I am a straight white man but for me Archbishop Welby has taken the wrong path. I want a national English Church that welcomes and values every human soul not just LGBTQ+ but Palestinian, Deaf, Blind, Wheelchair users every single soul of God’s creation. It is for God to judge not us. But Welby has chosen the wrong path. He has rejected unconditional love and acceptance and instead he looks for a liberal fudge that is “nice” to people who he still regards as second best. I see an authentic window into heaven at St Woolas Cathedral in.Newport and I… Read more »
When I was still on X/Twitter (I left it a couple of weeks ago), my feed was full of members of the Church of England speaking out about hospital patients being deliberately burnt alive in Gaza.
Maybe the real problem is that the Church of England has bought into a leadership culture that is foreign to the gospels. We think if the leader hasn’t said anything, nothing has been said.
The sort which lost its conscience and humanity a long, long time ago.
Remember the Tithe Wars of the 1930’s, when the CofE employed bum bailiffs to evict farmers from their homes on glebe lands when they couldn’t pay the annual fees?
That sort of body of Christ, who treats anyone who doesn’t fit its literalistic, middle class public school ideology as second class, inferior beings.
This newly published work is especially germane to your comment (and it wasn’t just tenants on glebe who were affected throughout the agricultural depression of 1878-1914 and 1919-36 when many farmers’ margins, especially in arable districts, were eviscerated [tithe rentcharge was converted to annuities at a large discount in 1936]): https://boydellandbrewer.com/9781837651870/the-tithe-war-in-england-and-wales-1881-1936/
Thanks very much for your wishes, brother. You may have noticed, some of my posts are a little tetchier and blunt just recently – the fall and injury (plus general loss of patience with a certain organisation we know rather well) are the reason why. I found out about the Tithe Wars many years ago, in a Suffolk bookshop whch had a book about the 1930’s wars. It has angered me ever since – local vicars who were well aware of the realities apparently waived or ignored the tithes, but not the senior clergy. A superb example of ‘what Jesus… Read more »
Hi John. I think you are remembering the Land Registration Act 2003 which affected the overbearing right of chancel repair liability owned by mainly mediaeval parishes. The Act required parishes (PCCs) to register chancel repair liability on the titles land that carried this liability. If it was not registered then the liability died when the land next changed hands. Charges by the Land Registry for registration were waived for 10 years, although this was a relatively minor cost of the process. As an incumbent of two village parishes with substantial chancel repair liability rights, I took on the task of… Read more »
“demanding that a house holder pay for repairs to a church building he didn’t even attend”
“Chancel repair”… There was a case in Coventry Diocese where payment from “someone” was asked for /demanded. When we bought our retirement house in 2014 I took out insurance for this. It had been glebe/tithe land and, albeit a remote possibility, we could be liable for chancel repair. Only cost around £12 but was a waste…
We informed local estate agents that we had waived our (miniscule) chancel repair liability rights, but found several years later they were still encouraging people to buy insurance policies to cover it.
I cannot know by what (real or purported) authority you claim to have waived your (or your parishes) rights; but unless you had indisputable authority to do so, it is surely right for an estate agent to recommend insurance.
Many, if not, most estate agents/solicitors offered CRL insurance, David. My guess is that it cost them more to actually check if a parcel of land had CRL registered on it than it would cost the purchaser (who pays one way or the other) for the insurance. I used to get the occasional email or phone call from people buying houses in my villages asking if their prospective property had a liability. In all cases I was able to tell them no. I’m sure CRL insurance is still being sold (in some cases because the conveyancers don’t understand the current… Read more »
Thank you for your article, Colin. You many times ask ‘How?’ I’ve been reflecting on Matthew’s gospel and what comes across to me is the primary need to open our hearts to the Love of God and let that love flow through us out to others. The stream of God’s love is in constant flow, and even little children can open their hearts to that love, and show love toward others. That is the great revelation of who God is. God is Love. What matters most is the capacity to love, day by day, and to show compassion even when… Read more »
Thank you, Susannah, for your deep reflection on Matthew’s gospel and your conviction that the “primary need (is) to open our hearts to the Love of God and let that love flow through us out to others. I fully agree with you, and in my own life, this is the conviction I follow and that inspires my own spiritual life and practice. My question “How” is more related to how on earth did the Church of England lose contact with energies and wisdoms that were very present for me in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s? I was fuelled by… Read more »
Bless you, Colin. I don’t know if you have any near to where you live, but as you practise contemplation I wonder if you might derive support, wisdom and encouragement from a religious house / contemplative order? I have found very great help and inspiration that way. It is wonderful when you discover people who ‘get’ what contemplation is about (as far as that’s humanly possible) and have depths of experience to share. Alternatively there are religious communities with very socially liberal views, some with sisters or brothers who heard their call to vocation in the very period of time… Read more »
John Davies
1 month ago
Being serious for a moment, thank you Colin for your latest piece – I can affirm your comments about broadening your reasoning by reading because that’s why I started following this site – I most certainly wouldn’t find the books you mention in my local church – and Christian bookshops are now in the dragon’s eggs category of scarcity in this area. Its interesting that you talk about the ladies of the middle ages and their views; they were of interest to some people in the 70’s, the early days of the renewal movement, for various reasons, but I don’t… Read more »
John, thank you so much for your affirming comments. I have been fortunate, I think, to have moved in circles from my teenage years where I was meeting people in the church, lay and ordained, who had adventurous spirits, deep wisdom and were pursuing profound spiritual journeys. Along the way I was introduced to the desert fathers (well, that was Westcott House in the 70s) and to the Christian mystical tradition through the centuries, usually assuming that everyone else was much better read and versed in these traditions than me (and the staff at Westcott certainly were!). Yes, Meister Ekhardt… Read more »
Thanks, Colin. I think I can safely say that just about everyone on here will be better read and versed in church traditions and specialised theology than I am. (The only Greek I know runs a local chip shop.) That’s a good reason to read it. And isn’t there a saying that one man’s heretic is another’s saint? I’ve often felt something of an ‘outsider’, particularly when the ‘Restoration’ movement (blatant male supremacy and thinly disguised fundamentalism / superstition) was gaining ground in the 80’s. Every so often I have library clear outs – and have recently re-acquired some railway… Read more »
Realist
1 month ago
Colin asks some very pertinent questions about the reading habits of conservative colleagues. Personally, I think the problem he points to stretches across all constituencies in the C of E. Rigorous theological study has been systematically and intentionally devalued and undermined by the Bishops for years, despite the valiant efforts of TEI staff, and some CMD directors. I’ve lost count of the number of newly ordained colleagues who have said their study is done and now they’re looking forward to just getting out there and doing ministry. Please note that nowhere have I used the word ‘academic’. That’s not because… Read more »
Then again, there were the words attributed to Jesus: “I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children…” And I’m not sure Simon Peter was necessarily a highly literate person or likely to have read many books/scrolls. I think he was probably a practical person. Yet he was made leader of the early Christians. The fundamental gospel is not rocket science – it’s heart. It involves opening your heart to love. ‘Unless we become like little children…’ etc That’s not to decry study,… Read more »
Surely the important thing is where we start.
I don’t see much love, compassion, empathy and welcome coming from books. But if the love, compassion, empathy and welcome are already well developed then academic study can enhance those human skills.
