any one of them to think that it is sufficient without the others. And as he points out, all four of these Anglican constituencies have characteristic vices and virtues. The present seems to be a "teachable" moment, both for those evangelicals with a self-absorbed ecclesiology that is less than the fullness of the Body of Christ, and also for those liberals with relativistic morals that can never lead to holiness in union with Him. God's redeeming love will eventually transform both, of course. But in the meantime mistakes will be made, and those who cannot learn in any other way but the hard way will have a full syllabus. Luther would scold the schwärmerei on both sides, but would also counsel their wiser colleagues, Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo! All involved should be in our prayers. Posted by: carl Monday 14 May 2012 - 03:39pm Bowman they are to be found where participation is degrading agape and koinonia. This presumes the contested fact. There is no Koinonia with a false church. The word 'Anglican' on a church sign does not a true church designate. If Vicar Jeffrey John Clone declares that the Atonement is "divine child abuse" then I have no union with that vicar. I also have a positive responsibilty to deny him support. I know the content of the Gospel, and I don't need a "process" to tell me that he has taught false doctrine. carl Posted by: carl Monday 14 May 2012 - 03:33pm London Vicar If you think my efforts can in any way aid your cause, then you are free to use them as you see fit. I fully support what you are doing. carl Posted by: DavidW Monday 14 May 2012 - 03:13pm Bowman, In response to your remarks: "However, the challenge is to find the moves in that game that embolden and strengthen the inner life of the Body of Christ until it becomes obvious where the truth lies. It is not a victory to win by becoming what one opposes." But I dont see that in the NT. The NT teaching identifies both disputable matters as well as false teaching. With your statement how would people be deciding where the truth lies if its disputable, and how would they not be able to identify false teaching if its purely contrary to what the scripture says? Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 14 May 2012 - 02:52pm Yes one does not want to become what one opposes. Nor does one want to become Pharisees. Which is why I think we need to see a generous orthodoxy. That we allow freedom in secondary matters (dress; ministry of women; use of charismatic gifts; etc) but we do insist on doctrinal and moral orthodoxy. It seems to work well in the broad alternative Anglican structures in the USA. Why cannot it here? I think Bishops would find they had a lot less troubles on their hands if they asked each new priest to sign the Jerusalem Declaration or some similar document. You would then not have the growth of campagining aggressive liberals. Who threaten the whole show. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Monday 14 May 2012 - 12:29pm Er, Londonvicar. Luther set up a different Church. He might have been forced to, he might have wanted to reform Roman Catholicism, but once he nailed his theses he took the consequences and was not an entryist of Rome. As for the Declaration of Assent, even I (as someone who would not say it) can see that it treats the corporate body in one sense and asks the individual to assent in a more general sense. The nuancing (such an overworked word) therefore is in the straight reading and what you mean when you say it. Posted by: Simon Morden Monday 14 May 2012 - 11:58am The belief that giving is solely a private, autonomous act is one of the heresies of our age. Our individual gifts are acknowledged to be of little use: they will not of themselves pay for a whole anything. It is only when they are aggregated corporately do they become useful in any meaningful sense of the word. Individually, we are isolated. Together, we are a community. This is not just about money, but about time and talent too. A job that takes one person all day can be done by two in less than half the time. In the Church of England, the Offertory is part of the worship of the congregation. We do not examine what each other puts in, but we do collect it together as one, and present it as one, for the work of the church. Of necessity, some of that money given by a Church of England congregation will go outside of that parish and outside of the influence of the people who generously gave. That they still wish to control what happens to that money is about extending power. Power can be used for both good and ill, but it does show a certain amount of hubris whichever way it is played. Evangelicals who use the tactic of withholding money from the diocese as a short-term advantage need to remember that church structures can play the long game: you don’t have to be a prophet to imagine a scenario in twenty years time where the evangelical presence in the C of E in Southwark has been all but wiped out. Posted by: LondonVicar Monday 14 May 2012 - 10:44am Thank you, Carl. A tightly reasoned piece. Would it be possible to reproduce what you said there, elsewhere? I think it needs to be read wider! Posted by: Bowman Monday 14 May 2012 - 09:17am Several posts back, LondonVicar was asking where the limits of principled comprehensiveness are to be found-- they are to be found where participation is degrading agape and koinonia. A precedent that comes easily to mind is the predicament of Christians in the Patriarchate of Moscow when that was deeply infiltrated by the KGB. The danger was less to standard teaching, liturgy, etc than to the inner life of the Church, which was being distorted by an alien principle hostile to its spirituality, mission, and evangelism. To put it more gently than our ancestors would have done, an arrangement so lacking in agape and koinonia could not fully be the Body of Christ, and so wherever an alternative hierarchy could survive, Russian Orthodox Christians followed it. With the end of the USSR, these divisions began to heal, slowly. How would one apply this to Southwark? Positively, it is useful to posit progress in agape and koinonia as the criteria by which actions on all sides are openly judged. LondonVicar has described with some frankness his reaction to the lack of these qualities, and the delegation that met with the bishop presumably said something similar to him. It would be fair to ask how the leader of the diocese plans to broaden and deepen trust across its various divisions. Negatively, actions that presuppose a church held together by force rather than by the agape and koinonia that come in Christ are more in the spirit of the KGB than in that of the martyrs. The force of the cash nexus is not better than the force of the appointments process, and its supposition of a perpetual distrust among Christians who achieve a dictatorship of donors but never a communion of members is diabolical. LondonVicar's reply to various criticisms is that this is a power game, and that evangelicals need to be free to play it well when the stakes are so high. We have to agree with him on that-- power relations are part of God's creation, and agape in Christ is not only accepting love but transforming love, just as koinonia in Christ does not cancel individuality, but does subsume individuals into patterns of relation that are better than any alienated self can find alone. It can be worthwhile to demand that others be their best selves in Christ rather than settling for something lesser. However, the challenge is to find the moves in that game that embolden and strengthen the inner life of the Body of Christ until it becomes obvious where the truth lies. It is not a victory to win by becoming what one opposes. Posted by: DavidW Monday 14 May 2012 - 08:29am I would like to see responses to the 3rd paragraph of Carl's excellent post of Sunday 13 May 2012 - 10:52pm Its in line with what a number of us are pointing out. My question is who is determning what revisionism can or cannot be allowed if not the Biblical testimony? Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 14 May 2012 - 07:49am Simon Cawdell Can you give any evidence, other than your own opinion, that these statements are deliberately 'nuanced'. My main point stands: If someone does not agree on all points that person should not make the declaration of assent. It is simply a matter of honesty. Phil Almond Posted by: Bowman Monday 14 May 2012 - 12:30am Thank you, Dave, for your swift and thorough reply. My main concern in asking so much was to forfend, if possible, a collision of selective readings of a complex text. I have, personally, no preconceptions about this, except that, on the face of it, the English texts seem more useful than their TEC counterparts. Since these are matters of broader theological "inspiration and guidance," I will reply to your comments on the Whole Anglican Overview thread. The unique concerns in the Southwark situation need a thread of their own. Posted by: carl Sunday 13 May 2012 - 10:52pm It must be remembered that giving is first a private and not a corporate act. Money is privately held by a private actor. That private actor is responsible to make wise judgments concerning the use of his money. He does not shed that responsibility simply because an organization to which he contributes chooses in turn to send some of that money elsewhere. He must not contribute either directly or indirectly to any religious organization that teaches a false gospel. That means the first and primary judgment on the contribution of money must be a private judgment about the Christian character of the receiving organization. To be blunt about it, organizational unity in and of itself does not constitute a legitimate claim on the money of anyone else in that organzation. The giver has every right to set doctrinal conditions for receipt of his money. This makes all these 'process' claims irrelevant. If you want the money, then you have to proove yourself worthy to receive it according to the doctrinal standard of the giver. Worthy doesn't mean "We share the same church name." It means "You teach what I want you to teach." The answer to the question "Who decides?" is "The one who gives the money." If you don't like that standard, then you should go out and raise your own money. But that is the problem for liberal churches. They can't induce people to come in the door let alone give money. They need outside support, but they don't want to change to get it. They want their cake and they want to eat it as well. They want to be funded by the very people whom they are seeking to displace. That's understandable. But there is no organizational authority on Earth that can command a man to give money to support the teaching of what he considers a false gospel. carl Posted by: LondonVicar Sunday 13 May 2012 - 10:16pm Thanks Simon. I get the impression that evangelicals are not giving up being involved in the structures, but are simply forging forward on two fronts. eg. getting elected to Synods. but also realizing that if in the minority against aggressive revisionism that perhaps money will talk a lot more effectively. Was it Luther who said 'in a corrupt church, money talks' ? (Sorry to quote Luther again !) 
