Helen King sharedconversations What colour should it be? ‘Furthering’ Living in Love and Faith
Mark Clavier Well-Tempered 10 Lessons from 30 Years of Being a Priest
David Runcorn Inclusive Evangelicals Male and female he made them – celebrating one humanity, equal and different
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Music in the Worship of the Church. Cause of Unity or Division?
Subordinationism is massively present in the New Testament and not ruled out in the fourth and fifth century creeds. However, Father and Son are not male and female, so they provide no model for subordination or even complementarity between the two (or more than two, say some) sexes
No it isn’t – what NT are you reading? And the Council of Nicea rejected Arianism which used subordinationism as a key plank in its arguments against the divinity of Christ.
Thanks for the challenge! By Subordinationism (just to say) I mean belief in a relationship requiring obedience of one to another – the relevant sense in which it is applied by some to the two sexes. The NT texts that most readily come to mind are Lk 22:42 – ‘not my will’ John 14:28 ‘Greater than I‘ Looking a bit more, the following also strike me as pretty unequivocal I Cor 15:38 Subordination Heb.5: 8 ‘He learned obedience’. Plus more and more. Furthermore, I don’t see any word in the NT casting any doubt on this aspect of the relationship… Read more »
I think this is the result of confusion about what we’re talking about subordination and functional subordination are different. The former implies that the Son is lesser in status than the Father, this is a heresy. The latter implies that the Son freely submitted Himself to the will of the Father for our salvation. Note, this isn’t saying that the Son is inferior, but it is saying that the Son freely gave Himself up for the will of the Father. We see this in Philippians 2 in part. I don’t think people are being honest when they imply that evangelicals… Read more »
Heb 5:7 indicates that Jesus’ ‘subordination’ to the Father was particular to his time on earth, ‘in the flesh’. That’s why he had to ‘learn submission’. The Luke and John verses you cite also apply to Jesus’ life in the flesh. 1 Cor 15: 28 (not 38) again indicates that the Son’s subjection to the Father is not an eternal condition, since the Son won’t be subjected to the Father until all things are subjected to the Son. In other words, that subjection does not exist now. I don’t believe that the Old or New Testaments teach that the Son… Read more »
The Son did the Father’s will. The Father sent the Son. The Son did not send himself. That is subordination, willingly accepted by the Son.
But accepted for a particular period of time and a particular purpose – not intrinsic to their natures or relationship.
Do we know this for sure? What about 1 Cor 15.28, which reads like eschatological self-subordination of the Son to the Father? Similarly 11.3 and 3.23 – these have nothing to do with ontology (‘nature’) but with relationship. Gordon Fee’s NICNT commentary (p. 760) seems confused to me here.
In any case, subordination doesn’t (or needn’t) mean intrinsic inferiority of being but submission to God’s will for His purpose – the very point that feminist theology has striven to deny. The Church was never meant to be pale reflection of existing (and transient) political norms.
To say that Jesus Christ was subordinate but only functionally or that he was subordinate then but not now, or eschatologically but not temporally is in all cases to say, and really to accept that the NT says, that Jesus was subordinate to the Father in some important, I’d say central, sense. No contrary texts.anywhere. The Homoousion is capable of many interpretations, and I think Constantine suggested, or ‘imposed’ it, because he thought people would be able to hold each other’s interpretations in some respect. It was common at the time to think that Mind and Word were both equal… Read more »
I think some of Mark Clavier’s advice is very good. One issue, though “Priests are sheep temporarily deputised to help shepherd other sheep”. This is false; you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek who should “never cease your labour, your care and diligence, until you have done all that lieth in you.” (BCP Ordinal)
Fair enough. Had I not been writing on a train, I would probably have caught and deleted ‘temporarily’. For what it’s worth, it refers to being deputised on this side of the grave. Or at least that’s what I had in mind.
That does provide clarity thankyou!
I’m a Baptist minister, and our concept of ordination is much more functional than what has been stated above. We believe that we’ve been “set apart” for ministry, for however long that may be; we don’t believe that an ontological change takes place at our ordination.
Presumably that is why you are not a thinking Anglican (that’s OK!!)
Andrew, many Anglicans – including thinking Anglicans – agree with you.
The Church and it’s teaching does not.
I don’t think the Church of England expresses a view on this in its official statements. Rather it allows for a diversity of opinion on this topic. And as another example, the Agreed Statement on Ministry, published by ARCIC as long ago as 1973 describes the history and role of presbyters (and other ordained ministers) and their ordination — all without once mentioning Melchizedek or the indelibility of orders.
