Internet church
Simon Robinson
Web-based church.
BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3534017.stm
The i-church site: http://www.i-church.org/
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------
Simon Robinson
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
------------------------------------------------
Richard Emblem
<lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> writes:
>Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
>Web-based church.
>
>BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3534017.stm
>The i-church site: http://www.i-church.org/
Fascinating!
Will anyone from ukrc be applying for the job?
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Tim W
news:c28qkj$4he$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
> Web-based church.
>
> BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3534017.stm
> The i-church site: http://www.i-church.org/
>
the rest of the universe with its new initiatives that have taken so long to
copy from somewhere else that they are already out of date before they get
off the ground. What ever will become of us?
Tim W
Tim W
news:c28qkj$4he$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Web-based church.
>
> BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3534017.stm
> The i-church site: http://www.i-church.org/
>
get in.
Tim W
Angela Rayner
> In article <c28qkj$4he$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Simon Robinson
> <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> writes:
>
> >Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
> >Web-based church.
> >
> >BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3534017.stm
> >The i-church site: http://www.i-church.org/
>
> Fascinating!
>
> Will anyone from ukrc be applying for the job?
I would actually be very tempted, but a) I have plans for the next few
years and b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
"Church".
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not tried to
hide the ambiguous character of my ecclesial stance, but rather I have
tried to turn it into a resource for service for Protestant and Catholic
alike. God knows what God is doing by making some of us ecclesially
homeless, but at least my homelessness has made it possible as well as
necessary for me to learn from other Christians."
Stanley Hauerwas "In Good Company"
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
> b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
>"Church".
Why? Would you be happier just calling it "church"?
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"And when you play you feel all right"
Richard Emblem
<ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>> Will anyone from ukrc be applying for the job?
>
>I would actually be very tempted, but a) I have plans for the next few
>years and b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
>"Church".
I think that a fair amount of "church" goes on here at ukrc.
Angela Rayner
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:14:27 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> > b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
> >"Church".
>
> Why? Would you be happier just calling it "church"?
There's something I can't quite articulate yet about incarnation,
bodiliness, eating together and biscuits that in some sense come together
a little more when congregations meet (and somewhat at uk.r.c meets), but
fails (by the nature of the medium) to take place online. Lent is
probably a good time to talk about this, because our focus is not yet on
the risen Christ. We may well be "Easter People", who can proclaim that
"Christ is risen", but I still think we need to figure out how best we
should celebrate and struggle with embodiment. I consider healthy touch
to be underlooked today. Healthy touch is important from one point of
view because its antithesis is violence. Compared to friends I have from
non-western cultures, I sense our Britishness seems to get in the way of
us being able to embrace, to weep and to dance. I'm not saying we
necessarily have to be more emotional, or less rational, but I do think
the charismatic movement has something to teach all of us about
liveliness! I think it was Mike Davis who pointed out some time ago that
people look so miserable after receiving the Eucharist. Having been part
of a church movement that seemed to me to insist on a very false sense of
"joy" all of the time, I recognise that the Eucharist is as much a time
for the healing of pain as it is for partying, but even still... Do we or
do we not believe we've just received Jesus? (Depends how reformed you
are I suppose ;) ). The church does not consist of isolated little
islands of people who really don't need one another, but happen to have
got stuck with one another. Instead, we're called and gathered to be a
people who know what it is to be fully human worshippers of God.
My favourite metaphor for Church is "the body of Christ" and I think this
counters the current somewhat gnostic tendency encouraged by certain
mediums of technology. I delight in embodiment. In that sense, I do not
really fit my name :-). As I said, all this is not quite clearly
articulated yet. I'd need to do some more reading around the subject to
be able to put it better than this. Some of us were talking about themes
related to this at the meet. I suppose I would also add that when the
Mass is considered to be a central act of worship within the tradition
(which is not a Protestant understanding), eating, drinking, (or being
blessed), shaking hands (I'm an Anglican, ok?), sharing pews and passing
around the money plate are all parts of the service - our service to one
another and to God. A more Protestant understanding that does not include
eating or drinking as a necessary or regular activity within worship may
consider embodiment to be less important.
Debbie, re. this topic and our conversation at the meet, there's a book
out (published in 2000) called "Jesus in Disneyland: religion in
postmodern times" by David Lyon (published by Cambridge : Polity Press in
association with Blackwell Publishers) ISBN 0745614884 or 0745614892
(pbk). I think Chapter 4 was most pertinent to what we were speaking
about. Although the angle with regard to information technology is a
negative one, I still think you might find it interesting. It seems
fairly readable, but I've not got beyond Ch. 4 because, as usual (and I'm
sure you'll sympathise), I'm supposed to be reading other things!!
David Aldred
Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes
>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:14:27 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>> > b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
>> >"Church".
>>
>> Why? Would you be happier just calling it "church"?
>
>There's something I can't quite articulate yet about incarnation,
>bodiliness, eating together and biscuits
You know, without the word 'biscuits', that would sound far too
theoretical. With it, it hits the mark nicely.
Though I'd add something about identification of the Eucharist with the
nuptial feast: the joining of the bridegroom and the bride - something
else which can't happen satisfactorily in cyberspace!
--
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@familyaldred.org.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Angela Rayner
> In message <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Angela
> Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes
> >On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:14:27 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> >> keyboard and typed:
> >>
> >> > b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
> >> >"Church".
> >>
> >> Why? Would you be happier just calling it "church"?
> >
> >There's something I can't quite articulate yet about incarnation,
> >bodiliness, eating together and biscuits
>
> You know, without the word 'biscuits', that would sound far too
> theoretical. With it, it hits the mark nicely.
:-) That was the idea! I get tired sometimes of reading reams of
academic theology that does not always take into account that a) we only
get to do theology because of the Church, and, b) theology is much more
interesting than some "experts" like to make it sound. Biscuits are
important to the children in my congregation because they do not all
receive the Eucharist prior to confirmation. Biscuits are probably also
important to those who observe the pre-Mass fasting restrictions... :-)
> Though I'd add something about identification of the Eucharist with the
> nuptial feast: the joining of the bridegroom and the bride - something
> else which can't happen satisfactorily in cyberspace!
Sure. I was sitting on my till last night when I overheard one (I presume
Roman Catholic) say (in broad outline) to another:
Person 1: "I liked the way he drew out the symbolism."
Person 2: "But I wouldn't want to say it was just symbolic. I mean it was
symolic because it's a symbol." (He implied the tautology at that point).
Person 1: "What do you mean?"
Person 2: "For example, I wouldn't want to say Jesus' consecration at the
Last Supper was just symbolic, it did actually happen."
I don't know what the "it" of the first sentence referred to, but they
were trying to work out rather briefly what symbol was. I decided that,
in the end, they were in some way getting realism (whether something
exists independently of its perception) confused with symbol, and were not
concluding that an event could have happened, whilst at the same time
still being a symbol. (I am getting to the point...)
In my speaking about "Body of Christ" being a favourite metaphor for
Church and about the importance of eating together, (I rather like the
phrase, "eating the Body to become the Body"), I hope I am implying the
symbolism that includes the nuptial banquet. However, (and I'm writing an
article about metaphor at the moment), I need you to attempt to clarify
what you are talking about. Is the bridegroom the priest (re-presenting
Christ) and the bride, the Church? Is the bridegroom Christ, and the
bride, Mary? :-) Is the bridegroom to be found in the elements and the
bride to be found in the reception of those elements? Is it all of the
above? What do you mean when you say "nuptial feast"?
Mark Goodge
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:14:27 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> > keyboard and typed:
> >
> > > b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
> > >"Church".
> >
> > Why? Would you be happier just calling it "church"?
>
> There's something I can't quite articulate yet about incarnation,
> bodiliness, eating together and biscuits that in some sense come together
> a little more when congregations meet (and somewhat at uk.r.c meets), but
> fails (by the nature of the medium) to take place online.
I understand what you're saying (I think), but, given that the Church is
the people (remember, I'm starting from an evangelical perspective
here), it seems to me that any way in which people interact with each
other can legitimately be called an expression of the Church. I don't
think it's the entirety of the Church, by any means, but I don't think
that any single expression or activity can be so described. Online
interaction is part of the Church, just as gathering for communal
worship in a cathedral, chapel, school hall or front room is part of the
Church.
> Lent is
> probably a good time to talk about this, because our focus is not yet on
> the risen Christ. We may well be "Easter People", who can proclaim that
> "Christ is risen", but I still think we need to figure out how best we
> should celebrate and struggle with embodiment. I consider healthy touch
> to be underlooked today. Healthy touch is important from one point of
> view because its antithesis is violence. Compared to friends I have from
> non-western cultures, I sense our Britishness seems to get in the way of
> us being able to embrace, to weep and to dance.
I sometimes think that my inability to dance is more to do with having
two left feet than being British :-)
> My favourite metaphor for Church is "the body of Christ" and I think this
> counters the current somewhat gnostic tendency encouraged by certain
> mediums of technology. I delight in embodiment. In that sense, I do not
> really fit my name :-). As I said, all this is not quite clearly
> articulated yet. I'd need to do some more reading around the subject to
> be able to put it better than this. Some of us were talking about themes
> related to this at the meet. I suppose I would also add that when the
> Mass is considered to be a central act of worship within the tradition
> (which is not a Protestant understanding), eating, drinking, (or being
> blessed), shaking hands (I'm an Anglican, ok?), sharing pews and passing
> around the money plate are all parts of the service - our service to one
> another and to God. A more Protestant understanding that does not include
> eating or drinking as a necessary or regular activity within worship may
> consider embodiment to be less important.
I would have theought the opposite is maybe true - the Catholic concept
of being united with all believers, both past and present, seems to me
to place less of an emphasis on embodiment than the evangelical approach
which generally points more to the physical than the the mystical.
Mark
David Aldred
Angela Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>In my speaking about "Body of Christ" being a favourite metaphor for
>Church and about the importance of eating together, (I rather like the
>phrase, "eating the Body to become the Body"), I hope I am implying the
>symbolism that includes the nuptial banquet. However, (and I'm writing
>an article about metaphor at the moment), I need you to attempt to
>clarify what you are talking about. Is the bridegroom the priest
>(re-presenting Christ) and the bride, the Church? Is the bridegroom
>Christ, and the
>bride, Mary? :-) Is the bridegroom to be found in the elements and the
>bride to be found in the reception of those elements? Is it all of the
>above? What do you mean when you say "nuptial feast"?
I think it's actually 'all of the above' to a greater or lesser degree:
perhaps most intensely the (sorry if this sounds over-physical) entry of
the body of the Bridegroom into the body of the Church: the consummation
of the love of Christ for his bride, his people. Excuse me if I seem to
wander a bit here, but it's not something I've really put into words
before.
The bit which means least to me is 'the bride, Mary': although I can see
the theological stages which lead to that being a valid statement (Mary
as type of the Church, and hence as symbol of the Bride), I think it's
one of those things which can get too easily oversimplified in
statement, and thus misunderstood!
Of course, the presbyter is representing the only true Priest, and in a
sense represents the Bridegroom too: I think that is beginning to be
expressed somewhere in the development of (Roman) Catholic thinking on
the reasons for a male-only presbyterate in the context of a theology of
the body...
The Church is the Bride, the one for whom the Bridegroom makes his
perfect sacrifice of self-giving love, to which she responds with her
own loving sacrifice of self-giving; the Bridegroom is the Priest, the
Church (in a different sense), the elements, and the Word which calls us
to know him; the Bridegroom's embrace of the Bride encompasses all that
is happening in the celebration of Mass, and the Bride in the
celebration of the Mass embraces the Bridegroom in all his and her
fullness.....
A most excellent mystery, indeed.
Angela Rayner
> Angela Rayner wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:14:27 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> > > keyboard and typed:
> > >
> > > > b) I have certain reservations with calling what is done online
> > > >"Church".
> > >
> > > Why? Would you be happier just calling it "church"?
> >
> > There's something I can't quite articulate yet about incarnation,
> > bodiliness, eating together and biscuits that in some sense come together
> > a little more when congregations meet (and somewhat at uk.r.c meets), but
> > fails (by the nature of the medium) to take place online.
>
> I understand what you're saying (I think), but, given that the Church is
> the people (remember, I'm starting from an evangelical perspective
> here), it seems to me that any way in which people interact with each
> other can legitimately be called an expression of the Church.
