Frank Cranmer at Law & Religion UK The House of Lords “doing God” – or, at any rate, debating religion
Simon Barrow for Ekklesia Disestablishment debate back in the spotlight
Doug Chaplin asks What would disestablishment mean?
James D Tabor writes for The Huffington Post about Christianity Before Paul.
David Pocklington at Law &Religion UK writes Of Vesture – I
Stephen Cherry compares Rowan and Justin.
It is also most unlikely that disestablishment will bring about any revival in church life. The history of the Irish and Welsh churches since disestablishment has been one of almost unremitting demographic decline and, in the Irish case, of almost total political marginalisation within the Republic. The fate of the Church of Sweden since 2000 has been similarly dispiriting. There is no reason to suppose that the Church of England, freed from the moorings of the state, and the need to preserve some pretence of a public front, should not dissolve into warring factions, should not undergo a profound financial… Read more »
If the only thing that is keeping the Church of England from collapse is Establishment, It doesn’t say much for the power of Anglicanism as a way of Christian discipleship.
The James Tabor piece was an interesting read, thanks for that. Had never put together the chronology gaps in my mind before, nor realized how isolated Paul was from all the others.
Terrific article by James Tabor. Well written. If I may, I would argue that St. Paul is the Father of Christianity. Jesus didn’t found Christianity. He didn’t worship himself, and gave mixed signals as to whether others should worship him. The earliest followers were pursuing a form of Messiah Judaism. St. Paul changed all that. His epistles predate the Gospels by 20 years or more. I’m not sure that St. Paul can conclusively be said to have believed in a Trinity. I would argue that St. Paul himself, if you read the epistles carefully, may not have believed Jesus was… Read more »
Don’t share others’ enthusiasm for Tabor’s relentless self-puffing (check out his blog). Most Anglo-Saxon NT scholars are engaged in this relentless self-promotion, and it is deeply distasteful, especially of course in the case of believers (which Tabor, to do him justice, is not). I’m afraid it’s all about selling books.
Tabor’s question about why the Creeds seem to skip over Our Lord’s life, going from birth to Passion, puzzles me. I thought that the Creeds were written in response to specific heresies. Wouldn’t the lack of a defense of that life be because no heretical group was denying his life, his existence?
I should just say that for all good or all ill (more likely a mixture o’ the two) I am resolutely against disestablishment of the Church of England.
Of course in matters such as gender equality, divorce and the performing (or not) of same sex unions the relationship may get pulled out of shape and contorted. I think the establishment of the C of E shall endure as long as the unreformed House of Lords (not quite till the end of time or maybe even as long as England exists but many many years in any case).