I’m afraid you’re wrong here, Simon, on the indelibility of orders. “So the gifts and calling of God to the ministers are irrevocable. For this reason, ordination is unrepeatable in both our churches.” ARCIC 85
Thanks for that. It seems to me though that this still falls short of saying there is an “ontological” change, and I would think that in its context the statement refers to a lifelong irrevocability not an eternal one — the reference to the unrepeatability of ordination (clearly a this-worldly event) makes that reasonably clear I’d have thought. Of course the words “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” originate in the rather different context of Romans 11.29 (okay I looked that ref up!) and refer to what we all receive from the divine: more specifically, that the… Read more »
Canon C1.2 states: ‘No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his [sic] order.’
While this implies ontological change, to go from that to an ‘alter Christus’ is a stretch. Despite some claims on this thread, the CofE does have a theology of orders which, although interpreted variously, is neither Roman nor Baptist, but Anglican.
We all know that the C of E can use ambiguity in formal statements.
Sadly, nailing your colours to the fence does not satisfy everybody.
We know we are a broad church and have managed for years to muddle along with people of a radically different theological stance.
This is both a gift and a liability but either way should not cause too much of a hissy fit.
This indissolubility of ordination is not dissimilar to theology of baptism in TEC. “Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ’s Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.” TEC BCP, p. 298. After the person is baptized, the priest makes the sign of the cross on the person’s forehead (usually with Holy Chrism), saying, “[Name], you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ’s own for ever. Amen.” TEC BCP, p. 308. The CofE may have similar statements of belief but, since I am not a… Read more »
The CofE too believes that the ‘bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble’ – even when our ritual practice undermines our theology. Such as when the stone font, symbolically situated by the door to the church, is ignored in favour of a mini font at the east end. Visibility is achieved, but at the cost of a visible sign of death and resurrection and a symbol of baptism’s immutability. Although this is trifling when set beside the practice – which bishops seem to turn a blind eye to – of some Evangelical parishes ‘re-baptizing’ adults baptized as babies.
As George Carey’s book referred to it, “The waters that divide” rather than unite. The arguments over that one – having been in both Anglican and Baptist churches – are enormous, and very strongly held.
Yes. I have always believed there is an Anglican theology of orders, classically expressed in the BCP Ordinal. The ordained ministry are “sacramentally invested representatives of the Church universal ( to quote Bishop John V Taylor General Synod 10thNov 1983). Article XX111 makes it clear that ministry is not an office conferred by the congregation but an order (in 3 ministries)sacramentally conferred by God at the hands of those ” who have public authority given to them (i.e. by God) through his ministers.. William Temple expressed it well in his address to the Convocation of Canterbury in 1943: “When I… Read more »
Yes! Good point, well made….
Hopefully you’re still one of Jesus’ sheep, George.
Personally, like most low church Anglicans, I’ve never thought that verse was about me. In Hebrews it’s about Jesus, and the writer never applies it to Christian pastors and teachers.
Jesus creates a new priesthood in the order of Melchizedek as priest, prophet and sacrifice, a priesthood he ordains his apostles (at the last supper) to whom they themselves ordained successors to act in the person of Christ to the Church in administering the sacraments of the new covenant. Of course, priests remain a part of the baptised collective, but they are ordained with a permanent Charism to serve the Church as priests of the new covenent. Fortunately, canon law is very clear: “No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be… Read more »
Was St Paul a priest? If so, who ordained him?
The apostolic age belongs to a distinctive era. Was Peter a priest? John the Elder? Of course not. Christian priesthood emerges in the sub-apostolic period as a way of reflecting on the era of OT priesthood come to an end (the temple is destroyed in 70AD) but continuing due to the High Priesthood of Christ, taking now a new form due to his unique Office. You question seems to want Paul to be a priest, and if not, Christian priesthood (as per the above), is in void. There are many good studies on this very question: historical, biblical and theological.… Read more »
The separation of the presbyterate from the episcopacy to serve the growing does emerge in the post-apostolic era. However, Jesus clearly ordained his apostles to the priesthood at the last supper and joined them to his sacrifice, “offer this in rememberance of me”.
“Do this in remembrance of me,” not “offer”.
I have been a Canadian Anglican for fifty years and I have never heard anyone – bishop, theologian, liturgist – teach that Jesus ordained the apostles at the last supper. You keep saying ‘the church’s teaching’, but your teaching is the teaching of a particular tradition within Anglicanism, not that of Anglicanism itself. The low church tradition is a perfectly valid form of Anglicanism.
The concept is something which was discussed at my theological college the verb to do “poieō” is translated as to offer in the Old Testament in relation to sacrifices on the altar. So offer this in remembrance of me seems a very helpful transliteration in understanding the nature of the Eucharist. I’d recommend reading “Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist”.
