“There seem to be no grounds at this juncture to suggest that any of our liberal bishops have got more liberal, or become more outrageous, than they were six months or a year ago.”
Indeed. I can’t say I can remember any instance of the “liberal” brigade (such as remain) having *done* anything except call for unity.
(A cynic would add a contrapositive echo of that sentence, too…)
Martin Reynolds
17 years ago
I have not seen this bishop’s letter and know only too well how news reports can often mislead. But for me the idea that those who produced the “Covenant” have “scored an own-goal” is symptomatic of a mindset that I find deplorable. I felt no joy in reading the “Covenant’s” messy thinking; I did not feel justified or happy that those who would happily deprive me of my orders can turn out such tosh, quite the opposite. Nor was I impressed by his “outrageous” references to his fellow bishops – silly stuff, nasty stuff, not becoming of his office. This… Read more »
I must admit, that line made me laugh, that they haven’t done anything more outrageous. Happy New Year to all the unoutrageous.
Dave
17 years ago
I notice that +Pete isn’t actually disagreeing with many of the issues raised by the CCE – even though he doesn’t like the way it was issued. However, according to the Chairman of CEEC: “The CEEC consented in October to the signatures of the President and Chairman being appended to this ‘covenant.’” ( http://www.ceec.info/library/positional/Note%20for%20CEEC.htm ) and many of the points of criticism raised by TA commentators were addressed in the explanatory notes that were issued with the list of signatories (which Simon already posted). Personally I don’t agree with the suggestion (from +Pete and +Wright I think) that non-liberals should… Read more »
Simon Morden
17 years ago
Dave – you’re missing the point of +Broadbent’s broadside. You quote: “However, according to the Chairman of CEEC: “The CEEC consented in October to the signatures of the President and Chairman being appended to this ‘covenant.’” “ Bishop Broadbent is quoted in the CT as saying: “… that members had not been able to read or agree to the document in its final draft. It had not appeared on an agenda paper, and minutes of meetings appeared no longer to be distributed. He describes the CEEC as in “deep disarray”.” He might or might not have agreed with much of… Read more »
Merseymike
17 years ago
Well, what the real agenda of the document suggests is a wish to get liberals out of the CofE. They know they can’t do it, sop they suggest this entirely spurious process in order to facilitate a split, which they think is on its way internationally.
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
“Speaking out now might well help avoid the same folly of rejecting Christian faith and morality.”
Whose folly are we talking about, btw? Anglicanism’s or that of the ConsEvs?
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
“members had not been able to read or agree to the document in its final draft. It had not appeared on an agenda paper, and minutes of meetings appeared no longer to be distributed.”
You know, that reads almost word for word the same as ++Ndungane’s comments on The GS Communique. Do you think ++Capetown and +Willesden are co-conspirators in some deep dark plot:-)??
Ford Elms
17 years ago
“folly of rejecting Christian faith and morality” Wow, now there’s a statement! Can you explain? Are you actually saying that people who seek some form of acceptance of gay people are rejecting Christianity? Funny, since all the “Liberal” discussion of this issue that I have read concerns Scripture, the Fathers, the Tradition, the meaning of the Incarnation and how it is redemptive, what it means for Christians to be free from the Law, and on and on. Quite the opposite of rejection of Christian faith, actually, since it addresses the issue from the historic Christian tradition and seeks to understand… Read more »
laurence
17 years ago
Nothing good can come from a group (or groups) whose raison d’etre, at least in this action, is to deny freedom of religion to their fellow countrymen and fellow anglicans. And yet this is what they claim for themselves, and what could be more fundamental in a Western liberal democracy ? The politicking, the misrepresentation, misleading of, and even prhaps lies to their own contituncies / members shows how group processes and political procsedures take over from considerations of truth, integrity and sound practice within a Christian body. We can all so easily get mired like them –but they like… Read more »
Dave
17 years ago
Dear Simon Morden, I guess the +Pete didn’t attend the October meeting where the CEEC council agreed that the Chairman and President could sign the CCE. Whether the CEEC is in deep disarray is I suspect “debate-able”, but I certainly don’t think that you can say that the CCE is “worthless, discredited, destroyed” – many people agree with what is in the CCE – even if they don’t agree with the language, tone or timing. In fact many churches have been quietly making ‘arrangements’ for years. Many larger CofE churches don’t pay the full diocesan “share” – they just haven’t… Read more »
Dave
17 years ago
Dear Merseymike and Laurence, I don’t think that the CCE folk want to deny other people their “freedom of religion”. What I guess they *would* like is for “Liberals” to decide whether or not they want to be Christians!
