Anthony Smith Three years as a (multi-church) vicar
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love The Mystery of God: God is Love – part three of Ending Abusive Theologies
Global Safeguarding The Crab Effect. Holding Back Safeguarding Progress
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Speaking Truth to Power in the Church of England
I was interested in Anthony Smith’s reflections and am very heartened to read such a positive evaluation of what is a very demanding but hugely worthwhile sphere of ministry. I wish him very well and all strength. Having trodden this path a generation ago, I have some insight into what it means and what it feels like. The first thing I notice is that he describes himself as a multi-church vicar – I was a multi-parish vicar. That difference shows itself in what he talks about. I understand the importance of sorting out manageable service times (probably none of which… Read more »
Good to see the reflections of Rev Smith on his three years as priest-in-charge/ vicar. I’m pleased that the limitations of a p-in-c ‘job’ have not been manifested- no mention of a family or schooling of children so maybe that has not been a consideration- indeed no mention of school other than governor? I only mention these things as aspects that COULD be considered part of a curacy or indeed of ministerial training. It sounds to me as if Rev Smith had rather a sheltered curacy- perhaps this is something those responsible for such arrangements might bear in mind. Multi-… Read more »
Over here in western Canada I served in two multi-point parishes on the prairies. From 1979-84 I served Arborfield, Red Earth and Shoal Lake in rural Saskatchewan. Red Earth and Shoal Lake were (and still are) indigenous communities (what we called in those days ‘Indian reserves’). It was 60 miles from Arborfield to Red Earth, and 25 miles from Red Earth to Shoal Lake. 160 miles of driving on a Sunday. 2/3 of that was on hard top roads, 1/3 on gravel. Sunday services were at 10.00 am in Arborfield, 1.30 pm in Red Earth and 3.30 pm in Shoal… Read more »
No, a fascinating account. Nothing but admiration. The closest, and by no means as close, my experience in ‘small town’ America, near Amish country, with a similar mix of denominations including a TEC church which I attended and found the liturgy and the US BCP literally like ‘home from home’.
I have been pondering some UK issues of culture, which may have some similarity to Stephen Parsons’ musings. Nothing ever happens. Our civil service and government organisations never do anything. Two examples. Recent discussions on release of prisoners. I am not talking about the policy, but apparently it is beyond the ability of the home secretary or home office minister to prevent the release of two individuals. ‘It is not possible. It is administratively impossible.’ Why on earth not? We need leaders, not pen pushers. Recent evidence of climate change. What actions have been done? What new water reservoirs have… Read more »
‘it is beyond the ability of the home secretary or home office minister to prevent the release of two individuals’. Imagine if home secretaries had such powers, they would soon be beholden to every popular cause with sufficient momentum, every on-line petition with enough likes. The separation of powers – executive from judiciary – while not perfect, is our best safeguard against politicians desperate to be loved.
I sometimes wonder whether posts are made in jest or not. It was the ministers who pushed through the early release process, they are equally capable of adjusting the early release process. Of course politicians want to be loved. Of course they want to support popular causes. It is called democracy. Of course also they need to have longer term views and include the judiciary. None of this means they want to emulate Trump. Trump may want to be loved, but in reality he is hated. He may think he is supporting popular causes, but in reality they are not.… Read more »
“It was the ministers who pushed through the early release process, they are equally capable of adjusting the early release process.”
It is parliament that makes laws, not ministers. Adjusting the process, outside the parameters allowed by the existing legislation is not something ministers can or should do. They would need to put legislation through parliament, and that would undoubtedly take far longer and raise more debate and (very properly) more scrutiny by both MPs and peers. And to do anything quickly requires the consent of the upper house as well as the lower.
Sounds just like the GS! That is my point.
I’m afraid I have no idea what your point is!
It seems to be to give ministers unfettered power to do what they like. And then blame them when it doesn’t have the effect you wanted, especially the effect you wanted in hindsight.