Okay, but most biblical translators obviously disagree, and they know more Greek and Hebrew than I ever will.
And to say ‘At my theological college we discussed…’ is not the same as saying ‘the Church teaches that…’
Neither Liddle & Scott or Bauer give ‘offer’ as a meaning of ‘poieo’.
A specific group of disciples were chosen from the wider melee that followed Our Lord, and they were given a specific instruction. The eucharist as a participatory event was instituted at Cana and at the Feeding of the Multitude. At the the Last Supper a smaller group were commissioned to facilitate this for the whole group. So, yes, an ordination basically. Our Lord did not lay his hands on any of their heads, though, but perhaps that detail escaped the memory of those who recorded the event.
I suspect it was said in Aramaic.
Any Aramaic scholars around to enlighten?
The NT was written for the enlightenment of Greek speakers and it could not have been the intention to convey major points by hints derived from a language that hardly any of them knew
That was not my point.
My point was to wonder what was said in the original Aramaic, Jesus and his disciples were unlikely to talk to one another in Greek.
On a simple basis – my charismatic understandings coming out here, “we are all kings and priests unto God”. So all of us have differing roles and functions, and effectively keep the body of Christ functioning. The Spirit’s ministry of the gifts revolves around availability and willingness, not rank or authorisation. The current self protective Anglican obsession with bits of paper is a brilliant way of stifling the Holy Spirit’s work within the body and promoting domination by ‘rule book Harry’. No wonder the ‘new churches’ are thriving.
I don’t think it inflates the office of apostle to confer priesthood on it, but demotes or confuses it.
It does with the washing of the feet, as levitcal priests recieved before offering the lamb, and Jesus saying “I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” David’s sons were non-levite priests.
I prefer to let the apostles exercise their providential office of bearing witness to the Christ they knew, in accordance with his purposes in salvation history.
Prophets and apostles are privileged witnesses.
Priesthood is a different office.
Wasn’t that invitation to us all?
My question was a response to George’s statement that the apostles were ordained priest at the Last Supper, and themselves ordained successors in the priesthood. My question to George did not indicate my own view, and I’m a little surprised it should have been interpreted that way.
Apologies. The travail of this form of communication…
I interpreted it as coming from someone who felt that St Paul was perfectly OK NOT being a priest….. as though suffixed by “and did it matter?”
Exactly, Pam. The epistle says we are ALL kings and priests unto God – in different ways and as needed.
Exodus 19.6: ‘And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel’.
Then Exodus 28.1: ‘And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office’.
Why did God institute a professional priesthood, presumably with the equivalent of papers of authorisation, if he had already constituted the whole people as priests?
Dear me, I think this is the only time I have ever disagreed with you. The Church has always taught that the apostles were priests. Surely the ministerial priesthood was founded at the Last Supper when Jesus said ‘do this in remembrance of me’.
St Paul does speak of his ministering the gospel to the grntiles as “priestly service’ (hierourgounta) in Romans 15.16.
Yes – evangelizing, not presiding at sacraments.
Yes, it does seem that the real priests were people like Billy Graham and D. L. Moody. The use of this verb in Romans 15.16 has always intrigued me, since I read an essay by Donald Robinson in the Leon Morris Festschrift many years ago. Douglas Moo in the NICNT commentary on Romans (p. 890) remarks: ‘Paul … pictures himself as a priest, using the gospel as the means by which he offers his Gentile converts as a sacrifice acceptable to God. The language of “priest” and “sacrifice” here is, of course metaphorical. Paul makes no claim to be a… Read more »
A brilliant quote; thank you.
Perhaps both?
These binary spats are uninspiring,
Yes.
Some apostles in Antioch.
Setting aside Barnabas and Saul for the work God had given to them is not the same as ordaining them to a lifelong priesthood in which they become an ontologically different kind of Christian. That is reading later theology back into the book of Acts.
But Paul left Titus in Crete to ‘appoint elders [presbuterous] in every town as I directed you’ (Titus 1.5-7). I don’t know if Paul would have understood ‘becoming an ontologically different kind of Christian’ (perhaps he would, but he wasn’t an Aristotelian), but he certainly believed his calling to be an apostle was lifelong.
James, I believe my calling to serve is also lifelong, but I don’t believe that it moved me from being a member of the people of God in general to a new position as sharing the priesthood of Jesus ‘after the order of Melchizedek’.