I also agree that the Church is the people. However, (and you might want
to ask me to be a little less pedantic), I don't think I would want to say
that /any way/ in which people interact with each other can be called an
expression of Church. I have two views on this and I don't know yet
whether they coincide. The first is that the Church is church when two or
three Christians are gathered together (thus one person alone isn't
Church). The second is that the Church, when rightly ordered, is
congregated around a particular bishop. I think these views cohere so
that I consider the Church to actually exist in places other than the RC,
Orthodox, Anglican (and Methodist?) churches, but I do not consider that
She is rightly ordered or in fullness in such other places. I may be able
to word this better in 10 weeks time! Actually, She's not in fullness
anywhere, considering that we're far too badly split to speak of fullness.
> I don't
> think it's the entirety of the Church, by any means, but I don't think
> that any single expression or activity can be so described. Online
> interaction is part of the Church, just as gathering for communal
> worship in a cathedral, chapel, school hall or front room is part of the
> Church.
I think that online interaction is part of what the Church does. However,
I would not view this in the same way as people gathered.
> I sometimes think that my inability to dance is more to do with having
> two left feet than being British :-)
I couldn't possibly comment! :-)
> I would have theought the opposite is maybe true - the Catholic concept
> of being united with all believers, both past and present, seems to me
> to place less of an emphasis on embodiment than the evangelical approach
> which generally points more to the physical than the the mystical.
As I wrote that, I thought that there are /certain/ elements in which
Protestant worship can focus better on embodiment.... However, I think
the mystical approach only works because of the embodiment. It's only by
gathering that we are reminded who isn't present... :-) I reckon this
one could be batted to and fro for a little while yet. Being united with
all believers only happens through the sacraments, which are material
gifts for a people who are material.
David Aldred
In message <404DF913...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>Angela Rayner wrote:
>>Compared to friends I have from
>> non-western cultures, I sense our Britishness seems to get in the way of
>> us being able to embrace, to weep and to dance.
>
>I sometimes think that my inability to dance is more to do with having
>two left feet than being British :-)
There's nothing un-British about dancing!
I'm in the midst of seeing if I can organise a reunion of the Durham
University Folk Dance Society for the 25th anniversary of us organising
the Inter Varsity Folk Dance Festival in 1980.
Judging by some of the responses I'm getting, dancing remains part of
life for many of us British, and seems at times to be a hereditary
matter.
Angela, I do have a certain relative, not unknown to this newsgroup,
presently at Cambridge, who I'm sure would be happy to demonstrate to
you that the British can't half dance when they want to :-)
(If he's reading this, he still hasn't let me know whether he wants a
ticket or two for the dance in aid of Parkinson's research later this
month, and I need to know very soon before they sell out. There - that
might get a reply!)
Peter Aldred
<n...@familyaldred.org.uk> writes
>Angela, I do have a certain relative, not unknown to this newsgroup,
>presently at Cambridge, who I'm sure would be happy to demonstrate to
>you that the British can't half dance when they want to :-)
Who is this other relative, and why have I not heard of him? :)
>(If he's reading this, he still hasn't let me know whether he wants a
>ticket or two for the dance in aid of Parkinson's research later this
>month, and I need to know very soon before they sell out. There - that
>might get a reply!)
He would definitely like one, but he's not sure about the second yet.
--
Peter Aldred
Nick Milton
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Angela Rayner wrote:
>>I sense our Britishness seems to get in the way of
>> us being able to embrace, to weep and to dance.
>
>I sometimes think that my inability to dance is more to do with having
>two left feet than being British :-)
Personally, I go dancing several nights a week. Usually this also
involves embracing (and occassionally weeping, when someone plants a
stiletto heel on my instep)
Nick
Ken Down
<lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> writes:
> Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
> Web-based church.
Hmmm. I've finally got round to visiting this site. It all sounds very nice
and modern and innovative until you consider the inclusivity clause -
something most churches don't have - and then remember that this is the
Oxford diocese. Wasn't that the one where there was all that hoo-ha over a
homosexual? This wouldn't be an attempt to get more homosexuals into the
Church of England, would it?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> I understand what you're saying (I think), but, given that the Church is
>> the people (remember, I'm starting from an evangelical perspective
>> here), it seems to me that any way in which people interact with each
>> other can legitimately be called an expression of the Church.
>
>I also agree that the Church is the people. However, (and you might want
>to ask me to be a little less pedantic), I don't think I would want to say
>that /any way/ in which people interact with each other can be called an
>expression of Church. I have two views on this and I don't know yet
>whether they coincide. The first is that the Church is church when two or
>three Christians are gathered together (thus one person alone isn't
>Church).
I would agree with this, with the pedantic rider that one person alone
is still a part of the Church, and as much a part of the Church as
when two or more members of the Church are gathered together.
To use an analogy, I am a part of my family even though I moved out of
my parents' home many years ago. Whenever we interact or communicate
with each other - whether in person, on the phone, or by email - it is
still an expression of that family relationship. Of course, there are
some elements of expression that require personal contact - Christmas
dinner, for example, wouldn't be the same if we all sat in individual
houses and emailed each other about it - but that doesn't make the
non-physical interaction any less family, per se. In the same way, any
interaction between members of the Church is an expression of the
Church. There are some expressions of Church which require, or benefit
from, physical presence, but that does not invalidate those
expressions which do not.
> The second is that the Church, when rightly ordered, is
>congregated around a particular bishop.
This, I would strongly reject. The Church is the Church irrespective
of the identity, location or role of any identifiable member. That the
Church may have bishops is not in doubt, but the Church does not
require the Church to have bishops in order to be the Church. To use
my family analogy again, one day my father will die. Assuming (as is
reasonable!) that the next generation are still around afterwards, we
won't cease to be family because we no longer have an (earthly)
father. And, of course, we in turn may well be at the head of our own
families, so continuing the process. But even if we dont it wouldn't
actually matter.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"We do what we like, and we like what we do"
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <c28qkj$4he$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Simon Robinson
> <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> writes:
>
> > Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
> > Web-based church.
>
> Hmmm. I've finally got round to visiting this site. It all sounds very nice
> and modern and innovative until you consider the inclusivity clause -
> something most churches don't have - and then remember that this is the
> Oxford diocese. Wasn't that the one where there was all that hoo-ha over a
> homosexual? This wouldn't be an attempt to get more homosexuals into the
> Church of England, would it?
I've just looked round the site looking for any sign that it's
"an attempt to get more homosexuals into the Church of England",
and haven't found anything. I don't see any objectionable
"inclusivity clause". Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong
place. Could you explain what you're talking about?
You do realise, don't you, that the point of this thing is to
provide some sort of contact with the Church for people who
feel left out of, or aren't willing to get into, ordinary
churches? So you should expect it to make a big deal of
inclusivity; hence statements like "Membership of the community
provides the core level of commitment to i-church, and is open
to anyone willing to make that commitment, regardless of doctrinal
allegiance.".
I did find the following statement: "i-church believes in
centre-set ministry, where anyone, regardless of faith position,
sexuality, political or geographical location, is welcome to
explore with us." Perhaps that's what you're talking about,
since it does mention sexuality. But, um, the alternative
would be to say "You may not use our web site if you're
gay" (or: if you're not quite sure about the virgin birth;
or: if you're a communist). Do you really think that this
level of inclusivity is some sort of nefarious homosexual
plot?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Paul Roberts
> In article <c28qkj$4he$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Simon Robinson
> <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> writes:
>
>> Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
>> Web-based church.
>
> Hmmm. I've finally got round to visiting this site. It all sounds
> very nice and modern and innovative until you consider the
> inclusivity clause - something most churches don't have - and then
> remember that this is the Oxford diocese. Wasn't that the one where
> there was all that hoo-ha over a homosexual? This wouldn't be an
> attempt to get more homosexuals into the Church of England, would it?
Yes, that would be terrible, wouldn't it - allowing those awful, filthy
sinners to corrupt we perfect, upstanding members of God's holy community.
Clearly homosexuals have no place in church.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Jet Wood
digg...@argonet.co.uk says...
In article <na.1a8a124c8d....@argonet.co.uk>,
digg...@argonet.co.uk says...
> In article <c28qkj$4he$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Simon Robinson
> <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> writes:
>
> > Interesting - Oxford diocese of the Church of England is setting up a
> > Web-based church.
>
> Hmmm. I've finally got round to visiting this site. It all sounds very nice
> and modern and innovative until you consider the inclusivity clause -
> something most churches don't have - and then remember that this is the
> Oxford diocese. Wasn't that the one where there was all that hoo-ha over a
> homosexual? This wouldn't be an attempt to get more homosexuals into the
> Church of England, would it?
Ken (or anyone else, really), could you explain something for me. (I
assure you this is not a trick question. I really would appreciate this
being taken seriously and answered seriously.)
The Great Commission (And Jesus came and said to them, `All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything
that I have commanded you.) is foundational, is it not?
Assuming you agree with me (dangerous, but I am not trying to trick you,
so I hope you'll play along) then:
a) Jesus speaks of all authority being given to him, and goes on
"therefore", and in so doing indicates that what follows is a statement
which cannot be confounded or challenged for its authority.
so,
b) we are to go to everyone, not to pick and choose on the basis of any
of our own preferences (or theirs)
and, inter alia,
c) we are to teach them to obey what Jesus taught (but not necessarily
what anyone else before or after him taught)
This being the case, what is the basis for objecting to including
homosexuals? (I am not aware of Jesus having told us to avoid them, and
Jesus seems to be saying that no statement that anyone else utters has
superior authority to his statements).
Nick Milton
wrote:
>Hmmm. I've finally got round to visiting this site. It all sounds very nice
>and modern and innovative until you consider the inclusivity clause -
>something most churches don't have - and then remember that this is the
>Oxford diocese. Wasn't that the one where there was all that hoo-ha over a
>homosexual? This wouldn't be an attempt to get more homosexuals into the
>Church of England, would it?
How sad that any church would need to stipulate an inclusivity clause,
rather than taking it for granted. This wouldn't be an attempt to
dispel the church of its "unwelcoming and judgmental" image, would it?
Nick
Richard Emblem
<cwy...@hotmail.com (Hotmail will automatically delete messages without "JET"
in the subject line)> writes:
>In article <na.1a8a124c8d....@argonet.co.uk>,
>digg...@argonet.co.uk says...
<snip>
Sounds to me as if you've got it dead right Jet.
We should include everyone (even you and me) and leave the judging to God.
Ken Down
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Do you really think that this
> level of inclusivity is some sort of nefarious homosexual
> plot?
Anywhere else, probably no. In the Oxford diocese I'm not so sure.
Ken Down
<cwy...@hotmail.com (Hotmail will automatically delete
> This being the case, what is the basis for objecting to including
> homosexuals? (I am not aware of Jesus having told us to avoid them, and
> Jesus seems to be saying that no statement that anyone else utters has
> superior authority to his statements).
There is no objection to preaching to or welcoming anyone who is willing to
come to Christ.
The problem comes afterwards when it is normal to expect that the person who
has come to Christ will accept certain changes in outlook and behaviour. It
is regrettable that some sections of the church - and Oxford diocese appears
to be one such place - do not think it necessary to teach basic principles
of Christian morality as taught by Scripture and tradition.
Angela Rayner
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 22:05:12 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >>
> >> I understand what you're saying (I think), but, given that the Church is
> >> the people (remember, I'm starting from an evangelical perspective
> >> here), it seems to me that any way in which people interact with each
> >> other can legitimately be called an expression of the Church.
> >
> >I also agree that the Church is the people. However, (and you might want
> >to ask me to be a little less pedantic), I don't think I would want to say
> >that /any way/ in which people interact with each other can be called an
> >expression of Church. I have two views on this and I don't know yet
> >whether they coincide. The first is that the Church is church when two or
> >three Christians are gathered together (thus one person alone isn't
> >Church).
>
> I would agree with this, with the pedantic rider that one person alone
> is still a part of the Church, and as much a part of the Church as
> when two or more members of the Church are gathered together.
I think I accept that, although I'd probably want to say something about
fullness of membership if we were to keep discussing it. I'm prepared to
let this bit rest here.
> non-physical interaction any less family, per se. In the same way, any
> interaction between members of the Church is an expression of the
> Church. There are some expressions of Church which require, or benefit
> from, physical presence, but that does not invalidate those
> expressions which do not.
My argument is that "some expressions" are more like "Church" than some
other expressions. I am loathe to call what we do over the Internet fully
"Church", although I will admit that it is a form of Christian community.