Priests are there to serve. You don’t learn to serve by reading books though your service will be enhanced by academic study.
If a priest doesn’t practice what she preaches then no first class degree in theology is going to fill the void.
Thanks David. My response is ‘yes and no’. I completely agree that not everything about serving or tending to the needs of others can be learned from a book. But I have experienced some incredibly ill informed incursions into pastoral care from clergy who, with some reading behind them, would have learned to discern when a mental illness that needs specialist care is present, and not plough on with the best of intentions damaging individuals. They could have learned the same things from hearing an experienced practitioner speak, or through having the opportunity to shadow mental health chaplains. That’s why… Read more »
Realist, thank you so much for your comment. If publishers are still willing to invest in 500 page tomes such as Diarmaid’s latest, there must be enough people still wanting to pay up, buy a copy, and read such lengthy, demanding and inspiring (for me at least) books. One problem, of course, is the lack of bookshops stocking a breadth of published titles. Sure, you can buy them online and to some extent browse through and come across a book you weren’t looking for that catches your attention. But for me, nothing beats the opportunity to browse in a well-stocked… Read more »
‘…blanket dumbing down isn’t the answer to redressing the balance’. I don’t at all disagree with this (but then, I’ve been a voracious reader my whole life). I do, however, recall the early years of my ministry, when my emotional intelligence was somewhat limited, and I think this led to some rather unfortunate pastoral missteps (and maybe a few for which a stronger word would be more appropriate!). It’s not hard for me to think of some colleagues who are very well-read but appear to have neglected their emotional and relational education. As I said, not disagreeing with your main… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more, Tim. Balance is absolutely what’s needed. Sadly when it comes to the view of study (as with so many other things) ‘pendulum’ seems more the order of the day. We’ve had a culture that has been arguably too middle class and exclusively centred on a book culture, so now the pendulum has to swing to decry that and proclaim ‘burn the books’ you don’t need knowledge folks! (I caricature, of course) The good friend of mine I mentioned in my first post used to say to their students ‘I wouldn’t trust my physical health to a doctor… Read more »
Sadly X Blackburn has very clear views about what others shouldn’t be allowed to do, starting with women becoming priests…. And as he had all the advantages of a public school education he of course must know better than the majority of us.
And all the time men with views like his are made diocesan bishops (probably by other men with views like his) what hope is there for a fair deal for female – or working class – priests? Still less should you tick both boxes.
Susanna that’s absolutely spot on.
And of course until 2015 they were the only ‘lords spiritual’ in the house of lords
The sexism, classisism, misogyny, queerphobia and racism in the c of e embedded into its structures is something I find abhorrent. So I avoid all it’s spaces.
We need to remove bishops from the house of lords
Well said. I find it particularly ironic that he is celebrated as a champion of estates ministry, yet would deny the same people the opportunities he has had because he thinks they aren’t what those people need. Paternalism lives – welcome to the cultural imperialism of the nineteenth century!
Kate Keates
1 month ago
I went through my own book purge six years ago and, since then, haven’t bought a single book or magazine, although I very occasionally check something out of the library. Homes are getting smaller and I can’t see many of the next generation building up large collections, of any genre. I have also gone from reading books for several hours a day, most days, to rarely reading one. In part that’s deteriorating eyesight but, for non-fiction (with the possible exception of autobiographies) I think books are an inferior format to video unless I want a very deep dive on something… Read more »
I too have given up on physical books but my life has been transformed by my Kindle and Kobo e readers. You can literally store an entire large private library on one small tablet and there are a number of other advantages. I struggle to read a paperback without glasses but on an e reader you can increase the text size. I live in Germany but I can download an e book from.anywhere in the World in a few seconds and if I travel abroad I can take my entire private library with me.
Depends what the books are, Kate. Not theological ones I know, but I can’t build miniature structures or rolling stock from a mobile phone or computer screen – can’t trust the scale for a start! I can from the drawing in a book or magazine…… (although Google Images does have its uses – French and other horse drawn vehicles for a start.) I’ll come back to this thread later, having had time to think about the wider discussions. It interests me very much as, again, I can see both sides of the coin – and somehow sense Mr Bradford and… Read more »
To pick up where I left off – If the bishop of Blackburn is being accurately quoted, then I have to say his views are rather unrealistic – life is (or should be) a lifelong learning process until the day we die and, I would imagine, an eternally continuing process in the hereafter. There will be a great many things to take in in the great beyond, surely. As for books, and people who think they’ve done with studies once they’ve got that magic piece of paper – think again, good buddy. Nobody knows it all – even Socrates said… Read more »
Simon Eyre
1 month ago
I am grateful for Miranda’s thoughtful article. Can a church change its doctrine? Of course it must have that capability. It could be a doctrine is wrong but any change needs to be on a sure footing. Are we confident that our current scholarship is superior to those who have proceeded us over hundreds of years? Peter’s vision before his visit to Cornelius was to enable him to understand what he was about to witness. Jesus had consistently taught the disciples that His coming to earth was both for Jews and Gentiles but clearly this was difficult for Peter. The… Read more »
Evan McWilliams
1 month ago
I believe it was Archbishop Ramsay who once said ‘God is Christlike, and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all.’ In saying this, he echoes Colossians 1.15. And it seems to me that to abstract God into an entity other than the God we know in Jesus Christ is a fool’s errand with an inevitably idolatrous end.
I thought all three persons of the Trinity are distinct with their own character? So God and Christ are different. To take a very specific case, Creation ability is, so far as we know, uniquely invested in the person of God and not Christlike at all.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say Kate. In standard Christian doctrine God is trinity: Father, Son and Spirit. So Christ is part of the godhead. As for creation, John’s gospel, and other bits of scripture, as well as the Nicene Creed, all agree that the second person of the Trinity was active in creation — without him was not anything made that was made; and through whom all things were made.
Continuing in Colossians 1.16: ‘For in him [that is Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.’ The contention of the epistle-writers is certainly that the God who was made known in the Jewish scriptures is revealed in fulness in Jesus Christ. The writer to the Hebrews says this: ‘In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection… Read more »
I will reply to you and Simon at the same time. Genesis and Jewish tradition is very, very clear that the Creator was YHWH. If you read Colossians and the creed carefully they don’t disagree with this but say something different, that the Creator (YHWH) made things for and through Jesus: they do NOT say that Jesus was the creator. They have distinct roles and the phrase ‘God is Christlike, and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all.’ contradicts Scripture. I can see why someone might feel it’s an academic point with no real meaning, but I disagree. One flaw,… Read more »
It is surely standard Trinitarian doctrine to consider that the God given that name is God the Trinity not God the Father? And “He who has seen me,” Jesus is reported as saying, “has seen the Father.” We might consider those to be words put into Jesus’s mouth by the gospel writer, but even so they depict the belief of at least someone in the early Church. Christianity is certainly a Trinitarian faith (though there are strands of Christian belief that lie outside Trinitarian orthodoxy). What we know about God, and what we know about God the Father, is primarily… Read more »
Oddly I have never even considered that people might see YHWH as referring to the whole Trinity, although upon research your view does seem to be dominant. Personally I can’t reconcile it with Scripture as I read it, but I respect your different viewpoint.
I might need to dig some formal theology out. So much of what people are writing on this thread is full of contradictions that the authors don’t see.