Tim, I agree with that: a Christian’s calling to be a disciple is lifelong. I suppose my point is that there is a ministry of teaching and preaching in the NT which is directly authorised by the apostles, along with other ministries (Ephesians 4). What happened in the generation after the apostles is another question; as you know, the usual view is that a kind of monepiscopacy emerged in the urban churches and various powers (ordination, eucharistic “presidency” etc) accrued to these individuals. That is, the episcopacy emerged out of the presbyterate, whereas in apostolic times elders and overseers were… Read more »
I wonder if the Didache provides helpful evidence. In that document the are two distinct classes of leader. Firstly there are overseers (episkopoi) who are respected members of the local community, elected by the community itself to lead the group. These overseers are able to preside at a Eucharist. Alongside these there is a class of wandering mendicant holy men (archehieroi) who teach and preach, and who can also preside at the Eucharist. These men are constrained to the apostolic life taught by Jesus – poverty and constant movement. Interestingly, in the Didache, authority is held by the community, who… Read more »
The Christian priest offers bread and wine like Melchisedech. The ancient Roman Canon makes it very clear that this is what is being offered in the mass. Those words may have been re-interpreted in later ages of the church, but there is no notion anywhere in the old Roman rite of offering anything but bread and wine. Melchisedech’s sacrifice is presented as the ideal, even better than Abraham’s (which God provided) and Abel’s (which God accepted on account of the giver’s disposition rather than the content of the gift) The Aaronic priest offered blood and dead animals which God made… Read more »
….or is it just that a priest is still a member of the laos.
Yes and most likely one of the apostles.
And you know this how?
There is rather more ground to deduce this from scripture than there is for the doctrine of the trinity. Place alongside each other Acts 13.1-3 and Galatians 2.9-11 and we see Peter, James and John commissioning Paul and Barnabas, then Peter turning up at Antioch, and, also at Antioch, some people laying hands on Paul and Barnabas. Is it really too far fetched to assume that the layers on of hands included Peter (if not, also, James and John)?
“No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order”. What of those who have been ordained and then committed murder, embezzlement, or child abuse, and then died without repenting? Does God ignore their sins, send them to heaven, and regard them as ‘in the person of Christ’, both on earth and in heaven? What of those like Gordon Rideout, who told a young boy he was groping that it was ‘part of my ministry’? And told a little girl in an orphanage, who had been… Read more »
Sadly Janet after years working in Child Protection I came to the conclusion that Matthew 18.6 is a verse which provokes almost universal memory loss
It’s a verse which many survivors – including me – cherish. But the Church as an institution, and many individuals within it, seem determined to pretend it isn’t there.
Are priests are guaranteed a place in heaven? I rather hope not. Imagine turning up to heaven and finding that it is just like the sherry reception at a diocesan clergy conference.
The idea of heaven as a giant clergy conference is my idea of hell!
Why do you assume a diocesan clergy conference is a foretaste of heaven? Alternative destinations exist, y’know.
That isn’t talking about “a place in heaven”. It is talking about his sacramental role. So for instance, the communions presided over by an abuser are valid communions. And – possibly more impactful – the ordinations carried out by an abusive bishop are valid ordinations.
How utterly tiresome. Of course these people are judged twice over for being put in a place of ministry by the Church and abusing it. Shouting child abuse at every Christian doctrine you don’t like doesn’t actually stop children being abused.
I do hope you aren’t in the habit of calling all survivors who find your statements triggering ‘tiresome’? Gordon Rideout was my vicar and mentor. I have known a number of other abusive priests, as have others here. If you have been using TA for a while, you ought to be well aware that I do not connect every doctrine with child abuse – although for many survivors that is indeed a genuine and valid difficulty. The permanence of the priesthood is a doctrine held by only some Christians. However, your characterising it as a priesthood in the order of… Read more »
I too have been a victim of abusive sexual acts in the Church. I reacted as I did because I felt you were trying to use feelings about the actions of evil men to attack me for a completely unrelated point. You suggested I was saying the man who abused you was in heaven, which I think is just a completely untrue and hurtful accusation. The permancey of the priesthood is a doctrine which has been held by the Church of England and the universal Church. It is a donatist heresy to believe that the actions of a priest invalidates… Read more »
It’s quite an amazing claim, isn’t it? I assume this is a sop to Anglo-Catholic theology and to that stream of Catholic teaching that claims the power to transubstantiate and to absolve from sins remains, no matter how evil the priest. Catholic mythology is full of stories of wicked apostate priests. But Pope St Pius X, the scourge of the Modernists, used to quote Hosea 4.6, ‘because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me’, so perhaps he thought the priesthood could be taken away? When Peter Ball’s crimes became known, the Church of England,… Read more »
Stopping someone from functioning as a priest or bishop when they have done something wicked is sensible. To say that the sacraments conducted by a wicked priest are ineffective is Donatism and condemned in Article 26 of the Book of Common Prayer.