I think this may boil down to how we conceive the Church. You make
"physical presence" sound like an added extra, but I think it is essential
on one level. To use your analogy, I think it necessary to eat Christmas
dinner on a regular basis :-) (which is fortunate because I'm part of a
congregation where eating is a regular occurence, due to many festivals).
It's not that I don't value from telephone calls etc. to family, but it's
not the same as seeing them in the flesh.
> > The second is that the Church, when rightly ordered, is
> >congregated around a particular bishop.
>
> This, I would strongly reject.
Well, I suppose I have to praise God that some things don't change :-).
I fully expected you to strongly reject it. It's not even biblical in one
sense because my expectation that Church should look like this comes from
Church teaching, not only that this model is biblical, but also that it is
normative. However, if you were going to read the Bible from the
perspective of somebody seeking for different models of Church government
from it, I reckon it would be easy to argue for other forms of Church
government... The important word to me is "normative" and the question
"who gets to say?" is a very good one to ask Anglicans. We're actually
internally divided on the issue (maybe more than once).
> The Church is the Church irrespective
> of the identity, location or role of any identifiable member.
I think I accept that from the point of view of the heavenly Church, but I
wouldn't know how to find the Church if I couldn't locate, identify or
name any member here on earth.
> That the
> Church may have bishops is not in doubt, but the Church does not
> require the Church to have bishops in order to be the Church.
I think it does. Anything else is Christian community, open to the same
grace that God offers a Church that is rightly ordered (and potentially
receptive of even more grace...), but I'm reluctant to call it Church.
As I said elsewhere, that comes from being unreformed... I don't take the
Bible as my only authority and I don't read the Bible without the lenses
of the Church colouring my reading.
> To use
> my family analogy again, one day my father will die. Assuming (as is
> reasonable!) that the next generation are still around afterwards, we
> won't cease to be family because we no longer have an (earthly)
> father. And, of course, we in turn may well be at the head of our own
> families, so continuing the process. But even if we dont it wouldn't
> actually matter.
I'm not denying here that those who are not part of what I'm calling
Church are Christians, that they are still part of the family. I think I
am trying to argue that they are more like members who have estranged
themselves, but despite that, who we see often, value highly (often more
than closer members of family) and rejoice with frequently. That doesn't
stop us longing that one day they will cease to regard themselves as
estranged.
I know my model is in some sense exclusive. I don't like it being that
way, but as an Anglican, I'm on the receiving end of this kind of thinking
from Roman Catholics too.
Peace (although not terribly happy about this issue),
Angela Rayner
> In article <MPG.1aba374e3...@news.easynet.co.uk>, Jet Wood
> <cwy...@hotmail.com (Hotmail will automatically delete
> <MPG.1aba374e3...@news.easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This being the case, what is the basis for objecting to including
> > homosexuals? (I am not aware of Jesus having told us to avoid them, and
> > Jesus seems to be saying that no statement that anyone else utters has
> > superior authority to his statements).
>
> There is no objection to preaching to or welcoming anyone who is willing to
> come to Christ.
>
> The problem comes afterwards when it is normal to expect that the person who
> has come to Christ will accept certain changes in outlook and behaviour.
I think the fault is in thinking that changes in outlook and behaviour
ought to be instant. In my view, repentance takes a lifetime. We have
evidence that those who followed Jesus were very badly behaved, even after
having followed for some time. You can't force somebody to change their
lifestyle. You can only cajole and gently encourage that they might begin
thinking about, for example, giving refugees shelter and loving their
neighbour.
> It
> is regrettable that some sections of the church - and Oxford diocese appears
> to be one such place - do not think it necessary to teach basic principles
> of Christian morality as taught by Scripture and tradition.
I don't think teaching the morality of Scripture and tradition (if there
is /one/ such) is necessarily a teaching heeded by your students. I must
admit I have sympathy with Paul sometimes... "when are you dim people
going to get it?", he seems to ask, but there is a sense in which I don't
think he quite won the day. We haven't got it and we don't get it and as
soon as we get a hint of what "it" might be, we start telling others that
they haven't got it...
Peace,
Richard Dudley
[ Jet ]
>>This being the case, what is the basis for objecting to including
>>homosexuals? (I am not aware of Jesus having told us to avoid them, and
>>Jesus seems to be saying that no statement that anyone else utters has
>>superior authority to his statements).
[ Ken ]
> There is no objection to preaching to or welcoming anyone who is willing to
> come to Christ.
>
> The problem comes afterwards when it is normal to expect that the person who
> has come to Christ will accept certain changes in outlook and behaviour.
Is there any evidence at all that Christ _expected_ certain changes in
outlook and behaviour ? It looks to me that you're expecting things that
Jesus didn't - why would you set higher standards than him ?
> It
> is regrettable that some sections of the church - and Oxford diocese appears
> to be one such place - do not think it necessary to teach basic principles
> of Christian morality as taught by Scripture and tradition.
Does 'teaching basic principles of Christian morality' include teaching
people not to lie ?
Richard
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> > The second is that the Church, when rightly ordered, is
>> >congregated around a particular bishop.
>>
>> This, I would strongly reject.
>
>Well, I suppose I have to praise God that some things don't change :-).
>
>I fully expected you to strongly reject it. It's not even biblical in one
>sense because my expectation that Church should look like this comes from
>Church teaching, not only that this model is biblical, but also that it is
>normative. However, if you were going to read the Bible from the
>perspective of somebody seeking for different models of Church government
>from it, I reckon it would be easy to argue for other forms of Church
>government... The important word to me is "normative" and the question
>"who gets to say?" is a very good one to ask Anglicans. We're actually
>internally divided on the issue (maybe more than once).
I think it's important to distinguish between the existance of the
Church and the organisation of the church. There is a strong argument
in favour of episcopacy being the most suitable form of Church
government, but that's not the same as saying that the Church must be
episcopal in order to exist. To use another analogy, I think that
representative democracy is generally the best form of national
government, but that doesn't mean that China, Saudi Arabia and Haiti
(to name three random examples) are any less nations or that their
citizens are any less human. To me, being part of the Church is like
being human - it is something that simply *is*, not something that I
have to be organised into.
>> The Church is the Church irrespective
>> of the identity, location or role of any identifiable member.
>
>I think I accept that from the point of view of the heavenly Church, but I
>wouldn't know how to find the Church if I couldn't locate, identify or
>name any member here on earth.
But if you can locate or name any member, then that is all you need -
it doesn't matter whether that member is the archbishop or a choirboy.
The advantage that bishops have is that they are easier to name and
identify, but being useful is not the same as being necessary.
>> That the
>> Church may have bishops is not in doubt, but the Church does not
>> require the Church to have bishops in order to be the Church.
>
>I think it does. Anything else is Christian community, open to the same
>grace that God offers a Church that is rightly ordered (and potentially
>receptive of even more grace...), but I'm reluctant to call it Church.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian community", in this context.
To me, that term and "Church" are essentially different expressions of
the same thing, rather than being distinct entities.
>As I said elsewhere, that comes from being unreformed... I don't take the
>Bible as my only authority and I don't read the Bible without the lenses
>of the Church colouring my reading.
>
>> To use
>> my family analogy again, one day my father will die. Assuming (as is
>> reasonable!) that the next generation are still around afterwards, we
>> won't cease to be family because we no longer have an (earthly)
>> father. And, of course, we in turn may well be at the head of our own
>> families, so continuing the process. But even if we dont it wouldn't
>> actually matter.
>
>I'm not denying here that those who are not part of what I'm calling
>Church are Christians, that they are still part of the family. I think I
>am trying to argue that they are more like members who have estranged
>themselves, but despite that, who we see often, value highly (often more
>than closer members of family) and rejoice with frequently. That doesn't
>stop us longing that one day they will cease to regard themselves as
>estranged.
This, again, seems to be a question of terminology. To me, "Church"
(with a capital C) means the entirety of all Christians. You can be
outside the organisation, but you can't be outside the Church, in the
same way that the black sheep of the family is still as much a blood
relative as if he was in the fold. I have no objection to using
"church", with a small c, to mean a subset of Christians (although I'm
aware that certain churches dislike the implication that there are
subsets of Christians who are not part of the same church), but it
seems to me that if you're going to use "Church" in that manner then
everything that we have previously called "Church" now needs to be
renamed. Even the traditional Catholic approach is consistent with the
idea that "Church" == "All Christians", as this is justified by the
doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. If you accept
that there can be Christians who are outside the Church, then you have
to ask what Jesus died for.
>I know my model is in some sense exclusive. I don't like it being that
>way, but as an Anglican, I'm on the receiving end of this kind of thinking
>from Roman Catholics too.
I don't mind being on the receiving end of it from Roman Catholics.
Within its own circle of reference, the Catholic viewpoint is
internally consistent. What I'm not happy with is the suggestions that
the Catholics are partly right, and that we Protestants know which
part it is. If I can't accept Catholicism as a whole (which I can't,
for various reasons), then I'd rather start again from a Biblical and
hstorical analysis of what the Church comprises and develop it from
there. Some of this may end up looking similar to what various
denominations already have, but, if so, that will be because it has
been recreated from first principles rather than simply being assumed.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Sometimes everything is wrong"
Gareth McCaughan
[I asked, along with other questions Ken has snipped without comment:]
>> Do you really think that this
>> level of inclusivity is some sort of nefarious homosexual
>> plot?
>
> Anywhere else, probably no. In the Oxford diocese I'm not so sure.
So now Anglicans in Oxford have to choose between being needlessly
exclusive or being thought by you to be plotting to fill the church
with homosexuals? Well, fair enough. If I were them, I know which
I'd care about more.
Simon Robinson
> > The problem comes afterwards when it is normal to expect that the person
who
> > has come to Christ will accept certain changes in outlook and behaviour.
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9Wm4c.645$Zg3.135@newsfe1-win...
> Is there any evidence at all that Christ _expected_ certain changes in
> outlook and behaviour ? It looks to me that you're expecting things that
> Jesus didn't - why would you set higher standards than him ?
Actually I'd have to say that as a matter of principle I'd be with Ken on
that one. From what the Bible says, Jesus appears to have been quite
explicit in some of the instructions to followers/potential followers.
Selling ones possessions and giving to the poor, for example, certainly
sounds to me like a pretty big change in outlook and behaviour.
(But before anyone thinks the World has turned totally upsidedown, I do
still completely disagree with Ken over the question of whether homosexual
behavior/values is one of the areas where a change would be expected).
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------
Simon Robinson
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
------------------------------------------------
Peter Davey
news:c2u138$83e$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> (But before anyone thinks the World has turned totally upsidedown, I do
> still completely disagree with Ken over the question of whether homosexual
> behavior/values is one of the areas where a change would be expected).
Don't worry Simon. There's time :)
--
Peter Davey
(I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken.)
Richard Dudley
[ I asked, of Ken ]
>>Is there any evidence at all that Christ _expected_ certain changes in
>>outlook and behaviour ? It looks to me that you're expecting things that
>>Jesus didn't - why would you set higher standards than him ?
>
>
> Actually I'd have to say that as a matter of principle I'd be with Ken on
> that one. From what the Bible says, Jesus appears to have been quite
> explicit in some of the instructions to followers/potential followers.
> Selling ones possessions and giving to the poor, for example, certainly
> sounds to me like a pretty big change in outlook and behaviour.
Sure, but that doesn't nullify what I'm saying. We don't see that as
a universal _expectation_ to *all* followers. We see different
challenges to each individual, not a blanket 'one size fits all' set
of rules as Ken seems to suggest.
Richard
Ken Down
Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I think the fault is in thinking that changes in outlook and behaviour
> ought to be instant. In my view, repentance takes a lifetime. We have
> evidence that those who followed Jesus were very badly behaved, even after
> having followed for some time. You can't force somebody to change their
> lifestyle. You can only cajole and gently encourage that they might begin
> thinking about, for example, giving refugees shelter and loving their
> neighbour.
I quite agree with you. You will notice, from the rest of my post, that my
objection was not to the fact that some people have failed to become
perfect, but that a particular section of the church was failing to teach
correctly.
Were they to teach traditional morality but find that people within the
church failed to live up to it, one might regret the fact but one could not
really object.
Angela Rayner
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Angela
> Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think the fault is in thinking that changes in outlook and behaviour
> > ought to be instant. In my view, repentance takes a lifetime. We have
> > evidence that those who followed Jesus were very badly behaved, even after
> > having followed for some time. You can't force somebody to change their
> > lifestyle. You can only cajole and gently encourage that they might begin
> > thinking about, for example, giving refugees shelter and loving their
> > neighbour.