The claim fundamentally changes the resurrection. If Jesus, God the Father and the Spirit are as inseparable as many are claiming, then Jesus did not defeat death because he never died, being alive in the other two aspects. Only if Jesus was mortal at the time and separate to His Father and the Spirit can we say that He was resurrected in a way that has parallels for us.
Christian orthodoxy definitely does not hold that all the persons of the Trinity are identical or undergo the same experiences. They are each persons (each has a persona, an actor’s mask). Claiming that the Father suffered on the cross is the heresy of patripassianism.
We might not be as far apart as I thought if we agree that the three persons are all individuals, while still being collectively and individually the One God, although other commentators seem not to see that. (Is it like H2O can be water, ice or steam (leaving aside the other phases of matter). It is still H2O and chemically the same no matter its phase, but each of the phases has a separate character in some ways, nonetheless?) I still struggle though when you recognise that Jesus on the cross was not the Father on the cross but, for… Read more »
To paraphrase what Cyril wrote to Nestorius on the question of Christ’s suffering, Jesus Christ suffered and died only in his human body but not in his divinity. The divinity is incapable of experiencing suffering as for this to take place would mean that the created could impinge on the nature of the Creator and alter it in some way. Were this to be so, the divinity would not in fact be divine but merely another creature. Thus we say that Jesus died on the cross but God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, did not.
Moltmann and Bauckham (God Crucified) pushed the limits on this and went beyond them. The latter thought this was a gift from Luther, but that is a stretch. I reviewed the book in IJST when it came out.
Interesting that this discussion of a topic that is quite clearly doctrinal, and fundamentally so, has not aroused the interest of those commenters who are usually so quick to jump in and tell us ‘what the church has always taught’ — perhaps the person of Christ is not a ‘first order’ issue? This all gets curiouser and curiouser…
Or, perhaps (maybe foolishly) they imagine that orthodox trinitarianism and the doctrine of incarnation are so fundamental to Anglicanism (See Articles 1-4) that those who question them are marginal enough not to waste time countering. Whereas other assaults on the architecture of classical christianity constitute a much more pressing existential risk?
Christian theology believes God was always Trinity, a reality hinted at even in Genesis with the plural ‘let us make man in our image’. YHWH was never a monody, rather the Son and the Spirit (who was also present ‘hovering over the waters’ at creation) have always been eternally present and one with the Father.
The failure of some strains of evangelicalism to foreground the Trinitarian nature of redemption through Jesus is deeply regrettable. He comes to do the will of the Father.
Can you explain why you see Jesus as being distinct and individually named but not the same for God the Father as YHWH? Surely according to your logic Jesus is also all of the Trinity and your phrase “He comes to do the will of the Father” is meaningless?
The persons of the Trinity are one and three, and we customarily refer both to a unity of being and a diversity of personhood. We tend to explore this by means of what theologians call the ontological and economic Trinity- God as God is in Godself and God as God acts in creation and redemption. The so-called ‘Athanasian’ Creed which remains one of the three creeds of the Church of England is probably the most useful way to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn’t attempt to ‘explain’ so much as to ‘describe’, which is, at least in my… Read more »
It is ridiculous and hilarious. I dutifully read it at matins every Trinity Sunday and there is always an outbreak of snickering from my wife and the church warden at the ‘touching his manhood’ bit.
Maybe someone somewhere can explain the beginning of St John’s Gospel to me in the light of this, and whether we are unduly influenced by pre Christian philosophy over logos? Or whether it is basically poetry?
The Word was with God and the Word was God. Is that a problem, Susanna? I’m not understanding any conflict between John 1 and those verses in Colossians. Jesus and ‘the Father’ (who may also be understood as Mother) were both God from the beginning (ie: from the start of the realm we live in and in all eternity outside of time). It’s just who they are. They are community forever, sharing consciousness and givenness to each other, along with the Spirit. Three persons, one God – one consciousness and awareness and compassionate intent? I see God as multi-personal and… Read more »
Can the doctrine of the Trinity be read off the pages of the NT? All I know is that a basic principle of Trinitarian discourse is: ‘what is said about one person must be said about the others too.’
I think that God is deeply mysterious, and it does not fall to us to precisely define the nature of the Trinity and the operations of God. My attempts to express ideas (above) are just that: conjectures that reach towards understanding, not ‘boxed up’ certainties. Personally I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is self-evident in the New Testament, but the authors of the Bible were (like the rest of us) ‘trying to make sense’ of what they encountered. I don’t think they achieved ‘boxed up’ definitions of God – because which of us can? We are being drawn by… Read more »
I think we can understand certain things about God: and fundamentally, that God is compassionate and loving. What we can’t do is understand the vastness of who God is, though God may choose to share consciousness and feelings with us. What is more certain is that God understands us.
Kaon: What is the sound of one hand clapping? lol. A result for a search is below; but sometimes, one may check one’s bookshelf and get lucky. And so! From the Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol Three. Trans. & ed. by M.F. Toal. Longmans, Green, London, 1959. See Trinity Sunday III, VI; St. Augustine: The Trinity in the Baptism of Christ. (Sermon on Matthew iii.13). “What then, brethren, are we to say of God? For if you have grasped what you wish to say, it is not God. If you had been able to comprehend it, you would… Read more »
Although many things are attributed to St Augustine, often without allowing a paucity of evidence to spoil a good story, I believe this quote to be from Sermon 117, on the St John Prologue, “si comprehendis non est Deus”. A better translation in an English idiom might be: “If you think you have grasped God, it is not God you have grasped.”
If it is not Augustine I have grasped, Professor Seitz, I am happy to be corrected.
Thank you for emphasising the point that in some unfathomable way the death of Christ was a shared sacrifice. We simply cannot understand what would have been entailed – our minds haven’t the capacity. A Muslim colleague asked me once, if Jesus was God then, when God died on the cross, who was minding the shop? Like the lady Steve Chalke quoted, who thought the Father sending the Son to die was spiritual child abuse, he’d missed the point of their spiritual unity – and I think we all find it difficult to grasp. The problem is that we’re so… Read more »
In all honesty it isn’t helped by the wording for Anglican/Catholic Eucharist/mass which pretty much ignores the Trinity during the Eucharistic prayers.
The Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship are pretty explicitly Trinitarian. They begin with thanks and praise for the mighty acts of the Father, move on to the redemptive actions of the Son, and continue with the invocation of the Spirit on the eucharistic elements and on the people. Most of them end with a Trinitarian doxology.
Timothy Gorringe argues that the doctrine of the Trinity was embedded in the life of the Church for as long as the Eucharist was the norm for worship. But once the Eucharist became an occasional activity in many Protestant churches, the doctrine of the Trinity withered, becoming remote and alien; that is until the liturgical renewal of the last century.
I wonder where this leaves us at a time when much of our church appears to be losing interest in the Eucharist?