The indelibility of ordination in the Anglican understanding is demonstrated quite simply in the fact that if an unfrocked priest is readmitted to priestly ministry, he or she does not need to be ordained again. In the same way, if you, having been baptised, should convert to Sikhism or any other religion, you woulf not need to be baptised again if you later returned to Christianity.
Well, obviously we aren’t going to settle the high church/low church controversy. I’ll simply say that I see nothing in the accounts of the last supper to indicate that it was any sort of an ordination service, and that the language of priesthood is never used to describe the twelve or the elders who are appointed in the NT churches (this was excellently covered long ago in J.B. Lightfoot’s ‘The Christian Ministry’). I don’t disagree with what you say about the permanence of ordination, and Mark has already clarified what he meant by the word ‘temporary’. But I’m not familiar… Read more »
Canon C.1(2) of the Canons of the Church of England.
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/governance/legal-resources/canons-church-england/section-c
Thank you, Simon. The Anglican Church of Canada has no such canon, and as I had no way of knowing of which Anglican church George was a member, I had to ask.
I wonder how many ordinands read this before their ordination and how much of it is discussed/ taught during their training/ formation?
Very little, there has been a deliberate reductionism in relation to the responsability of being ordained a deacon or priest and the consequences.
I would read Hebrews 5 as indicating that Jesus’ priesthood cannot be shared or transmitted and that ‘many priests’ are a thing of the past
It does not. Bishops, and then subsequently presbyters, have been understood to exercise the priestly ministry of Christ handed to the apostles and then handed on to their successors.
I should have said 7. If you look at the contrast between verses 23 and 24 you surely see that Jesus is not bringing in a new era of many priests but an era in which he is the sole priest, having a status which he cannot share with those on earth because they are not immortal like him
Your first sentence has no basis at all in the New Testament.
I would recommend reading it again!
And I would recommend you read Hebrews 5 again, in Greek if you know any, with the help of a scholarly commentary. The Christian ministry is NOT the high priesthood of Melchizedek.
You completely misunderstand. The priest shares the priesthood of Christ; it is Christ’s ministry he is operating and has been ordained to as his function for the Church. How do we know this? Because Jesus ordained his apostles to form the Church, and they in turn ordained men to carry out their mission.
I am getting very confused. What happened to the priesthood of all believers? Such basic concepts, yet there are widely divergent views.
The priesthood of all believers was established in the Old Covenant. It did not remove the need for a ministerial priesthood too. All the Israelites wer called to be a kindom of priests, but then the descendants of Aaron were called to be priests too within that. What was the difference in their priesthoods?
I think what disturbs me, as someone who is not ordained, is all this divergent views and squabbling over what it means to be a priest. It isn’t important. Some are called to be ordained, some to be doctors, some to be business people, some to be statisticians, some to serve in other ways. There is no hierarchy of ‘goodness’ or of ‘Christian’.
Sorry to bring a taste of reality.
And in time, women.
George: Jesus didn’t ordain the apostles to be a sacrificing priesthood, at least not in the theology of the Book of Common Prayer. Your understanding is however, similar to Catholic Tridentine belief.
Jesus did not ordain anyone. There is nothing in the first century which looks like modern day ordination. I think ordination is a good development in the history of the Church but it is not there in the NT.
How do you know for sure? The gospels can’t possibly account for everything he did.
OK let’s get picky. In the NT Jesus does not ordain anyone etc.
He does not fling a folded up chasuble over anyone’s head, or anoint anyone’s hands and bind them together, or present anyone with a chalice and paten, but he does instruct 12 chosen people to ‘do this in remembrance of me’. He ordains them.
There have been some good posts on Inclusive Evangelicals lately. Many thanks to Rachel Humphrey, David Runcorn, Paul Roberts, and David Newman for the most recent four.
Mark Clavier ’10 Lessons from 30 Years of Being a Priest’ – excellent!
Mark’s post is really good
I tend to disagree Tim. I find the TA platform very one sided which is a shame as it doesn’t enable proper theological discussion.
One-sided on which topic(s)? I find plenty of robust theological discussion here. And as a result of such discussion I have sometimes modified or changed my views.
Good for you. You may find, in your view, “robust” theological discussion. I find, having monitored this platform for many months, that it tends towards providing a platform for dismissing evangelicals and those who oppose catastrophic doctrinal changes in the C of E’ . On occasions there are a stream of self congratulatory comments on aspects of criticisms aimed at evangelicals without any opposing comments being permitted. I use the term permitted as recently I had six replies that were unable to be posted ( presumably because the sensors judged them unfit). The comments were neither derogatory or abusive. On… Read more »
We have always made our stance clear. The very first post on TA back in August 2003 (and still the first link at the top right of the TA home page) sets out our position. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/65-2/ . The second post (and the second link on the home page) tells you about the editors, who have never hidden their identities.
Thanks for this pointer.
‘Thinking Anglicans proclaims a tolerant, progressive and compassionate Christian spirituality, in which justice is central to the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom of God. Our spirituality must engage with the world, and be consistent with the scientific and philosophical understanding on which our modern world is based. It must address the changes which science and technology have brought into our lives.’
Interesting that consistency with the philosophy of modernity is enshrined, ‘progressiveness’ is endorsed but not defined, while scriptural fidelity is nowhere invoked.
Remember what St Augustine said about science? Christians can make themselves look ridiculous, and hinder the kingdom?
References are available.
Only this morning I was listening to a discussion on ADHD, and what used to be called a naughty boy/girl is now understood to be amenable to treatment.
Science, medicine, philosophy advances. They advance through the instruments of God.
What exactly do you mean by scriptural fidelity? if you mean some kind of fundamentalism, contrary to what science and our minds teaches us, then I reject it absolutely.
Surely science and medicine advance slowly through research by clever people. If God wanted to cure cancer through some “instruments”, why does He make it so challenging and difficult?
I took ‘God’s instruments’ to be mainly ‘clever people’.
Whether God tells clever people what to do, or whether clever people are influenced by their internal sense of the divine or of charity, I leave to theologians such as Tillich.
I guess I take scriptural fidelity to mean ‘We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). Meaning to actively challenge, capture, and align all thoughts with the truth of God’s Word, making them obedient to Christ rather than allowing rebellious or worldly ideas to dominate. It’s about using divine “weapons” (God’s truth) to demolish strongholds of false reasoning, bringing every idea into submission to Jesus’s teachings for spiritual victory and mental renewal. Or perhaps, the mind conformed to Christ, instead of conforming our articulation of… Read more »
I don;t think we are in disagreement. We all know scripture needs to be interpreted carefully, we also all know Christians who do not interpret carefully, are often found on the media, and do a great disservice.
I have previously referenced a link to an article from Harvard about this, but here are some other views.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94966/did-st-augustine-warn-us-about-interpreting-the-bible-in-a-way-which-harms-scie
I would use ‘science’ in a broad sense, including philosophy and psychology.
Have you actually read it though, Despondent? All that f it? It has some good quotes from the Missal, but it does not make a lot of sense and certainly isn’t morally edifying for the most part.
Geoff, I’m not clear what statement of mine you’re tending to disagree with.
Re. Stephen Parsons’ blog post: The older generations (of which I am a part) were raised in cultures in which community singing was still a thing, whether in school assemblies, church services, community choirs or other settings. I went to school in the 1960s and 70s and there was all kinds of community singing on a regular basis. Most young people today rarely encounter community singing. When they do, it happens at a rock concert, where a singer is singing a track everyone has heard multiple times on Spotify and iTunes. They know all the little nuances, because they’ve heard… Read more »
Has not the culture of the day always influenced Christian music? Maybe what’s different today is the breadth of choice as both old and new worship songs remain in use, hopefully chosen to fit the message of the service and the occasion. A church plant might well choose songs based on the demographic they are actively seeking to minister to.
I think there’s a lot in that. When I was in school (I left in 1965) we did a lot of singing. We sang hymns every day in assembly – fairly classical ones – and in singing classes we sang things like “Nymphs and Shepherds” “All in an April Evening, or D’ye ken John Peel”. Was similar to what we sang (accompanied invariably by an organist) at church. I have no experience of “church planting” type music but confess to a prejudice that I should hate it, for various reasons. I am not a regular attender, these days, at “Worship”… Read more »
Health warning:
The obsessives are really having a ball with this one!!
It is generating a great deal of heat! It puts me in mind of my maternal great great grandfather Samuel , a Strict and Particular Baptist Minister of impeccable Calvinism at a similar time to Charles Spurgeon He wrote many pamphlets and if alive today would probably try to dominate as many sites as he could . I offer a short extract from ’Call to Ministry’ ”I do not believe that ministers of the gospel can be grown in University hot-beds, after the manner of cultivating exotics. Our clergy-manufacturing- Colleges make the un-converted collegian just what the Scribes and Pharisees… Read more »
Now those are sermons I would go some way to hear!
I find piece by David Runcorn very half baked. It appears as just another stick to hit evangelicals with. I find certain aspects of the “ inclusive “ movement no more than a cloak for promoting ideas that fit neatly with societal drift away from authentic sound Christian doctrine. The criticisms loosely aimed at “ evangelicals “ reveals a lack of understanding of what many evangelicals actually believe and practice. I am sure the book he is reviewing will be eagerly read by the narrow fan base of inclusive church adherents but it certainly will not be taken seriously at… Read more »
David Runcorn is an evangelical writing on an evangelical website. What do you actually mean in your first paragraph?