>
> I quite agree with you. You will notice, from the rest of my post, that my
> objection was not to the fact that some people have failed to become
> perfect, but that a particular section of the church was failing to teach
> correctly.
OK. I think I see what you're saying now. For some reason, I'm greatly
relieved about this because I think it's what compassion looks like.
> Were they to teach traditional morality but find that people within the
> church failed to live up to it, one might regret the fact but one could not
> really object.
I see what you're saying. The only thing I would add is that it seems
that some fail to teach traditional morality (on many issues) when they
think it doesn't work. They think it doesn't work because of the effects
it has on those to whom they teach it. Taking on board that it has
unhelpful consequences for some, they begin teaching something that looks
more in line with what they understand to be morality. I'm not really
trying to defend them or you, but I think I applaud where you're coming
from because it lays the blame on the teachers and not their students.
Angela Rayner
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:39:55 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >
> >> > The second is that the Church, when rightly ordered, is
> >> >congregated around a particular bishop.
> >>
> >> This, I would strongly reject.
> >
> >Well, I suppose I have to praise God that some things don't change :-).
> >
> >I fully expected you to strongly reject it. It's not even biblical in one
> >sense because my expectation that Church should look like this comes from
> >Church teaching, not only that this model is biblical, but also that it is
> >normative. However, if you were going to read the Bible from the
> >perspective of somebody seeking for different models of Church government
> >from it, I reckon it would be easy to argue for other forms of Church
> >government... The important word to me is "normative" and the question
> >"who gets to say?" is a very good one to ask Anglicans. We're actually
> >internally divided on the issue (maybe more than once).
>
> I think it's important to distinguish between the existence of the
> Church and the organisation of the church. There is a strong argument
> in favour of episcopacy being the most suitable form of Church
> government, but that's not the same as saying that the Church must be
> episcopal in order to exist.
(Mark, before we launch back in to this, I must warn you, this post has
grown to be absolutely enormous. You might want to make dinner before you
start ;-). You've my rantings and ramblings of a year here.)
I think the Church will always exist because it's a non-temporal body.
That's why I made the distinction about fullness. It exists in greater
fullness where there is episcopal ordering. I don't expect you to accept
this because I think it relies on assumptions that are not accepted by the
more reformed. See below.
> To use another analogy, I think that
> representative democracy is generally the best form of national
> government, but that doesn't mean that China, Saudi Arabia and Haiti
> (to name three random examples) are any less nations or that their
> citizens are any less human. To me, being part of the Church is like
> being human - it is something that simply *is*, not something that I
> have to be organised into.
I think this is connected to offices within the Church. The more catholic
minded are going to want to argue that the Church exists as a disciplined
community of saints, receptive of the offices instituted by Christ and the
early church. This is a nonsense to anybody more reformed because they
would argue (I think, but don't let me speak for you) that Christ did not
institute offices. To take your example, I am not arguing that people in
churches (or countries) that are not episcopal (or democratic) are any
less Christian (or citizens), just that the Church does not move towards
Her fullness (although never completeness) where episcopacy is lacking.
This is not the same as your analogy because although I think democracy is
the best structure we have, it is not a divinely ordained structure.
(Incidentally, I ought to add a warning footnote that lots of these ideas
are new to me. I'm trying to figure out what it means to be Church, what
it means to be Christlike and what it means to be human from a catholic
(though not necessarily Roman) perspective. What interests me is the
grammar and rules around what can be said and how we say it. I think this
is just a little alert that I'm playing with ideas. I do fear one day in
the future that people will come back at me with the ideas I've played
with on uk.r.c and use them to suggest that I once held this position or
that position. I certainly /may/ have held a position, but I prefer to
see us journeying towards our final destination being unafraid to ask
questions and play with ideas, even if we end up somewhere completely
different from where we started.)
> >> The Church is the Church irrespective
> >> of the identity, location or role of any identifiable member.
> >
> >I think I accept that from the point of view of the heavenly Church, but I
> >wouldn't know how to find the Church if I couldn't locate, identify or
> >name any member here on earth.
>
> But if you can locate or name any member, then that is all you need -
> it doesn't matter whether that member is the archbishop or a choirboy.
> The advantage that bishops have is that they are easier to name and
> identify, but being useful is not the same as being necessary.
I accept that being useful is not the same as being necessary. I think
the necessary part comes in, only having accepted the divine institution
part that I touched upon above. I suppose I'd add the clarification that
it's not only about divine insitution, but the Church's corporate thinking
too.
> >> That the
> >> Church may have bishops is not in doubt, but the Church does not
> >> require the Church to have bishops in order to be the Church.
> >
> >I think it does. Anything else is Christian community, open to the same
> >grace that God offers a Church that is rightly ordered (and potentially
> >receptive of even more grace...), but I'm reluctant to call it Church.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian community", in this context.
> To me, that term and "Church" are essentially different expressions of
> the same thing, rather than being distinct entities.
This was a distinction, made to me a few weeks ago by a Roman Catholic
friend, between who the Roman Catholic church consider to be Church, and
those they consider to be Christians, but who do not exist in the Church's
fullness. I think the fullness distinction is mine... I clearly don't
accept all of what the RCs have to say on the issue and I, like them,
consider Christians to be all over the place (irrespective of episcopal
ordering). I think the distinction comes from Para 1400 of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church:
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from
the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the
Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of
the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the
Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not
possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the
Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it
signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."
This is not all that is said. I think the more positive statements are to
be found in "The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" section.
For example, 838:
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are
honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in
its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor
of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized
are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic
Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound
"that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common
celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
So from that paragraph, perhaps we need not talk about a distinction
between Church and Christian communities, but those in communion and those
in imperfect communion with Rome. Now I realise that various people are
going to ask me about my use of Rome as the starting point. Why on earth
don't I begin with Eastern orthodoxy, which some would say, has a better
claim to be catholic than Rome? The answer to that is, in part, that you
begin where your friends are. The bit of the Anglican church that I'm in
has attempted a partial return to the Roman ideal, rather than a return to
the East. However, I'm open to any kind of ecumenical discussion.
Now what I am trying to do is encourage and facilitate a recatholicisation
of the Anglican church. Please note that I said "encourage" and
facilitate. I'm only trying to do the will of God, the same as the next
person. The Anglican church, although catholicising slowly has become
profoundly more reformed since we lost (or gave?) 300 priests to the Roman
Catholics in around 1992-6. (I don't know how many of the rest of the
laity joined the RCs, but it all contributes.) I don't think grieving
that loss is entirely appropriate because I see it as a handing on of one
lot of servants to another part of the Church. Anyhow, in order to
facilitate a more catholic thinking, I am led back to speaking of offices
of ministry, and eventually to episcopacy (which is what we've been
discussing here). I've ideas up my sleeve for a much more interesting bit
of writing that may well turn into a dissertation surrounding offices of
institution, because as I see it, there is a profound lack of concreteness
(bodiliness, if you like) in the Marian department of the Anglican and RC
churches... We'll see :).
> >I'm not denying here that those who are not part of what I'm calling
> >Church are Christians, that they are still part of the family. I think I
> >am trying to argue that they are more like members who have estranged
> >themselves, but despite that, who we see often, value highly (often more
> >than closer members of family) and rejoice with frequently. That doesn't
> >stop us longing that one day they will cease to regard themselves as
> >estranged.
>
> This, again, seems to be a question of terminology. To me, "Church"
> (with a capital C) means the entirety of all Christians.
That's certainly how I'd have used it until recently. I think I continue
to use it that way, but I'm now vastly more aware that it is necessary
sometimes not to be in communion with certain people. Here I'm not
thinking of the Anglican church and her current concerns, but sects that
call themselves "Christian" which fall massively outside the Church's
corporate mind (mass suicide movements spring to mind). I think I can see
my own difficulty here... *ponder*. I want to say some people aren't
Church, but I personally don't want to be saying anything because I'm just
a white, western, middle-class, fallible female. It's not my judgement to
make. It's more about "us" and "we" than our society can conceive at the
moment.
> You can be
> outside the organisation, but you can't be outside the Church, in the
> same way that the black sheep of the family is still as much a blood
> relative as if he was in the fold.
That's why I prefer to speak of fullness of belonging and imperfect
communion rather than a failure to be Church (with a capital C).
> I have no objection to using
> "church", with a small c, to mean a subset of Christians (although I'm
> aware that certain churches dislike the implication that there are
> subsets of Christians who are not part of the same church),
I tend to use small c to denote a denomination or congregation and large C
to denote all Christians (the heavenly proto-type, if you like).
However, more recently I've wanted to attempt to invent a middle-sized
kind of C/c! The difficulty is that how you define Church comes from
where you are sitting. If you are sitting in Rome, you define Church (at
least in part) as communion with the Office of Peter. If you are
reformed, then Church is all Christians (except in certain instances, the
ones who disagree with you about the H-issue and so clearly aren't
Christians anyway!). It's tricky!
> but it
> seems to me that if you're going to use "Church" in that manner then
> everything that we have previously called "Church" now needs to be
> renamed. Even the traditional Catholic approach is consistent with the
> idea that "Church" == "All Christians", as this is justified by the
> doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
I think you're right. I'd rather speak of fullness of belonging, and as I
said, imperfect communion with Rome than not use the word Church to mean
all Christians. I hope that's a clarification. Sorry for being
repetitive.
> If you accept
> that there can be Christians who are outside the Church, then you have
> to ask what Jesus died for.
I don't accept there can be Christians who are outside the Church. I do
accept that there are Christians who do not exist in the fullness of what
the Church is (which of course, I and others define episcopally).
Unfortunately for me, RCs would say the same about Anglicans (Michael or
Alec, shout if you wouldn't) because despite agreeing with the episcopal
bit, there is still disagreement about the validity of orders.
> >I know my model is in some sense exclusive. I don't like it being that
> >way, but as an Anglican, I'm on the receiving end of this kind of thinking
> >from Roman Catholics too.
>
> I don't mind being on the receiving end of it from Roman Catholics.
> Within its own circle of reference, the Catholic viewpoint is
> internally consistent. What I'm not happy with is the suggestions that
> the Catholics are partly right, and that we Protestants know which
> part it is.
I struggle (as my .sig indicates) with considering myself to be
Protestant. I think I must be Protestant because I'm forbidden by the
Pope to receive the Eucharist or make Confession in the Roman Catholic
Church. It's rather unclear to me why (*fume*) I actually listen to the
Pope on this issue, but that's part of what makes me doubt I'm Protestant.
I think I must be Protestant because I believe that the Bread of Life,
even if received from the hands of a woman who has consecrated, is the
Bread of Life. There must be something else... I just can't seem to
remember what it is. Even natural theology (which I have deep
reservations about) is accepted by some Protestants so it can't be that
which makes me Protestant. Some of my favourite Roman Catholics would
call themselves Barthian so I'm struggling here to think of the things
that make me Protestant. Stanley Hauerwas says that the practices and
habits of Roman Catholicism take a lifetime to acquire, but as far as I
can see, except for the Papal bit, they are very similar to the practices
and habits of those who call themselves High Anglicans. Maybe they're
not... Somebody correct me because I don't think I can speak for the whole
tradition!
I think Roman Catholics are much more than partly right (eugh, bad use of
English) and the only reasons I still seem to be a Protestant are A)
because I'm trying to learn what it means to be faithful (to the Anglican
part of the catholic church) and one doesn't just run away from
difficulties without wrestling like Jacob, B) because if I became a Roman
Catholic, I would no longer be able to eat with my friends (but this works
both ways around), C) because the local Anglican church is the local part
of the wider Church. I'd have to stop viewing Anglicanism as a valid part
of catholicism, D) because it's all about being called and not
choosing, and, E) because I can't figure out how I could become a RC
or even stay an Anglican without tearing myself into two pieces, both of
which are incomplete without the other bit. Whatever I do, the issue will
not be resolved, I think I have to let one piece die. (Is that what is
meant by death to self?)
However, many of us in the Church of England have never fully considered
ourselves as existing apart from the church catholic. It is a problem
that Rome considers us out of communion. I ought to make clear that in
the next paragraph, I will be writing about the catholic end of the
Anglican church. I don't expect David Ould or Bp Pete Broadbent to agree
with me in the slightest. That's another major reason that the Anglican
church has a problem. Here I would add that a few months ago I had a
discussion (was it with Paul someone?) saying that I wanted the Anglican
communion to stay together despite division. In some ways I've moved away
from that now because I value unity with Rome more highly, and because, as
I believe I said at the Manchester meet, I think that if you're Baptist in
everything other than name, you really ought to just go and be a Baptist.