Thank you for that, Simon. I don’t think I’d noticed the implication contained in the communion prayers until you said it, but the Trinity is indeed there. Usuaully I’m concentrating on the words being said – perhaps a little too narrowly. I should have seen it before – holding in a vague sort of way to the idea of consubstantiation regarding the sacraments. In other words, I believe it works, but can’t explain it adequately enough. But to me there’s a lot more comfort and help in that view than just a simple act of remembrance. Some people argue that… Read more »
Yes, that pertains to the distinction between the imminent trinity and the economic trinity and the emphasis on the latter in liturgical renew everywhere. I rather like the liturgical turn of phrase in my mothers Union prayer book, e.g. Morning Prayers. “Jesus, the seed of Abraham, blesses the nations; Jesus, the prophet, like Moses, frees the oppressed; Jesus, The Lord of King David, leads the people; Jesus, The servant of the Lord, suffers and saves; Jesus, the Son of Man, was crucified and raised” And the doxology from the same: “Glory to the Son who became the Son of Man… Read more »
The final offertory prayer in the old rite is addressed to the Trinity, in the second person singular – “Suscipe Sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem…”
Note also that the Trinity is feminine.
‘God is Christlike, and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all.’ … to abstract God into an entity other than the God we know in Jesus Christ is a fool’s errand with an inevitably idolatrous end.
I don’t think the first thing equals the second. “Christlikeness” is, for one, perfectly capable of being expressed FEMALE.
dr.primrose
1 month ago
I have a friend who claims that the truest part of the Athanasian Creed is:
“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. … As also there are not three incomprehensibles … but … one incomprehensible.”
There’s a lovely anecdote of a Mirfield father teaching the Athanasian Creed to some schoolchildren. On reading the section you’ve quoted, he paused and said ‘Do you understand?’ To which they heartily replied, ‘Yes!’
What is perfectly comprehensible is the problematic legacy that the classic creeds have left us with regard to Christology in general and the humanity of Jesus in particular. The historical Jesus was a human person; but that is a bit of a problem with regard to the notion that the second ‘person’ of the trinity is a person with two ‘ natures’. Even if one limits oneself to a survey of the literature from the last 100 years or so alone, the philosophical fault lines are clearly comprehensible. Note, just for example, Soundings (1962) and the article by Hugh Montefiore,… Read more »
“The problems with the Chalcedonian definition continue to occupy the interests of systematic theologians. It is a dogma that is by the standards of current philosophical insight both contentless and naive.”
Which ‘systematic theologians’ of our present time are you talking about? Webster, Sonderreger, Gunton, Marshall, Bruce McCormick, David Yeago,
Thomas Joseph White O.P., Lewis Ayers et al?
I frankly don’t recognize your sweeping opinion in present-day scholarship.
I will conclude this with a sweeping statement; but first, let’s start my two previous you reference, in reverse order. The classical Christological theories indicate that (1) Jesus was born miraculously as predicated in the myth of the virgin birth and (2) That Jesus is not a human person. Rather he is a person with two ‘natures’ human and divine. ( e.g. see the Catechism of the Catholic Church). This kind of theorizing, which is intended to connect an historical figure to ‘God’, rather than to the rest of us, unfortunately makes Jesus so unique by any contemporary empirically based… Read more »
If Jesus isn’t God, we can all stop going to church and go home and put our feet up instead. Why waste time on something that’s just another manmade moral system?
There is a certain cadre of Dominicans studying just these questions – how might Jesus think of himself properly as the Son of God, as both an historical and a theological/spiritual question. Joseph Thomas White comes to mind, and his colleague at Ecole Biblique, Anthony Giambrone. There was an interesting paper on this topic at the last conference at the Angelicum. These men are in their fifties, and so are theologians pursuing not “the problems with the Chalcedonian definition” but its promise and potential, armed with modern critical tools.
May I take your sweeping rhetorical question and convert it into a personal one with a personal reply? (Then I will offer a comment on ‘man made’). I continue to participate in the life of Christian community because I continue to find the story of the man Jesus a meaningful expression of the way in which the Divine transcends our human existential predicament, modeling by way of cultural remembrance the possibility of conviviality. The Christian story tells of the Divine in terms of a cultural home –a home along the lines of the musings of Christopher Lasch, a haven from… Read more »
This is a very thoughtful personal reply for which I’m grateful, though similar things could be said by adherents of other faiths and, indeed, of none.
Thanks. Appreciate the comment. At this stage in my life, like many people in their seventies, I’m most interested in articulating how I have come to understand things for myself after a fortunately long journey. I would agree, btw, that similar things can be said both by adherents of other faiths and those who are not adherents of a religious faith as well. My perspectives on things are more the result of reflections on many pastoral encounters with and among God’s people over the years, more so than on academic theology, interesting and useful though it may be as a… Read more »
Thanks, it is as I thought. Kung, Schillebeeckx, Macquarrie — theologians from your seminary days, but most assuredly now in the long view rear-mirror. Even the once popular term “systematic theologian” has now to stand alongside Christian Philosophy, Analytical Theology, Historical Theology, Patristics (is Coakley a ‘systematic theologian’ by her own estimate?). I only mentioned a sample of names, and many others could be added (Christopher Beeley, Stephen Holmes, Alan Torrance, Alvin Plantinga, et al). “The problems with the Chalcedonian definition continue to occupy the interests of systematic theologians.” Well, no. Only a handful of modern scholars, joined by those… Read more »
The enlightenment and then modernity have identified fundamental problems with the Chalcedonian definition i.e. the undermining of the humanity of Jesus. Various strategies to salvage it’s conceptual thinking, conservative, liberal and everything in between have been and are being tried to contend with this. In the interests of intellectual credibility, and given what contemporary sciences tell us about human being as both empirically evident together with the heuristically probable, we should simply abandon as a serious insight, as unmoored speculation, the notion of a ‘person’ with two natures. Let’s more modestly focus upon biblical mythology in the context of liturgical… Read more »
In part is the confidently sweeping pronouncements about the state of our time–mistaking your own frame of mind with the world around you–that astounds me. You have cited authors now no longer turned to for sources about how we make sense of Christian claims in our day. And seem unaware of that. Godspeed (if that phrase means something).
“In part is the confidently sweeping pronouncements about the state of our time–mistaking your own frame of mind with the world around you–that astounds me.” Funny that. It seems to be going around.
“The enlightenment and then modernity have identified fundamental problems with the Chalcedonian definition i.e. the undermining of the humanity of Jesus. Various strategies to salvage it’s conceptual thinking, conservative, liberal and everything in between have been and are being tried to contend with this. In the interests of intellectual credibility, and given what contemporary sciences tell us about human being as both empirically evident together with the heuristically probable, we should simply abandon as a serious insight, as unmoored speculation, the notion of a ‘person’ with two natures. Let’s more modestly focus upon biblical mythology in the context of liturgical… Read more »
You come across as repetitious and rather frustrated. Good time to close out, I reckon. I shall take as my closing text John 19: 22 from the Gaelic bible: “An ni a sgriobh mi, sgriobh mi e.” I am really enjoying learning Scottish Gaelic and reading about Celtic Christianity. It is very relaxing, in fact, kind of Zen in a way. Take care mate.
I am a straight white man but for me Archbishop Welby has taken the wrong path. I want a national English Church that welcomes and values every human soul not just LGBTQ+ but Palestinian, Deaf, Blind, Wheelchair users every single soul of God’s creation. It is for God to judge not us. But Welby has chosen the wrong path. He has rejected unconditional love and acceptance and instead he looks for a liberal fudge that is “nice” to people who he still regards as second best. I see an authentic window into heaven at St Woolas Cathedral in.Newport and I… Read more »
When I was still on X/Twitter (I left it a couple of weeks ago), my feed was full of members of the Church of England speaking out about hospital patients being deliberately burnt alive in Gaza.