He is the wrong sort of Evangelical.
There’s a lot of it / us about!
What on Earth does that mean?
Thank you for posting the IE blog on TA. It offers a strong call to the full equality and partnership of women and men in the church – evangelicals and beyond. It began with Kate Massey sharing the experience of women in a church where too often their vocation, ministry, gifts and ‘voice’ are still treated as lesser, are marginalised, and their presence and ‘voice’ silenced. It also traced the well documented tendency of male leadership to be overbearing, hierarchical and coercive – and with an underlying misogyny. The discussion that has followed completely ignored this. Instead, we have had combative discussion… Read more »
Quite. Many of the discussions here are quite depressing. They would put off anybody having anything to do with the church, if these ‘combative discussions’ are thought to be typical.
They don’t put me off. What DOES put me off is the suggestion that thinking had to stop when that disparate group of warring chaps, having their heads knocked together by a Roman Emperor, fought over the drafting of the final communiqué of their conference and gave birth to the Nicene Creed.
I agree. Maybe I should have been clearer. ‘anybody outside of the church’. Those within ‘the church’ should always consider how their behaviour is viewed by those outside ‘the church’.
I have formed the opinion, following a discussion with my clergy wife, that the rapid ascendancy of women into the priesthood has actually not benefited the church. This is a generalisation of course but personal experience of the many woman bishops and archdeacons that have been appointed in recent times finds many of them bringing their perceived struggles ( real or imaginary) and embracing of feminist causes into other areas of church teaching. While I have no empirical data to support my observations I find the majority of woman being accepted for ordination take a liberal revisionist stance on matters… Read more »
‘The rapid ascendancy of women into the priesthood’. Seriously? Movements for the ordination of women first began just after the 1WW. But as I am married to a bishop you will perhaps understand if I sit this one out.
Not married to a bishop, so maybe I can comment. During curate training, an archdeacon opposed to women’s ordination said that the females in one group “hadn’t a clue about priesthood.” On getting to know the group, I found this lacuna to be more evident among the men.
At least you are head of the household. You decide on everything happening within your house and your family. But maybe not on the fabric of the Bishop’s Palace.
Just to be clear, the above is a weak attempt at sarcasm, but I forget that some detect sarcasm better than others, and it is the lowest form of wit.
I wasn’t addressing David of course, but somebody who talked above about being head of household.
Aha – it was Geoff who was talking about himself being head of the household. Maybe he was also being sarcastic and trying to use humour. It is actually quite amusing having a situation where one person is head of the household and the partner the spiritual head. My every sympathy (not being sarcastic).
Nigel, Geoff was not joking. Headship is part of complementarian teaching as summarised in the blog. For the avoidance of doubt, though never mine, this is a world I have some familiarity with from my bible college days onward. One question is – what does being ‘head of the household’ actually mean? I assume that the final decisions in the marriage must rest with the man and the woman follows/obeys. But in my experience it is functionally irrelevant. Most couples actually practice mutuality and share the responsibilities in their marriage even when attending churches that teach headship. I am puzzled, however, that Geoff, given his… Read more »
Yes, the ancient use of ‘oicumene’ to designate both the household of faith and the household qua ‘dad, mum and the kids’ makes this distinction problematic, doesn’t it?
Blimey, Geoff – were you once bitten by Mary Daly?
“personal experience of the many woman bishops and archdeacons that have been appointed in recent times finds many of them bringing their perceived struggles ( real or imaginary) and embracing of feminist causes into other areas of church teaching.” I fed this into a theological translation website and it came out as this. “Women in authority say things I don’t like because, by referencing things I’d rather not think about or acknowledge, they challenge me to examine my assertions and assumptions. Someone needs to tell them to be quiet.” If we were to replace the words ‘woman‘ with ‘global majority‘… Read more »
Oh Geoff! And are you ever properly thanked for all this selfless weighing and measuring and finding wanting of the present substandard intake of females in positions of leadership?
My point proven I think. I venture a personal view, not in keeping with the “New Religion , that is frequently profiled on this site and I get six immediate lectures from followers of “The New Way”.
It just proves that anyone that speaks truth into this terrible mess the C of E has made of this attempt at outrageous evolution immediately receives insults, ridicule and piousness . Thank you for your informed superiority on this matter.
