Jonathan Kennedy The Guardian The birth of Jesus would probably have been forgotten – if it wasn’t for a plague
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Living within the melancholy, long, withdrawing roar
Andrew Brown The slow deep hover There was a progressive of Riga
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Shame and the Church of England – a reflection
Andrew Brown states that ‘Marcus Walker and Ian Paul make unlikely bedfellows, but they both want to smash up the institutional church as it presently exists and replace it with something smaller.’ And I’m as gay and liberal as they come and agree with both. Perhaps the institution should begin to listen to its parish clergy and laity when they agree about this across huge theological differences? Just a thought.
The question is: What would the ” something smaller” look like? A church which blesses ( and marries?) same sex couples? Or one that does not? Arguing that someone should resign is easy. Finding a suitable successor to the person who has resigned, not so much. Would any sane person want the job? I am reminded of the Freudian slip made by ++ Coggan’s secretary who mistyped ” “enthronement” as ” enthornment.” Would Mr Paul and Mr Walker want an Archbishop of Canterbury who throws his or her weight behind PLF or seek to reverse the decisions made by GS,… Read more »
A church with half the current number of bishops and a fraction of the administration, irrespective of their stand on PLF and the money poured into mad new missionary initiative used to resource parishes properly.
Personally I would rather that any available money was used to house the homeless and feed the hungry.
How about a church in which some parishes marry same sex couples and others do not ? Surely that is the Anglican way ? If the Church of England can survive radically different beliefs about Holy Communion and if the Church of England manages with some parishes believing that women cannot be ordained as priests let alone bishops why is same sex marriage such a sticking point ? The only explanation that makes sense is a deep rooted and intractable homophobia. I wouldn’t force such people out of the Church of England because I favour a very large tent. But… Read more »
That’s a proposal rooted in clericalism. It suggests that the approach in a parish should be based on the conscience of the minister. If same sex marriage is to be allowed at all then the consciences of all members of the church need to be respected which then requires all parishes to marry same sex couples.
I feel exactly the same about the horrible PLF fudge and opt out.
You seem to be arguing for Roman Catholic style uniformity Kate but that has never been the Anglican way ever since Elizabeth I. The 39 Articles contains an explicit denial of Transubstantiation but many Anglican parishes believe it. You seem to imply that the nature of the Eucharist is less important than than same sex marriage. Many priests and many parishes deny that the marriage of same sex couples is possible in church. Do you seriously suggest that they should be forced to carry out a ceremony that they believe to be invalid ? Queen Elizabeth famously said ‘I have… Read more »
No. I am saying that the conscience of one person (even if ordained) should not override the conscience of all the individual (lay) members of a parish. Arguing that it should is manifestly clericalism, one of the root ills of the Church of England. I am not, however, saying that every minister has to marry same sex couples. They can bring in a different minister if needed for a particular service. It’s how the bishops have organised themselves for consecrations – no individual is forced to go against their conscience but there is never an obstacle to the consecration of… Read more »
What if there’s a consensus between incumbent and PCC that same sex marriage is a category error, incompatible with faithful Christianity? Ought such a parish be compelled to provide hosting for same sex marriage, should it be approved by the General Synod? I think only schism and impoverishment could conceivably result.
Of course they should be compelled. If something is acceptable somewhere in the Church of England then it has to be acceptable everywhere. Anything else is an illogical nonsense.
Utterly chilling. Not the C of E I want to inhabit!
If so compelled, the Vicar might exercise her right to preach at the ceremony and launch into some highly comminatory homiletics.
Kate, hang on. How does this sit with much else you post on this site? And you are very accepting of + Blackburn as ‘generous’ but how can that sit with ‘if something is acceptable somewhere in the CofE it has to be acceptable everywhere’. Really? I value the recognition that over the centuries of its existence we have come to see that the CofE can develop in various ways and still coexist. Telling people what they ‘must’ accept is to exclude all sorts of theologically honest differences.
No. It doesn’t. As I say, the bishops cope just fine with the diversity of theology while not blocking any woman. Despite his views, +Blackburn has no problem working with +Lancaster. All I am saying is that exactly the same acceptance should operate at parish level for LLF/PLF etc. Every congregant should have equal rights in every parish – at the moment PLF but hopefully same sex marriage soon – while at the same time ministers should have the right to stand aside from those services. (Incidentally one of the strongest reasons for stand alone services is to make standing… Read more »
I must be missing something. ‘not blocking any woman’. Really? I hope I am wrong, but what I understand is that this is not what happens if +Blackburn is at the altar and rightfully ordained women are there too. Or he is at the communion rail and a rightfully ordained woman is the celebrant. Or a bishop who has properly ordained a woman is the celebrant. Or is that a really disgraceful urban myth? Hard to tell nowadays. I hope you are right but I do wonder if experience on the ground supports your view.
Many PCCs include members who do not even live in the parish, and electoral rolls can be fiddled with no effective appeal.
This is I believe the Christian and the Anglican way to resolve apparently intractable divisions not the witch hunt you propose. “A few us began to meet: four clergy who were opposed to the ordination of women and four newly ordained women priests. Our early meetings, as you might imagine, were profoundly uncomfortable, tense and difficult. But we committed to meeting three or four times a year to share lunch, to pray together and to discuss. Our purpose was not to try and change one another’s minds, but to learn what it means to be brothers and sisters in Christ,… Read more »
Whoa! It’s entirely wrong for them to be hostile.
I don’t approve of the Society and their attitude to the ordination and consecration of women but I have not heard of them being hostile. Indeed, people normally talk of bishops like +Blackburn being generous.
The approach from some to PLF is different to that. As you say, it can be hostile. That should not be permitted.
PLF is a fudge out of necessity. Led by the Holy Spirit, the Church may one day come to a mind that solemnising same-sex marriages is compatible with the catholic doctrine of marriage. Meanwhile we should welcome PLF; blessing same-sex couples that they may be constant, faithful and fruitful – and recognise in them a third calling alongside marriage and celibacy.
Next year in Jerusalem!
Other explanations are available.
Regarding Andrew Brown’s blog, isn’t it a bit strong to sweep all evangelicals under one brush? How, indeed, would you define evangelicals?
Colin Coward’s essay is thoughtful and thought provoking. I must read several times to digest. Nothing wrong with a small apartment in Bromley. I have started to read his other articles, which I find wise.
I’ve read Andrew Brown’s article again. I think his tongue is firmly in his cheek, and he is being intentionally humorous and provocative, but with an underlying sense of reality. I have never watched ‘Lonesome dove’ but will do so – his article has a link to a scene. I know San Antonio quite well, spent a few weekends there during long business trips to Houston. Texas is nothing like the myth – very cosmopolitan, excellent food, diverse. Houston Rodeo is interesting – most cowboys were in fact black. I also know the Texas penal system – used to visit… Read more »
Many cowboys are Native American, or of Mexican descent. This has been true for a century or more. The American myth where invariably white cowboys were pitched against Indian enemies is just that – a myth.
The (mainly white, I think) homesteaders, however, tended to be unwelcome to both cowboys and Indians. They encroached on the grazing ranges of the former, and the ancestral lands of the latter.
About 25% of American cowboys were black. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cowboys
You’ll find a great many more people involved in the development of the Old West were black, English, French, German, Irish and just about every other European race than Hollywood shows! One very old western – can’t recall the title – even has a Jewish settler, who’s possibly the most sensible character in it. John Ford’s film ‘Sergeant Routledge’ is one of the very few to show accurately the number (and quality) of Afro-American soldiers in the Plains Wars – he made it for that specific purpose. Indeed, I once read that many white officers back then preferred to lead… Read more »
I stand corrected. I was prompted by Andrew Brown’s article to check out Lonesome Dove, and can highly recommend it. Particularly over this cold holiday season. Seems to be easily available on youtube.