Maybe the real problem is that the Church of England has bought into a leadership culture that is foreign to the gospels. We think if the leader hasn’t said anything, nothing has been said.
The sort which lost its conscience and humanity a long, long time ago.
Remember the Tithe Wars of the 1930’s, when the CofE employed bum bailiffs to evict farmers from their homes on glebe lands when they couldn’t pay the annual fees?
That sort of body of Christ, who treats anyone who doesn’t fit its literalistic, middle class public school ideology as second class, inferior beings.
This newly published work is especially germane to your comment (and it wasn’t just tenants on glebe who were affected throughout the agricultural depression of 1878-1914 and 1919-36 when many farmers’ margins, especially in arable districts, were eviscerated [tithe rentcharge was converted to annuities at a large discount in 1936]): https://boydellandbrewer.com/9781837651870/the-tithe-war-in-england-and-wales-1881-1936/
I very much hope you make a rapid recovery.
Thanks very much for your wishes, brother. You may have noticed, some of my posts are a little tetchier and blunt just recently – the fall and injury (plus general loss of patience with a certain organisation we know rather well) are the reason why. I found out about the Tithe Wars many years ago, in a Suffolk bookshop whch had a book about the 1930’s wars. It has angered me ever since – local vicars who were well aware of the realities apparently waived or ignored the tithes, but not the senior clergy. A superb example of ‘what Jesus… Read more »
Hi John. I think you are remembering the Land Registration Act 2003 which affected the overbearing right of chancel repair liability owned by mainly mediaeval parishes. The Act required parishes (PCCs) to register chancel repair liability on the titles land that carried this liability. If it was not registered then the liability died when the land next changed hands. Charges by the Land Registry for registration were waived for 10 years, although this was a relatively minor cost of the process. As an incumbent of two village parishes with substantial chancel repair liability rights, I took on the task of… Read more »
“demanding that a house holder pay for repairs to a church building he didn’t even attend”
“Chancel repair”… There was a case in Coventry Diocese where payment from “someone” was asked for /demanded. When we bought our retirement house in 2014 I took out insurance for this. It had been glebe/tithe land and, albeit a remote possibility, we could be liable for chancel repair. Only cost around £12 but was a waste…
We informed local estate agents that we had waived our (miniscule) chancel repair liability rights, but found several years later they were still encouraging people to buy insurance policies to cover it.
I cannot know by what (real or purported) authority you claim to have waived your (or your parishes) rights; but unless you had indisputable authority to do so, it is surely right for an estate agent to recommend insurance.
Many, if not, most estate agents/solicitors offered CRL insurance, David. My guess is that it cost them more to actually check if a parcel of land had CRL registered on it than it would cost the purchaser (who pays one way or the other) for the insurance. I used to get the occasional email or phone call from people buying houses in my villages asking if their prospective property had a liability. In all cases I was able to tell them no. I’m sure CRL insurance is still being sold (in some cases because the conveyancers don’t understand the current… Read more »
It was the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank in 2003 which was the big case on chancel repair liability.
The guidance on the CofE website (https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/parish-reorganisation-and-church-property/chancel-repair-liability) urges churches to consider the pastoral implications of registration and enforcement, so it may be that much of the liability has died out.
Thank you for your article, Colin. You many times ask ‘How?’ I’ve been reflecting on Matthew’s gospel and what comes across to me is the primary need to open our hearts to the Love of God and let that love flow through us out to others. The stream of God’s love is in constant flow, and even little children can open their hearts to that love, and show love toward others. That is the great revelation of who God is. God is Love. What matters most is the capacity to love, day by day, and to show compassion even when… Read more »
Thank you, Susannah, for your deep reflection on Matthew’s gospel and your conviction that the “primary need (is) to open our hearts to the Love of God and let that love flow through us out to others. I fully agree with you, and in my own life, this is the conviction I follow and that inspires my own spiritual life and practice. My question “How” is more related to how on earth did the Church of England lose contact with energies and wisdoms that were very present for me in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s? I was fuelled by… Read more »
Bless you, Colin. I don’t know if you have any near to where you live, but as you practise contemplation I wonder if you might derive support, wisdom and encouragement from a religious house / contemplative order? I have found very great help and inspiration that way. It is wonderful when you discover people who ‘get’ what contemplation is about (as far as that’s humanly possible) and have depths of experience to share. Alternatively there are religious communities with very socially liberal views, some with sisters or brothers who heard their call to vocation in the very period of time… Read more »
Being serious for a moment, thank you Colin for your latest piece – I can affirm your comments about broadening your reasoning by reading because that’s why I started following this site – I most certainly wouldn’t find the books you mention in my local church – and Christian bookshops are now in the dragon’s eggs category of scarcity in this area. Its interesting that you talk about the ladies of the middle ages and their views; they were of interest to some people in the 70’s, the early days of the renewal movement, for various reasons, but I don’t… Read more »
John, thank you so much for your affirming comments. I have been fortunate, I think, to have moved in circles from my teenage years where I was meeting people in the church, lay and ordained, who had adventurous spirits, deep wisdom and were pursuing profound spiritual journeys. Along the way I was introduced to the desert fathers (well, that was Westcott House in the 70s) and to the Christian mystical tradition through the centuries, usually assuming that everyone else was much better read and versed in these traditions than me (and the staff at Westcott certainly were!). Yes, Meister Ekhardt… Read more »
Thanks, Colin. I think I can safely say that just about everyone on here will be better read and versed in church traditions and specialised theology than I am. (The only Greek I know runs a local chip shop.) That’s a good reason to read it. And isn’t there a saying that one man’s heretic is another’s saint? I’ve often felt something of an ‘outsider’, particularly when the ‘Restoration’ movement (blatant male supremacy and thinly disguised fundamentalism / superstition) was gaining ground in the 80’s. Every so often I have library clear outs – and have recently re-acquired some railway… Read more »
Colin asks some very pertinent questions about the reading habits of conservative colleagues. Personally, I think the problem he points to stretches across all constituencies in the C of E. Rigorous theological study has been systematically and intentionally devalued and undermined by the Bishops for years, despite the valiant efforts of TEI staff, and some CMD directors. I’ve lost count of the number of newly ordained colleagues who have said their study is done and now they’re looking forward to just getting out there and doing ministry. Please note that nowhere have I used the word ‘academic’. That’s not because… Read more »
Then again, there were the words attributed to Jesus: “I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children…” And I’m not sure Simon Peter was necessarily a highly literate person or likely to have read many books/scrolls. I think he was probably a practical person. Yet he was made leader of the early Christians. The fundamental gospel is not rocket science – it’s heart. It involves opening your heart to love. ‘Unless we become like little children…’ etc That’s not to decry study,… Read more »
Surely the important thing is where we start.
I don’t see much love, compassion, empathy and welcome coming from books. But if the love, compassion, empathy and welcome are already well developed then academic study can enhance those human skills.
Priests are there to serve. You don’t learn to serve by reading books though your service will be enhanced by academic study.
If a priest doesn’t practice what she preaches then no first class degree in theology is going to fill the void.