(That's not a criticism of Baptists because some of my bestest friends are
Baptists and I love them to bits...).
Anyhow, I would go on to say that Anglicans have not lost episcopal
ordering. We insist that our orders are still valid. We still insist on
separation between ministerial priesthood as an office and the priesthood
of all believers. We still practice 7 sacraments (although some would
prefer to see them whittled down to 2). We've not lost our belief and
practice that the sacraments do something as opposed only to being highly
symbolic. We consider the Mass to be our principle act of worship.
We're crazy about Mary and value her highly. Some of us accept Mary's
Assumption, and others may accept her sinless conception. We continue
with practices that even Rome seems to value less highly, such as (one of
my favourite things in the world) Benediction. We maintain our recitation
of the Creed, and this is one tiny indication of our confession of the
Triune God. Indeed, I believe that the pre-Vatican II liturgical ritual
focuses and strengthens our link with the Judaism more than some of the
grimmer Vatican II stuff (which looks to me like middle-of-the-road
Anglican worship). I could go on and on.
So when you say to me, "What I'm not happy with is the suggestions that
the Catholics are partly right, and that we Protestants know which part it
is.", I protest that I'm an "exceeding bad" Protestant because I don't
know how much I'm included in the "we". No Protestant in their right mind
is going to want to claim me, especially when I start talking about why we
need to start, just to begin with, accepting the honorary primacy of the
Pope. I'm not sure whether I can really claim to be reformed. I seek
renewal for the Church. But it's very likely, in the end, that no
Catholic would want to claim me either because I can't share in the
Eucharist (so I can hardly be Roman Catholic) and, well, I'm still too
Protestant in many other tiny ways.... You can tell me it's all alright
because Christ has claimed me anyway, and we will be one because there
really is only one Bread, but I hate all this waiting...
> If I can't accept Catholicism as a whole (which I can't,
> for various reasons), then I'd rather start again from a Biblical and
> hstorical analysis of what the Church comprises and develop it from
> there.
It is my belief that I don't think that that is possible which leaves me
stranded. The multiplicity of Protestantism is what makes me doubt it.
"Biblical and historical" are only somebody else's version of what
biblical and historical are... Who am I supposed to listen to? Who ought
I to encourage my brothers and sisters to follow? Now obviously the
answer is "Jesus", but there's a lot of different Jesuses out there, like
there a lot of churches. I don't think there is any "going back" to the
original because we're traditioned people. We can have a return to
sources, an attempt at renewal, but it's all in the framework of what
we've already got. It has taken me ages to realise that there is a Roman
Catholic way of reading the Bible. It doesn't come automatically. It's
not self-evident. It really isn't natural to presume that some things are
natural because natural is a construction. I only got it through hanging
around with RCs and realising that what they say is totally unheeded by
Protestants. It's unclear to Protestants, for example, that when Jesus
says "On this rock, I shall build my church", that he really is expecting
a long line of Popes to follow. I did not become convinced of this, I
simply became adopted into it. And now I can't argue outside of that,
despite accepting the logic of Protestants who say that that isn't the
literal meaning. There isn't a blasted literal meaning anymore!
> Some of this may end up looking similar to what various
> denominations already have, but, if so, that will be because it has
> been recreated from first principles rather than simply being assumed.
All baby churches start looking like this. They go back to charisms,
proclaiming that God has released his Holy Spirit on the Church and
everybody else has forgotten this. Then one little house group grows to
be 10 churches big and they realise they need a leader. So they institute
a leader, who they call a "leader" in an attempt to get away from
hierarchy. Then they need some people to oversee the churches. They call
those people the "apostolic oversight team". Everybody else calls them
Bishops. They complain we don't speak of healing anymore. We do, but we
call it a sacrament. They claim that they have "leaders", in line with
the Early Church, but we claim a continuity that goes back to Jewish
ministerial priests. I'm sorry that I sound jaded and tired about this,
but I feel as though I've done charismatic evangelicalism, reformed
Anglicanism, wishy-washy-wet liberal non-belongingism and even dipped my
toes in bits of Methodism, United Reformedism and as many other isms as
I'll ever need.
I don't want to sound assuming or even superior because some people are
going the opposite way to me. It's not clear that I've grown up from it
because I think the Holy Spirit pervades our offices and our structures
and our existence in the tiny Masses of the world, but I hope I've grown
through it. I don't want to go back to buying church buildings, when
we've already got church buildings. I don't want to have to relearn 2004
years of church history when we've come through it already. (You know,
there's a case for increasing that figure to go right the way back to
Abraham). I'm up for renewal of the church structures that already stand,
but I don't want unilateral renewal, but universal renewal. I don't want
to be standing here, doing no other, because there's work to be done,
preaching our Gospel, giving shelter to our homeless, housing our
refugees, visiting our prisoners, feeding those of us who are hungry and
loving those who us who are homosexual...
But if there's work to be done, then it's going to need a very much more
enlivened laity (that is, all of us, including our priests), who know what
their roles are in the Church. It needs a people who will get out and do
it and priests who'll tell them they need to be out there doing it, by
laying down the example and washing the feet of their flock.
Mark, I must finally add that even on this essentially public forum, I
would not have this conversation with everybody. It is only because (and
this is what we began arguing about) I believe I shall see you in the
flesh at our next meet, that I dare argue with you on the group. I don't
think I would argue like this with somebody that I hadn't met. One has to
trust that one's friendships will hold through disagreement (and sometimes
despite conversion) and I simply don't think that can happen whilst we do
not /always/ realise the significance of our bodies when we use such
gnostic mediums as the Internet. This medium for friendship is only
possible because of the prior existence of the Church (the Body of
Christ), which is only possible because of Jesus (the Body of Christ), who
is only possible because of Mary (the Body of Christ), who is, of course,
only anybody because of her Son and her Church (the Bodies of Christ
again).
Let Mary wash feet like the widows and wait for the Church as the
bridegroom whilst we all slowly return to the place of those who do the
will of God under the cross...
Peace,
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> I think it's important to distinguish between the existence of the
>> Church and the organisation of the church. There is a strong argument
>> in favour of episcopacy being the most suitable form of Church
>> government, but that's not the same as saying that the Church must be
>> episcopal in order to exist.
>
>(Mark, before we launch back in to this, I must warn you, this post has
>grown to be absolutely enormous. You might want to make dinner before you
>start ;-). You've my rantings and ramblings of a year here.)
I did, and very nice it was, too.
>I think the Church will always exist because it's a non-temporal body.
Does the Church exist separately from the human beings who comprise
it, though?
>That's why I made the distinction about fullness. It exists in greater
>fullness where there is episcopal ordering. I don't expect you to accept
>this because I think it relies on assumptions that are not accepted by the
>more reformed. See below.
What I don't accept is that the Church, as a whole, can be more or
less full. I think that individual sections of the Church (or
individual churches) can more or less perfectly reflect the fullness
of the Church, but that's not the same thing. The Church is not
defined by the relationship we humans have with each other, it is
defined by the relationships we humans have with Christ. And Christ is
perfect. So the Church is, in its relationship with Christ, already in
a point of fullness. The lack of fullness lies in our individual
positions (1 Corinthians 13:10-12), not in the entirety.
>> To use another analogy, I think that
>> representative democracy is generally the best form of national
>> government, but that doesn't mean that China, Saudi Arabia and Haiti
>> (to name three random examples) are any less nations or that their
>> citizens are any less human. To me, being part of the Church is like
>> being human - it is something that simply *is*, not something that I
>> have to be organised into.
>
>I think this is connected to offices within the Church. The more catholic
>minded are going to want to argue that the Church exists as a disciplined
>community of saints, receptive of the offices instituted by Christ and the
>early church. This is a nonsense to anybody more reformed because they
>would argue (I think, but don't let me speak for you) that Christ did not
>institute offices. To take your example, I am not arguing that people in
>churches (or countries) that are not episcopal (or democratic) are any
>less Christian (or citizens), just that the Church does not move towards
>Her fullness (although never completeness) where episcopacy is lacking.
>This is not the same as your analogy because although I think democracy is
>the best structure we have, it is not a divinely ordained structure.
Again, I think this is something of a misleading picture of the
Reformed position. Whether or not Christ instituted the offices is not
primarily the issue. We would argue that he didn't, at least in the
sense understood by Catholics, but that's not really the point here.
What matters is whether or not something that is temporal in nature is
part of the definition of the Church. For example, most Christians,
Catholic and Protestant, would argue that God instituted marriage. Yet
Jesus made it clear that marriage will not persist into the next
world, and I'm not aware of any church which has considered marriage
to be relevant to membership of the Church. So it's quite possible
that Christ (or the apostles, acting under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit) instituted certain offices of the Church, but these are still
temporal and functional in nature rather than being intrinsic to the
existence of the Church per se.
>(Incidentally, I ought to add a warning footnote that lots of these ideas
>are new to me. I'm trying to figure out what it means to be Church, what
>it means to be Christlike and what it means to be human from a catholic
>(though not necessarily Roman) perspective. What interests me is the
>grammar and rules around what can be said and how we say it. I think this
>is just a little alert that I'm playing with ideas. I do fear one day in
>the future that people will come back at me with the ideas I've played
>with on uk.r.c and use them to suggest that I once held this position or
>that position. I certainly /may/ have held a position, but I prefer to
>see us journeying towards our final destination being unafraid to ask
>questions and play with ideas, even if we end up somewhere completely
>different from where we started.)
Understood.
[snip]
>> >I think it does. Anything else is Christian community, open to the same
>> >grace that God offers a Church that is rightly ordered (and potentially
>> >receptive of even more grace...), but I'm reluctant to call it Church.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian community", in this context.
>> To me, that term and "Church" are essentially different expressions of
>> the same thing, rather than being distinct entities.
>
>This was a distinction, made to me a few weeks ago by a Roman Catholic
>friend, between who the Roman Catholic church consider to be Church, and
>those they consider to be Christians, but who do not exist in the Church's
>fullness. I think the fullness distinction is mine... I clearly don't
>accept all of what the RCs have to say on the issue and I, like them,
>consider Christians to be all over the place (irrespective of episcopal
>ordering). I think the distinction comes from Para 1400 of the Catechism
>of the Catholic Church:
[snip quotes]
>So from that paragraph, perhaps we need not talk about a distinction
>between Church and Christian communities, but those in communion and those
>in imperfect communion with Rome.
Of course, many of us would consider that we are in communion with
Rome. If Rome chooses not to share that communion with us, then that
is their choice, not ours, and it makes no difference to the
underlying reality. It's a bit like one brother falling out with his
other brothers and not only refusing to eat with them, but also
claiming that they are no longer his brothers. And it's equally
nonsense - no disagreement between brothers can ever change the fact
that they are brothers, and no disagreement between Christians can
ever change the fact that they are equally members of the Church.
[Warning: possibly offensive comments follow]
And this is a stand which I hold very strongly indeed. By all means,
we may disagree on where the boundaries of the Church lie - and I am
not offended when some would draw those boundaries to exclude me, any
more then I feel that I have to accept the claims of those (such as
Mormons and JWs) that I consider to be outside the boundaries - but,
if we agree that we are both within the boundaries, then we must
accept that we are equally within the bundaries. Christ is not
divided, and God is no less a Father to one than he is to another. It
is not merely wrong, it is a pure *evil* for any Christian to claim
that another Christian is any less a part of the Church, or has a
lesser share in the fullness of the Church. And those who promulgate
such doctrines are guilty of one of the worst forms of heresy
imaginable.
(If that sounds hurtful, that's because it's intended to be. Not
intended to hurt any particular individual - and certainly not Angela,
to whom this post is a reply - but intended to hurt one of the
attitudes that is the single biggest obstacle to unity in the Church.
There is no future for an ecumenicism that does not start from the
proposition that we are all equal before Christ).
[further snip]
>> This, again, seems to be a question of terminology. To me, "Church"
>> (with a capital C) means the entirety of all Christians.