This is always fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewthc6B9Xf8&t=6s
They have a 10k rodeo race/run beforehand, which I have run in a couple of times, then wander down to watch the parade.Weather can often be fabulous.
Nicely put, Janet. A lot of western trouble, both between homesteaders and grangers, and grangers and grangers, were over water rights, as in ‘Destry Rides Again’.
If you’re interested, Agnes Morley Cleaveland’s autobiography No Life for a Lady describes life on ranches in New Mexico from the 1880s until the 1950s. She recounts tales from Texas, too. A remarkable woman with a remarkable life in the old Wild West, when it really was wild and disputes were settled with a sixgun.
It was pleasing to see their BBC’s televised Christmas services showing the traditional face of the CofE – the incomparable Carols from Kings was shown alongside dignified masses from parishes in Warwick and Halifax. Clearly, a more common parochial experience – of a man in a suit spouting platitudes in front of a drum kit would have been less televisual. But perhaps Andrew Brown’s suggestion of a split between these two extreme is timely: a Church of England where a liberal theology is contained within a glorious liturgy is preferable to an exclusive expression of religious bigotry accompanied by guitars… Read more »
not trying to be contrary, but it comes to me naturally… I speak as an organist who played for Christmas carol services many times and auditioned for an organ scholarship at Cambridge. I still love the best of church music, although many hymns I find tedious. I see events such as the Carols from Kings as being essentally secular in nature. It is still presenting the church as some old fashioned thing to be admired from afar. I never liked the regular Sunday Songs of Worship either. I cannot imagine it would have any attraction for younger people. Religious bigotry… Read more »
Wise.
It’s not just great, it’s bloody marvellous!
Thank you. I wasn’t expecting to be cheered up by the comments section of Thinking Anglicans which is generally a pretty negative place (for quite understandable reasons); cheered both by your cheerful musical open-mindedness and honesty and also by the rather wonderful, joyous and playful Hakim.
Thank you!
Thanks. I think the whole issue of music and the arts, and how it should be used both for worship and spreading Jesus Gospel, requires much discussion, from a multitude of perspectives. Diversity is the key, together with quality. Trendy priests are the last thing anybody wants, a lot of ‘modern’ hymns have not, in my opinion, survived well, a lot of ‘christian bands’ are mediocre at best. ‘Dance’, with somebody wafting around, is embarrassing. Where do we find uplifting, spiritual, quality, music? These are not contemporary, but illustrate what I am talking about. Parental advice. Could be used maybe… Read more »
When you say ‘dance’ you are referring to the generic art form? Like ‘music’?
Im not a great fan of dance. It is like golf – a good walk spoilt. So dance is good music spoilt. But what i was talking about specifically is the spiritual dance – ladies wafting around in flowing dresses. Dance such as beyonce or kelly rowland i enjoy.
My piano teacher sold Schoenberg’s 6 Little Pieces to me by explaining that, without the distractions of melody, harmony and rhythm, they represent pure music.
Don’t you think SoP is the lowest common denominator #of religious broadcasting? A remembrance of things past, the possibility of linking in to a faith, long outgrown with residual comfort.
Quite. Offensive to nobody. Challenging to nobody.
Its fun to watch with the sound turned off. Quite good comedy sometimes.
Don’t denigrate Songs of Praise. It’s a spiritual lifeline to many of those who still very much have a living faith, but can’t get to church.
Yes, agreed. But where do they get the teaching? The prayer?
Many of the housebound people I’ve visited over the years are prayerful people. Solitude can be very conducive to a life of prayer, though of course that isn’t always the case. Many also get some teaching through their reading, or from listening to Thought for the Day. Songs of Praise fills a gap for (not surprisingly) praise and sung worship. The words are given on screen and hymns are usually pitched for congregational singing rather than performance. Having said that, SoP increasingly gives space to professional singers, and they are more difficult to sing along to.
Perhaps they already have the teaching and the prayer.
The last housebound frail woman I visited pastorally had a degree in theology and had taught RE at a secondary school for 40 years.
She had no need of help from me with teaching and prayer and was entirely self-sufficient.
Indeed – very much so during lockdown. And in recent years it has improved immensely – I was once involved in a local broadcast where if anyone mentioned genuine, personal faith, the director screamed “Cut! Forbidden!”
The essential problem – yet again – is that we all have very different tastes and ideas of what is most appropriate. Trying to find a balance is all but impossible. How we will manage it in Heaven is an interesting question, which we will have to wait and find out.
My favourite religious show of all time was ITV’ s Stars in Sunday introduced by the wonderfully pious Jess Yates on the electric organ. He once opined “Sin is naughty but nice”. He, of, course, had an extra-marital affair with an actress, and was displeased when it was revealed that his daughter Paula’s biological father was Hughie Green. I wish they’d bring back such glorious religious programmes.
What of those churches where a glorious liturgy is paired with conservative theology? Or those with a band and inclusive theology? Where will they fit in?
I suspect what you are describing represents a tiny minority. Conservative Catholics decamped to the Ordinariate and liberal happy-clappys are mostly invisible.
St James & Emmanuel Didsbury is very visible.
Quite. But in a tiny minority.
Judging by the membership of Inclusive Evangelicals, there may be more of them than you suspect.
‘The Diocese of Newcastle loses nearly a million pounds a year.’
Not challenging this assertion – but what’s the source, please?
The diocesan accounts can be found here: NEWCASTLE DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE LIMITED(THE) filing history – Find and update company information – GOV.UK
The diocese had a small surplus in 2023 and a small deficit in 2022 – but they received c.£1.5m of funding from the Commissioners/Archbishops council. Their parish shares and other income do not cover their costs.
Thanks!
I guess supporting dioceses in poorer parts of England is a good and proper use for the Commissioners’ funds?
Should every/any diocese be expected to be entirely internally self funding?
If they were, what would be the point of the commissioners’ funds?
Sam – I also found those accounts. Might I suggest your comment about ‘parish shares and other income do not cover their costs’ suggests you think that all Dioceses and parishes should cover all of their own costs for Ministry and ‘Mission’? This would seem to imply all parishes should cover their own costs. Hence the Church of England should no longer be a national Church looking after everyone. Your explanation would be appreciated.
Alistair, you have read things in my post that were not there. I simply stated as a simple fact that Newcastle diocese is dependent on central funding, I did not say this was a bad thing.
For the record I have no issue with supporting poor parishes from central resources. I do think most non-UPA parishes should be self sufficient, and if stewardship was taught and practiced this would not be a problem.
Sam Thank you for your clarification. However it is not just UPAs but also ‘poor’ rural areas. Sadly stewardship is not often taught nor preached about. In one church I led a stewardship programme which resulted in a 40% increase in giving.
Is it mostly small parishes, that are being drained by HTB via the Church Commissioners? Unless or until the C of E proper can drastically reform that, and abolish the badly misnomered Archbishops’ “Council”, it’s of no consequence whether they crown kings or not. The public that are disgusted don’t understand those two institutions, and aren’t meant to. Why exactly (in objective reason) would Christian life be stifled by some sort of lawyers? When accepting promotion to archbishop level I think any prospective appointee should have been exercising more curiosity and scepticism as to what current concrete pitfalls were in… Read more »
(Unadulterated Love) For me it’s how you act that matters. How you act tests what you believe. If a priest teaches love, humility, empathy and forgiveness from the pulpit but fails to demonstrate it in his dealings with the vulnerable then for me that is the ultimate betrayal, Theology can be a prison. It is through actions and practical witness that we can really experience and demonstrate God’s love. Theological homophobia is perhaps the cruelest prison of all and liberation will only come from the physical experience of the loving ministry of lesbian and gay priests and bishops not sterile… Read more »
Well said.