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Sunday 13 May 2012 - 09:59pm
Firstly Phil, There doesn't need to be any mention in either the preable or the Canon for it to be fact that there are serious and proper tensions that the believer should acknowledge and work through. Not all who do so will end up agreeing on all points. That will not make one a less worthy priest than another. In points of particular controversy the councils of the church are mandated to make a ruling. Not being a Roman Catholic I would then have to say such rulings have a possibility of fraying over time and need to be re-examinied periodically. I think nuanced is better than ambiguous in this regard as the latter is more accidental. The former is quite deliberate. Secondly Nersen and London Vicar - i am not unaware of the frustration having been a Southwark curate and therefore not without sympathy, but strongly believe that the approach pressed by Stephen should be given time to work out. I also strongly beleive that evangelicals should be much more organised and assertive in their approach to the church structures, and get elected to diocesan synods. It does make a difference. And I think you have elections pending this year, if not now. We certainly do in my diocese. Posted by: LondonVicar Sunday 13 May 2012 - 09:07pm I think the difficulty comes when a Diocese is run by a revisionist elite and so recourse to proper process is obfuscated at every turn. One either continues to play the game (and be outwitted/checkmated) or say one is going to continue to be par tof the Diocese but not play the game anymore. And play a different game. That is what Luther did. Posted by: Phil Almond Sunday 13 May 2012 - 04:20pm JeremyP I repeat the question you have not answered: ‘Perhaps, JeremyP, you can explain the difference between making a statement of doctrine and making a confession of faith.’ Simon Cawdell “Within the declarations you assent to you assent to them in totality. I doing so you are acknowledging that there are times when there are parts of the whole that are in serious tension within themselves”. That may be your opinion but where in Canon A5 or the Declaration of Assent or in the Bishop’s preamble is there any suggestion of serious tension? How can someone “assent to them in totality” without assenting to the specific individual doctrines, like, for instance, predestination to life? “It is, as much in Anglicanism rather beautifully nuanced. And that is when you reason it out in fear and trembling before God”. I think ‘ambiguous’ rather than ‘nuanced’ would be more accurate. If someone thinks there is ‘serious tension’ the time to ‘reason it out in fear and trembling before God’ is before making the declaration. If a conviction of serious tension persists then how can a declaration of assent be made in good conscience? Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 13 May 2012 - 03:33pm Simon, I have challenged people re false teaching. Southwark has been revisionist for decades..... Funding revisionists and going through the processes doesn't seem to be doing much good..... Does it? But revisionists get housed and paid by subsidies from evangelicals....tragic! I wouldn't want to pay for anyone to teach what is incompatible with scripture
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Sunday 13 May 2012 - 03:05pm
Nersen, The point is there is a proper process. If you come across false teachng you make a complaint first to the individual and then within the structures of the church a long way before you threaten to walk away with your money. When the early Christians had a dispute they came together in Council to assess right rom wrong. Whilst I would suggest that the communion had done that several times over I think we are at the point where we privately challenge those who we believe may be teaching falsely and ask how that measures up to scripture tradition and reason. Have you ever done this? Phil, Within the declarations you assent to you assent to them in totality. I doing so you are acknowledging that there are times when there are parts of the whole that are in serious tension within themselves. It is, as much in Anglicanism rather beautifully nuanced. And that is when you reason it out in fear and trembling before God. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 13 May 2012 - 11:22am Simon - when we have a church position, even 'the mind of the Communion' according to the ABC, I don't see that is makes any sense (especiallyin the light of what the early church is taught re how to relate to false teachers - ) to give £300k to a bishop and many of his ministers which funds them to teach what is incompatible with scripture..... what biblical principle contradicts my point? Posted by: Dave Sunday 13 May 2012 - 10:05am Bowman, (1) The Canon speaks for the church. The institution invites the ordinand to speak for himself. (2)There are tree oaths required prior to ordination. oaths of loyalty to the crown, the bishop and the doctrine of the church. see C13, C14 C15 http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/canons/section-c.aspx Part of the problem is that they are applied in this order as an order of priority. The ordering of priests BCP also includes this statement re scripture. ARE you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing (as required of necessity to eternal salvation) but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture? Answer.I am so persuaded, and have so determined by God's grace. (3 ) The creeds are also subject to scripture and in C5 authority is granted to councils beyond the creeds. (4) It is probably more complicated than that. (5) I would rather say that the bishop defines the role of the priest and this does not modify the faith of the church. The These statements about the faith of the church are not all the same. An evangelical can read them one way, a catholic another and a liberal a third way. The word" grounded" leaves room to decide which parts of scripture to take seriously. "agreeable" allows for the development of doctrine which is not explicit in scripture Does doctrine .. found in the 39 articles amount to an affirmation of them all? Does this extend to the Book of Homilies? Dave Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 12 May 2012 - 11:51pm Yes, Phil Almond, really. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 12 May 2012 - 07:57pm Are the esteemed villagers debating the formularies agreed amongst themselves that-- (1) There is nothing said in Canon A5 that is not said in the Institution and Declaration? (2) The Institution and Declaration are the Church of England's clearest guidance on the consciences of clergy? (3) The bishop's words subordinate the Articles, Prayerbook, and Ordinal to the original, more universal, and more permanent authority of the Scriptures and the Creeds? (4) The bishop's words characterise the assent as "loyalty" to this "inheritance of faith," meaning by the latter both the Scripture and Creeds together, and also the Articles, Prayerbook, and Ordinal together? (5) The bishop's words further modify the assent-- (a) subjectively, "as your inspiration and guidance under God," (b) teleologically, "in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation," and (c) pastorally, "making him known to those in your care?" Posted by: DavidW Saturday 12 May 2012 - 04:49pm One cant have somewhere between scriptural and unscriptural, between would be unscriptural. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 12 May 2012 - 04:18pm Simon Cawdell and JeremyP Canon A5 gives the formal legal position regarding the doctrine of the Church of England. Perhaps, JeremyP, you can explain the difference between making a statement of doctrine and making a confession of faith. What members of the CofE want or do not want is beside the point when we are considering the formal legal position. On the question of the Insitution and Declaration of Assent the debate is about the meaning of words. Simon is saying, I think, that a person can make the Declaration of Assent with a good conscience without a commitment to believe the specific doctrines set forth in the Articles, Prayer Book and Ordinal in which, the Bishop has just stated, the Church of England has been led by the Holy Spirit to bear witness to Christian truth. Really? Phil Almond Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 12 May 2012 - 02:22pm That's the point. Corporately, the Church of England claims it is fully on to a uniquely revealed truth, but the ordained individual only has to affirm loyalty to this inheritance of faith as inspiration and guidance, which is a looser relationship. The people who bang away about doctrine in detail, belief in specifics, true and false teachings, declarations and statements, have misunderstood the looser relationship (even the ordained) individual has than the corporate body. And that's on the most fundamental of matters.
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 12 May 2012 - 02:19pm
Nersen, The difficulty at a whole church level is that the moment you allow one individual or even one church to determine what is false teaching over and against what is orthodox you are into congregationalism, which is not Anglicanism. That is why we have decision making structures, structures which work best when everyone fully participaes in them. There are structures within the church which allow for the challenge of false doctrine. I have seen them used - if rarely. Once we get ourselves into a situation when church A arbitrarily decides that church B isn't orthodox and so they will have nothing to do with them, without first engaging in due process you have anarchy in the Kingdom. Now I suspect you and i would agree on most things. If I was to disagree with you then I would take it up with you personally first, and then with witnesses.It seems to me that there is a process going on within the diocese that the Bishop hasacknowledged is hppening, and he is paticipating fully in order to work through what those concerns are. As Christians we need to allow that to happen before we walk away (with our wallets). Posted by: Bowman Saturday 12 May 2012 - 10:54am LondonVicar, JeremyP et al-- My thanks to all the clergy who have posted their personal opinions on this interesting development. I hope that you will continue to do so. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 12 May 2012 - 10:25am Perhaps the question which matters more than attitudes to the trust fund is to do with funding false teaching........where in the NT are we taught to fund people who are teaching what is incompatible with what the Holy Spirit has revealed in scripture? Funding false teaching is as damaging as spreading it....... Unless people think we are discssing 'disputable' matters, it is Sad that any evangelicals fund false when they don't have to do so. ..... Think of the poor people on the receiving end of the false teaching.... Fewer all the time but still sad that evangelicals might fund them being misled
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 12 May 2012 - 10:06am