>
>That's certainly how I'd have used it until recently. I think I continue
>to use it that way, but I'm now vastly more aware that it is necessary
>sometimes not to be in communion with certain people. Here I'm not
>thinking of the Anglican church and her current concerns, but sects that
>call themselves "Christian" which fall massively outside the Church's
>corporate mind (mass suicide movements spring to mind). I think I can see
>my own difficulty here... *ponder*. I want to say some people aren't
>Church, but I personally don't want to be saying anything because I'm just
>a white, western, middle-class, fallible female. It's not my judgement to
>make. It's more about "us" and "we" than our society can conceive at the
>moment.
I have no problem with asserting that certain sects which call
themeselves "Christian" are nothing of the sort. It is in the nature
of deceivers to lie; if a cult deceives its members then it may
equally attempt to deceive outsiders (and, of course, vice versa). I'm
happy with the ways that the corporate mind of the Church has
historically used to assist with distinguishing whether an individual,
movement or organisation is inside or outside the boundaries of the
Church. And, if they are outside the boundaries, then I am not in
communion with them - not by choice, but by definition. If they are
inside, then I am in full communion with them - not by choice, but by
definition. But I also have no problem with accepting that, on
occasions, I may misjudge the position of the line, and either include
or exclude someone who God considers to be on the other side of it.
And I think that's one of the big problems with the current Catholic
position. At least when Luther was excommunicated, the RCC made no
attempt to suggest that he was still a member of the Church - once he
was out, he was fully out. And that was a logically (and Biblically)
sustainable position. What we've got now from the RCC is a mishmash of
a compromise, whereby we're neither in nor out. The RCC doesn't want
to offend us by saying we're outside the Church, but it can't accept
the full implications of admitting that we're inside it. So we end up
with this ludicrous concept of "separated brethren" and "imperfect
communion", neither of which have any basis in either the Bible or
Tradition. I'd be more inclined to join a Catholic Church that
actually believed itself to be *the* Catholic Church than one which
presents itself to me as a kind of semi-Catholic.
[yet more snippage]
>> I don't mind being on the receiving end of it from Roman Catholics.
>> Within its own circle of reference, the Catholic viewpoint is
>> internally consistent. What I'm not happy with is the suggestions that
>> the Catholics are partly right, and that we Protestants know which
>> part it is.
>
>I struggle (as my .sig indicates) with considering myself to be
>Protestant. I think I must be Protestant because I'm forbidden by the
>Pope to receive the Eucharist or make Confession in the Roman Catholic
>Church. It's rather unclear to me why (*fume*) I actually listen to the
>Pope on this issue, but that's part of what makes me doubt I'm Protestant.
Given the origin of the term "Protestant", it seems a little odd for
anyone to define themselves as a Protestant because the Pope says they
are - or, indeed, for the Pope to define anyone as a Protestant in the
first place.
>I think I must be Protestant because I believe that the Bread of Life,
>even if received from the hands of a woman who has consecrated, is the
>Bread of Life.
Well, in this sense, you are a Protestant, as you are protesting
against the doctrine of the RCC. But it's hardly a defining
characteristic of Protestants, as there are many others who would
either agree with Rome that women may not preside, or (my position)
argue that priestly consecration is unnecessary whatever the sex of
the priest.
[sniiiiip]
>However, many of us in the Church of England have never fully considered
>ourselves as existing apart from the church catholic. It is a problem
>that Rome considers us out of communion. I ought to make clear that in
>the next paragraph, I will be writing about the catholic end of the
>Anglican church. I don't expect David Ould or Bp Pete Broadbent to agree
>with me in the slightest. That's another major reason that the Anglican
>church has a problem. Here I would add that a few months ago I had a
>discussion (was it with Paul someone?) saying that I wanted the Anglican
>communion to stay together despite division. In some ways I've moved away
>from that now because I value unity with Rome more highly, and because, as
>I believe I said at the Manchester meet, I think that if you're Baptist in
>everything other than name, you really ought to just go and be a Baptist.
>(That's not a criticism of Baptists because some of my bestest friends are
>Baptists and I love them to bits...).
Well, I'm on record elsewhere as saying that the only really defining
position of Anglicanism is middle-of-the-road liberalism, and I still
stand by that opinion. I'm not convinced that recatholicising the
Anglican church will ever be successful, because, even if you
recatholicise the CofE, there will always be an Anglican-ish remainder
who continue to want the middle way - they want priests but not the
Pope, they want Reform but not evangelicalism, and they want to have
both independence and episcopy as well as both orthodoxy and
originality. Maybe, if the CofE does rejoin the Catholic fold, the
Methodists will just move over to take its place.
>So when you say to me, "What I'm not happy with is the suggestions that
>the Catholics are partly right, and that we Protestants know which part it
>is.", I protest that I'm an "exceeding bad" Protestant because I don't
>know how much I'm included in the "we". No Protestant in their right mind
>is going to want to claim me, especially when I start talking about why we
>need to start, just to begin with, accepting the honorary primacy of the
>Pope. I'm not sure whether I can really claim to be reformed. I seek
>renewal for the Church. But it's very likely, in the end, that no
>Catholic would want to claim me either because I can't share in the
>Eucharist (so I can hardly be Roman Catholic) and, well, I'm still too
>Protestant in many other tiny ways.... You can tell me it's all alright
>because Christ has claimed me anyway, and we will be one because there
>really is only one Bread, but I hate all this waiting...
Well, what I'd actually argue is that there's nothing to wait for :-)
>> If I can't accept Catholicism as a whole (which I can't,
>> for various reasons), then I'd rather start again from a Biblical and
>> hstorical analysis of what the Church comprises and develop it from
>> there.
>
>It is my belief that I don't think that that is possible which leaves me
>stranded. The multiplicity of Protestantism is what makes me doubt it.
I would argue the opposite - for me, the multiplicity of Protestantism
is testament to the fact that the goal of recreating the Church is
still alive. Whether or not it's actually acheivable is another thing
(and I would be inclined to agree that it isn't), but the mere fact
that so many of us still want it is what's important.
>
>> Some of this may end up looking similar to what various
>> denominations already have, but, if so, that will be because it has
>> been recreated from first principles rather than simply being assumed.
>
>All baby churches start looking like this. They go back to charisms,
>proclaiming that God has released his Holy Spirit on the Church and
>everybody else has forgotten this. Then one little house group grows to
>be 10 churches big and they realise they need a leader. So they institute
>a leader, who they call a "leader" in an attempt to get away from
>hierarchy. Then they need some people to oversee the churches. They call
>those people the "apostolic oversight team". Everybody else calls them
>Bishops. They complain we don't speak of healing anymore. We do, but we
>call it a sacrament. They claim that they have "leaders", in line with
>the Early Church, but we claim a continuity that goes back to Jewish
>ministerial priests. I'm sorry that I sound jaded and tired about this,
>but I feel as though I've done charismatic evangelicalism, reformed
>Anglicanism, wishy-washy-wet liberal non-belongingism and even dipped my
>toes in bits of Methodism, United Reformedism and as many other isms as
>I'll ever need.
I'm not suggesting forming a new denomination, or even a new church.
What I'm on about is more the concept of all churches accepting that
we need to be constantly rethinking how we "do" church. But that's
partly what I meant when I said that a lot of what we rediscover may
end up looking very similar to what already exists - the structure of
most "Third wave" charismatic groups is remarkably episcopal in
nature, albeit without the need to link episcopacy to a clergy/laity
distinction. And that excites me - in it, I see that we are able to
avoid a knee-jerk rejection of "traditional" structures (a big problem
with the older Protestant denominations, such as the Baptists, is that
much of their structure is specifically *anti*-Catholic in nature, as
if rejecting the theology necessarily implies rejecting even the
appearance), while still developing a forward-looking theology based
on where we feel the Holy Spirit is leading us.
>Mark, I must finally add that even on this essentially public forum, I
>would not have this conversation with everybody. It is only because (and
>this is what we began arguing about) I believe I shall see you in the
>flesh at our next meet, that I dare argue with you on the group. I don't
>think I would argue like this with somebody that I hadn't met. One has to
>trust that one's friendships will hold through disagreement (and sometimes
>despite conversion) and I simply don't think that can happen whilst we do
>not /always/ realise the significance of our bodies when we use such
>gnostic mediums as the Internet.
I think I agree with this.
> This medium for friendship is only
>possible because of the prior existence of the Church (the Body of
>Christ), which is only possible because of Jesus (the Body of Christ), who
>is only possible because of Mary (the Body of Christ), who is, of course,
>only anybody because of her Son and her Church (the Bodies of Christ
>again).
>
>Let Mary wash feet like the widows and wait for the Church as the
>bridegroom whilst we all slowly return to the place of those who do the
>will of God under the cross...
Although I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't the Church the bride,
and Christ the bridegroom? Or, using a different metaphor, isn't the
Church the body, and Christ the head? Where does Mary fit into this?
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"You gotta live with your dreams, don't make them so hard"
Pete Broadbent
<snip - a lot of good stuff about Anglicanism, only some of which I
disagree with!>
>
> "I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not
> tried to hide the ambiguous character of my ecclesial stance, but
> rather I have tried to turn it into a resource for service for
> Protestant and Catholic alike. God knows what God is doing by making
> some of us ecclesially homeless, but at least my homelessness has
> made it possible as well as necessary for me to learn from other
> Christians." Stanley Hauerwas "In Good Company"
Isn't the simple answer to your conundrum the answer that the CofE is a
*reformed* catholic church?
--
Pete Broadbent
David Ould
quite. Besides it's not a difference between protestant and catholic, it's a
difference between protestant and Roman
--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com
Angela Rayner
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:21:57 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it's important to distinguish between the existence of the
> >> Church and the organisation of the church. There is a strong argument
> >> in favour of episcopacy being the most suitable form of Church
> >> government, but that's not the same as saying that the Church must be
> >> episcopal in order to exist.
<snip dinner>
> >I think the Church will always exist because it's a non-temporal body.
>
> Does the Church exist separately from the human beings who comprise
> it, though?
The Church on earth is the gathered followers of Christ. However, if they
were all killed off, the Church would still exist in the lives of the
saints who are living eternally. So I think that's a "no" to the Church
existing separately from the human beings who comprise it.
> >That's why I made the distinction about fullness. It exists in greater
> >fullness where there is episcopal ordering. I don't expect you to accept
> >this because I think it relies on assumptions that are not accepted by the
> >more reformed. See below.
>
> What I don't accept is that the Church, as a whole, can be more or
> less full. I think that individual sections of the Church (or
> individual churches) can more or less perfectly reflect the fullness
> of the Church, but that's not the same thing.
That's a useful clarification of my statement. I agree that individual
sections of the Church (or individual churches) can more or less perfectly
reflect the fullness of the Church, and I am arguing for "less" in the
case of those who aren't episcopally ordered, but also "less" for those
who have forgotten what it means to live the love of Christ.
> The Church is not
> defined by the relationship we humans have with each other, it is
> defined by the relationships we humans have with Christ.
I don't want to separate the two like that. The most important
commandment is love the Lord your God... etc *and* love your neighbour as
yourself. Our relationship with Christ is outworked through our
relationships with others. The Church defines horizontally as well as
vertically.
> And Christ is
> perfect. So the Church is, in its relationship with Christ, already in
> a point of fullness.
"Christ is perfect" does not lead easily (as far as I can see) to "the
Church is perfect" because our relationship with Christ is not perfect.
> The lack of fullness lies in our individual
> positions (1 Corinthians 13:10-12), not in the entirety.
Indeed.
> >I think this is connected to offices within the Church. The more catholic
> >minded are going to want to argue that the Church exists as a disciplined
> >community of saints, receptive of the offices instituted by Christ and the
> >early church. This is a nonsense to anybody more reformed because they
> >would argue (I think, but don't let me speak for you) that Christ did not
> >institute offices. To take your example, I am not arguing that people in
> >churches (or countries) that are not episcopal (or democratic) are any
> >less Christian (or citizens), just that the Church does not move towards
> >Her fullness (although never completeness) where episcopacy is lacking.
> >This is not the same as your analogy because although I think democracy is
> >the best structure we have, it is not a divinely ordained structure.
>
> Again, I think this is something of a misleading picture of the
> Reformed position.
OK thanks. The last thing I want to do is misrepresent.
> Whether or not Christ instituted the offices is not
> primarily the issue. We would argue that he didn't, at least in the
> sense understood by Catholics, but that's not really the point here.