Smyth was, apparently, a powerful speaker however his homophobia and hang ups about masturbation have damaged the public face of English Christianity catastrophically. not least because of the disconnect between his nauseatingly ‘pious’ words and his utterly repulsive behaviour which seems to have been covered up by others far too keen to protect the ‘brand’ rather than the victims of his depravity.
Ironic that the brand has been so discredited by just that.
Sterile or not, liberation comes through faith in Christ alone.
Mr Smyth might have been a lot more liberated if, as a student at Cambridge, he’d got into the gay set, rather than the evangelical one. He’d probably have later settled down with a nice man and they’d have chosen wallpaper together. Instead of which he took out his sexual frustrations on his wife and children and over a hundred other victims.
What does your faith in Christ liberate you from, Adrian?
This message may be the only version of Christianity simple enough to attract enough people to churches to make them financially viable these days.
I’d rather be part of some kind of network of honest spiritual seekers and it’s a pity if the C of E will no longer be able to accommodate that in future.
Stephen Parsons’ reflection is very powerful. Thank you for sharing it here.
I’ve been mulling over Stephen Parson’s description of ‘manly’ Christianity. Jesus wept. We know that because it’s in the Bible. What do ConEvo Christians make of that verse I wonder? Do they see Jesus as effete or macho or somehow asexual which would of course undermine the doctrine of the Incarnation. Ironic that those who claim to be the most loyal to the Scriptures seem blinkered to what they read there. How do first or second tier public school educated priests accommodate the news that Jesus was born amongst the ordure of a stable and his first visitors were considered… Read more »
PS What are first and second tier public school girls taught about Jesus? How is he portrayed at Cheltenham Ladies College, at St Mary’s Ascot and Roedean? Is it the same sort of muscular Christianity advocated by the equivalent of the Iwerne Trust?
Taught, possibly, but maybe not received, Fr Dean. As evidenced by the ditty sung by generations of girls and referencing two formidable public school headmistresses, Dorothea Beale and Frances Buss:
Cupid’s darts do not feel,
Miss Buss and Miss Beale.
Oh how unlike us,
Miss Beale and Miss Buss.
Note: this is not an empirical observation on my part.
I suppose it has always been a common trope that intelligent and intellectual women must be frigid, hopefully less so nowadays. Teenagers tend to be pack animals and ebb and flow with the herd, ridiculing their teachers is an aspect of that behaviour. Perhaps Miss Buss and Miss Beale were rather more passionate than their protégées gave them credit for, I hope so. I’m not a woman and I was hoping that women who contribute to TA might offer some insight into my musings. I was educated at a mixed school and worked in a female dominated occupation when I… Read more »
Father Dean. You have raised a question which fascinates me. Is there an essential difference between men and women in the way that they relate to other people, or to God. I think this is an interesting question but one that needs to be treated with great nuance and care. It is also sadly the case that such discussions of essentialism are very much not the flavour of the month in many academic circles. Which I think is a pity. What interests me is the question of transcendence; which for me is a lessening of the boundaries of the self… Read more »
forerunners of Miss Jean Brodie!
Jonathan Kennedy’s column was a great history lesson, but … Once again he quotes the centuries-old pablum to the poor and oppressed from certain Christians of yes, you’ll suffer in this life, but you’ll be rewarded in the next. How many generations upon generation of poor and oppressed people have been had to endure that type of sermon from priests or ministers, and especially, higher levels of church leadership in comfortable surroundings shielded by their coziness to secular leaders? Mr. Kennedy then redeems himself, in my view, by talking about the works the Christians did in plague-struck communities: Tending to… Read more »
I’m very puzzled about the point of Mr Brown’s piece. I understand what the words mean, and I see what he is saying about the politics of a potential power vacuum – they’re very familiar to anyone who has ever witnessed an interregnum (or vacancy as we’re now encouraged to call them) in a parish. But what is his point, writing this in the circumstances of calls for Archiepiscopal resignations, and having yet more irrelevant, unnecessary, side swipes in passing in his campaign against +Newcastle (yawn)? He points out that some of ++Welby’s thinking about the potential future of the… Read more »
I should have also made clear my feelings about Ian Paul’s behaviour, for the avoidance of doubt. Right now he’s making noises that seem to be on the side of right. Maybe he has had a genuine change of heart, who knows? But I’m very much minded of those countries during WW2 which carefully switched sides when the tide began to turn against their more powerful allies. In my view, when a country has done that, you can never really rely on them to be by your side, especially if there has been no attempt to acknowledge previous mistakes openly… Read more »
I am reluctant to call out any individuals. It’s why my position is that all serving members of the Archbishops Council should resign. They carry collective, not individual, responsibility.
It is interesting that many in the press describe Archbishop Welby as Mr Welby. Is this because they do not know the correct title for a resigned archbishop (which he is not until 6th January), or is it a sign, in their eyes, of a priest who has gone beyond the pale?
It depends on the style guide of the individual media outlet. Many follow a convention of title + first name + last name on the first mention, and then courtesy title (Mr.,Ms.) + last name on subsequent mentions.
But the press don’t refer to, say, David Cameron as “Mr Cameron”. They know that he is “Lord Cameron”. And so it should be “Archbishop Welby”, or just “the Archbishop” if it is clear which archbishop is being referred to. (And Justin Welby is still the Archbishop for another week or so.)
It has been accepted that bishops are called “Dr” in the media, except Messrs Welby and Cottrell don’t have doctorates. Hence the “Mr”.
In the same way Popes in the past could be, and sometimes were, referred to as Dr Montini, Dr Wojtyla, Dr Ratzinger etc. I haven’t seen the present pope referred as Mr Bergoglio yet, though, except on some sedevacantist sites.
For some reason Sky Television persists in referring to “His Excellency Pope Francis”. In other fields of media ignorance we regularly see HRH instead of His/ Her Majesty and, uniquely I think, this week I have seen “Queen Elizabeth Windsor”.
In the old days, they would have been awarded some sort of, in effect, honorary doctorate by their alma mater, if they didn’t already have one. More recently, some non-scholar bishops were awarded “Lambeth” DD so they could be called Dr. It makes me feel a bit sorry for ABC and ABY that no-one fixed it for them to be called Dr !
Further to my comment above and as an example, the current style guide for The Guardian instructs as follows: “archbishops – It is not normally necessary to use their formal title, which for both Anglicans and Catholics is Most Rev: so Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, at first mention, thereafter Welby or the archbishop (except in leading articles, where he is Mr Welby); Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, on first mention, subsequently Nichols or the archbishop”. Other media outlets will have other style guides. It is quite easy to find them with the help of a good search… Read more »
I’m not sure that the Guardian is an arbiter to be relied upon in these matters. To take just one example, the correct way to refer to the Archbishop of Westminster is, surely, Cardinal Nichols.
I share your doubts.
The worst thing I saw over Christmas was a picture of the Bp of Newcastle in chasuble and mitre with the headline “the Bp of Newcastle wearing a red robe and a yellow hat”
Ii think we have a press who are either Pig ignorant, and with so many books published that tell you how to address people in certain walks of life there is no excuse for this ignorance or it is absolutely intentional and deliberate where people in the media are told to address everyone as Mr or Ms and show no preference or respect for any titles of respect in any walk of life , but bring everyone down to the same level. However if they started referring to His Majesty the king as “Mr Mountbatten Windsor” or to Pope Franicis… Read more »
I quoted this and other examples above – I have seen more today! I’m not sure that it is being deliberately offensive so much as sheer ignorance. That, in itself, is a sad reflection of widespread total unfamiliarity with the Church and its structures (irrespective of denomination) and, even more regrettably, lack of knowledge of the basic tenets of Christian beliefs.