Thanks David. My response is ‘yes and no’. I completely agree that not everything about serving or tending to the needs of others can be learned from a book. But I have experienced some incredibly ill informed incursions into pastoral care from clergy who, with some reading behind them, would have learned to discern when a mental illness that needs specialist care is present, and not plough on with the best of intentions damaging individuals. They could have learned the same things from hearing an experienced practitioner speak, or through having the opportunity to shadow mental health chaplains. That’s why… Read more »
Realist, thank you so much for your comment. If publishers are still willing to invest in 500 page tomes such as Diarmaid’s latest, there must be enough people still wanting to pay up, buy a copy, and read such lengthy, demanding and inspiring (for me at least) books. One problem, of course, is the lack of bookshops stocking a breadth of published titles. Sure, you can buy them online and to some extent browse through and come across a book you weren’t looking for that catches your attention. But for me, nothing beats the opportunity to browse in a well-stocked… Read more »
‘…blanket dumbing down isn’t the answer to redressing the balance’. I don’t at all disagree with this (but then, I’ve been a voracious reader my whole life). I do, however, recall the early years of my ministry, when my emotional intelligence was somewhat limited, and I think this led to some rather unfortunate pastoral missteps (and maybe a few for which a stronger word would be more appropriate!). It’s not hard for me to think of some colleagues who are very well-read but appear to have neglected their emotional and relational education. As I said, not disagreeing with your main… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more, Tim. Balance is absolutely what’s needed. Sadly when it comes to the view of study (as with so many other things) ‘pendulum’ seems more the order of the day. We’ve had a culture that has been arguably too middle class and exclusively centred on a book culture, so now the pendulum has to swing to decry that and proclaim ‘burn the books’ you don’t need knowledge folks! (I caricature, of course) The good friend of mine I mentioned in my first post used to say to their students ‘I wouldn’t trust my physical health to a doctor… Read more »
Sadly X Blackburn has very clear views about what others shouldn’t be allowed to do, starting with women becoming priests…. And as he had all the advantages of a public school education he of course must know better than the majority of us.
And all the time men with views like his are made diocesan bishops (probably by other men with views like his) what hope is there for a fair deal for female – or working class – priests? Still less should you tick both boxes.
Susanna that’s absolutely spot on.
And of course until 2015 they were the only ‘lords spiritual’ in the house of lords
The sexism, classisism, misogyny, queerphobia and racism in the c of e embedded into its structures is something I find abhorrent. So I avoid all it’s spaces.
We need to remove bishops from the house of lords
Well said. I find it particularly ironic that he is celebrated as a champion of estates ministry, yet would deny the same people the opportunities he has had because he thinks they aren’t what those people need. Paternalism lives – welcome to the cultural imperialism of the nineteenth century!
I went through my own book purge six years ago and, since then, haven’t bought a single book or magazine, although I very occasionally check something out of the library. Homes are getting smaller and I can’t see many of the next generation building up large collections, of any genre. I have also gone from reading books for several hours a day, most days, to rarely reading one. In part that’s deteriorating eyesight but, for non-fiction (with the possible exception of autobiographies) I think books are an inferior format to video unless I want a very deep dive on something… Read more »
I too have given up on physical books but my life has been transformed by my Kindle and Kobo e readers. You can literally store an entire large private library on one small tablet and there are a number of other advantages. I struggle to read a paperback without glasses but on an e reader you can increase the text size. I live in Germany but I can download an e book from.anywhere in the World in a few seconds and if I travel abroad I can take my entire private library with me.
Depends what the books are, Kate. Not theological ones I know, but I can’t build miniature structures or rolling stock from a mobile phone or computer screen – can’t trust the scale for a start! I can from the drawing in a book or magazine…… (although Google Images does have its uses – French and other horse drawn vehicles for a start.) I’ll come back to this thread later, having had time to think about the wider discussions. It interests me very much as, again, I can see both sides of the coin – and somehow sense Mr Bradford and… Read more »
To pick up where I left off – If the bishop of Blackburn is being accurately quoted, then I have to say his views are rather unrealistic – life is (or should be) a lifelong learning process until the day we die and, I would imagine, an eternally continuing process in the hereafter. There will be a great many things to take in in the great beyond, surely. As for books, and people who think they’ve done with studies once they’ve got that magic piece of paper – think again, good buddy. Nobody knows it all – even Socrates said… Read more »
I am grateful for Miranda’s thoughtful article. Can a church change its doctrine? Of course it must have that capability. It could be a doctrine is wrong but any change needs to be on a sure footing. Are we confident that our current scholarship is superior to those who have proceeded us over hundreds of years? Peter’s vision before his visit to Cornelius was to enable him to understand what he was about to witness. Jesus had consistently taught the disciples that His coming to earth was both for Jews and Gentiles but clearly this was difficult for Peter. The… Read more »
I believe it was Archbishop Ramsay who once said ‘God is Christlike, and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all.’ In saying this, he echoes Colossians 1.15. And it seems to me that to abstract God into an entity other than the God we know in Jesus Christ is a fool’s errand with an inevitably idolatrous end.
I thought all three persons of the Trinity are distinct with their own character? So God and Christ are different. To take a very specific case, Creation ability is, so far as we know, uniquely invested in the person of God and not Christlike at all.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say Kate. In standard Christian doctrine God is trinity: Father, Son and Spirit. So Christ is part of the godhead. As for creation, John’s gospel, and other bits of scripture, as well as the Nicene Creed, all agree that the second person of the Trinity was active in creation — without him was not anything made that was made; and through whom all things were made.
Continuing in Colossians 1.16: ‘For in him [that is Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.’ The contention of the epistle-writers is certainly that the God who was made known in the Jewish scriptures is revealed in fulness in Jesus Christ. The writer to the Hebrews says this: ‘In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection… Read more »
I will reply to you and Simon at the same time. Genesis and Jewish tradition is very, very clear that the Creator was YHWH. If you read Colossians and the creed carefully they don’t disagree with this but say something different, that the Creator (YHWH) made things for and through Jesus: they do NOT say that Jesus was the creator. They have distinct roles and the phrase ‘God is Christlike, and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all.’ contradicts Scripture. I can see why someone might feel it’s an academic point with no real meaning, but I disagree. One flaw,… Read more »
It is surely standard Trinitarian doctrine to consider that the God given that name is God the Trinity not God the Father? And “He who has seen me,” Jesus is reported as saying, “has seen the Father.” We might consider those to be words put into Jesus’s mouth by the gospel writer, but even so they depict the belief of at least someone in the early Church. Christianity is certainly a Trinitarian faith (though there are strands of Christian belief that lie outside Trinitarian orthodoxy). What we know about God, and what we know about God the Father, is primarily… Read more »
Oddly I have never even considered that people might see YHWH as referring to the whole Trinity, although upon research your view does seem to be dominant. Personally I can’t reconcile it with Scripture as I read it, but I respect your different viewpoint.
FWIW, I have written quite a lot on this. See Elder Testament (BUP 2019).
I might need to dig some formal theology out. So much of what people are writing on this thread is full of contradictions that the authors don’t see.
The claim fundamentally changes the resurrection. If Jesus, God the Father and the Spirit are as inseparable as many are claiming, then Jesus did not defeat death because he never died, being alive in the other two aspects. Only if Jesus was mortal at the time and separate to His Father and the Spirit can we say that He was resurrected in a way that has parallels for us.