> What matters is whether or not something that is temporal in nature is
> part of the definition of the Church. For example, most Christians,
> Catholic and Protestant, would argue that God instituted marriage. Yet
> Jesus made it clear that marriage will not persist into the next
> world, and I'm not aware of any church which has considered marriage
> to be relevant to membership of the Church. So it's quite possible
> that Christ (or the apostles, acting under the inspiration of the Holy
> Spirit) instituted certain offices of the Church, but these are still
> temporal and functional in nature rather than being intrinsic to the
> existence of the Church per se.
I think this is where I disagree with you. Offices may be temporal. I
really don't know whether we will still have bishops, priests and deacons
in heaven and I think the Bible indicates we won't have marriage there.
However, even if these things are temporal, I don't know that they aren't
intrinsic to the existence of the Church on earth. Now having clarified
that I think the Church is the people and noted that I'm not interested in
denying anybody's claim to be a brother or sister, I still want to say
that (using the language above) individual sections of the Church are not
reflecting the fullness of the Church by their failure to be episcopally
ordered (even if that ordering is temporal). I also want to say that
there are other ways of failing to reflect the fullness of the Church, and
this example is one related to office.
> Of course, many of us would consider that we are in communion with
> Rome. If Rome chooses not to share that communion with us, then that
> is their choice, not ours, and it makes no difference to the
> underlying reality.
I see what you're saying. I'm seeing it more from Rome's point of view, I
think. It may well make no difference to underlying reality, but it makes
it a bit awkward to know what underlying reality actually is. I don't
think we can consider that we are in communion with Rome until we can
share the sacraments together again.
> It's a bit like one brother falling out with his
> other brothers and not only refusing to eat with them, but also
> claiming that they are no longer his brothers. And it's equally
> nonsense - no disagreement between brothers can ever change the fact
> that they are brothers, and no disagreement between Christians can
> ever change the fact that they are equally members of the Church.
Rome is not claiming that other Christians are no longer brothers (para.
818 CCC). I'm not disputing membership of the Church, although I am using
the term "imperfect communion with Rome". I'm disputing the reflected
fullness of the Church or whatever we called it above. I do think things
like offices matter with regard to the way the Church is ordered.
> [Warning: possibly offensive comments follow]
>
> And this is a stand which I hold very strongly indeed. By all means,
> we may disagree on where the boundaries of the Church lie - and I am
> not offended when some would draw those boundaries to exclude me, any
> more then I feel that I have to accept the claims of those (such as
> Mormons and JWs) that I consider to be outside the boundaries - but,
> if we agree that we are both within the boundaries, then we must
> accept that we are equally within the bundaries. Christ is not
> divided, and God is no less a Father to one than he is to another. It
> is not merely wrong, it is a pure *evil* for any Christian to claim
> that another Christian is any less a part of the Church, or has a
> lesser share in the fullness of the Church. And those who promulgate
> such doctrines are guilty of one of the worst forms of heresy
> imaginable.
I see what you are saying. However, I am attempting to say that certain
offices are a part of the Church and certain churches do not share in the
fullness of what it means to be the Church. I don't know where this
leaves individual Christians who are in the churches without right
ordering. I don't think it leaves them any less open to the grace of God
or to relationship with God. I don't know why, if we agree that we are
within the boundaries why we must be equally within the boundaries. I
presume that is why the RCC distinguishes between Church and community.
I am certainly not saying God is less a Father to one or another. I am
trying to say though, without being branded pure evil, that some churches
are less a part of the Church without certain ordering. That is because I
think certain ordering is intrinsic to the way the Church is. I hope that
doesn't leave me as pure evil.
> (If that sounds hurtful, that's because it's intended to be. Not
> intended to hurt any particular individual - and certainly not Angela,
> to whom this post is a reply - but intended to hurt one of the
> attitudes that is the single biggest obstacle to unity in the Church.
> There is no future for an ecumenicism that does not start from the
> proposition that we are all equal before Christ).
Sure. I'm not disagreeing that we're all equal before Christ. Christ
uses the structures of the Church, but we can hardly say He has to be
bound by them. If what I have said above seems to indicate that I'm
saying we're not equal before Christ, then disregard it. It's not
equality before Christ I'm disputing, but the way the Church is ordered
and how those who are not included within right ordering are still a part.
> I have no problem with asserting that certain sects which call
> themeselves "Christian" are nothing of the sort. It is in the nature
> of deceivers to lie; if a cult deceives its members then it may
> equally attempt to deceive outsiders (and, of course, vice versa). I'm
> happy with the ways that the corporate mind of the Church has
> historically used to assist with distinguishing whether an individual,
> movement or organisation is inside or outside the boundaries of the
> Church. And, if they are outside the boundaries, then I am not in
> communion with them - not by choice, but by definition.
The problem is, as I see it, this is what Rome is saying...
Protestantism seems to be a sect which is outside certain boundaries of
the Church, but not outside the boundaries of what it means to be in
relationship with Christ. If they [Protestants] are out of the
boundaries, then Rome are out of communion with them. There is a problem,
as I see it, in saying that we can be in relationship with Christ and not
within the boundaries of the Church, which is why I've tried to introduce
the fullness distinction.
> And I think that's one of the big problems with the current Catholic
> position. At least when Luther was excommunicated, the RCC made no
> attempt to suggest that he was still a member of the Church - once he
> was out, he was fully out. And that was a logically (and Biblically)
> sustainable position. What we've got now from the RCC is a mishmash of
> a compromise, whereby we're neither in nor out.
I agree. My paragraph above indicates my confusion on the matter.
Perhaps we could have some clarification from observing RCs if we have
failed to understand something.
> The RCC doesn't want
> to offend us by saying we're outside the Church, but it can't accept
> the full implications of admitting that we're inside it. So we end up
> with this ludicrous concept of "separated brethren" and "imperfect
> communion", neither of which have any basis in either the Bible or
> Tradition. I'd be more inclined to join a Catholic Church that
> actually believed itself to be *the* Catholic Church than one which
> presents itself to me as a kind of semi-Catholic.
I think the mish-mash is an attempt to attain fuller unity, which is going
to look messy for some while. I also think the concept of imperfect
communion is quite a useful one and it clearly does have a place within
Tradition if tradition has developed it :) :).
> >I think I must be Protestant because I believe that the Bread of Life,
> >even if received from the hands of a woman who has consecrated, is the
> >Bread of Life.
>
> Well, in this sense, you are a Protestant, as you are protesting
> against the doctrine of the RCC. But it's hardly a defining
> characteristic of Protestants, as there are many others who would
> either agree with Rome that women may not preside, or (my position)
> argue that priestly consecration is unnecessary whatever the sex of
> the priest.
Right, in that case, in one sense I am Protestant. Well at least that has
clarified that much.
> Well, I'm on record elsewhere as saying that the only really defining
> position of Anglicanism is middle-of-the-road liberalism, and I still
> stand by that opinion. I'm not convinced that recatholicising the
> Anglican church will ever be successful, because, even if you
> recatholicise the CofE, there will always be an Anglican-ish remainder
> who continue to want the middle way - they want priests but not the
> Pope, they want Reform but not evangelicalism, and they want to have
> both independence and episcopy as well as both orthodoxy and
> originality. Maybe, if the CofE does rejoin the Catholic fold, the
> Methodists will just move over to take its place.
Obviously I refuse your characterisation of really defining Anglicans as
middle of the road liberals because I'm not sure it's even possible to
define Anglicanism, let alone one position within it. I'm not convinced
recatholicising will ever be successful, mostly because I think many of
those who wanted to do so have already gone to Rome :-). As I said in
yesterday's post, the problem with Anglicanism, more than anything else is
that it is internally divided many times, especially along the lines of
the reformation. That means we can have no Magisterium, no kind of
teaching authority and very little means for stating what is true and what
isn't every time we have a dispute that can't be answered by the first 4
ecumenical councils. I'm being a bit pessimistic at the moment because I
think our disputes will grew more plentiful and we won't have any way to
resolve them.
> Well, what I'd actually argue is that there's nothing to wait for :-)
Then why do Rome still say that we cannot share our sacraments? Besides
which, there is heaven to wait for... :)
> >> If I can't accept Catholicism as a whole (which I can't,
> >> for various reasons), then I'd rather start again from a Biblical and
> >> hstorical analysis of what the Church comprises and develop it from
> >> there.
> >
> >It is my belief that I don't think that that is possible which leaves me
> >stranded. The multiplicity of Protestantism is what makes me doubt it.
>
> I would argue the opposite - for me, the multiplicity of Protestantism
> is testament to the fact that the goal of recreating the Church is
> still alive. Whether or not it's actually acheivable is another thing
> (and I would be inclined to agree that it isn't), but the mere fact
> that so many of us still want it is what's important.
But recreating the Church is unnecessary because we already have the
Church. Renewing the Church ought to fall within our goal of glorifying
God, but it's not about creating lots of new organisations. It might be
about creating lots of new churches, but do we really need the
proliferation of new "denominations" that have spawned of late?
<snip good stuff on learning how to do Church>
> >Let Mary wash feet like the widows and wait for the Church as the
> >bridegroom whilst we all slowly return to the place of those who do the
> >will of God under the cross...
>
> Although I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't the Church the bride,
> and Christ the bridegroom? Or, using a different metaphor, isn't the
> Church the body, and Christ the head? Where does Mary fit into this?
This is a new bit of thinking, but as I see it, if Christ is the Body of
Christ in the Eucharist and in each of us (just for a start), then there
is a sense in which Christ is both the bride and the bridegroom. It is
wrong (and we do not do it) to simply regard Christ as the bridegroom
because that is only one way of representing who Christ is. I am
interested in a reworking of the metaphor that comes to see Mary's role,
not only as bridal (being the Church Herself), but as bridegroom (being,
for example, the first at the tomb and waiting for the rest of the Church)
in order that Mary might come to be more fully embodied within the current
Church. Mary does not "fit in", she sticks out :). At the moment, the
Petrine role is played out within a Marian mode, but there is nothing that
works any other way around. That is not to say anything /has/ to work the
other way around, but I think we have the metaphor to be able to rework a
priestly role that takes account of femaleness. Of course, one can argue
that gender is unimportant with regard to ministerial priesthood, but the
RCs do not and I prefer working with the RC data that I have.
I am trying to put forward an argument, partly from the RC position of
Mary's sinlessness to justify the Anglican practice of female priests on
the basis of Mary's femaleness and priestly function. This ought to make
nobody happy. Many protestants won't accept Mary's sinlessness and RCs
haven't accepted female orders. This makes me think I may well be on to
something. The reason this links to this thread is because part (and
maybe only a small part) of what stops Anglicans and Roman Catholics being
one is that we're not accepting one another's orders or one another's
dogma. This has been made worse by the unilateral move on the part of
Anglicans in ordaining women. I think that ordaining women to be
ministerial priests is a right move, but it lacks both consensus and
argument. There are lots of arguments out there about "Why women can be
priests despite not being male," but few as to why there is a basis for
ministerial priesthood in females. Of course, this argument is only any
good in so far as one separates ministerial priesthood and the priesthood
of all believers. This is something Anglicans are divided over, so my
argument probably won't affect anything in the long run!
I hope this will eventually lead to a discussion of the role that Mary
plays in the incarnation. Our redemption in Christ is related to Christ's
redemption of Mary. Mary is also both bride and bridegroom because she is
mother of a priest who has no biological father. Although Joseph's[1]
lineage matters on paper, it is only Mary's body (and God's body) that are
involved in growing and birthing our High priest in the first nine months.
Of course God only has a Body because of Mary's body. Perhaps you are
starting to see my obsession with embodiment now!
There is a sense in which a pregnant woman can place her hands over her
womb and proclaim "this is my body". Of course, this doesn't mean "my
body" in the way some women today regard their bodies. It's not only
Mary's body because Mary's body is the Church's body, which is, God's
body. There is a further sense in which giving birth can be seen to be
breaking the body at the same time as birthing new life. I'm interested
in playing with the metaphor that surrounds all of this. I want to get
people thinking about the metaphors we use to describe the Church and
Jesus and Mary.
This may form part of the dissertation, mentioned yesterday... I don't
suppose there's anybody on the group who has particular familiarity with
von Balthasar, is there?
[1](As it happens, I reckon St. Joseph is probably the saint who is rather
under-celebrated (this Friday for those interested). Does anybody know
what the custom is for celebrating St. Joseph's day? A couple of my
friends wanted to do something, but short of a carpentry workshop, we were
a bit stuck. In today's culture and our diversifying ways of learning
what it means to be family, it might help to identify with a man who has
no role in biologically creating offspring, but does his duty in the
bringing up of the Son of God anyway.)