Are you saying that not referring to Bishops with a correct title, or unfamiliarity with the Church structures, demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the basic tenets of Christian beliefs?
Or indeed saying Bishops wear dresses and silly hats?
I hope not!
My proper title is Dr., but I’m fine with being referred to as Mr. unless a formal communication.
I consider myself to be a very careful person and writer – baptised in the C of E more than 80 years ago (incidentally by a priest who met Percy Dearmer who, addressing an audience of C of E clergy, was critical of the then contemporary clerical dress!).
Perhaps unsurprisingly I am imbued in that tradition; also I am a fellow (retired) organist. I have absolutely no problem with mitres or Eucharistic vestments. I expect them when appropriate.
I may have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that these things are central to Christian beliefs. They are not, of course. I may have assumed a context when you intended none.
It is the way they refer to all bishops now. I blame the silly custom of bishops trying to make themselves more cuddly by encouraging the ‘Bishop Forename’ style instead of the proper ‘Bishop Surname’ mode. In the 20th century the press would have always referred to ‘Archbishop Ramsey’, ‘Archbishop Coggan’, ‘Archbishop Runcie’. After retirement they all became Lords so that wasn’t too difficult for journalists to cope with. Welby should now be referred to as Bishop Welby, but as no one ever uses that style now, Mr Welby seems the only formal alternative.
He will be referred to as Bishop Welby as from Midnight on Tuesday January the 7th, His resignation and Retirement have not yet taken legal effect. I saw the Privy Council Announcement online stating that the See of Canterbury will fall vacant legally on January the 7th.At Present until that Resignation has taken full legal effect he is still at present Archbishop Welby. Jonathan
Yes, midnight at the start of 7 January.
My position on resignations among AC Members is the same, but not on responsibility. Some members have made themselves very visible through actions they have taken above and beyond the collective decisions taken. Others haven’t. I don’t see it as fair to call any individual out for a decision made as part of the work of a group to which they belong, and in that group’s name. I actually disagree with attributing opinions expressed in that context, unless there is an agreed procedure for recording dissent. But I also don’t think it fair to link all members of the AC… Read more »
Lots of insightful history/commentary in A. Brown’s piece. Observations about Elizabeth’s legacy that puncture the simple ‘tolerance’ idea. The CofE’s polity is so tied up with unique cultural realities as to make it anomalous vis-a-vis all other provinces. Nothing wring with that, but worthy of evaluation given the very tensions and decline he is noting. How one ‘party’ can work it to advantage while others fall to the margins. How a certain congregationalism once functioned in a way that has been eclipsed. I have some experience of the CofE in Europe and sensed these features drifting across la Manche and… Read more »
So good of Mr Kennedy to remind us that God is Lord of history and not just an abstract idea floating somewhere in the ether. Just as he disposed things to fulfil the prophecy of the birth of his Son, so he disposed events to promote the growth of faith in that Son who was born. As Spurgeon put it, ‘God is the dictator of destinies and appoints both means and ends.’
“so [God] disposed events to promote the growth of faith in that Son who was born.” Seriously?! Isn’t a pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people, as many as 5,000 people a day just in the city of Rome, rather a drastic means for God to lead people to Jesus? Wouldn’t less drastic means have been available to an all-merciful as well as all-powerful God? Personally, I bet the plague was caused by a disease pathogen that the inhabitants of the Roman Empire had no immunity to, rather than the agency of God. I do not believe for one… Read more »
If you’re happy to believe in a God who isn’t actually in charge of the universe he made, that’s your business. I’ll stick with the God of the bible.
What a simplistic and arrogant statement! Just implying the Bible settles every question about everything leads to the smug self-righteousness beloved of many evangelicals.
It was unkind of me to be so brusque. I admit a frustration with the post-enlightenment ‘watchmaker’ approach to God which removes him from a position of action and involvement and, consequently, from an ability to aid or change things. My own piety in regard to suffering and disaster is best expressed by the ‘Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions’ of the 1662 BCP, and I’m grateful to be part of a Church where such a perspective is still tolerated, if not generally favoured.
We are not puppets. Humans have free will, even still.
Humans foul up and earthquakes and paediatric cancers are not airily dismissed with pi fundamentalism…or at least not for those with enquiring brains. Many of us relate to wrestling Jacob. (not Rees-Mogg…the biblical one)
As a former hospital chaplain I’m used to wrestling, and doing so alongside others. In most cases the best we can do is admit our ignorance of the ‘why’– God’s plan, however we may understand that phrase, is not ours. To admit this is not to dismiss, but to accept our human limitation and to adopt a posture of humility before the One who does know and understand, and who can act when we cannot.
Thanks for your honest and humble response to the criticism. I hope that all our discussions and disagreements in 2025 can be conducted in a way that is respectful and generous.
And for your comment as well.
As a current hospital chaplain I am not sure where you are taking issue with what I had said.
I do however find you earlier simplistic God of the bible etc contribution unhelpful.
You actually touched on a nerve which exercises my own mind an awful lot – the balancing of belief in a supreme, sovereign God who rules the created universe and the painful reality brought about by human sin and its exercise of its God-given free will. At times – form your own list of events – it is very difficult to see that supreme authority in action and it certainly tests my own faith to its limits at times. Part of the problem – certainly for myself and my friend peterpi -is the way it is sometimes expressed, which can… Read more »
An equal painful reality is that not brought about by human sin but by the way our (created?) world functions. And not just the suffering to humans caused by natural processes, but the suffering in the natural world caused by the (created?) drive of many species to survive by chasing, killing, and eating other creatures. Concentrating on the suffering of humans allows the get-out of blaming free will. The suffering of the rest of living creatures seems to me a much more challenging problem.
But it is surely arguable that human free will is dependent on the way that the universe works and the way that all living things behave. Animals make their choices too — even if we excuse them from moral culpability. And whilst earthquakes and floods and the like might not be caused by human activity (though they might be exacerbated by choices humans make) that too is perhaps a necessary part of bringing about the world in which at least the perception of free will exists. Pain is an inherent part of living. It is perhaps possible to imagine a… Read more »
That was the real challenge to faith of Darwin’s account of evolution — not that the world wasn’t created in seven days, but the aeons of suffering and death involved; if whole species come and go in the process, what’s the point? That challenge was too much for many Victorian Christians to continue to believe in a loving Creator, and perhaps led to the C20 turn towards Eastern-influenced spiritualities based on ideas of reincarnation and cycles of life. But for those who remain in the Judeo-Christian tradition, death must remain the enemy. So what do we say about the apparent… Read more »
“So what do we say about the apparent waste of life in creation?”
There is no “waste of life”. The matter that is the body of an animal or the substance of a plant is converted to energy and then used by another animal or plant.
A God “in charge of the universe he made”… Are you saying that God wills all human suffering, for presumably some greater good?
I would’t presume to know why; that’s God’s business and only occasionally to be understood, partially and with hindsight. I am content to admit the Creator’s prerogative and accept my own smallness.
If God is Pantocrator, then he permits human suffering, perhaps for ‘purposes’ which I would not presume to be able to articulate.
If he’s not Pantocrator, and suffering occurs against his will, and beyond any power he or anyone has to prevent it, then what does God effectively do, or mean?