“I said something ridiculous and the fact that I was ridiculed for it means everyone is biased against me and big meanies”
Please, take a breath and consider that you are doing nothing to rebut the view that conservatives only offer sneering prejudice wrapped in theological language.
Jo. You delight in passing harsh judgments just because an opposing view is put forward. “Sneering prejudice “, you accuse me, I think is unnecessary. As was your “expert” view on what you consider “ridiculous “ as you freely aim that judgement at me.
I do wonder what it is in your heart that drives such anger. Perhaps you could re-read Galatians v 5 v22/23. Perhaps we should both read it again. It would be useful for GS to reflect on this at their February meeting.
Injustice, Geoff, injustice and cruelty in the church are what drive my anger. The fruits of the Spirit are valuable, but anger at injustice is righteous and Godly. Consider also that this is me being patient and exercising self-control, and others with far more at stake here have been far more patient and forbearing than anyone has any right to expect while enduring insults and abuse from you and others like you.
As I expected. Nothing of good fruit then, just justifying your anger and bitterness. Just stick with it Jo as the good bishops have just agreed to kick the can along the road for another two years. I sincerely hope your bitterness can burn for that long. I have been neither abusive nor hurled insults but I guess you only see what you want to see. I am indeed very sorry for you.
I’m really not interested in your armchair spiritual direction, or your sanctimonious faux-pity. Engage with what is actually being said or don’t engage at all.
Well, you do state that it is a personal view you offer, granted, Geoff, but though you admit in your first post that you have no empirical data, the phrase which you then go on to use, ‘but facts are facts,’ does suggest that there’s evidence out there which you’re not presenting, or to which common assent has been made. I can offer – as no doubt many others on this forum might – hard and evidenced examples of appalling treatment of women in Ministry (lay and ordained, formal and informal), in the Church generally, and in the world in… Read more »
David, you present your case extremely well and also dismember the inconsistencies in my stated viewpoint. Unlike some on this platform, you generously refrain from calling me a sneering conservative. I do not refute the statement that some women have been treated very unkindly ( and worse) by others in the church. My wife suffered what could be construed as bullying by both men and woman of hierarchy and pastoral deficiency seems to be commonplace amongst bishops and archdeacons. It is pretty much accepted that ( from shared conversations with Alliance members-both men and woman) that it is generally accepted… Read more »
Well our local female suffragan is Horsham, who is far from liberal. indeed she is so evangelical on-message that it has been observed that only being a woman prevents her counting as ConEvo.
Apologies, David. You’re quite right, of course. Although, in our defence, I’d note that the starting point for most of the discussion above has not been the IE post, but one comment by George Simm on one out of ten points in Mark Clavier’s (excellent) post. I expect Mark is reading with one eyebrow raised, wondering what we thought of his other nine points! Anyway, I expect that everything that could possibly be said on these subjects has been said, by all the people normally expected to say it, taking the positions we all know they hold, and I don’t… Read more »
I do wonder whether my own contributions to these debates are simply indulgence. Meanwhile a speech by Bronwen Maddox, director at Chatham house, talks about reassigning alliances, and it makes me wonder how Christianity might affect mutual values.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/13/end-of-western-alliance-trump-uk-chatham-house-director
My dad spent later years as director of research at Chatham House, and wrote or edited several leading books on Christian views on issues of morality, such as nuclear weapons and commodity trade.
Maybe I’m wrong here – I usually am – but right now the world around us is giving a very good impression of heading full pelt into a major global conflict.
What are we doing? Our usual ostrich act, head in the sand and arguing over ‘words and the meaning of words’ with little or no impact on the realities around us. Is anybody actually involved with what’s happening outside our own little huddle?
As Eliza Doolittle said, “I’m sick of (sanctified) words.”
On Helen’s article (I can feel the pain), it makes me wonder about rings and symbolic acts. My wife (whom i married in a RC church, neither of us has gone through its doors since) has managed to lose two wedding rings. Should I be worried, and start looking for a new wife? I have come out in sympathy, and don’t wear a wedding ring myself. We all seem to have happily together with 3 generations in the same household. Nobody is ‘head of household’. Am I ‘free’ (as in ‘are you being served’)? Meanwhile the world is in crisis,… Read more »
Easy, Tiger! Trump ain’t that good.
The endless arguments abour ‘priesthood’ seem to me to have degenerated into the ‘how many angels can stand on the head of a pin’ type of discussion. The ordained (call them priests or minsters) are set aside for the work of the Gospel. How that works out depends on their gifts and perhaps personalities. I have known priests who are brilliant pastorally but whose sermons I would avoid like the plague as well as brilliant preachers who were hopeless pastors. It is unreasonable – and unbiblical – to expect one person to be able to demonstrate every gift. The clue… Read more »