Dave
17 years ago
Ford Elms wrote: “perhaps you see rejection of Christian faith elsewhere than on this issue”….
Dear Ford, Yes. The debate about sexuality is just one of several presenting issues. Other examples are: divorce, remarriage (and sexual morality generally), abortion, the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct, and the language/attitudes of traditional Christianity… I’m continuously amazed that liberals fail to feel uncomfortable that their recent “revelations” on these issues are more-or-less identical to recent changes in the values of the society in which they live!
Simon Morden
17 years ago
Dave – all you’re doing is guessing. Unless you were there, you don’t know. Neither do we have minutes which confirm what the chairman of CEEC says, that the council agreed they could (sight unseen) sign the CCE. Sorry and all, but Dave Walker’s cartoon is funny because it’s *true*. There is nothing bar two men and a dog behind the screen. Beyond the CCE’s language, tone and timing, there’s nothing – it’s a pricked balloon that went bang, startled some folk who thought it might be a bomb or a gun shot, but who laughed when they realised it… Read more »
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
Dave let slip In fact many churches have been quietly making ‘arrangements’ for years. Many larger CofE churches don’t pay the full diocesan “share” – they just haven’t trumpeted about it until now. One of the two CofE Mega-churches whose leaders aren’t represented on the CCE, St Thomas C…..” So in other words, all those postings which we’ve enduired from some contributors about how ConsEvs are really really looking forward to spending their money how they like and not supporting abyone else is cobblers — they’re doing it already, and so the CofE as we know and occasionally love it… Read more »
Martin Reynolds
17 years ago
Seems to be like Ananias and Saphira to me ……
Ford Elms
17 years ago
Dave, WRT divorce and remarriage, the Orthodox church allows both, with penetential aspects concerning the failure of the first marriage introduced into a second marriage service. Their attitude is that it is part of the Divine economy toward fallible broken humanity. “Traditional” teaching on this thus varies. As far as I know, the Anglican teaching on abortion is that it is acceptable when the life of the mother is in danger, and the “traditional” teaching on when human life begins has changed over the centuries. I do not see that modern Anglicanism has jettisoned its attitude towards the authority of… Read more »
Dave
17 years ago
Dear Ford, I did not state an absolutist position on divorce, abortion, or even salvation of adherants of other religions!
What I said about divorce, abortion etc is that they are other “presenting issues” – and highlight how Liberals’ new “revelations” tend to look amazingly like recent changes in society’s values.. 🙂
And I disagree with you on evangelicals/traditionalists accepting compromises on yesterday’s societal values – just think of what some of the great Evangelicals of yester-year achieved in the face of establishment opposition (eg William Wilberforce [slavery] and John Wesley’s early followers [prison reform etc]).
Dave
17 years ago
Dear mynsterpreost and Martin, Evangelicals still contribute proportionately more than liberals to central funds..
As for Ananias and Saphira: if the dioceses were as faithful and dynamic as the Early Church I think many evangelicals would be being extremely generous! :-))
Merseymike
17 years ago
Liberals have decided, Dave.
They do not wish to be ‘Christians’ according to your conservative evangelical definition.
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
“Evangelicals still contribute proportionately more than liberals to central funds” I think “non-evangelicals” rather than “liberals” is what you mean (members of staunch BCP & Hunt Ball congregations in the Cotswolds might choke over their Daily Telegraph’ at being called liberals). But your raw data (as all raw data) may be misleading. Do you mean that, as a proportion of disposable income evangelical Anglicans contribute more than non-evangelicals? Or that the Church’s equivalent of (I think what the Bank of England used to call) M0 – that is raw cash, in which case correction would be needed to compensate for… Read more »
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
Dave romanticised nostalgically
“faithful and dynamic as the Early Church”
I could go on, but on my analysis the CofE is pretty well nigh a perfect mirror of the primitive Church:-) and the efforts of the neo-puritans are an attempt to subvert us from that scriptural and apostolic tradition:-)))
Ford Elms
17 years ago
Dave,
Usury? War? Two pretty big compromises there, I think. I haven’t heard of anyone being in “impaired communion” with bishops who refuse to repudiate these things. Goodness, on this site I have had people argue that usury isn’t a sin! I’ve also had conservative priests(on other boards) tell me I didn’t understand the theological justification for war! I can’t help but wonder why thius, admittedly ancient, compromise is so acceptable when modern ones aren’t.