He is also the God of order, rather than chaos. So most events follow a natural progression as Peter describes. God can apply an ‘override’ – we call it a miracle – but that’s the exception rather than the norm.
In Deuteronomy, Moses tells the Israelites that God has placed before them good and evil and God asks the Israelites to choose good. “Choose”. God does not say “You WILL be good!” In Leviticus, God lays out to the Israelites the consequences of obeying or disobeying God’s commandments, again implying they (and we) have a choice. Either we have free will or we don’t. And I believe God gives us absolute free will. In every action we take, we have the choice how to proceed, whether to act out of goodness and love and charity, or greed and malevolence. So… Read more »
I’m not sure the choice is between absolute freedom and absolute bondage. We are only free insofar as we have the knowledge to conceive of an action and the ability to bring it to pass. Both our minds and our bodies are bound by context and it is not within my power to make choices that I can neither imagine nor perform. Absolute freedom pertains to God alone, and even then one might want suggest that God’s will to act is bound by his character; God cannot do what is contrary to his nature. I can’t speak to the view… Read more »
Seriously, Ewan, thank you for prompting this part of the thread. It gives me something to help my thinking, as I mentioned above.
One thing does appear already – the answers to these sorts of hard questions can only be known by God alone, and our minds are too small to comprehend them. BUT that same God gave us minds, and encourages us to use them in discovering his purposes. One day, perhaps…..
(My wife says I think far too deeply on these things – but I can’t help it.)
The late Colin Urquhart made similar claims about a severe blizzard which would have fouled up one of his rallies being redirected to Britany. Apparently the harm done there didn’t matter so much as his rally going ahead.
Genuine question – does God act within his creation? Sometimes? Constantly? Never? If it’s ‘sometimes’, how do we discern between God’s action and ‘natural occurrences’? If it’s ‘never’, haven’t we given up on God being loving, or indeed anything meaningful. If it’s ‘constantly’, do we need to discern between God’s active will – things he positively does for our salvation and blessing – and his permissive will – things he allows to occur. Which may or may not be in accordance with his ultimate plan for his creation, but which can always potentially be occasions of providential encounter for those… Read more »
I am reminded of Einstein’s reaction to quantum physics–“God does not play dice with the universe”. (He was wrong about the reality of quantum physics, but the sentiment is right.)
If God uses his power to prevent or cause disasters (of all kinds), then all our science is of no avail.
Perhaps not ‘of no avail’? But stripped of its claim to ultimacy?
I meant “of no avail” in predicting or describing the natural world. Meteorology becomes a useless endeavor, perhaps even a joke. Medicine is hopeless, because our understanding of infection can be discarded. Physics is unknowable, because there is no true gravitational constant and the speed of light is subject to alteration without warning.
Just testing out some ideas here, so be kind! But I wonder if the use of the term ‘the natural world’ presupposes that there must be a realm of material, non-sensate activity, purely describable and explicable by empirical, ‘mind-less’ laws and processes? Which we then term ‘the natural world’. Once we have made the empiricist move, that world-view easily becomes fixed. The worlds of ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ then present us 2 options. Either 1. we opine that they must be epiphenomena of ‘the natural world’, thus ultimately explicable and describable by empirical laws and material processes. Or 2. we hive… Read more »
Might be helpful to bring in serious scientists who would contest the last statement. Polkinghorn et al.
(I’m also not sure it follows from Einstein’s comment).
What does Polkinghorn say about it, Christopher?
See my comment below. Polkinghorn taught me ‘strong interactions’ in 1976.
Of course, a probablistic or Bayesian approach to science is all pervasive.
Discovery of Higgs boson? It has been in the standard model for decades, so in that sense it has existed for decades. But only with the latest accelerators has there been any experiement to verify whether the predicted behaviour could be observed or not. A lot of statistics went into the evidence.
Same thing with the question ‘do quarks exist’.
I think I exist, but sometimes I am not sure…..
Which means events can occur that are hugely improbable but do not intrinsically break the ‘laws’ of physics, at least unless they occur too often …
I think that is still the god of very tiny gaps……
Although the gaps may become quite large, like whether a galaxy is formed or not … In the right hands fluctuation plus amplification can lead to very big effects.
Are you able to read books? Have a look.
As for Einstein.
‘Einstein’s God is infinitely superior but impersonal and intangible, subtle but not malicious. He is also firmly determinist. As far as Einstein was concerned, God’s ‘lawful harmony’ is established throughout the cosmos by strict adherence to the physical principles of cause and effect. Thus, there is no room in Einstein’s philosophy for free will: ‘Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control … we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.’
Only in Urdu, Christopher. Can you recommend any?
Thank you for saying this. If we believe God isn’t involved (or is only involved in the things we deem ‘good’), we’re in quite the theological pickle.
It would also be helpful if Jonathan Kennedy paid more attention to a balanced selection of historical sources in his article. If he had used Roman pagan sources in addition to Christian texts the article might have been more historically accurate and less hagiographic about how and why the Christian Church became powerful. It may well be that Christianity was helped to develop by the praiseworthy process of Christian communities helping each other in times of social stress. But many of the mystery religions in the Roman Empire were also based around similar communities. In fact some people argue that… Read more »
Thank you, Simon for your wonderful reply!
Polytheism didn’t merely fade away. Its followers were harassed and suppressed, its sacred places razed and Christian sacred places built on top.
Many wonderful things have happened, thanks to Christianity, but many tragic and evil things as well. Human enterprise, whether sacred or secular, is almost always complex and multi-faceted.
Not all the Byzantine Christians were as finicky as those at Hagia. I’ve visited some of their churches in Sicily and Assisi which quite happily assimilated materials from the older temples – indeed, if my tour guide was correct, one in the centre of Assisi was basically simply rededicated.
Something similar to those concerns regarding ‘evil energy’ or rhythms resurfaced in some elements of the Restoration movement back in the 1980s – truly there is nothing new under the sun!
I keep on being reminded of St Augustine’s wise words that Christians should not make themselves look foolish. https://harvardichthus.org/2010/09/augustine-on-faith-and-science/ On a slightly different note, speaking as a theoretical physicist, using the word ‘is’ is not a modern way to view the physical world, particularly when we start looking at elementary particles. indeed,’is’ and ‘exists’ are problematic in many areas. Does ‘2’ exist ? Is it more than the set of things which come in pairs? The question ‘is light a wave or a particle’ is a nonsense question. We observe behaviours, which conform, or not, to predictions from mathematical and… Read more »
Thank you for your comment, Nigel. What has been and is being written about our understanding of God given our modern understandings of science and philosophy matters. It is a fundamental element of my theology and, I believe, to the contemporary poverty of contemporary theology – with very few exceptions. It is a vital element of what I have been exploring on my Unadulterated Love blog https://www.unadulteratedlove.net/
Some people value this pursuit of the integral relationship between science, philosophy and theology, some are totally opposed, and the majority have yet to become sufficiently aware.
Including psychology is also important.
I really don’t know if any intellectual resolution is possible, but at least one can gain an appreciation of what is NOT supported by what St Augustine refers to as ‘science’, whis is much broader than current definitions.