The exact wording at an institution is as folows: Bishop : The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care? Declaration of assent Priest I, N, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon. I would suggest that this follow (in a very Anglican manner) somewhere between the views expressed both by Phil and Jeremy, but for different ends of the argument. Posted by: Laurence C. Saturday 12 May 2012 - 10:01am "JeremyP, You wrote "because you want to find a way to exclude people whose views of certain matters is different from your own" No, that must be what you want. We want to include people whose views of certain matters is in line with Christ's teaching. We didn’t write the Bible you know. We believe the Biblical testimony is the revelation from God." DavidW Moderators - it's started again! Me, I'm off to a Certain Matters Pride March. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 12 May 2012 - 08:52am Phil Almond No it isn't. Not even Anglican clergy are required to make confessions of faith other than a most general affirmation at their institutions or licensing.. We just don't do it. Not yet anyway. And my contention is that there is no evidence that there is a widespread interest in the Church of England for us to turn into a confessional church of a kind that requires subscription to a doctrinal standard like, say, the Jerusalem Declaration (or the IVF Basis of Faith). If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it out. But don't kid yourself that this is where we already are. We aren't. (And I don't think we ever will be). People who like that kind of thing have to go off and get it by creating their own structures - which they are very welcome to do - but it ain't the C of E. Posted by: Bowman Friday 11 May 2012 - 10:51pm Hi LondonVicar-- Your last post (11 May, 5:30 pm) makes a point worth great emphasis-- there is nothing more usefully subversive in this situation than outbreaks of successful missional cooperation between evangelicals and Christians with whom they are not expected to agree. The deeper and more sustained that cooperation is, the more it undermines the Default Position that that traditional faith is pure disruption, and that unctuous institutionalism is both sufficient and unavoidable. The hazard of a certain ever-polarising glee that one can find in this village at times is that it so naively strengthens the Default Position. The price of indulging that glee is to make an example to all of the necessity of a perpetual liberal hegemony that just holds things together by force. If Sir Humphrey Appleby prayed, he would surely pray for as much of that as possible. The post-Episcopalian churches of North America have been perceived by some as forming merely tactical alliances that follow too much the worldly logic of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." That, of course, is the legacy of old partisan divides in the Church of England, and perhaps the personalities involved. They are courageous, but they are small, and finding their way. We should pray that missional cooperation in Asheville and Southwark fosters a generation of leaders who can more readily find common ground in their faith. Personally, I hope that they will then go on to express that faith with fresh language that heals the old divides . Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 11 May 2012 - 06:44pm JeremyP The formal position does not support your last post on this thread. Canon A5 says: A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal. To make a statement of doctrine is to make a confession of faith. Phil Almond Posted by: LondonVicar Friday 11 May 2012 - 05:30pm eg. I just spotted this: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15975 The chap's language (and dress) does not sound (or look) evangelical. But clearly doctrinally orthodox and very mission minded. I long for the day when we may have more brethren like that in the CofE ! And so what if they call it the eucharist, etc ! Posted by: LondonVicar Friday 11 May 2012 - 05:05pm THanks for these recent posts. I think even the most conservative of evangelicals would recognize that, even within their own number, the church not a pure church. I think any conservative evangelicals who did think that have left the CofE long ago - they are under no illusions. The problem with having no confession re sexual morality (which is the casus belli at the moment, as you say) is that there is missional anarchy. It seriously impairs witness if one 1/2 of the church believes one thing to be holy and another to be immensely unholy in the light of Scripture. The two cannot both be right. We are supposed to be staying off that topic. So let me use a parallel (which lies not far beneath the surface of the CofE). One cannot have one 1/2 of the CofE saying there are many ways to God. And one 1/2 of the CofE saying there is one way to God (John 14:6). The disagreement is of such magnitude that one must be wrong and one must be right. It is not a secondary issue (eg womens ordination or baptism). That is the problem we are facing. I fully take we could use other confessions (we could). But why would we use a Presbyterian confession when there is a statement prepared by Anglican Primates for Anglican churches and which apparently 80% of the Anglican Communion (and I assume that percentage is growing by the rate of growth in Nigeria alone) has no truck with. The Jerusalem Declaration (JD) was written to exclude extremely revisionist elements. No-one else. Which is why Forward in Faith types and quite high middle of the road American types were at GAFCON. Posted by: Dave Friday 11 May 2012 - 04:22pm Garath Bennett in The Crockford's Preface makes it clear that Anglican ecclesiology is little more than platitudes based on an apologetic interpretation of Scripture and Patristic history. He says "about the nature and future of Anglicanism itself. Normally this is a subject which the bishops would seek to avoid or dispose of with the usual platitudes about 'unity-in-diversity' and 'mutual responsibility and interdependence'" This view had become untenable because in had no answers to the academic challenges from the first half of the last century. He presents a picture of a church where the real power lies with the "staff meeting" and synod is both unrepresentative and ineffectual. The real power is "system of episcopal executive authority, the characteristics of which are deference, patronage and self-recruitment." The church had become increasingly liberal so that "With the arrival of Dr Runcie and Dr Habgood at Canterbury and York there were in the two archbishoprics men who shared the same basic outlook and worked closely together to create a new kind of episcopate. The result has been a virtual exclusion of Anglo-Catholics from episcopal office and a serious under-representation of Evangelicals. There have been Evangelical appointments, though often from the more liberal wing of the movement." It is doubtful that the sort of ecclesiology Fulcrum holds can be described as Anglican because there is no Anglican ecclesiology. I understand why clergy feel obliged to be loyal to their bishops but where bishops are not furthering the mission of the church it is irresponsible to throw good money after bad. I do not know if this applies in Southwark. In the past the CofE has bee regarded as the best boat to fish from. This is no longer the the case in some parts of the country. The Holy Spirit is no respecter of denominations. perhaps we should stop wasting our time and money propping up moribund institutions. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Friday 11 May 2012 - 01:53pm Thanks for the praise about apparent expertise, Jeremy! But you're dead right on one point - it is the people who try to enforce the narrower basis of gathering for the Church of England who end up leaving. I wish it were otherwise. The Vicar of Catterick chap who set up the Feathers Tavern Petition and opened an Arian church in London calling it Unitarian waited for other Anglicans to come along and they never did. Essex Church fell into the English Presbyterian stream instead. The liberals stayed put, whereas so many of those English Presbyterians when Calvinist did a walkout. Posted by: DavidW Friday 11 May 2012 - 01:23pm JeremyP, You wrote "because you want to find a way to exclude people whose views of certain matters is different from your own" No, that must be what you want. We want to include people whose views of certain matters is in line with Christ's teaching. We didn’t write the Bible you know. We believe the Biblical testimony is the revelation from God. By referring to what the Bible says as our views you are not acknowleging the Biblical testimony as from God but from us. What you obviously want to do is include people with views contrary to God’s. God's Biblical testimony says believers should dissassociate from that. (ie Matthew 18, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1, 2 Cor 11 etc) I am encouraged that you think we are barking up two different trees, it would strange if we thought two different trees were the same tree. And seeing as you have made the proposal, Pluralist’s views according to the historic creeds put his views outside Christianity, so no I don’t think that brings any expertise at all, quite the opposite in fact. Posted by: DavidR Friday 11 May 2012 - 11:54am 'Nowhere in Scripture are we called to support false teachers' - 'have nothing to do with them'. Really? Was Apollos a 'false teacher'? The approach there was pastoral and theological engagement not avoidance. And it bore fruit. Huge parts of the NT are written to correct false or confused teaching within the church. Not everything identified as 'false' in the NT is cast out or labelled 'gangrene'. It is very hard to be precise about how that label is attached to anyone in the NT in fact or what process leads up to it. That at least should make as cautious. I am curious as to where we evangelicals put our evangelistic vocation at this point. Stephen K gives examples of evangelicals like Colin Buchanan working long term within unsympathetic church structures as part of their understanding of mission and making a huge difference rather than catching some deadly liberal infection. I can't help feeling there is strange loss of confidence in the gospel when our language is only of avoidance and separation. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Friday 11 May 2012 - 06:34am @DavidW and LondonVicar The reason the Church of England doesn't have such a thing as the Jerusalem Declaration as a basis of faith is because it is not a confessional church like other Protestant Churches. Its confessional basis has been the catholic creeds of the first four centuries. There is plentiful discussion and expertise on here and elsewhere about the mode of Anglican believing, but I think there is a strong claim for it to be doctrinally based (creeds) and liturgically ordered - and its liturgy is, of course, hugely Scriptural. See Pluralist and Bowman for two people with expertise in expounding and developing this idea. I think this way of doing things is an excellent one, and that there is zero desire across the church as a whole to become a different, more hard-edged kind of body, so I think you two are barking up a completely wrong tree on this front. (Incidentally, I notice the discussion in favour is really only there because you want to find a way to exclude people whose views of certain matters is different from your own - I thought we weren't talking about that at the moment!!). The consequence of this is that people who want it will have to go and make themselves the confessional harder-edged body they think they are being called to be if that is what they want to do. But I guess that the C of E, being amazingly tolerant, will find a way to try and keep them in for as long as possible. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Friday 11 May 2012 - 04:38am Yes the Jerusalem Declaration does add to formularies, but the main issue is who is running it and makes the decisions. The Church of England is its own authority, and all who are in it are in it legitimately unless told otherwise by those authorities. Another body has no legitimacy to start to decide who is in and who is out. That is for the given authorities and, in advance, individuals themselves. Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 10 May 2012 - 08:43pm Perhaps the "crisis" we face today would be better measured in the face of history, even recent history. Gareth Bennett (no relation) who wrote the last unattributed preface to Crockford's Clerical Directory, a text which seemed revolutionary at the time, and led to his suicide, but reads today as a rather unremarkable commentary on the state of things, wrote (page 60 Crockford 1987/88): "The various traditions or parties in the Church of England have always lived in a quite remarkable intellectual isolation from each other and it is on the doctrine of the Church that there has been the least meeting of minds." I think he was right, and continues to be right, in this assertion. I think Fulcrum is a serious evangelical attempt to do something different, but it does not command wholehearted support. I think people who want an ideologically pure church need to read their bibles. But that's just me. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 10 May 2012 - 08:27pm Hi LondonVicar and DavidR-- I've enjoyed your exchange of views, but a worthwhile point on each side is dangling. DavidR says I don't think evangelicals, who historically prize and take their identity and membership from such tightly worded summaries of faith, understand how this approach to belonging and this measure of acceptablity/orthodoxy looks and feels to faithful brothers and sisters of other traditions...It is not just those whose theology we assume to be dodgy that might be feeling uneasy about that. Very tactfully stated. Pluralist posted an example of one variant of the view that DavidR describes on 5 May in the Whole Anglican Overview thread. Flourishing post-subscriptionism seem to put the most partisan evangelicals in a bind-- if they don't wave a statement to be signed, then other evangelicals won't take an initiative seriously, but if they do, then some in the Church of England who should be allies will instead sense that it does not really include them. Anglican evangelicals would presumably want the support of both. Is this dilemma real? And if so, is there a way out of it? (Speaking of the Trust, have any catholic parishes signed up for it?) LondonVicar says I think the reason why we need another formulary (the Jerusalem Declaration or similar - I am quite happy with a similar one; it does not have to be that one), is that none of our formularies include a particular statement re. sexual morality. This relatively recent confession was meant to guide actual pastoral work and Christian living, not to draw lines in the sand for people to spit over. It did address the sexual moral issues of its moment (9.47d), but situated them in a wider doctrinal context that responded to currrent thought. This demonstrated, to those who had become uprooted from its reformation era formularies, that the adopting church was confessing a living faith, and not just playing out an old, tired game of the 17th C. It is also notable for several articles that juxtapose doctrinal statement with a respect for personal integrity. If evangelicals in Southwark want to respond to false teaching, why not-- true teaching? Might it not be better to work with other Christians to produce a useful confession that shows what unites them in Christ to at least some nonevangelicals, whilst forthrightly addressing the casus belli? That seems far more on point than messing with money. Posted by: LondonVicar Thursday 10 May 2012 - 05:07pm Good point. I would not want to say where Southwark clergy would stand re gay relationships. I guess time will tell where the majority lies. The important thing is whether minority or majority we stand on Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture are we called to support false teachers. Rather 'have nothing to do with them'; 'their teaching will spread like gangrene' (2 Timothy) Posted by: DavidR Thursday 10 May 2012 - 05:00pm Given that we are ministers of a gospel of reconciliation ... given that leadership of whatever style or conviction is horribly fallible and prone to err ... what would it take to trust that the diocesan leadership has heard and understood and now wishes to work with more careful understanding and sensitivity with its evangelical communities? Posted by: DavidW Thursday 10 May 2012 - 04:06pm Surely if some has aligned themselves with the majority because of revisionism in the diocese, they arent church within a church, rather the revisionists would be. Very important point by LondonVicar, if not 80% of the Anglican Communion as a whole, then surely not far off. Posted by: LondonVicar Thursday 10 May 2012 - 08:42am Thanks DavidR. I think the reason why we need another formulary (the Jerusalem Declaration or similar - I am quite happy with a similar one; it does not have to be that one), is that none of our formularies include a particular statement re. sexual morality. That is because they did not need to. People took it as read at the Reformation that homosexual practice and sex outside of marriage was wrong and did so up until only about 30 years ago. But now revisionists are using the silence of our formularies to run riot. (eg the Bishop of Salisbury, the Dean of St Albans, the Bishop of Buckingham, 100 clergy from the London Diocese). And so we need something else. But do come back to me. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 07:55pm LondonVicar Thank you for your posts. This is surely an issue of trust here. Some Evangelicals in Southwark feel sufficiently strongly that the system there cannot be trusted any more (and I have real sympthay with what has led them to that feeling). So they have set up an alternative system and invite any to apply to it if they 'sign up' to a statement of faith. Surely, they say, anyone orthodox can sign up to this? But signing up requires trust. I don't think evangelicals, who historically prize and take their identity and membership from such tightly worded summaries of faith, understand how this approach to belonging and this measure of acceptablity/orthodoxy looks and feels to faithful brothers and sisters of other traditions. Why does it need the Jerusalem Statement if - as you point out - the Anglican basis of faith is still there untouched? The effect is to create a different basis of loyalty and belonging. I think this is what Stephen is saying. It is not just those whose theology we assume to be dodgy that might be feeling uneasy about that. Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 06:38pm Think a silent church is a blank cheque for revisionists to write on, isn't it? A runaway train. Like TEC. Which is in freefall. (to mix metaphors) Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 06:37pm No collections urged for the Corinthian or Galatian false teachers... what a great line. I think we need to hear more from SK re where he DOES draw the line re PRINCIPLED comprehensiveness. What WONT he fund? Or won't he draw any line at all? (in which case, is it really principled comprehensiveness?) Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 06:35pm There's a great line on the Thinking Anglicans website comments about all this: Look roost! Chickens coming home ! (or some such) Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 05:24pm ok Bowman. But the FAQs about the Trust answered whether evangelicals would just be supporting fellow evangelicals ("a church within a Church"). The answer was that the Trust would seek to support anyone who can sign the Jerusalem Statement. So a middle of the road /high Anglican could sign that, and be supported. I think we are in danger of caricaturing the Trust, before it even starts. I think what sticks in some people's gullet is that the Trust will not 'bless everything'. But should we? (read 2 Peter and Jude!) Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 04:33pm Bowman What is your view of Galatians 1:8-9? Phil Almond Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 03:19pm Acts v. My first thought on hearing of £300,000 was to rejoice at the number of unknown, unseen, fragile corners of the church's life in Southwark diocese that are being sustained and resourced by that money. It is wonderfully generous and faithful. Yes. It seems a long stretch to say that, because X is wrong about a,b, and c, all money X administers is sin that cannot be reconciled with the clear teaching of the New Testament. It seems likely that the New Testament can be easily reconciled to youth programs, support for poor parishes, etc. Even if withholding funds at this time is right at all-- are there other ways of participating in governance?-- there is still a chasm of difference between withholding only the funds for a program promoting a sinful activity and withholding real support from programs that up to now could count on them. Stephen's leading point is that this is an ecclesiological issue, and this aspect of it clearly is. The Church has dioceses all through the earth because God has given her a ministry to places, and that ministry is the proleptic presence of the Kingdom in each place. An episcopally-ordered church has bishops in part to make that collective ministry more visible and effective. In some places (e.g. New York), this Christian presence is so effective that the civil order of the place depends on it, and so it has been since antiquity. To abandon that ministry is to choose disunity in the sign of unity that God has given the world, and to withdraw from the ministries which evangelicals have up to now agreed to support as the Christian presence in Southwark. Whilst it is hypothetically plausible that one might withhold support from a clear and present evil, mere "power of the purse" collisionism does not sit well with the third article of the creed. It means abandoning the other parishes who are not evangelical, but who are nonetheless partners in Christ for mission to Southwark. On the street, the reduction in support of programs that help people in need because some people are disquieted when they look down upon the inferior souls of those who administer their funds seems a frankly bizarre way to show Christ's love to the world. That said, debate about what the ministry to a place should be is entirely appropriate, and it may well be that evangelicals have something new to say about that from the inside. I do not know Southwark evangelicals, but if they are like the generous evangelical folk that I know in the rest of the world, they may well have a far wider vision of the ministry that Southwark needs than some other Christians who lack the evangelical zeal for service and evangelism. Nor do I know the liberal catholics who got the jobs, but if they are in fact catholics then they actually do understand a ministry of place that is wider than any mere cause and should welcome a dialogue about the presence of the Kingdom in Southwark, bibles open. Returning to Stephen's point, ecclesiology is the part of doctrine that frames the way we think about the Church as the presence of the Kingdom, and as such it takes us a few steps beyond all the bits of doctrine that are just about Saving Me. As even the faithless recognise, it is part of growing up to recognize a world beyond our several selves, good thoughts that are not our own, good people who are not trying to be anything like us. In Christ, this natural maturation becomes the virtues that enable the Body of Christ, which itself has a responsibility for the world that depends on those virtues. For example, it enables evangelicals to view other Christians as something more than failed evangelicals to be ignored. God does not want any of those involved to backslide into the smaller mind that he renews to become the mind of Christ, gifted with Christ's own love for the part of the world that he assigns to us. It seems as though this may have happened on both sides, which makes this an occasion of sin and grace. For some reason, the Lord has not seen fit to put only evangelicals in Southwark. Stephen points out that evangelicals need other Christians, just as I suspect above that other Christians really need evangelicals. The enthusiasm for separatism that ignores both realities is, in the end, a seductive call to evangelicals to be lesser humans and more faithless Christians than they could be. That Topic is the pretext today, but there will be another tomorrow, and another the day after, and another for every day until the Lord returns. For a fallen world will have sin, and the Deceiver will use it to divide us until the end. Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 03:15pm PS: do not forget that 80% of the Anglican Communion would have no difficulty in signing the Jerusalem Declaration. Posted by: LondonVicar Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 03:13pm It seems ironic that SK speaks of a principled comprehensiveness yet is not prepared to define what that is. Yet the Jerusalem Declaration subscribed to by this new Trust does define principled comprehensiveness. The Declaration draws boundaries but they are not that tight. ie: it makes no pronouncement re the ministry of women; of clergy dress; or liturgy; or traditions. It simply adds traditional sexual morality to the 39 Articles and the Creeds. What is so restrictive about that? I see therefore many Anglo catholic, evangelical and middle of the roaders being able to sign it. Why are we making this so difficult ? Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 09:09am Is there not now a distinct polarisation? A gulf that cant be crossed? I find fulcrum an invaluable place where people can still discuss, but only to share each other's views, there is little common ground. GAFCON shows that a majority if not significant majority, have deemed certain revisionism too much a departure from the faith to remain in communion. Places such as Fulcrum allow continued discussion, but it cant reconcile views which believe there can be reconcilliation, with views citing Christ's teaching that there should not be reconciliation. The idea that we are all part of the same church, is not shared by everyone in the church, if people cant except scripture and pronoucements from the church like Lambeth 1.10 they shouldnt be in the church. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 9 May 2012 - 07:51am My first thought on hearing of £300,000 was to rejoice at the number of unknown, unseen, fragile corners of the church's life in Southwark diocese that are being sustained and resourced by that money. It is wonderfully generous and faithful. I fully share Stephen's committment to belonging to a comprehensive church as an evangelical. Though I fully agree that as a quota burden on any church it is clearly outrageous and exploitative! It is a tough observation that notes that in any organisation or community a leader's work can easily be made or broken on the way they respond to the first crisis/challenge they meet on their watch. For ++Rowan it was Reading. For the Bishop of Southwark it is this crisis. The hard truth is that whatever he does now and however hard he works to repair the breach and move on, suspicions will remain. He needs our prayers - for himself and for the flourishing of the diocese and its generous givers. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 11:16pm Stephen, what great things your church could do with the ï¾£300k the diocese takes! You have no issue with much of it going to subsidise the terminal decline of people who teach what is incompatible with scripture? Not sure scripture calls us to be committed to 'comprehensiveness' in the church..... Certainly not if that means committed to institutional unity even if people teach or practise anything incompatible with scripture.......not even for the odd promotion, does it? In the early church, we don't see apostles calling for unity with false teachers nor telling us that we must learn what we can from them .... No collections urged on the Galatians or Corinthians for false teachers ....quite the opposite. Do we not need to get back to scripture on these issues? Posted by: Mark Bennet Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 09:28pm To respond to Bowman below, and after, comments on the article: Formally, in the Church of England, the House of Bishops reserves matters of doctrine to itself, so I think it is wrong to say that doctrine belongs to the General Synod. Secondly, there are many evangelical statements of faith - as many as the evangelical organisations which exist. The Evangellical Alliance, for example, tries to create a place where evangelicals can unite. But even there the statement of faith becomes contested and elaborated over time. And there is no reason for EA to reflect any particularly Anglican element. Thirdly, the Church of England is not wholly evangelical - it was the presbyterians who left after the Savoy Conference - and the Methodists in a later generation. To suggest a tension between evangelicals and the CofE is not historically unprecedented - it is almost a way of life. Fourthly, attempts to state the faith of the Church of England in modern terms have either looked back to basic foundational principles (the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) or have failed to excite, because they have not drawn the boundaries people have wanted (the 1938 report of the Doctrine Commission). This has dissuaded people somewhat from trying. Fifthly, the task focus of many evangelicals towards proclaiming afresh in this generation the faith once delivered to the saints provides sufficient imperative and work for the moment, and also suggests that texts agreed in this generation will have to be reworked in the next. Given the 1938 Doctrine Report was commissioned in 1922, the prospect of achieving generational relevance for any agreed revision in a rapidly changing world seems remote. That is not to say that doctrine is unimportant - rather I think it affirms that the great doctrinal inheritance we have is greater than most of our present efforts to make our mark. I read Stephen's article, and having been a Southwark churchwarden and ordinand sent from an evangelical church (I was on the same PCC as a member of the Fulcrum leadership team for a while) I recognise the concerns. Roy Williamson was bishop when I was there, and had a hard time from the Southwark evangelicals in his time - that was partly because he embraced the reality of the diocese and worked hard to be a bishop for everyone. He was seen by some as an evangelical "gone native". I am heartened to see that there are evangelicals prepared to wait for the current bishop - and I hope and pray for a fruitful working relationship for the gospel in the diocese. Posted by: Phil Almond Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 06:28pm Bowman As I keep saying, those who consider Christianity to be in some sense true (including those in the CofE) are fundamentally in disagreement about what are the primary truths of Christianity. Some people value Articles of Faith for their truth, not for their helpfulness. Some (I include myself among them, though I am not an Anglican) regard Articles 1-18 and most of the Prayer Book as capturing many of those primary truths, especially about what God and Christ are like and what is the overwhelming need of everybody - to be delivered from curse and damnation, as Article 17 puts it. Any attempt by the CofE to produce new Articles would be a futile exercise....unless and until the Triune God of the Bible revives us all so that we exclaim, with Elijah's audience, 'The LORD, he is God!' Phil Almond 
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 06:28pm
Hi Friends We have just published Stephen's article on the Southwark Ministry Trust, please continue to use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 04:16pm DavidR-- Below I've asked why the Church of England does not approve contemporary articles or confessions of faith as some other churches have done. I was intrigued that the Trust discussed in this thread proposes to use the Jerusalem Declaration as a test, which seems to concede in principle the need for them. Then I wondered, more broadly, how one makes ecclesiological sense of a silent church. Thoughts? Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 03:25pm Hi Iconoclast. Thanks for a rapid reply. There is no reason why the Church of England ought not to produce and obey a new doctrinal standard. The body to do and approve that would be the General Synod would it not? Splendid. Given that there is doctrinal confusion, and that right teaching is a mark of the Church, why do you suppose that the General Synod does not resolve them as a matter of course? After a few centuries, the horizon of concern seems to have changed rather a lot (e.g. from fears of communistic Anabaptists, masses in Latin, etc), and people can and do get lost in it. Why is the Church of England so averse to approving contemporary expressions of faith that could help them? I mean no criticism in asking your views. Rather, I am trying to understand why, in these interesting times, some normally pastoral and pragmatic evangelicals have chosen to rally around the articles of the last Elizabeth than work together for new ones that would be clear and helpful during the reign of this Elizabeth. They are already aware that, as you point out, the old articles are not being found to be so helpful as they once were. Yet, curiously, they do not favor the simple solution of new articles that actually are helpful. Personally, I suspect that there is a via media to be found between a Holy Office and centuries of silence. And as you rightly point out, North American Anglicans-- including our schismatic Anglicans churches-- could use the example of a confident Anglican church that is not afraid, from time to time, to explain its teachings in appropriate theological depth and in current language. Who knows what good might come of that? Now there are those, we know, who argue that the avoidance of clear teaching is a sort of quintessence of Anglican identity. But they are not usually evangelicals. There are also those who lay great stress on the Holy Spirit leading and teaching the Church. The curious thing is that they are not usually evangelicals either. Why ever not? Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 8 May 2012 - 09:04am The question about the limits of institutional unity is a very important one - and not a new one at all of course. But how to answer the question is quite another matter. History offers endless a health warnings here. We Evangelicals do well to reflect on our own history of seeking to faithfully pursue doctrinal and biblical purity. It has led to endless fragmentation and division - and it still does (and it might make us a little more understanding of why our enthusiasms or demands can leave others feeling uneasy. It is so much easier to be clear about what changes everyone else should be making. 'The last thing we realise about ourselves is our effect'. Posted by: Iconoclast Monday 7 May 2012 - 11:39pm Bowman, There is no reason why the Church of England ought not to produce and obey a new doctrinal standard. The body to do and approve that would be the General Synod would it not? However the Cof E already the 39 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal which I assume the Cof E approves and for which its clergy give assent to. If however they give assent to these things but privately pick and choose which ones they like then surely that cannot be right.I suppose it possible to sit down and rewrite the entire shebang and modify the Declaration of Assent to suit all shades of conviction (which I suspect is what liberals would like to do), but its formularies are what it has. I completely disagree with you when you say that confessions like Anglican Communion Covenant nor the Jerusalem Declaration are more about the legitimacy of authority than confession. Such initiatives have come about to reassert the historic orthodoxies of the CoE since so many who profess the faith particular in the north American church have since departed from them. John Martin. The point of this line of questioning is not whether the Declaration of Assent is perfect but whether those who outwardly profess assent but inwardly do not, should continue as ministers in the CofE. It seems to me that they are perjuring themselves before God if they do this. I am not so sure that you can take comfort in the fact that there were times much worse than ours. The culture in which we live with its global reach, mass communication and relentless scrutiny makes these very different times.I am not expecting you to answer this because you are making it very clear that you will not be drawn, but I would be interested to learn what you would suggest would bring about a break in institutional unity. PS I think you would make a very good politican! Posted by: Bowman Monday 7 May 2012 - 08:15pm Iconoclast and Phil-- Is there any reason why the Church of England ought not to produce and obey a new doctrinal standard as other reformed churches have done since the Reformation? Phil remarked the other day that evangelicals have had their "Vatican 2" as the Romans did. But the Church of England has had only books of essays, and they have not defined the central tendency of orthodox faith in the contemporary church. Some villagers and visitors have made stirring calls for a "confessional Anglicanism." But to be true to the implicit metaphor, some body somewhere has to sit down an actually confess the faith on paper in a way that takes full note of those theological tendencies that have pastoral import in the present church. Confession is witness or it is not confession. Neither the opening to the Anglican Communion Covenant nor the Jerusalem Declaration actually does that, because both are more about the legitmacy of authority than the confession of faith. Do you think that somebody somewhere should do this work for the Church of England? If so, who? Posted by: John Martin Monday 7 May 2012 - 07:06pm Iconoclast. Sorry. I don't quite see the point of this line of questioning. The Declaration of Assent is not perfect, but it's what we have. There is insufficient base of support for re-formulating and I have no inclination to try myself (which is effectively what Phil is asking me to do). I have no doubt there are limits to institutional unity and at the time of the Reformation, for example, the Western Church was unable to maintain it for reasons I have always affirmed. My contention is there have been times much worse than ours: the eighteenth century, when licentiousness ruled, with a corrupt church seriously out of touch and Deism was in the ascendency was such a time. In the 1950-60s there was a liberal ascendency that squeezed evangelicals more than they experience today. So I do not think we are at a point where a 'break' is a way forward. Nor am I inclined to suggest what would change that. Posted by: Iconoclast Monday 7 May 2012 - 05:28pm John Martin, you appear not to have answered my first question and sidestepped Phil Almond’s who as with I, wishes to know what you think - not that you do not wish to peer into the hearts of others. You state that you have never put together a systematic statement on your ecclesiology. For the benefit of us on this thread could you tell us please, what you think are the limits of institutional unity? At what point do you think that institutional unity is no longer viable or even desirable? Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 7 May 2012 - 10:43am Hi John, so a PCC, deciding to cap its quota and negotiating that with the powers that be to make an agreement is fine? I'd think so Posted by: John Martin Monday 7 May 2012 - 08:30am Looks like I'm provoking quote a lot of responses: London Vicar. 1. So you don't need to be evangelical to benefit from the Trust, just affirm the Jerusalem Declaration (as the CT also says). And they want a new Elizabethan Settlement? Good luck. 2. On Article 24. My reason for drawing attention to it was that here is a prime example from among the Articles where we are are hard pressed to show how it applies to our times. You answer adds further weight to my view. What do others think about it? Iconoclast. I don't recall ever saying institutional unity is more important that adherence to the Articles, etc. A lot of my writing here on Fulcrum Forum occured in the context of debate with people with separatist tendencies and that might explain its trajectory. I have never put together a systematic statement on my ecclesiology. Nersen Paul To speak of quota capping is to use the language of unilateralism. In more than 30 years I have been part of parishes where quota has been a subject of debate and negotiation with Archdeacons, etc. So I have never said quota levels are 'sacred'. Phil. OK. Maybe not 'putting words in my mouth'. But your paraphrase pushes the Declaration of Assent far further than it actually goes. I am not inclined to peer into the hearts, minds and motives of those make that Assent: it's for them to answer to their conscience and their Maker for what they have said. Posted by: LondonVicar Sunday 6 May 2012 - 05:20pm Re John Martin's point: The Trust have made clear (see Church Times on Friday) that those who are supported by the Trust do not have to be evangelical. But orthodox in doctrine and morals. I guess the Trust is trying again an Elizabethan Settlement. A broad church but to narrow the borders of that breadth when they undermine the whole. (ie radical revisionism). But they would be far wider than the Elizabethan Settlement of course in including orthodox Anglo Catholics ... Posted by: LondonVicar Sunday 6 May 2012 - 05:17pm I think Article XXI relates to government. not the church. So if the Government may legally redefine marriage. But it will have erred. What does Griffith Thomas say here? Posted by: Iconoclast Sunday 6 May 2012 - 04:50pm John Martin, Following on from Phil Almonds comment of the 5th May, would you say that adherence to the 39 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal is less important than institutional unity? If some sections of the Cof E 'comprehensive church' as you call it, hold to these things lightly, ignore, or try to change them, then surely the unity that exists is essentially a false one. In much of your writings, I gain the impression that you value institutional unity above all else including doctrine contrary to that of the Cof E's stated formularies. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 6 May 2012 - 03:58pm Hi John. Are you saying it is wrong for a PCC to cap its quota? That is, paying its way, making a contribution to the diocese but setting a limit so that scarce resources can be directed to people they trust fully given resources are sadly too often wasted on false teachers spreading their ideas which are incompatible with scripture on various issues. ......I think it's reasonable for people to cap quotas, do you disagree? Posted by: Phil Almond Sunday 6 May 2012 - 03:35pm John Martin I quoted what you posted and asked you a question. That is not putting words into other people's mouths. Phil Almond Posted by: John Martin Sunday 6 May 2012 - 01:58pm Hi Nersen. From my perpective interweaving issues about false teachers and how much quota is levied is unhelpful. Let's begin with quota. There are some areas in the country where parishes will never be capable of being self supporting, but this need not have anything to do with issue of false teaching. I know parishes where there are faithful and godly teaching which have little or no prospect of becoming self-supporting. On the other hand in some dioceses there is a subsidy mentality which means (a) some parishes which could raise more funds for their own support are not motivated to do so, and (b) dynamic parishes are hamstrung in their mission because of excessive quota. Now false teaching. (a) The existence of growth is not the only criteria for determining if the teaching going on in a church is true or false. (b) How would it be decided if a parish is in the hands of a false teacher? (c) Given that most parishes left to their own devices wouldn't part with a penny of quota, would it ever be right for a parish to act unilaterally? I notice our Friends in Southwark want assent to the Jerusalem Declaration and thus by implication the Thirty Nine Articles. I wonder how they envisage Article 21 being systematically applied? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 6 May 2012 - 09:40am Hi John - yes but a PCC capping it's quota is a reasonable action and consistent with what you're saying so far....they are paying their way but not letting growth be taxed..... What's wrong with capping a quota and using your own money to support people who are not undermining the church from within / teaching what is incompatible with scripture rather than putting more money into a pot which already wastes so much subsidising revisionist decline. Capping a quota is reasonable ..... It's mad to tax growth ...... We should invest in growing cofE churches Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 6 May 2012 - 08:19am Isaiah 45:71 "I bought the light and created the darkness, I bring prosperity and disaster, i the lord do all these things. NIV Isaiah 42:16 I will lead the blind by ways theys have not known down unfamiliar paths, I will guide them, I will turn darkness into light and make rough places smooth, these are the things i will do i will not forsake them..KJV The point is false teaching is like a weed it is simply a flower out of place, False teaching in context is not just about what is taught but when it is taught , to whom it is taught and when. The context is timing and understanding. It is wrong application. when application of Gods teaching is correct, then all who hear it understand it, and can accept it, for good teaching puts them in a position to do so. The charge of false teaching, is ambiguous, because it is about context. For instance if you tell someone to turn left when you should tell them to turn right, that would be said to be false, however that person would have learnt that when they turn back it would be right as it is in reverse. Angela Posted by: John Martin Sunday 6 May 2012 - 07:54am Phil. You love putting words into people's mouths. Read the Declaration of Assent and decide for yourself about it. Nersen. Taking 1 Cor as part of the context (which it surely is) it is more than plausable to apply 'don't be yoked' to marriage and personal relationships. As to how it works out in the CofE today, my thesis is that we are either part of the CofE or you are not. If yes, it means living with the opportunities, obligations and the challenges that go with a comprehensive church. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 5 May 2012 - 11:45pm Hi John - I think the context of 2 Corinthans has to govern our understanding of the verse. So, while you may be right to see a secondary application to marriage and relationships, the context of the ' don't be yoked ' verse is not primarily re relationships ..... I think it's fair to take the verse to apply to all Paul is saying re false teachers in the book. The relevance to the cofE is that we need not feel we must subsidise the terminal decline of false teachers today given we don't have to be yoked. It is reasonable for churches to cap thir quota...... Especially with the stupid system of extra tax on churches which grow to give resources to shrinking churches...... The cofE would do better to invest in those churches which have grown in the last decade and not those which will end up closing anyway as so few come to hear revisionists. ... the public are voting with their feet..... Let's put scarce resources where we can best reach them with the gospel.....capping quotas is a reasonable decision for a pcc not wanting to subsidise false teaching Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 5 May 2012 - 08:51pm John You stated in your last post on this thread ‘If you want to be part of the Church of England it implies commitment to being part of comprehensive church. Evangelicals resolved this at the Keele Congress 1967. As I say in my book on evangelicals, Keele "was their Vatican 2."’. Does the Declaration of Assent which all Ordinands are required to make commit them to believing, from the heart, the doctrine contained in the 39 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal? Are you saying that such doctrine can truly be described as ‘comprehensive’ in the sense that the beliefs, from the heart, of the Southwark senior clergy include all that doctrine? Phil Almond Posted by: John Martin Saturday 5 May 2012 - 07:26pm Hi Nersen. You prompted me to re-read with care.I stand by the position that it offers a principle about marriage and close relationships: the point is simply true and I think the Spirit working on the Word has produced that application in the Church. Sure it's worth trying to fathom 2 Cor 6.14 in context and no doubt the primary message is about false teachers. The overall thrust of 2 Cor is Paul's agonies where the influence of the so-called 'super apostles' had poisoned relations between Paul and the Corinthians. How that helps us with the Anglican crisis I don't know. If you want to be part of the Church of England it implies commitment to being part of comprehensive church. Evangelicals resolved this at the Keele Congress 1967. As I say in my book on evangelicals, Keele "was their Vatican 2." I guess it has to be said that as various elements in the Catholic Church don't really accept Vatican 2 and would like to put some of its committments into reverse, the might be said of the attitudes of some evangelicals to Keele. I think this is what is going on in respect of this proposed Trust. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 5 May 2012 - 05:52pm Dave, Claiming one passage after another is disputable is another sign of unbelief. 2 Cora 6:14-18 fits ok with the next chapter, but I would absolutely agree that it refers to a relationships that resulted in spiritual defilement, especially as elsewhere we have teaching about the believing husband or wife married to their unbelieving partner. The other passages cited bear out that introducing heresy contrary to the gospel is another gospel and another Jesus and should expelled from the church. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 5 May 2012 - 02:35pm Dave - your points one to four are about right for my understanding as regarding C of E traditions. Entryism is not about a stance as such but about a method, a method by which a small group can organise others so not only does it bat above its weight but starts to reorganise those outside itself so to improve its own position within the larger body. It is that dynamic that makes it entryist. Being a pressure group and persuading people of your position is not entryist. If Modern Church say started organising funds and providing its own authority oversight and going into redundant churches with its own approved ministers then it would be entryist. There are modernist churches just as there are evangelical ones, and that's to be expected, but they are all part of the same system: the C of E is not helped by the party system. But entryism is a tactic and method, and based on control from a specific point, planning and deliberate incursion. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 5 May 2012 - 11:27am Dave, it is those who have issues with the creeds or the mind of the Communion or the 39 articles who should leave...... If those things were dropped and revisionist positions adopted, I'd leave.....but they stand..... And revisionists are dying out anyway...... So, no need to leave......but I don't have to subsidise their decline from scripture, do I? Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 5 May 2012 - 11:24am Hi John, worth looking at the context....... It's often thought that marriage is the subject of that verse but is that so when we look at 2Corinthians? It isn't about where one works (even in the city which pays for a fifth of all government spending on schools and hospitals through tax....a contribution that actually helps everyone a lot)..... 'don't be yoked' in its context is about church...Paul continues his appeals to the Corinthians to reject false teaching.... the scriptures do tell us not to be united with some depending on their life or teaching (eg 1Cor 5-7) .....does it not follow that we need not feel compelled to subsidise the increasingly unattended churches of revisionists? Resources are scarce, we all know many good uses for resources .....we are to judge what goes on in church (1cor5:12) and not accept what goes against what God has revealed by his Spirit... I know nowhere in scripture which suggests we must subsidise false teaching .....' don't be yoked' applies because it is talking about the church, is it not, in it's context? Posted by: Dave Saturday 5 May 2012 - 10:45am 2 Cora 6:14-7:1 is a bit of a puzzle. It does not fit with the surrounding passages. The principle is clear enough but is not applied. Tom Constable put it this way "Paul commanded that Christians form no binding interpersonal relationships with non-Christians that resulted in their spiritual defilement." and Charles Hodge "he exhorts them to keep aloof from all intimate associations with evil. The exhortation is general and is not to be confined to partaking of heathen sacrifices, nor to intermarriage with the heathen, much less to association with the opponents of the apostle." If these commentators are right it refers to something much more intimate than not paying your dues. If it applies to the current situation, then a more radical act of leaving the denomination is required and this can only be based on the judgment that the rest of the church are unbelievers, not just erring brethren. Having paid its quota, a PCC is of course free to support other churches through this trust. Dave Posted by: DavidW Saturday 5 May 2012 - 08:19am Charles Read, The 2 Cor 14: scripture says "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." The scripture doesn’t say ‘theological disgareement’ as you have said, so what do you mean by ‘theological disagreement’? " If people are calling unbelief ‘theological disagreement’ then Christ’s NT teaching means don’t be yoked with such people. (ie as in Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 11 as well) In context. The Christian’s battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual darkness, so the revelation probably means don’t compromise faith in Christ with unbelievers, as the scripture also refers to the believing husband or wife and the unbelieving partner. And yes of course the world is divided up into those in Adam and those in Christ rather than ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’, people who are influenced by wrong and people who are influenced by right. Posted by: John Martin Saturday 5 May 2012 - 06:57am I have always thought 'don't be yoked' useful as a criteria for choice of a marriage or perhaps a business partner and I think that application legitimately grows from the original verse in context. I have always found wider application to our context of 'don't be yoked' much more tricky. I had an Uncle who trained as a printer who because he believed this prohibition included not joining a trades union pounded the pavements for months in a near-hopeless quest for work in an industry that at the time was almost entirely a closed shop. Exclusive Brethren members of my family thought that 'don't be yoked' meant that when they harvested their wheat they should not deposit it in the community silos. I don't quite know how they marketed their wheat since it was complusory to sell to the Australian government after which it would end up with a lot of other wheat in the hold of a China-bound ship. I honestly don't think you can use it as warrant for withholding financial contributions to the parish share system in the CofE. The whole idea of CofE polity is that there is a share-out of resources. It has seen to the survival of many a small evangelical parish ,,,, not just liberal, catholic and other stripes of parishes. And honestly, if you were more expansive about applying 'don't be yoked' you mightn't be able to justify working in the City. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 4 May 2012 - 11:24pm Charles.... Perhaps it's your use of scripture to back your views which is exposed if you seriously want to try and argue that 'don't be yoked' can include funding false teaching? As for kindness, are we told by the apostles, led by the Spirit, to accommodate false teaching kindly? It certainly is not kind to teach anyone that what is incompatible with scripture is just fine.... Not kind at all.....if the Holy Spirit has inspired scripture..... It must flow that funding false teaching cannot be the right thing to do....... Not from what the Spirit taught the apostles in the early church.... ? Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 4 May 2012 - 03:39pm ....boring to have the yet again repeated nonsense about entryism and evangelicals in the CofE even from one asserting some credibility as a sociologist.........but contradicting what I heard from Prof Giddens and others at Cambridge re entryism......maybe they were less up to speed on the subject......but I doubt it......anyway, anyone can just read the 39 articles and see who in the CofE is entryist (ie using an organisation for other ends without subscribing to its core beliefs)...... it ain't the evangelicals who are going against scripture and Anglican tradition.... as for cash, it is a fantasy that the CofE was set up to house and pay all who happen to be in the club even if their life and teaching are incompatible with scripture..... it is a cause of the failure of the CofE that it has allowed itself to be a house divided (weak leadership for decades and centuries) ...... it will fail while it tries to point in opposite directions while sitting on the fence........ How about all those who disagree with the 39 articles and want to condone behaviour incompatible with scripture leave..... they are the entryists....... they need the CofE and subsidies from evangelicals because (as with the nearly extinct unitarians), hardly anyone goes to hear revisionist ramblings.....definitely not young Brits..... but it is possible to get thousands every week in CofE evangelical churches.....very sensible not to fund false teachers ...... since so many of their churches are empty, let them get jobs they might be better at...... Posted by: Charles Read Friday 4 May 2012 - 12:13pm Nersen , you are kind of assuming that someone with whom you are in theological disagreement is in the same category as those listed in 2 Cor - is the world and the church really so easily divided up into goodies and baddies? And the text does not really relate to money - exceopt by inference. Your hermeneutics is showing! Posted by: Dave Friday 4 May 2012 - 10:41am Pluralist. Do you see the CofE in terms something like this: 1. There are several prominent traditions within it. A tradition being at least an approach to doctrine, a style of worship and an understanding of mission. 2. Most congregations draw on more than one tradition. 3. Each tradition has its own societies to support the tradition within congregations. 4. Each tradition has a party or group within synod If so what are the legitimate activities of a society and when do they they become "entryist". Would you for example accept as legitimate the activities of The Church Society, CPAS and CEEC. Put another way, is your attack limited to FoCA, Reform and Anglican Mainstream. AS I have said before, I do not like your use of the term entryism because it implies coming in from the outside. Dave Posted by: Swithun Thursday 3 May 2012 - 11:53pm apologies for double post. I think it might help if conservative evangelicals like Peter and other fulcrum allies got off their high horse and listened to what is happening outside the ghetto. Apologies for the strong analogy. Posted by: Swithun Thursday 3 May 2012 - 11:51pm Peter wrote that 'The parish share is a voluntary contribution and congregations are free to dispense it as they see fit.' This strikes me as evidence of the serious 'disconnect' between metropolitan conservative Evangelicals and what is really happening on the ground out here in the provinces. Managing to pay the parish share is the think line between the survival of a parish and its ministry and closure. In my neck of the woods, lots of parishes are struggling to pay this diocesan tax (and aren't always sure that they're getting much in return -- but that's another matter). In the real church out here in England, life is rather different ... Posted by: Bowman Thursday 3 May 2012 - 09:46pm Stephen, Pluralist & Nersen-- Can the diocese of Southwark so pursue "inclusiveness" that evangelicals-- and everyone else-- is convinced that marriage is being honoured as sacred, and not abandoned as sacred by the diocese? For if the diocese treats the sacredness of marriage as a hot potato and tosses it, then why wouldn't those committed to that catch it? And if they do successfully catch it, how could there not be a shift in loyalties? Apart from everything else, the diocese seems to see the social good of inclusion, but not the religious "bankruptcy" of no longer being a plausible spiritual shelter for human beings making their way through life's passages. And that is not something that can be finessed. People can spot a fake; there is very good competition. This is about more than the usual competition of tendencies in the Church of England. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 3 May 2012 - 11:31am Charles, 2 Cor 6 might help.... How can we be supporting revisionists but not yoked? 1 Corinthians 5-7 helps too.....especially 1 Cor 5:12..... Posted by: DavidW Thursday 3 May 2012 - 08:23am Hi Bowman, Thanks for the response. But that’s the point, this is seen by a majority of Christians worldwide as an essential because it’s a core issue. It is a core issue of the gospel because the scripture says it affects salvation. It is also a core issue because Christ’s teaching repeatedly indicates that faith in Him requires doing what He teaches. So people are not slow to explain how those views are organically derived from faith in Christ alone. What people don’t do is show any scripture that can undermine that. So this isn’t about what different people argue at all, its about on the one hand those who argue what the Biblical testimony of God says, and on the other hand those who argue what different people think. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 3 May 2012 - 08:22am Charles Read, Can you explain how, when the Bible says believers should not be yoked with false teachers, a believer could be yoked with a false teacher financially? If they shouldn’t be yoked then they shouldn’t be yoked with anything and everything you care to add. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 3 May 2012 - 03:05am Entryism by GAFCON/ FCA regarding the Church of England. To be an entryist in anything you have your own higher hurdle of belief or activity because you don't like the drift of the main body. But your smaller group only covers a minority of believers. So you organise things yourself and maintain that self-organising, as in how this fund is to be operated. You favour people near to you in belief terms, but even they don't come in on the core decision making. You bring in outsiders, like those of overseas. You then enter into the main body and rearrange things slowly but strategically to remove the 'revisionists' (as indeed they get called by GAFCON types) and favour those of whom you approve. The Church of England consists of liberal Catholics, liberal Protestants, evangelicals, traditionalists Catholic and Reformed, and its basis is not some new Jerusalem Statement but how it understands its relationships to creeds, articles and liturgies. I know of parishes that will never accept that they should comply with some Jerusalem Statement made by a particular group. Look, it doesn't matter to me. I'm simply observing but how interesting that this plan and opposition to it seems to stir people up so much. Because the other thing entryism doesn't like is the attention to its method. Before I get accused of something similar, I am definitely outside and my liberalism is independent. And if the Conservative Evangelicals behind the Jerusalem Statement were honest, they would set up funds and their overseas bishops and start their own denomination. What may happen is that the authorities of the Church of England wake up and force the Jesusalem Statement people to fully comply with the diocesan system and how it works in total, or to organise themselves independently. If the Church of England was, as a collective body, to decide minimum standards of belief, doctrine and action and make these clear, then the liberals or so called revisionists would themselves become entryists if they were to try to organise in order to redirect. If the C of E did this then they should get out. But that is not how it is. For example, Modern Church is a pressure group that is more Church of England than anything, and it is a pressure group for liberal Christianity. But it doesn't engage in activities to redirect funds and alter forms of authority. Sea of Faith is not a Christian group as such, but some of its people are in the Church. But whilst they are their own group, they are not reorganising to promote some and undermine others, and indeed many in Sea of Faith have come to the conclusion it is better to be out. My background is sociology of religion, and what is fascinating (for me) is how the liberal side sticks and is so difficult to shift - I wish they would come out - but it is the evangelicals who try the entryism and due to institutional pressures eventually come out and go independent. Look down the ages at those groups who ended coming out - usually because they get pushed out. So when the Methodists in their enthusiasm organised their own classes, meeting places, and even forms of authority, the writing was on the wall. They've since moderated and times have changed. But whilst ecumenism is one direction, the arguments of division are in the other direction, and that's what GAFCON/ FCA is all about. Posted by: Charles Read Wednesday 2 May 2012 - 10:31pm Nersen - can you remind me exactly where the Bible says we are not to be financially joined to false teachers? Posted by: Dave Wednesday 2 May 2012 - 11:50am Is ther a significant typo in Q2 pay or play? Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 2 May 2012 - 05:21am This is my view posted on my blog. It's only the beginning and I wouldn't be surprised to see similar throughout England's 'dodgy dioceses' in a short period of time. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Wednesday 2 May 2012 - 04:01am It used to be that evangelicals were above grubbing for preferment....and certainly above demanding "representation" in this kind of way. they preached the gospel in their parishes and sought to be faithful. O tempora, o mores. Posted by: LondonVicar Tuesday 1 May 2012 - 05:30pm Looks like details have now been released: http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1471 Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 1 May 2012 - 10:30am Quite biblical not to be yoked with false teachers, including financially..... Hope the prospect of promotion doesn't make evangelicals compromise on biblical teaching or accept institutional unity with false teachers Posted by: Dave Monday 30 April 2012 - 06:59pm To put it simply, how many of these posts were previously held by evangelicals? Dave Posted by: DavidW Monday 30 April 2012 - 07:22am Good for them. Careful we dont let revisionism be seen as the norm. It is the same attitude as with the ECUSA, if Southwark has become revisionist then the members should have something to say. Posted by: LondonVicar Saturday 28 April 2012 - 09:08pm The appointments in Southwark were not made en bloc. They were made one after another, with concerned representations from evangelicals after each one. Thus people are speaking of a revisionist trajectory. The Bishop in the DEU meeting distinguished between the perception and the reality of being heard. Yet his resposne in the DEU meeting and the succession of revisionist appointments indicates, does it not, a reality of evangelicals not being heard. not a perception. On the matter of the Trust: my understanding that just as GAFCON is a renewal movement, so the Trust is. It is not about separating off into another denomination. But I guess we should wait to hear more details, before passing judgement ? Posted by: Dave Saturday 28 April 2012 - 03:35pm Stephen, Can we go back to the original story? Chessun hears Evangelical protest over preferment Am I correct in saying that we are talking about the appointment of +Christopher and 6 subsequent appointments in the year since then? How does the make up of this group compare with their predecessors? Is there a larger meaningful group whose nature you can say has changed? How much? Or is it more that improvements hoped for by evangelicals have not come about? At least you bishop is listening. At least there is a strong evangelical voice. Better than in some parts of the country. Dave Posted by: Bowman Friday 27 April 2012 - 11:21pm Hi DavidW-- Yes, of course it does, and as you know, the historic response to this tension has been to distinguish "essentials" derived from faith in Christ alone from "adiaphora" of good practice. The difficulty with That Topic is that most of those in conflict with each other see their views on the much-discussed passages as "essentials" for all, but are slow to explain to all just how those views are organically derived from faith in Christ alone. This arouses justified suspicion that one is seeing a clash between two authoritarianisms that use religious things but are of merely human origin (or worse)-- one talks about scripture without reference to Christ, the other talks about the church without reference to Christ. As soon as the discussion begins to be about Christ in all things, we come back to common ground around Him --and not before. Short of that, Christians will vote with their feet for those congregations that seem to be the most explicitly in Christ in all things. And there they will find God. Posted by: DavidW Friday 27 April 2012 - 08:29pm Bowman, The NT includes encourgement both to unity and to separation from false teaching. It doesnt include any encouragement to unity with false teaching. Be not yoked with unbelievers, the dark cannot stand the light. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Friday 27 April 2012 - 06:22am Is being an evangelical in Southwark a bit like trying to be a liberal in Carlisle? Posted by: Bowman Thursday 26 April 2012 - 07:06pm @Stephen Kuhrt:“through these appointments, Bishop Christopher couldn't have done more to encourage the destructive agenda of GAFCON, FCA and other separatist movements” It looks as though Stephen is right. Both in Southwark and in Christendom beyond, accommodation is giving way first to polarisation, and then to separation. Why would Anglicans, of all people, fall for this? And why do some bishops choose to be polarizing rather than signs of unity? And if a bishop does choose to be polarising, then what does good ecclesiology require? Origen Adam-- Esteemed villager, after deleting all the opprobrium in your post-- this helped me to read it-- I could not detect any surviving argument. I was staring at a blank screen. Have I missed your point? Posted by: Dave Thursday 26 April 2012 - 03:10pm Perhaps we should wit for the details before condemning this potentially exciting development Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Wednesday 25 April 2012 - 10:27pm @Stephen Kuhrt:“through these appointments, Bishop Christopher couldn't have done more to encourage the destructive agenda of GAFCON, FCA and other separatist movements” Oh please! The Fulcrum Leadership really are clutching at appalling arguments for this one. It's akin to saying that if the Jews weren't so avaricious then Hitler wouldn't have gassed them all. By all means criticise FOCA but don't blame it on the so-called 'liberals.' I also find it mystifying why you're so anti-gay yet wish to continue paying into the common fund that supports gay clergy. Why not just accept that everyone believes differently and get on with promoting the gospel? Unless, of course I guess, like DavidW et al you believe that being anti-gay is a fundamental part of the Good News. 
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Wednesday 25 April 2012 - 03:46pm
Reports have appeared of the establishment of an alternative Trust or Quota/Parish Share system within Southwark Diocese. http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1460 The report also mentions the 100 evangelical clergy who recently meet up with the Bishop of Southwark to protest about the one sided nature of his recent appointments to senior positions within the diocese (seven liberal catholics) and the imbalance that this has created. However it is very important not to assume that all these evangelicals support the establishment of this Trust. I have been one of the strongest critics of the imbalance created by Bishop Christopher's appointments but I do not believe that the answer is to set out alternative financial structures. Fulcrum has always strongly supported the maintenance of diocesan contributions by churches and opposed separatist arrangments. Rather than withdrawing from diocesan stuctures, evangelicals must stay within them. From this position they can both fight for these structures to remain or return to being faithful to the the gospel but also a right balance between the evangelical, liberal and catholic traditions which, at its best, greatly enriches the ministry and mission of the Church of England. Paying into a common fund is a vital part of this commitment and it is from this basis that we should fight for this money to be used as well as possible. To withdraw is to give up the vital influence we must maintain on this. And I say this as vicar of a church being ploughed into the ground by excessive quota payments (around £270,000 pa for one stipendiary clergyman!). There has also been some confusion expressed in the last few days about Fulcrum's attitude towards separatism. I was rightly quoted in the Church Times as saying to Bishop Christopher that through the nature of his recent appointments in Southwark he couldn't have done more to encourage separatism. But by this I wasn't in any way implying that separatism is a good thing. The precise sentence I gave to the Church Times was as follows '...through these appointments, Bishop Christopher couldn't have done more to encourage the destructive agenda of GAFCON, FCA and other separatist movements'. |
LATEST
|
is often much easier for evangelicals to agree upon problems within the church than their solutions. This is because our understanding of such problems is usually based upon the relative consensus that evangelicals broadly possess over doctrine and ethics. Proposed solutions to these problems, on the other hand, often reveal the diversity amongst evangelicals when it comes to one particular area of doctrine: our ecclesiology or theology of the church.