Christian orthodoxy definitely does not hold that all the persons of the Trinity are identical or undergo the same experiences. They are each persons (each has a persona, an actor’s mask). Claiming that the Father suffered on the cross is the heresy of patripassianism.
We might not be as far apart as I thought if we agree that the three persons are all individuals, while still being collectively and individually the One God, although other commentators seem not to see that. (Is it like H2O can be water, ice or steam (leaving aside the other phases of matter). It is still H2O and chemically the same no matter its phase, but each of the phases has a separate character in some ways, nonetheless?) I still struggle though when you recognise that Jesus on the cross was not the Father on the cross but, for… Read more »
To paraphrase what Cyril wrote to Nestorius on the question of Christ’s suffering, Jesus Christ suffered and died only in his human body but not in his divinity. The divinity is incapable of experiencing suffering as for this to take place would mean that the created could impinge on the nature of the Creator and alter it in some way. Were this to be so, the divinity would not in fact be divine but merely another creature. Thus we say that Jesus died on the cross but God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, did not.
Moltmann and Bauckham (God Crucified) pushed the limits on this and went beyond them. The latter thought this was a gift from Luther, but that is a stretch. I reviewed the book in IJST when it came out.
Interesting that this discussion of a topic that is quite clearly doctrinal, and fundamentally so, has not aroused the interest of those commenters who are usually so quick to jump in and tell us ‘what the church has always taught’ — perhaps the person of Christ is not a ‘first order’ issue? This all gets curiouser and curiouser…
Or, perhaps (maybe foolishly) they imagine that orthodox trinitarianism and the doctrine of incarnation are so fundamental to Anglicanism (See Articles 1-4) that those who question them are marginal enough not to waste time countering. Whereas other assaults on the architecture of classical christianity constitute a much more pressing existential risk?
Christian theology believes God was always Trinity, a reality hinted at even in Genesis with the plural ‘let us make man in our image’. YHWH was never a monody, rather the Son and the Spirit (who was also present ‘hovering over the waters’ at creation) have always been eternally present and one with the Father.
The failure of some strains of evangelicalism to foreground the Trinitarian nature of redemption through Jesus is deeply regrettable. He comes to do the will of the Father.
Can you explain why you see Jesus as being distinct and individually named but not the same for God the Father as YHWH? Surely according to your logic Jesus is also all of the Trinity and your phrase “He comes to do the will of the Father” is meaningless?
The persons of the Trinity are one and three, and we customarily refer both to a unity of being and a diversity of personhood. We tend to explore this by means of what theologians call the ontological and economic Trinity- God as God is in Godself and God as God acts in creation and redemption. The so-called ‘Athanasian’ Creed which remains one of the three creeds of the Church of England is probably the most useful way to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn’t attempt to ‘explain’ so much as to ‘describe’, which is, at least in my… Read more »
Thank you so much.
I had not come across the Athanasian Creed before. It is brilliant.
It is ridiculous and hilarious. I dutifully read it at matins every Trinity Sunday and there is always an outbreak of snickering from my wife and the church warden at the ‘touching his manhood’ bit.
I hope you have your hair pulled back when you preside for the snickering congregation. We need to be sure that first things are first things.
Ever read Colossians 1.15-16?
Yes. It clearly says that Jesus is the firstborn [son] of God. They are distinct. God made Creation for Jesus.
Maybe someone somewhere can explain the beginning of St John’s Gospel to me in the light of this, and whether we are unduly influenced by pre Christian philosophy over logos? Or whether it is basically poetry?
The Word was with God and the Word was God. Is that a problem, Susanna? I’m not understanding any conflict between John 1 and those verses in Colossians. Jesus and ‘the Father’ (who may also be understood as Mother) were both God from the beginning (ie: from the start of the realm we live in and in all eternity outside of time). It’s just who they are. They are community forever, sharing consciousness and givenness to each other, along with the Spirit. Three persons, one God – one consciousness and awareness and compassionate intent? I see God as multi-personal and… Read more »
Can the doctrine of the Trinity be read off the pages of the NT? All I know is that a basic principle of Trinitarian discourse is: ‘what is said about one person must be said about the others too.’
I think that God is deeply mysterious, and it does not fall to us to precisely define the nature of the Trinity and the operations of God. My attempts to express ideas (above) are just that: conjectures that reach towards understanding, not ‘boxed up’ certainties. Personally I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is self-evident in the New Testament, but the authors of the Bible were (like the rest of us) ‘trying to make sense’ of what they encountered. I don’t think they achieved ‘boxed up’ definitions of God – because which of us can? We are being drawn by… Read more »
“If you understand God, what you understand is not God” – St Augustine.
I think we can understand certain things about God: and fundamentally, that God is compassionate and loving. What we can’t do is understand the vastness of who God is, though God may choose to share consciousness and feelings with us. What is more certain is that God understands us.
Just out of curiosity, where is this direct quote to be found?
You can discover the answer for yourself by pasting the quote into Google
Kaon: What is the sound of one hand clapping? lol. A result for a search is below; but sometimes, one may check one’s bookshelf and get lucky. And so! From the Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol Three. Trans. & ed. by M.F. Toal. Longmans, Green, London, 1959. See Trinity Sunday III, VI; St. Augustine: The Trinity in the Baptism of Christ. (Sermon on Matthew iii.13). “What then, brethren, are we to say of God? For if you have grasped what you wish to say, it is not God. If you had been able to comprehend it, you would… Read more »
It just doesn’t sound like an Augustine who also is a liberal anglican. Perhaps there will be an answer.
Although many things are attributed to St Augustine, often without allowing a paucity of evidence to spoil a good story, I believe this quote to be from Sermon 117, on the St John Prologue, “si comprehendis non est Deus”. A better translation in an English idiom might be: “If you think you have grasped God, it is not God you have grasped.”
If it is not Augustine I have grasped, Professor Seitz, I am happy to be corrected.
Thanks, everybody, who’s taken part in this discourse. Its been really worthwhile and helpful. Much appreciated, to say the least.
The apophatic instincts of Augustine come alongside his extreme theological conservatism, not late modernity (in the wake of Kant and Fichte).
Thank you for emphasising the point that in some unfathomable way the death of Christ was a shared sacrifice. We simply cannot understand what would have been entailed – our minds haven’t the capacity. A Muslim colleague asked me once, if Jesus was God then, when God died on the cross, who was minding the shop? Like the lady Steve Chalke quoted, who thought the Father sending the Son to die was spiritual child abuse, he’d missed the point of their spiritual unity – and I think we all find it difficult to grasp. The problem is that we’re so… Read more »
In all honesty it isn’t helped by the wording for Anglican/Catholic Eucharist/mass which pretty much ignores the Trinity during the Eucharistic prayers.
The Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship are pretty explicitly Trinitarian. They begin with thanks and praise for the mighty acts of the Father, move on to the redemptive actions of the Son, and continue with the invocation of the Spirit on the eucharistic elements and on the people. Most of them end with a Trinitarian doxology.
Timothy Gorringe argues that the doctrine of the Trinity was embedded in the life of the Church for as long as the Eucharist was the norm for worship. But once the Eucharist became an occasional activity in many Protestant churches, the doctrine of the Trinity withered, becoming remote and alien; that is until the liturgical renewal of the last century.
I wonder where this leaves us at a time when much of our church appears to be losing interest in the Eucharist?
Thank you for that, Simon. I don’t think I’d noticed the implication contained in the communion prayers until you said it, but the Trinity is indeed there. Usuaully I’m concentrating on the words being said – perhaps a little too narrowly. I should have seen it before – holding in a vague sort of way to the idea of consubstantiation regarding the sacraments. In other words, I believe it works, but can’t explain it adequately enough. But to me there’s a lot more comfort and help in that view than just a simple act of remembrance. Some people argue that… Read more »
Yes, that pertains to the distinction between the imminent trinity and the economic trinity and the emphasis on the latter in liturgical renew everywhere. I rather like the liturgical turn of phrase in my mothers Union prayer book, e.g. Morning Prayers. “Jesus, the seed of Abraham, blesses the nations; Jesus, the prophet, like Moses, frees the oppressed; Jesus, The Lord of King David, leads the people; Jesus, The servant of the Lord, suffers and saves; Jesus, the Son of Man, was crucified and raised” And the doxology from the same: “Glory to the Son who became the Son of Man… Read more »
The final offertory prayer in the old rite is addressed to the Trinity, in the second person singular – “Suscipe Sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem…”
Note also that the Trinity is feminine.
I don’t think the first thing equals the second. “Christlikeness” is, for one, perfectly capable of being expressed FEMALE.
I have a friend who claims that the truest part of the Athanasian Creed is:
“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. … As also there are not three incomprehensibles … but … one incomprehensible.”
There’s a lovely anecdote of a Mirfield father teaching the Athanasian Creed to some schoolchildren. On reading the section you’ve quoted, he paused and said ‘Do you understand?’ To which they heartily replied, ‘Yes!’
What is perfectly comprehensible is the problematic legacy that the classic creeds have left us with regard to Christology in general and the humanity of Jesus in particular. The historical Jesus was a human person; but that is a bit of a problem with regard to the notion that the second ‘person’ of the trinity is a person with two ‘ natures’. Even if one limits oneself to a survey of the literature from the last 100 years or so alone, the philosophical fault lines are clearly comprehensible. Note, just for example, Soundings (1962) and the article by Hugh Montefiore,… Read more »
“The problems with the Chalcedonian definition continue to occupy the interests of systematic theologians. It is a dogma that is by the standards of current philosophical insight both contentless and naive.”
Which ‘systematic theologians’ of our present time are you talking about? Webster, Sonderreger, Gunton, Marshall, Bruce McCormick, David Yeago,
Thomas Joseph White O.P., Lewis Ayers et al?
I frankly don’t recognize your sweeping opinion in present-day scholarship.
I will conclude this with a sweeping statement; but first, let’s start my two previous you reference, in reverse order. The classical Christological theories indicate that (1) Jesus was born miraculously as predicated in the myth of the virgin birth and (2) That Jesus is not a human person. Rather he is a person with two ‘natures’ human and divine. ( e.g. see the Catechism of the Catholic Church). This kind of theorizing, which is intended to connect an historical figure to ‘God’, rather than to the rest of us, unfortunately makes Jesus so unique by any contemporary empirically based… Read more »
Sweeping enough to reply to sweepingly:
If Jesus isn’t God, we can all stop going to church and go home and put our feet up instead. Why waste time on something that’s just another manmade moral system?
There is a certain cadre of Dominicans studying just these questions – how might Jesus think of himself properly as the Son of God, as both an historical and a theological/spiritual question. Joseph Thomas White comes to mind, and his colleague at Ecole Biblique, Anthony Giambrone. There was an interesting paper on this topic at the last conference at the Angelicum. These men are in their fifties, and so are theologians pursuing not “the problems with the Chalcedonian definition” but its promise and potential, armed with modern critical tools.
May I take your sweeping rhetorical question and convert it into a personal one with a personal reply? (Then I will offer a comment on ‘man made’). I continue to participate in the life of Christian community because I continue to find the story of the man Jesus a meaningful expression of the way in which the Divine transcends our human existential predicament, modeling by way of cultural remembrance the possibility of conviviality. The Christian story tells of the Divine in terms of a cultural home –a home along the lines of the musings of Christopher Lasch, a haven from… Read more »
This is a very thoughtful personal reply for which I’m grateful, though similar things could be said by adherents of other faiths and, indeed, of none.
Thanks. Appreciate the comment. At this stage in my life, like many people in their seventies, I’m most interested in articulating how I have come to understand things for myself after a fortunately long journey. I would agree, btw, that similar things can be said both by adherents of other faiths and those who are not adherents of a religious faith as well. My perspectives on things are more the result of reflections on many pastoral encounters with and among God’s people over the years, more so than on academic theology, interesting and useful though it may be as a… Read more »
Thanks, it is as I thought. Kung, Schillebeeckx, Macquarrie — theologians from your seminary days, but most assuredly now in the long view rear-mirror. Even the once popular term “systematic theologian” has now to stand alongside Christian Philosophy, Analytical Theology, Historical Theology, Patristics (is Coakley a ‘systematic theologian’ by her own estimate?). I only mentioned a sample of names, and many others could be added (Christopher Beeley, Stephen Holmes, Alan Torrance, Alvin Plantinga, et al). “The problems with the Chalcedonian definition continue to occupy the interests of systematic theologians.” Well, no. Only a handful of modern scholars, joined by those… Read more »
The enlightenment and then modernity have identified fundamental problems with the Chalcedonian definition i.e. the undermining of the humanity of Jesus. Various strategies to salvage it’s conceptual thinking, conservative, liberal and everything in between have been and are being tried to contend with this. In the interests of intellectual credibility, and given what contemporary sciences tell us about human being as both empirically evident together with the heuristically probable, we should simply abandon as a serious insight, as unmoored speculation, the notion of a ‘person’ with two natures. Let’s more modestly focus upon biblical mythology in the context of liturgical… Read more »
In part is the confidently sweeping pronouncements about the state of our time–mistaking your own frame of mind with the world around you–that astounds me. You have cited authors now no longer turned to for sources about how we make sense of Christian claims in our day. And seem unaware of that. Godspeed (if that phrase means something).
“In part is the confidently sweeping pronouncements about the state of our time–mistaking your own frame of mind with the world around you–that astounds me.” Funny that. It seems to be going around.
“The enlightenment and then modernity have identified fundamental problems with the Chalcedonian definition i.e. the undermining of the humanity of Jesus. Various strategies to salvage it’s conceptual thinking, conservative, liberal and everything in between have been and are being tried to contend with this. In the interests of intellectual credibility, and given what contemporary sciences tell us about human being as both empirically evident together with the heuristically probable, we should simply abandon as a serious insight, as unmoored speculation, the notion of a ‘person’ with two natures. Let’s more modestly focus upon biblical mythology in the context of liturgical… Read more »
You come across as repetitious and rather frustrated. Good time to close out, I reckon. I shall take as my closing text John 19: 22 from the Gaelic bible: “An ni a sgriobh mi, sgriobh mi e.” I am really enjoying learning Scottish Gaelic and reading about Celtic Christianity. It is very relaxing, in fact, kind of Zen in a way. Take care mate.
Or, maybe not. Glad to learn that underneath all the confident pronouncements, there is a Zen waterbed.