This covers a lot of the ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science but does not seem to cover new thinking in the last 150 years. Maxwell’s concept of fields, and the idea of models and operators, are very radical. https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/dyson.pdf Of course, much rubbish is written on these subjects. However we understand God, it is not something found within any scientfic model. It is not something from which we can make a universal model. Physics explains a minute fraction of our human experiences. Maybe that is the sense in which Einstein made his statement. All we should ask is that theology reflects what we… Read more »
I totally agree with you regarding God as an old man with a long white beard. That is creating God in our own image. Regarding “is” and “exists”, while they may be meaningless in quantum physics, my understanding of the sacred, ineffable Hebrew word for God, Yud, Hay, Vav, Hay (YHVH), is that its root means “to be”. For me, God is pure existence, pure being, a force suffusing and underlying everything in the Universe. God is the underlying principle that organizes the Universe. How that squares with modern cosmology and physics, I do not know. But, contrary to what… Read more »
I agree. The issue is the essence, and the essence of God is ‘is’. I was just pointing out that in physics, the essence is not physical thing, but fields, as the article by Dyson explains so well. I was mainly commenting on Evan’s original comment that God disposes. That seems a very quaint, almost Newtonian, concept. In the back of mind, I was also thinking of modern knowledge of sexuality, power and abuse, and whether ‘the church’ makes itself seem ridiculous (in the Augustinian sense) when it ignores what our God-given intellects have taught us. Trying to bring us… Read more »
Schrodinger and Heidegger both put into question the ability to determine what “is”. I note the paradox of “Schrodinger’s cat” and Heidegger’s posit that the mere observing of a phenomenon alters it. For example, Heidegger said we cannot simultaneous observe the location of a particle and its speed.
There is no paradox. Dyson’s article, which I link to above, explains this much better than I can. The world is seen through very different eyes since Maxxwell. Our everyday language is insuficient to describe it. Same with religious language.
Uh. You mean Heisenberg, a different cat than Heidegger .
Yes, of course. Mea culpa
The septuagint rendered eyheh asher eyheh into “I am being” ego ha’on. The narrative life of Exodus 3 leans more in the direction–not of ontology but–of relation. “I will be as I will be with you” (faithful to myself as promise keeper). When in Exodus 32-33 God suggests he cannot maintain a relationship with a sinful people, Moses intercedes. God speaks forth his name as a promise of his ongoing life, not with Moses alone, with the entire people. Hebrew eyheh is not a nominal form (“being”) but an active verb form. It is not altogether surprising that in the… Read more »
I think you missed out the definite article in your translation, Christopher. ‘Ego eimi ho On’ is ‘I am THE being’.
No, I left out the verb. The LXX has moved a relational emphasis into a nominal terrain.
To repeat myself.
Whatever the language, the language is insufficient.
Yes, I have read a bit of Wittgenstein. ‘Not being able to speak’ does not mean ‘not feeling or knowing’
Says who? Didn’t seem insufficient to those being addressed. Quite the opposite.
Do you really think a human language is sufficient to describe the nature of God? It isn’t sufficient to even describe the nature of nature.
It is merely an inadequate attempt limited by our abilities.
Israel had no trouble whatsoever understanding what God was saying about his character. “I will be with you, as I will be with you.” They had trouble living inside that covenanted relational life, with “YHWH, YHWH, gracious and merciful.” It may be that you think Exodus is doing metaphysics. Inside the dial tone of God’s life with his people, his Name was his self. Say to them “Ehyeh immak” I am with you. Philippians says that this ‘name above every name’ was given to the Son, that at his name every knee should bow, to the glory of the Father.… Read more »
We’re getting into areas which are way beyond my level of understanding; however, there are two important things which stand out for me in the above discussion. One, that we cannot hope to define God, or our understanding of wonders too great for our language (Nigel Goodwin) and secondly, and most importantly, “I am with you”. As difficult as it is to put into human words, that is the most important message we can hear, either from scripture or in direct contact with God.
For a fuller discussion (including with Matthew Levering’s Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology) see C. Seitz, “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name: Source-Critical Logic and Its Legacy,” in Theological Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 145-61.
erratum. The English transliteration is ehyeh. I don’t have a Hebrew key board and I prefer to use Hebrew letters. It is the first-person singular form of the verb stem, The third person lies behind the tetragrammaton, YHWH, whose vowels have not been reproduced but provided with those of ‘adonai’ in the MT.
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖςτοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν
Exactly. N, V, N
Followed by
ὁ ὢν
N
ehyeh asher ehyeh
V, relative, V
I will be, as I will be (verbs are imperfect)
followed by
ehyeh
I will be
No noun forms as in
ὁ ὤν
Pronoun, Verb, ARTICLE, Adjective standing as a Noun
Pronoun, Verb, Conjunction, Pronoun, Verb
(The Pronoun is implicit in the Hebrew Verb)
The analysis of both sentences can be reduced to Subject + Predicate.
“I am what I am what I am what I am – I’m Popeye the sailor man” is somewhat more complex.
Is this all getting a bit silly?
YES.
I am trying to show the difference between a verbal emphasis in the original and a nominal one in a daughter translation.
That’s all.
Understood.
Sounds a bit like first year BD.
This whole discussion seems to be getting a bit pretentious and plagued by TA point scoring….but I do take your point!!
“Sounds a bit like first year BD.” That’s being generous! The BD students I teach aren’t anything like this. “I do take your point.” Thanks. The discussion began with assumptions about whether God is telling us that he is pure being, transcendence, and the like. This turn is accelerated when one translates the dynamic personal response of God to a question (having to do with Moses’ capacity to tell the people God’s personal name, when he comes to them) as “I am Being.” Leaving aside whether this would mean anything to them as a response, the entire flow on Exodus… Read more »
One of the things I find strangest about this discussion is that it seems to assume without question that the words recorded in the Bible (whatever they originally were and whatever they mean) are in fact the very unmediated words of God revealed in this way to “Moses” and transmitted to us with hardly a blip. But whatever the words might mean they tell us something about what the biblical writers, compilers and editors thought. Everything else is interpretation.
You might respond that that is so obvious that it didn’t even need saying or resaying.
“they tell us something about what the biblical writers, compilers and editors thought” Thank you for your question. Typically, modernity wrestles with a distinction between the world to which the Bible might be said to refer, and the narrative logic as telling us what reality is. See H. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. Or, from a different angle. H-G. Gadamer. So they would ask, ‘what happened (with an adverb )’really’? Reality is that to which the Bible refers. That could be ‘facts on the ground’, the mind of a reconstructed ‘author’ (in the case of Exodus 3, once upon… Read more »
My comment was more along the lines of questioning what appeared to me to be the underlying assumption of the earlier part of the discussion — that the record of the divine revelation to Moses was an historically accurate depiction of an event that actually happened in exactly that way. None of you said that, but it seemed to me to be implicit in the way that you were writing. I accept that that might merely be a convention of the style of discussion. Do I think that the creator of the universe spoke exactly those words to a character… Read more »
I wondered if that was what you were trying to say. Thanks for clarifying. It shows a very distinctive hermeneutic that one encounters frequently today.
Do you have an alternative interpretation? At the very least, the divine mind is greater than the limits of human understanding and language. So even if it was ‘dictated’, it will be a gross simplification. Same way as Hawking’s popular books are a gross simplification of his understanding. If Christians go around saying ‘God spoke to me directly and I wrote down what God said’ (a) they will bring Christianity into ridicule (b) they will be attending a mental health assessment. ‘Hearing voices’ is a common symptom of those with severe mental health issues, and it can lead to very… Read more »
Yes, there are alternative interpretations, including those which don’t begin with Moses being crazy, and which approach questions like this with humility and curiosity.
I don’t see this in evidence, but rather edgy and dismissive, combative language.
I am a professional theologian. I apologize for using language that is common parlance when one spends their lives in this domain. I have to remind myself that ‘Thinking Anglicans’ is an aspirational category, and this is a blog.
Thanks for the exchanges.
Best wishes.