I might add that many larger evangelical churches also employ extra staff. This is not taken into account when calculating the “share” (which is just based on electoral role and estimated average income) – but the CofE website still claims that additional expenditure as a part of the overall expenditure of the Church: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/funding/
Dave
17 years ago
ps I meant the Early Church in Jerusalem (as per Martin’s reference to Ananias and Saphira)!
Dave
17 years ago
Dear Ford, I think you are a little fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Bible on usury – but I respect your self sacrifice if you have decided on principle not to accept interest on your savings!
On war – I think you may be a little confused if you think that the Bible condemns it! Try reading through the Old Testament and come back to me on that one!
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
Dave lauded “the Early Church in Jerusalem”.
You mean the one which became an irrelevance by its insistence on full ritual Jewish observance and finally vanished in one or other of the Jewish revolts? Not a good model….
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
Dave, tour ‘Telegraph’ link is virtually meaningless. If parish share is based on electoral roll and income, (it isn’t in this diocese btw) then wealthy metropolitan mega churches will inevitably put more into the coffers per building than St Agatha-by-the-millpond (ER 25, Pop 35) somewhere in the Norfolk fens or St Martin-by-the-security-shutter in Moss Side (80% on state benefits). The crucial statistic which I NEVER see ConsEvs coming up with is per capita giving as a proportion of disposable income, or correlated against prosperity. And since I have rather boringly raised this question once or twice never to have had… Read more »
Ford Elms
17 years ago
Dear Dave, I think you are a little fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality! On war – I think you may be a little confused if you think that the Church didn’t condemn it! Try reading through the Ten Commandments and come back to me on that one! You might also want to look at the saints who, before the peace of Constantine, felt that military service and the Christian faith were incompatible. Are you seriously saying that it can be acceptable for Christians to take a human life? You might also want to look at the… Read more »
“There seem to be no grounds at this juncture to suggest that any of our liberal bishops have got more liberal, or become more outrageous, than they were six months or a year ago.”
Indeed. I can’t say I can remember any instance of the “liberal” brigade (such as remain) having *done* anything except call for unity.
(A cynic would add a contrapositive echo of that sentence, too…)
I have not seen this bishop’s letter and know only too well how news reports can often mislead. But for me the idea that those who produced the “Covenant” have “scored an own-goal” is symptomatic of a mindset that I find deplorable. I felt no joy in reading the “Covenant’s” messy thinking; I did not feel justified or happy that those who would happily deprive me of my orders can turn out such tosh, quite the opposite. Nor was I impressed by his “outrageous” references to his fellow bishops – silly stuff, nasty stuff, not becoming of his office. This… Read more »
More good news. Hold firm. This storm will also pass.
I must admit, that line made me laugh, that they haven’t done anything more outrageous. Happy New Year to all the unoutrageous.
I notice that +Pete isn’t actually disagreeing with many of the issues raised by the CCE – even though he doesn’t like the way it was issued. However, according to the Chairman of CEEC: “The CEEC consented in October to the signatures of the President and Chairman being appended to this ‘covenant.’” ( http://www.ceec.info/library/positional/Note%20for%20CEEC.htm ) and many of the points of criticism raised by TA commentators were addressed in the explanatory notes that were issued with the list of signatories (which Simon already posted). Personally I don’t agree with the suggestion (from +Pete and +Wright I think) that non-liberals should… Read more »
Dave – you’re missing the point of +Broadbent’s broadside. You quote: “However, according to the Chairman of CEEC: “The CEEC consented in October to the signatures of the President and Chairman being appended to this ‘covenant.’” “ Bishop Broadbent is quoted in the CT as saying: “… that members had not been able to read or agree to the document in its final draft. It had not appeared on an agenda paper, and minutes of meetings appeared no longer to be distributed. He describes the CEEC as in “deep disarray”.” He might or might not have agreed with much of… Read more »
Well, what the real agenda of the document suggests is a wish to get liberals out of the CofE. They know they can’t do it, sop they suggest this entirely spurious process in order to facilitate a split, which they think is on its way internationally.
“Speaking out now might well help avoid the same folly of rejecting Christian faith and morality.”
Whose folly are we talking about, btw? Anglicanism’s or that of the ConsEvs?
“members had not been able to read or agree to the document in its final draft. It had not appeared on an agenda paper, and minutes of meetings appeared no longer to be distributed.”
You know, that reads almost word for word the same as ++Ndungane’s comments on The GS Communique. Do you think ++Capetown and +Willesden are co-conspirators in some deep dark plot:-)??
“folly of rejecting Christian faith and morality” Wow, now there’s a statement! Can you explain? Are you actually saying that people who seek some form of acceptance of gay people are rejecting Christianity? Funny, since all the “Liberal” discussion of this issue that I have read concerns Scripture, the Fathers, the Tradition, the meaning of the Incarnation and how it is redemptive, what it means for Christians to be free from the Law, and on and on. Quite the opposite of rejection of Christian faith, actually, since it addresses the issue from the historic Christian tradition and seeks to understand… Read more »
Nothing good can come from a group (or groups) whose raison d’etre, at least in this action, is to deny freedom of religion to their fellow countrymen and fellow anglicans. And yet this is what they claim for themselves, and what could be more fundamental in a Western liberal democracy ? The politicking, the misrepresentation, misleading of, and even prhaps lies to their own contituncies / members shows how group processes and political procsedures take over from considerations of truth, integrity and sound practice within a Christian body. We can all so easily get mired like them –but they like… Read more »
Dear Simon Morden, I guess the +Pete didn’t attend the October meeting where the CEEC council agreed that the Chairman and President could sign the CCE. Whether the CEEC is in deep disarray is I suspect “debate-able”, but I certainly don’t think that you can say that the CCE is “worthless, discredited, destroyed” – many people agree with what is in the CCE – even if they don’t agree with the language, tone or timing. In fact many churches have been quietly making ‘arrangements’ for years. Many larger CofE churches don’t pay the full diocesan “share” – they just haven’t… Read more »
Dear Merseymike and Laurence, I don’t think that the CCE folk want to deny other people their “freedom of religion”. What I guess they *would* like is for “Liberals” to decide whether or not they want to be Christians!
Ford Elms wrote: “perhaps you see rejection of Christian faith elsewhere than on this issue”….
Dear Ford, Yes. The debate about sexuality is just one of several presenting issues. Other examples are: divorce, remarriage (and sexual morality generally), abortion, the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct, and the language/attitudes of traditional Christianity… I’m continuously amazed that liberals fail to feel uncomfortable that their recent “revelations” on these issues are more-or-less identical to recent changes in the values of the society in which they live!
Dave – all you’re doing is guessing. Unless you were there, you don’t know. Neither do we have minutes which confirm what the chairman of CEEC says, that the council agreed they could (sight unseen) sign the CCE. Sorry and all, but Dave Walker’s cartoon is funny because it’s *true*. There is nothing bar two men and a dog behind the screen. Beyond the CCE’s language, tone and timing, there’s nothing – it’s a pricked balloon that went bang, startled some folk who thought it might be a bomb or a gun shot, but who laughed when they realised it… Read more »
Dave let slip In fact many churches have been quietly making ‘arrangements’ for years. Many larger CofE churches don’t pay the full diocesan “share” – they just haven’t trumpeted about it until now. One of the two CofE Mega-churches whose leaders aren’t represented on the CCE, St Thomas C…..” So in other words, all those postings which we’ve enduired from some contributors about how ConsEvs are really really looking forward to spending their money how they like and not supporting abyone else is cobblers — they’re doing it already, and so the CofE as we know and occasionally love it… Read more »
Seems to be like Ananias and Saphira to me ……
Dave, WRT divorce and remarriage, the Orthodox church allows both, with penetential aspects concerning the failure of the first marriage introduced into a second marriage service. Their attitude is that it is part of the Divine economy toward fallible broken humanity. “Traditional” teaching on this thus varies. As far as I know, the Anglican teaching on abortion is that it is acceptable when the life of the mother is in danger, and the “traditional” teaching on when human life begins has changed over the centuries. I do not see that modern Anglicanism has jettisoned its attitude towards the authority of… Read more »
Dear Ford, I did not state an absolutist position on divorce, abortion, or even salvation of adherants of other religions!
What I said about divorce, abortion etc is that they are other “presenting issues” – and highlight how Liberals’ new “revelations” tend to look amazingly like recent changes in society’s values.. 🙂
And I disagree with you on evangelicals/traditionalists accepting compromises on yesterday’s societal values – just think of what some of the great Evangelicals of yester-year achieved in the face of establishment opposition (eg William Wilberforce [slavery] and John Wesley’s early followers [prison reform etc]).
Dear mynsterpreost and Martin, Evangelicals still contribute proportionately more than liberals to central funds..
As for Ananias and Saphira: if the dioceses were as faithful and dynamic as the Early Church I think many evangelicals would be being extremely generous! :-))
Liberals have decided, Dave.
They do not wish to be ‘Christians’ according to your conservative evangelical definition.
“Evangelicals still contribute proportionately more than liberals to central funds” I think “non-evangelicals” rather than “liberals” is what you mean (members of staunch BCP & Hunt Ball congregations in the Cotswolds might choke over their Daily Telegraph’ at being called liberals). But your raw data (as all raw data) may be misleading. Do you mean that, as a proportion of disposable income evangelical Anglicans contribute more than non-evangelicals? Or that the Church’s equivalent of (I think what the Bank of England used to call) M0 – that is raw cash, in which case correction would be needed to compensate for… Read more »
Dave romanticised nostalgically
“faithful and dynamic as the Early Church”
to which I reply
Rev. 3 1-6; 3 14-22; I Cor 1 10-13; 5 1-13; 6 1-6; 11 17ff….
I could go on, but on my analysis the CofE is pretty well nigh a perfect mirror of the primitive Church:-) and the efforts of the neo-puritans are an attempt to subvert us from that scriptural and apostolic tradition:-)))
Dave,
Usury? War? Two pretty big compromises there, I think. I haven’t heard of anyone being in “impaired communion” with bishops who refuse to repudiate these things. Goodness, on this site I have had people argue that usury isn’t a sin! I’ve also had conservative priests(on other boards) tell me I didn’t understand the theological justification for war! I can’t help but wonder why thius, admittedly ancient, compromise is so acceptable when modern ones aren’t.
Dear mynsterpreost, I think Simon had some official reports. Here is a newspaper report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/npriest10.xml
I might add that many larger evangelical churches also employ extra staff. This is not taken into account when calculating the “share” (which is just based on electoral role and estimated average income) – but the CofE website still claims that additional expenditure as a part of the overall expenditure of the Church: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/funding/
ps I meant the Early Church in Jerusalem (as per Martin’s reference to Ananias and Saphira)!
Dear Ford, I think you are a little fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Bible on usury – but I respect your self sacrifice if you have decided on principle not to accept interest on your savings!
On war – I think you may be a little confused if you think that the Bible condemns it! Try reading through the Old Testament and come back to me on that one!
Dave lauded “the Early Church in Jerusalem”.
You mean the one which became an irrelevance by its insistence on full ritual Jewish observance and finally vanished in one or other of the Jewish revolts? Not a good model….
Dave, tour ‘Telegraph’ link is virtually meaningless. If parish share is based on electoral roll and income, (it isn’t in this diocese btw) then wealthy metropolitan mega churches will inevitably put more into the coffers per building than St Agatha-by-the-millpond (ER 25, Pop 35) somewhere in the Norfolk fens or St Martin-by-the-security-shutter in Moss Side (80% on state benefits). The crucial statistic which I NEVER see ConsEvs coming up with is per capita giving as a proportion of disposable income, or correlated against prosperity. And since I have rather boringly raised this question once or twice never to have had… Read more »
Dear Dave, I think you are a little fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality! On war – I think you may be a little confused if you think that the Church didn’t condemn it! Try reading through the Ten Commandments and come back to me on that one! You might also want to look at the saints who, before the peace of Constantine, felt that military service and the Christian faith were incompatible. Are you seriously saying that it can be acceptable for Christians to take a human life? You might also want to look at the… Read more »