Thinking Anglicans

I’m not sure that many liberal Christians would share Andrew Lightbown’s belief in the Creeds in a literal sense. Nor his support for John Stott’s assertion that changed people change the world. To me, a true liberal is someone like Richard Holloway whose radical, liberal theology leads to a compassionate and inclusive version of faith more likely to appeal to rational people.

I disagree with Kate. As I read Bishop Sarah, I hear her writing from a personal perspective. That’s different to an egotistical piece. I would also opine that she is writing from the perspective of all women, not just her own. As the first female bishop of London, she will be criticized by many simply because she is a woman. Unlike male bishops, she will no doubt be criticized for her hair style and the color of her lipstick. Others will say that, as a woman, grooming is the only area where she is competent. God bless her!

I too like the orthodox-progressive term. My father used to describe himself as ‘theologically conservative, socially liberal’ but ‘orthodox-progressive’ better sums up where I stand. ‘Liberal’ means many different things in different contexts. Tim Farron, for example is politically liberal to the core, but theologically very conservative. That was his downfall, people couldn’t understand it. I don’t like the implication that those who believe in the tenets of the creed as describing actualities are irrational. It’s absurd to label the likes of C.S. Lewis, Arthur Peacock, Tolkien, Mother Theresa, Charles Williams, Alister McGrath, Elaine Storkey, F.F. Bruce, John Stott, Rowan… Read more »

“Virtually none of what is crafted in biblical resurrection narratives could have happened empirically or historically as described. Does not reading them in such a manner “represent a capitulation to culture” rather than a critical cross cultural engagement?” That, of course is a statement of belief rather than fact. You are assuming all sorts of physical laws: I doubt you could even list the assumptions you are making. But if one has encountered God, one knows that he is capable of anything. Just one assumption: God can do it. And that’s an assumption based on divine revelation. Both are positions… Read more »

Richard Holloway’s early books are inspiring and, like all his writings, are often beautifully poetic. He has latterly arrived at a liberal position which may not be entirely ‘orthodox’. As a doubting priest, he displays the kind of humility and spiritual profundity not often displayed in a Church obsessed with management-speak, gay sex and hateful divisions. Doubt is an essential part of faith. I totally prefer the profoundly spiritual searchings of Bishop Holloway to the arrogant certainties of much vacuous evangelicalism. In that sense, he is more ‘christian’.

Does Janet Fife honestly believe that God has hands? Apparently Our Lord Sits next to the right one. I haven’t heard any scientist claiming that God has limbs. Perhaps Ms Fife might tell us if God has a nose.

Rod, I see no contradiction in believing in the historical truth of the resurrection, while understanding that ‘at the right hand of God’ is an expression denoting the place of highest honour. That is the kind of judgement we make every day when interpreting all kinds of texts and statements. As I said, the Bible contains many kinds of literature and often communicates in metaphor and simile – as we all do. We each interpret it accordingly. If a friend tells me she ‘ran like hell’ for the bus, I understand she actually ran for the bus without having to… Read more »

“Finally,if you want to posit that it is an interventionist God who leaves us as moral agents then you are leading yourself right back into the revealed morality box canyon where there is very little room for progressive views on sexuality.” Hardly. I am commanded to love my neighbours. If they are oppressed, downtrodden or subject to discrimination, then I have an absolute obligation to do something about it. Save for the overriding commandment to love God, love thy neighbour is the highest obligation placed upon us and, as Jesus demonstrated several times, is superior to the Law if there… Read more »

Kate seems to think that the resurrection is an act which can be scientifically verified and cites theoretical physicist believers as some kind of proof. No one on this thread has mentioned science except Kate. Many scientists (and others) reject the faith precisely because dead people don’t come back to life. An experience of the Risen Christ cannot be verified in a laboratory, nor is it dependent on a literal creed or quoting biblical texts.

FrDavidH I suspect Kate is thinking of Polkinghorne, the theoretical physicist turned theologian and priest, who said ‘Once again the theistic conclusion is not logically coercive, but it can claim serious consideration as an intellectually satisfying understanding of what would be unintelligible good fortune’ when talking about the anthropic principle or the just right “Goldilocks Universe” in Belief in God in an Age of Science. I find Polkinghorne’s arguments very compelling and enlightening.