To be clear, I was not saying Moses was crazy. I said he was a ‘little bit crazy’. I can’t think of many leaders, in business or politics or the church, who are not a little bit crazy – it is a necessary condition. i understand that ‘hearing voices’ is not sufficient for sectioning, there has to be a danger of harm to self or others. So my (b) above needs to be clarified. Unfortunately, there are many more people who commit acts of violence based on ‘hearing voices from God’ than the general population realises. Most sensible church leaders… Read more »
“It shows a very distinctive hermeneutic that one encounters frequently today.”
Is there an alternative hermeneutic? I would have thought that anything else would be nuts but am open to persuasion.
(like any random stranger who wants to know more- so I’m not looking for a book recommendation at this point)
My Yale colleague Nick Wolterstorff produced this study that might interest you. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995.
It would not be the direction I would go, but it is meant to address the angle of vision I suspect you are bringing to the biblical text.
I tried to find the article, but it seems to be behind paywalls. One link I found http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3533 which gave a perspective. I was a bit disturbed about his statement: ” Four electric guitars, an electronic keyboard, three young women holding mikes, leading us in a praise song that begins, “Oh how I appreciate you, Jesus”: do these words and this music fit Jesus, divine Son of God who dwelt among us, was crucified and rose from the dead? The music and the words are aesthetically bad. But worse, they don’t fit.” I agree with him that aesthetically, and for me… Read more »
NW is a Philosopher. What he might know about music or liturgy I have no idea. He comes from a Reformed background.
Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995.
He wrote a lot about the arts and liturgy. I followed a youtube video of him. He talks about Derrida, but i prefer Deleuze, whose magnus opus was ‘differences and repetitions’. Deleuze wrote a bit in his book on Nietzsche about what makes an artist an artist – the difference.
Yes, I see the book you have referenced, but I cannot get a copy without paying.
The reformed tradition has typically had an interest in culture. Arts. Following Kuyper.
This isn’t the skill set he brings to the main investments of his career. You can google him. There is a movement of Christian Philosophers (Adams at Oxford; Plantinga, Gifford lectures; Wolterstorff; Hare, Yale; Evans, Baylor) with which he affiliated.
Any library would have his book.
i did a lot of googling yesterday. Check his talk at https://youtu.be/9PlcW9bHQxQ?si=5KkkH31EXkfQk_Vb and specifically from 12:40. I also suggest caution when arguing from analogy. Thouless (from my Cambridge college Corpus Christi) wrote a great book, although a bit dated in style: ‘Straight and crooked thinking’. Now, take my example of Richter and his tempo. https://youtu.be/QZHq_Y–s-E?si=1WNOg3JTheYczNB4 It is marked ‘Molto moderato’. But as a commentator says, Richter goes far beyond the composer’s intentions’. So it can be viewed, in NW’s world, as incorrect. But it is art. Can we not be as relaxed about correctness when it comes to liturgy? Guitars… Read more »
I am not interested in NW for any purpose than his book. That’s because it was on the topic discussed and might appeal to those coming at questions like ‘how does God talk?’ I reviewed the book and took issue with main aspects of it. It is not the way I approach problems like this. But it seemed to be the channels you were tuned into, as best I could deduce. My colleague Childs wrote a journal article on NW and the limits of ‘speech-act’ theory. I share his cautions. That’s it for me. I have things I’d prefer doing… Read more »
I don’t think Streatham library, founded by Henry Tate, would have a copy! I listened again to his talk https://youtu.be/9PlcW9bHQxQ?si=a_K2pHBrWs8qymsB and from about 57:00 I found it rather distressing. In short, he says he wandered once into a happy clappy service, and he didn’t like it. What ever happened to diversity? It is perfectly possible, indeed admirable, to come together in a church for a period of songful worship. Not maybe every time, but on occasions fine. Mix it with prayer meetings or bible studies. Mix it with liturgical gatherings. Mix different styles of music. Listen to some professional gospel… Read more »
I really like Richter’s performances of Haydn. Most pianists seem to play the Haydn sonatas as if they are in a gurning contest, but Sviatoslav has all the manner of a deputy headmaster playing the hymn at a school assembly.
My link above is an archive. The correct link is
https://web.archive.org/web/20100620194409/http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3533
I have just picked up this thread after a Church -free Christmas…and am not really sure where (or whether) to reply because of the new life the posts about first year BDs have assumed two thirds of the way down – it was very tempting to make comments about it all being Greek to me. Christmas greetings to all, and especially those who had a miserable Christmas and/ or are victims/ survivors of clerical abuse who still look like being in pretty much the same ignored and uncompensated position in Christmas 2025 as well because the great and good of… Read more »
Thanks and well said. Yes, this thread has meandered across many mountains, plains and deserts, and lost too many souls on the way (been watching too much Lonesome Dove over the holidays). My contributions were triggered because somebody mentioned science, and I was also interested in the issue of the limitations of language when discussing transcendental issues, let alone physics issues. I don’t even know what a BD is! Bachelor of divinity? Somehow I don’t think that would interest me. Every 200 years the language and understanding of science undertakes radical transformation, yet we still use the language as quoted… Read more »
If I hadn’t made it clear, I don’t think Exodus 3 (as referenced here) has anything to do with a category like ‘transcendence.’ In many ways, it is an extra-biblical category working on different terrain. Whatever possible overlap one might strive to find with the biblical text. FWIW, that would not be my reflex at all.
Anything I said about transcendence was not referring to a particular passage of the bible, it was a general observation. If God is truly transcendent, it has many implications as to how God communicates with his people, and how God ‘behaves’ in this world. Of course, the transcendentant becoming flesh is the great wonder. The highlight of any Christmas carol service is: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word became… Read more »
Here in Jurassic Park every mass concludes with the first fourteen verses of St Johns gospel except on Crimbo morning when it is the gospel of the day.
Crimbo??
You would probably benefit from the ‘transcendental thomist’ movement in the wake of Kant, Fichte, Blondel, et al. I have often wondered if Thomas would like this trend. He was heavily invested in scriptural exegesis, wrote commentaries, had a very good account of the multiple senses of scripture, and grounds the Q/A approach in the Summa with scriptural attestation. Every age brings its specific a priori and, in the long Christian tradition, allowed this to be re-framed by scripture’s logic (Origen, Antiochenes, Augustine, Jerome, Cassiodoros, Eusebius, Bede, Aquinas, the Victorines, Bernard, Donne, Erasmus, et al). The study of the history… Read more »
Of course God also spoke in 16/17th century English, and the audience were fully cognisant of modern ideas about communication and language.
We are urged in business to ‘tell a story’ in order to market a product.
Morning, Simon. This may or may not illustrate what you’re saying. Jill (my wife) was reading Matthew 4 this morning, v 24 and said she’s never noticed before that he drew a distinction between epilepsy and demon possession. My reaction was to ask which translation she was using (ordinary NIV) as I suspected the editor had ‘updated’ the text to fit modern thinking. Comparing it to an AV showed it was indeed so – that uses ‘lunacy’. Which nicely illustrates the point that that ‘revealed word of God’ has been passed through human filters of culture and wider knowledge to… Read more »
You mention ordinary NIV. Is there an extraordinary NIV?
I was a BD student in the 60s.
Perhaps a different world!!
Have very blessed year if Trump permits(!!)
You are a bit older than me. Mine was in the 70s. Then PhD and long career teaching Biblical Interpretation. Still able to genuflect.
I hope you still do!!!
I think what you are saying is that the physical world is massively more complex than is commonly understood so it makes sense that God is too? If so, I agree.
Quite. God cannot be put into a little box. Isn’mt that what the book of Job teaches us?