Angela Rayner
> Angela Rayner wrote:
>
> <snip - a lot of good stuff about Anglicanism, only some of which I
> disagree with!>
Well, that's better than I expected :) Great!
> >
> > "I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not
> > tried to hide the ambiguous character of my ecclesial stance, but
> > rather I have tried to turn it into a resource for service for
> > Protestant and Catholic alike. God knows what God is doing by making
> > some of us ecclesially homeless, but at least my homelessness has
> > made it possible as well as necessary for me to learn from other
> > Christians." Stanley Hauerwas "In Good Company"
>
> Isn't the simple answer to your conundrum the answer that the CofE is a
> *reformed* catholic church?
My problem really is with the reformed (or even reforming) bit. There are
bits of the RC that I think could be reformed (as ought to be clear from
my post about Mary,) but they're not the bits that we're historically
divided over. The historical parts of the reformation are still bits that
many Anglicans would want to be reformed about today and I'm personally
extremely unreformed about them. Perhaps that doesn't matter, but I do
think it helps to agree on certain essentials. I find it rather bizarre
that I'm in a denomination in which we all baptise, and yet think rather
different things (or nothing at all) is going on during the baptism.
Also, I'm not clear in how many senses we are catholic when the RCs won't
accept our catholicity. As I demonstrated by the huge list of things more
catholic minded Anglicans do, I think we're in some sense more catholic
than Roman Catholics. But, part of the reason our catholicity is not
accepted is because of the "reformed" parts. It's all rather circular.
Besides which, lots of my argument rests of the practices of "more
catholic Anglicans". I really don't know how many of these there are
around. In Cambridge, for example, it appears to me that we're a tiny
part of the tradition. I'm not terribly interested in numbers, but there
comes a point when the tradition ceases to want to include your practices.
I still don't know the legality of benediction :-). People mention from
time to time that it ought not to be practiced by Anglicans from a legal
point of view. Is that true?
There really isn't a simple answer to the conundrum. I will either end up
remaining as one of the most pro-Roman-Catholic Anglicans in the country
or as a rather (potentially) miserable Roman Catholic. Either way, it's
really neither one thing or the other.
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not tried to
Angela Rayner
That's another way of putting it. However, I can't get around the thought
that we really ought to recognise the Pope and women priests :-).
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not tried to
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:21:57 +0000, Angela Rayner put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think it's important to distinguish between the existence of the
>> >> Church and the organisation of the church. There is a strong argument
>> >> in favour of episcopacy being the most suitable form of Church
>> >> government, but that's not the same as saying that the Church must be
>> >> episcopal in order to exist.
>
><snip dinner>
>
>> >I think the Church will always exist because it's a non-temporal body.
>>
>> Does the Church exist separately from the human beings who comprise
>> it, though?
>
>The Church on earth is the gathered followers of Christ. However, if they
>were all killed off, the Church would still exist in the lives of the
>saints who are living eternally. So I think that's a "no" to the Church
>existing separately from the human beings who comprise it.
That's pretty much how I would see it.
>> >That's why I made the distinction about fullness. It exists in greater
>> >fullness where there is episcopal ordering. I don't expect you to accept
>> >this because I think it relies on assumptions that are not accepted by the
>> >more reformed. See below.
>>
>> What I don't accept is that the Church, as a whole, can be more or
>> less full. I think that individual sections of the Church (or
>> individual churches) can more or less perfectly reflect the fullness
>> of the Church, but that's not the same thing.
>
>That's a useful clarification of my statement. I agree that individual
>sections of the Church (or individual churches) can more or less perfectly
>reflect the fullness of the Church, and I am arguing for "less" in the
>case of those who aren't episcopally ordered, but also "less" for those
>who have forgotten what it means to live the love of Christ.
I'd also agree with this, with the proviso that "imperfectly
reflecting the fullness" is not the same as "not having the
fullnesss".
>
>> The Church is not
>> defined by the relationship we humans have with each other, it is
>> defined by the relationships we humans have with Christ.
>
>I don't want to separate the two like that. The most important
>commandment is love the Lord your God... etc *and* love your neighbour as
>yourself. Our relationship with Christ is outworked through our
>relationships with others. The Church defines horizontally as well as
>vertically.
Sure, they're both important. But the horizontal depends on the
vertical.
>
>> And Christ is
>> perfect. So the Church is, in its relationship with Christ, already in
>> a point of fullness.
>
>"Christ is perfect" does not lead easily (as far as I can see) to "the
>Church is perfect" because our relationship with Christ is not perfect.
I'm not suggesting that the Church "is" perfect. What I'm trying to
get at is that the Church is in contact with perfection, and therefore
has perfection (and fullness) available to it.
This is a difficult one to answer, because a lot depends on what kind
of distinction you are making between the Church and individual
Christians. For the evangelical, what you're saying isn't a problem,
because we would argue that salvation is an individual thing and that
church (as opposed to Church) membership is essentially a matter of
choice and practice rather than necessity or doctrine. We may argue
that some forms of church structure are better than others, and that
some churches are better than others, but evangelical theology as a
whole doesn't allow for church membership to have any direct bearing
on a person's individual relationship with God. So, if you're saying
that all individuals are equal before God and all equally members of
the Church, but that some churches are not as good a reflection of
God's pattern for the Church than others, then I don't have any
problem with it (even if I disagree with your opinion on what
constitutes God's pattern for the Church). However, it seems to me
that Catholic theology tends to downplay the individual's relationship
with God in favour of a more corporate approach. If so, then it's
difficult to say that a church can be a poorer reflection of God's
pattern than another church without implying that the individual
members of that church, in some way, also have a poorer relationshop
with God. And that is what I would call evil.
>> I have no problem with asserting that certain sects which call
>> themeselves "Christian" are nothing of the sort. It is in the nature
>> of deceivers to lie; if a cult deceives its members then it may
>> equally attempt to deceive outsiders (and, of course, vice versa). I'm
>> happy with the ways that the corporate mind of the Church has
>> historically used to assist with distinguishing whether an individual,
>> movement or organisation is inside or outside the boundaries of the
>> Church. And, if they are outside the boundaries, then I am not in
>> communion with them - not by choice, but by definition.
>
>The problem is, as I see it, this is what Rome is saying...
>Protestantism seems to be a sect which is outside certain boundaries of
>the Church, but not outside the boundaries of what it means to be in
>relationship with Christ.
Which, to me, is simply nonsense. There is only one boundary of the
Church, and that boundary is the same as the boundary of those who
have a saving relationship with Christ.
> If they [Protestants] are out of the
>boundaries, then Rome are out of communion with them. There is a problem,
>as I see it, in saying that we can be in relationship with Christ and not
>within the boundaries of the Church, which is why I've tried to introduce
>the fullness distinction.
I think, though, that this is a bit of an attempt to create a square
triangle. I don't think the two can be reconciled - at some point, a
decision on where the boundaries lie has to be made.
>> Well, I'm on record elsewhere as saying that the only really defining
>> position of Anglicanism is middle-of-the-road liberalism, and I still
>> stand by that opinion. I'm not convinced that recatholicising the
>> Anglican church will ever be successful, because, even if you
>> recatholicise the CofE, there will always be an Anglican-ish remainder
>> who continue to want the middle way - they want priests but not the
>> Pope, they want Reform but not evangelicalism, and they want to have
>> both independence and episcopy as well as both orthodoxy and
>> originality. Maybe, if the CofE does rejoin the Catholic fold, the
>> Methodists will just move over to take its place.
>
>Obviously I refuse your characterisation of really defining Anglicans as
>middle of the road liberals because I'm not sure it's even possible to
>define Anglicanism, let alone one position within it. I'm not convinced
>recatholicising will ever be successful, mostly because I think many of
>those who wanted to do so have already gone to Rome :-). As I said in
>yesterday's post, the problem with Anglicanism, more than anything else is
>that it is internally divided many times, especially along the lines of
>the reformation. That means we can have no Magisterium, no kind of
>teaching authority and very little means for stating what is true and what
>isn't every time we have a dispute that can't be answered by the first 4
>ecumenical councils. I'm being a bit pessimistic at the moment because I
>think our disputes will grew more plentiful and we won't have any way to
>resolve them.
I'm not suggesting that Anglicanism has a clearly obvious definition.
It just seems to me that the natural "home ground" of the Anglican
church is libralism, because it's the only position that it can truly
call its own. As you say, many of those who are more inclined to
Catholicism have already departed for Rome, while, on the other side
of things, those who are of an evangelical inclination are likely to
jump ship into the dissenting waters. That leaves behind those who are
neither Catholic nor evangelical.
>> Well, what I'd actually argue is that there's nothing to wait for :-)
>
>Then why do Rome still say that we cannot share our sacraments? Besides
>which, there is heaven to wait for... :)
Well, I don't have to wait in order to be able to share the
sacraments.
>> >> If I can't accept Catholicism as a whole (which I can't,
>> >> for various reasons), then I'd rather start again from a Biblical and
>> >> hstorical analysis of what the Church comprises and develop it from
>> >> there.
>> >
>> >It is my belief that I don't think that that is possible which leaves me
>> >stranded. The multiplicity of Protestantism is what makes me doubt it.
>>
>> I would argue the opposite - for me, the multiplicity of Protestantism
>> is testament to the fact that the goal of recreating the Church is
>> still alive. Whether or not it's actually acheivable is another thing
>> (and I would be inclined to agree that it isn't), but the mere fact
>> that so many of us still want it is what's important.
>
>But recreating the Church is unnecessary because we already have the
>Church. Renewing the Church ought to fall within our goal of glorifying
>God, but it's not about creating lots of new organisations. It might be
>about creating lots of new churches, but do we really need the
>proliferation of new "denominations" that have spawned of late?
I'd argue that we do. At least, what we need is not so much all the
new denominations themselves, what we need is the theology that allows
a multiplicity of denominations to exist without any of them claiming
to be the only true denomination.
[snip stuff about Mary, because this is - to me, at least - a totally
different discussion and one that I have no real interest in]
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind, I feel free now"
David Ould
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, David Ould wrote:
>
>> Pete Broadbent wrote:
>>> Angela Rayner wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip - a lot of good stuff about Anglicanism, only some of which I
>>> disagree with!>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not
>>>> tried to hide the ambiguous character of my ecclesial stance, but
>>>> rather I have tried to turn it into a resource for service for
>>>> Protestant and Catholic alike. God knows what God is doing by
>>>> making some of us ecclesially homeless, but at least my
>>>> homelessness has made it possible as well as necessary for me to
>>>> learn from other Christians." Stanley Hauerwas "In Good Company"
>>>
>>> Isn't the simple answer to your conundrum the answer that the CofE
>>> is a *reformed* catholic church?
>>
>>
>> quite. Besides it's not a difference between protestant and
>> catholic, it's a difference between protestant and Roman
>
> That's another way of putting it. However, I can't get around the
> thought that we really ought to recognise the Pope and women priests
> :-).
the Pope *and* women priests?
that's like recognising Wednesday *and* United.
Angela Rayner
I know :-(
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"I do not know whether I am Protestant or Catholic... I have not tried to
Patrick Herring
| Angela Rayner wrote:
| > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, David Ould wrote:
....
| >> quite. Besides it's not a difference between protestant and
| >> catholic, it's a difference between protestant and Roman
| >
| > That's another way of putting it. However, I can't get around the
| > thought that we really ought to recognise the Pope and women priests
| > :-).
|
| the Pope *and* women priests?
|
| that's like recognising Wednesday *and* United.
Sure, all their supporters are Pigs, at least according to each other.
Not sure what the ecumenical import of that is...
--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk
Alec Brady
Richard Dudley
< snipped quoted stuff >
I think you've just demonstrated one convincing argument for top posting
here Alec :-) There I was, eagerly scrolling down to find out what you
were going to say, and in the end... nowt, nada, zilch ;-)
Richard
Simon Robinson
news:46jk50l9ejmflcojh...@4ax.com...
<snip tons of stuff, all apparently quoted>
Err - did you actually post anything there?
Alec Brady
D'oh!
--
Alec Brady
Alec Brady
<lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
>"Alec Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:46jk50l9ejmflcojh...@4ax.com...
><snip tons of stuff, all apparently quoted>
>
>Err - did you actually post anything there?
Apparently not. Sorry, pressed send too early, I guess.
--
Alec Brady
Tony Gillam
Should help you win the "bandwidth hog" prize this month. ;-)
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria