I’ve now collected most of the Synod election results. The missing results are
Armed Services
Bath and Wells (clergy)
Carlisle
Chester (Chester archdeaconry laity)
Exeter
Gloucester
Newcastle
Norwich
Ripon and Leeds (laity)
Salisbury (laity)
Sodor & Man
Truro
Winchester (laity)
Channel Islands
London University
Other Universities (Southern)
Other Universities (Northern)
If you have any of the missing results please email them to me here.
People will be trying to analyze the new Synod. Here is an attempt by Church Society to do this for the diocesan bishops and an analysis by their general secretary David Phillips.
Interested to see on the church Soc site a “new” churchmanship—Revisionist. We`better let Ministry Division know, its not on the form they have to fill in at the end of training regarding churchmanship. perry Butler.London
A slightly more conservative Synod than the last one would be my assessment. The new Synod is smaller, but most of the conservatives remain, leaving them as a higher proportion of the whole.
OOooh, looks like I’m a liberal !!! Well, a liberal/open evangelical – if I compare my theological position with the good Bishops named.
The figures on the HoB’s composition support the view that it is heavily squewed compared to the churchmanship and theological positions of the average church member! Some of those Affirming Catholics should step down to get a more representative balance in the House.
Amazing Church Soc categories. Good evangelicals are ‘put down’/marked down as liberal or liberal/evangelical.
I could readily categorize a couple of others but won’t bother.
Site not worth a light. What it actually says is “everyone who doesn’t agree with me on the ordination of women is a liberal”(George Cassidy? Graham Dow? Mike Hill? Michael Nazir Ali? Liberal?) Beggars belief!
Pete, David Phillips doesn’t call anyone a ‘liberal’ but rather ‘liberal evangelical’ or ‘liberal catholic’ or ‘traditional Anglo-Catholic’ or ‘revisionist’. I do not think this qualified description is unfair, given the absence of anyone like Wallace Benn, a traditional ‘conservative evangelical’ on women’s ordination. I guess the preferred term of choice is ‘Open Evangelical’ but that may be a bit loaded, since ‘open’ is the opposite of ‘closed’ (as in ‘Open’ and ‘Closed Brethren’) and is a comparatively new term, while the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal evangelical’ have been around for decades. (Of course, the term ‘liberal evangelical’ once denoted… Read more »
I suppose compared to the Church Society, just about everyone else is liberal.
Personally, I’m proud to be a revisionist – of course revision is needed!
Merseymike, it depends on whose ‘vision’ is used. How do you know that your spiritual eyesight is better than those you disagree with? Your assertions can sound quite pontifical. Jesus warned against the blind leaders of the blind, meaning there is self-deception (the worship of the ego) as well as a truer perception (being in the light). Isn’t it more faithful to Christ to be humbler about our own grasp of things and to be ready to admit that we might be wrong?
Just like those conservatives with regard to sexuality and the interpretation of the Bible, Mark??!
Merseymike, the labels ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ don’t particularly bother me, because I like to think I am ‘conservative’ on some things and ‘liberal’ on others; but if I hold to a certain position, it should be because I think it is objectively true, not because I like it. My ‘conservative’ faith tells me lots of things about myself which I certainly don’t like. If I could be shown that my understanding of the Bible was mistaken, I hope I would be honest enough to change my thinking. But that is different from saying the Bible itself is mistaken in many… Read more »
Mark Beaton wrote: “If Jesus said the Bible is the Word of God and quoted it as such (Matthew 4:1-11) and “the Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35b)” You must be referring to another passage because there is no such thing in Matt 4:1-11. Moreover, John 10:35b says: ou dunatai luthenai h grafe; the scripture cannot be dissolved. So it’s not “broken”. So unless there is precisely a “prior commitment to the truth of a *particular interpretation*” with accompanying changes in the translation – such as “broken” instead of “dissolved” – your statement that “Jesus … taught that the Bible… Read more »
It is hard to imagine that the author of 2 Timothy was referring to his own letter as Scripture! It is also obvious that the various writings that Christians have regarded as Scripture are frequently self contradictory on the most obvious reading — clearly some interpretation has always been required. Also, I think many reputable Scripture scholars (not just members of the Jesus Seminar) would question whether we have the “ipsima verba” of Jesus in the Gospels (especially John & especially if our Lord spoke Aramaic rather than Greek). Proof-texting can seem to make things simpler but actually makes them… Read more »
David Phillips is quoted in the Church Times today as saying:
“I don’t feel overall that the conservative Evangelical presence is diminished. Some have lost and others gained places — from that point of view, there doesn’t seem to have been a lot of change,” …
Given his definitions, this is slightly surprising, since he himself was not re-elected.
Goran, my words were a bit concise and possibly elliptical, so let me explain. 1. In His confrontation with the devil in Matt 4.1-11, Jesus repeatedly said ‘It is written ..’ (‘gegraptai’), quoting Deuteronomy as authoritative and binding on Himself (Jesus applied the words of Scripture to Himself, not to the devil). Every commentator agrees that He did so because He treated these words as God’s words, and not merely a human composition. 2. In His confrontations with the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus often argued about the true meaning of Scripture, but never about its authority. See, for example, Matt… Read more »
Mark Beaton wrote: In His confrontation with the devil in Matt 4.1-11, Jesus repeatedly said ‘It is written…’ (‘gegraptai’), quoting Deuteronomy as authoritative and binding on Himself (Jesus applied the words of Scripture to Himself, not to the devil). Im sorry, but the second does not follow from the first. Mark Beaton wrote: Every commentator agrees that He did so because He treated these words as God’s words, and not merely a human composition. Funny that I’ve never heard anybody say this… Mark Beaton wrote: From this, two conclusions emerge: a. without exception, Jesus treated the Scriptures as true, authoritative… Read more »
Goran, you make a number of statements I don’t understand, and several which I do, which are mistaken. 1. Read this essay by John Wenham, which explains ‘Christ’s View of the Old Testament’ in huge detail: http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Wenham.html You will find scores and scores of examples there of how Jesus considered the OT to be ‘the Word of God’. One section deals specifically with the use of gegraptai in Matt 4.1-11 and pars. 2. We are not talking about a post-1560 concept; this view is very ancient, and is frequently exampled in John Chrysostom and Augustine (‘What Scripture says, God says’),… Read more »
Dear Mark Beaton, 1. There is no way that we, mere human beings, may say or assume anything about “the mind” of God. I know that this is done a lot in some circles, but it’s Blasphemy to others. We do not k n o w the views of Christ. We may infere from what he is recorded to have said, but we do not know his mind. 2. Your claims to know what “Jesus considered” the OT to be, is precisely a post 1560 idea. Calvinism. Defending Indo-European Integrism. Not how the Church reads the Bible. Augustine and Chrysostomos… Read more »
Goran, this will be my last contribution to this thread. Please email me if you wish to continue this discussion. 1. I said nothing about ‘the mind of God’, so I don’t know what you are referring to. But as for what Christ believed, if the Gospels accurately report what He said (which I believe they do), we can use our brains and powers of reason to make sense of what He said. What He said was what He thought, otherwise He was deceiving us, and I can’t believe that. What is you point here? 2. I haven’t a clue… Read more »
I agree with Mark that this discussion has gone far from the issue of the general synod elections. Please no more comments except on that matter.
I am sure Mark realises that other viewpoints than that of Wenham (and Mark) exist on issues of biblical interpretation. Wenham is not infallible.