The Book of Job is another thing which is massively more complex than usually thought…
The physical world does not exist. What we perceive as the physical world is the result of interactions of fields. Fields are foundational. Our day to day language is unable to describe fields, or we would be accused of pedantry! When we hold a rock and say this is a physical rock as part of the natural world, we are talking rubbish. What we ‘feel’ is an interaction between the fields defining the rock and the fields describing our hand, and the interactions between the gravitational field and the mass of the rock. We have the same language problem when… Read more »
We might not be able to describe the “physical world” in words but all of our research shows that it can be described by mathematics. There are gaps we can’t yet formulate but there is no suggestion that those gaps can’t also be described by mathematics. The same is true of instrumental music, whether that is pitch or meter. Even art has mathematical rules like the Golden Mean which underpin it. So why is mathematics so foundational? Is that God’s gift to Creation? I am a mathematician by degree. And is that part of the answer – that we each… Read more »
I don’t think it is just because you have a maths degree, Kate, that you see the importance of maths in describing the physical world. The question as to why maths, which seems to be something separate from nature, so perfectly describes nature, is (if I understand correctly) a well-known question in the philosophy of natural science. My conclusion (for what it’s worth) is that that the physical world is nothing more than the mathematics. (When I suggested this to John Polkinghorne about 25 years ago he seemed surprised and unconvinced although I subsequently read a theoretical physicist, Max Tegmark,… Read more »
All that seems a rather reductionist way of thinking. Some properties of the world are surely emergent? Living is a biochemical process in our cells (and those of every other living thing on earth) operating at a quantum mechanical scale. But life is more than that — or is it?! Stable, complex life operates “above” the world of quantum mechanics, as Schrödinger himself noted in his prescient 1943 Dublin lectures, “What is Life?”.
Hi Simon, I’m not sure what you mean here. I agree with everything you have written (including that many properties are emergent) so what I don’t understand is your first sentence.
I guess my comment was triggered by your words “the physical world is nothing more than the mathematics”.
Ah, ok. Well this suggestion doesn’t really change anything in physics except to call into question the idea that the theoretical world of maths and the physical world of physics are two different realms. So don’t worry. We’d still need physicists!
Glad to hear it. (Once upon a time I would have called myself a physicist!)
I think what I was trying to say, badly, is that there are many languages. There is a mathematical language, a language of every day words, a language of erotic love, a language of theology, a language of music etc. When we try to describe physics with the language of everyday words, we get into difficulty. When we try to describe the language of erotic love with the language of mathematics, we get into difficulties. If we cannot use the language of every day words to describe the physical world, how much more so are we unable to describe the… Read more »
When I said ‘the physical world does not exist’ I was opening up the dangers of being misinterpreted. What I meant is that the physical world is a manifestation of a much more complex (and beautiful) underlying world. In the world of electricity and magnetism, or of quantum field theory, it is the world of fields, which cannot themselves be touched or felt. I was also undermining simplistic distinctions between a physical world and other worlds. I find that theological writings often do not recognise this complexity. Indeed, these understandings only became accepted by scientists in the last ? 150… Read more »
Jimmy Carter. Evangelical Southern Baptist. RIP.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/jimmy-carter-early-progress-gay-rights-political-climate-rcna93119
Great man, great believer.
2012 he said
“Homosexuality was well-known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality,” Carter said in an interview with HuffPost at the time. “In all of his teachings about multiple things — he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.”
Remember again, a southern baptist evangelical. Maybe something to think about in these current days?
“Carter announced in 2000 he was formally severing ties with the SBC.”
Just for the record.
https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/07/24/jimmy-carter-leaves-sbc/
Thanks. Certainly not, “Remember again, a southern baptist evangelical”. A complicated person religiously and politically, especially after he left office. Politically, a dog’s breakfast. Friend of Arafat, N. Korea; enemy of Clinton and Bush both. Religiously: Stalwart anti-abortion. Much of this breathes the spirit of (American) Baptist life. Congregationalism. Individual conscience. Lots of litmus tests for born again, inerrancy, creation, but when it comes to ecclesiology or ethics, it devolves to individualism. Conscience. ‘Red letter’ sayings of Jesus. You can see the ‘creed’ of his Maranatha Plains GA church, if you google it. I doubt ‘TA’ would sign on. For… Read more »
“Though Jimmy Carter was a Baptist, he was not a conservative evangelical, and he remained a Democrat until the end of his life. Many deplore that he did not carry his personal views on abortion more fully into his public policy positions. But Carter never stopped speaking out on abortion. In his 2018 Liberty University commencement address, he condemned sex-selective abortions and lamented the “160 million girls and women who are not living today.” We must never forget the injustice of abortion, which Jimmy Carter proclaimed. May all Americans, especially Democrats, heed that voice of conscience now. And may he rest… Read more »
Beware media hagiography
Don’t Deify Jimmy Carter – Peace & Planet News
Carter’s religious zeal was a particularly good fit in the US military, where this is still very commonplace & good for promotion. US exchange officers to UK have to learn to deal with a much more irreverent service environment, and vice versa.
All three letters seem pertinent and on point.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/30/church-of-england-must-open-up-its-governance-to-scrutiny
They illustrate a spectacular level of arrogance within the church hierarchy.
The bald statement that “Einstein did not believe in free will” because everything obeys natural laws benefits from some unpacking. He famously said “The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this… Read more »
Einstein’s religiousness is a fascinating topic. He took a species of Judaism very seriously, and read widely. Like Darwin, his interest in the natural world was not ‘naturalism’ but was connected to the Creator and his mysterious and beautiful design. There was not ‘science’ here and ‘God’ over there, in the manner of much modern a priori. “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control … we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.” This quote from him is not a rejection of… Read more »
i can;t help but plug a book by my late bother inlaw, James Atwell, who was Dean at Winchester at the end of his career. I think Stephen Parsons knew him.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sources-Old-Testament-Religious-Understanding/dp/0567084736
I’m afraid I haven’t read it myself, I must purchase a copy. Gosh, seen the price. Maybe borrow from a library?
He also completed another book during his last days, he wasn;t going to alllow himself to die until he had finished writing. I don’t know the title or where to get it.
The paperback is a rather more reasonable price!
I think i will borrow my sister’s copy.
This is his final book
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/reimagining-at-the-sources-9780567711915/
With reference to the Songs of Praise discussion, it is interesting that it was originally defined as ‘Light Entertainment’ by the BBC, based on the popularity of hymn singing by people, whether religiously observant or not (cf ‘Abide with me’ at FA Cup Finals). It was only later that it was transferred to the Religion Department, much to the chagrin of many staff who saw this as a downgrade in status and career prospects. Recent developments have seen a reduction in congregational hymn-singing, and an attempt, eg through interviews with Christians, and focussing on themes, to provide a firmer religious… Read more »
Well, if it’s attracted people to singing, that would be a good thing. I live in a small town where there are several choirs of all sorts. Singing, like dancing, is a fundamental human expression, missing from too many lives. I’m a bit old for doing either in public, but I do both in the kitchen.
I used to really really hate barn dancing. But I could be seen at the hippodome disco at Leicester Square taking command of the stage. I need a few shots of vodka to warm up. Last danced like that when I was 60 in a company dinner on a boat moored in Lisbon. All the girls made a circle. I then set off to hotel for the night, stopped at another small bar along the way, carried on walking, then found myself back at starting point. Set off again and arrived at hotel at 7:00 am. Coach was leaving for… Read more »
Difficult to barn dance on a boat; more likely on a ship.
If I sing, my wife has the terrors…. more seriously, several of our local choirs are struggling to find new choir masters, and one has closed for that reason. This seems to be an ever growing social problem across the board these days.