My aim is not, of course, to give ministers unfettered power. Far from it. My aim is to acelerate the decision making processes, in the church and in parliament, where there is overwhelming support for change. Restructed to executive decisions, and where it goes beyond executive, using the parliamentary and legal routes. Otherwise the price of inaction is too great. For the Labour party inaction results in reform votes. For the church, inaction results in lost credibility. It is the CoE obstructionists who need to be removed. What are the routes by which they can be removed? Who can decide?… Read more »
This is a reasonable account of the prison problem. It was my mistake – the distinction was not murder/manslaughter, it was EDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPm7S4ZVet0
Now, concerning the safeguarding problem….
No jest – and I concur with Simon Kershaw’s posts.
You equate politicians supporting popular causes with democracy; others might call it populism.
I don’t esteem the judiciary, but I do value the judicial process – aka the rule of law.
No, you are distorting what I am saying.
Neither politicians nor church leaders should blindly follow popular causes. But when either goes too far against popular opinion, confidence is lost.
Read that with regard to truly independent safeguarding.
Confidence has already been lost. What actions are church leaders going to do to regain trust?
Are you part of the problem?
I don’t understand the link you make with independent safeguarding. Maybe the heat has got to me. Time for a cold shower – I can recommend it.
“What actions are church leaders going to do to regain trust? ” There is nothing they can do, even if they genuinely wanted to.
That’s just like government ministers saying ‘I can do nothing’. They should be sacked or resign. Or take on the role of USA ambassador.
To be a little more serious – anybody heard from ABC why she voted against Helen King motion? Plenty of valid reasons, just say something. Anybody admit the motion and amendments was a fiasco and suggest changes in processes? Anybody in leadership say anything at all about INEQE?
If there is nothing they can do, then the processes and structures need to change.
The processes and structures may well need to change. But nothing the current senior clergy do or say will regain trust. Least of all trying to blame their officials. It wasn’t us it was our staff – pull the other one.
“apparently it is beyond the ability of the home secretary or home office minister to prevent the release of two individuals. ‘It is not possible”
That’s the “rule of law”. It should not be possible for government ministers to arbitrarily imprison some and free others on a whim. And public opinion, whichever way it leans, is a whim.
Are saying our ministers have no power to act? I seem to remember Churchill sent in the troops to deal with strikes in Liverpool? No, I disagree, it is this attitude which has brought UK to a halt. It clearly is possible, Burnham has promised it, but the initial response was ‘civil service says no’. I am relating it to the CoE where the authorities say ‘too many problems with independent safeguarding, church says no’. If nothing else, bring foward emergency recall of parliament and change the law. Easy enough to include ‘persons who have offended against the police’ rather… Read more »
Ministers are supposed to act within the rule of law. Ministers have limited capacity to change the law (via Orders in Council and where they are so empowered by statute law). But they should not be making judgements on the freedom of individuals outside that. Star Chamber was abolished a long time ago. Laws must be generally applicable. If the law says that category X may be released then it is not for government ministers to say it doesn’t apply to some individuals. The government is at liberty to bring legislation before parliament to redefine how the rules are applied,… Read more »
But victim impact is an established part of legal process and contributes to sentencing decisions.
If the early release scheme does not have a ‘release would lead to grave public scandal’ clause as a reason for exclusion, then it should.
In this case, what you describe as ‘mob rule’, would actually be democracy in action.
i disagree entirely.
I stated that it is possible to specify categories without naming individuals.
It used to be that murder of a policeman, or even manslaughter, was an accelerated avenue to hanging.
One thing one can be categorical about is that Jesus was not afraid. To the extent of taking the law into his own hands and throwing out evil from the temple.
But so many within our institutions are afraid. It is a disease. An English disease? Only recently.
I am not going off topic on Stephen Parson’s orginal article. It is all the same issue. Fear.
Nigel, see the Sentencing Act 2026 – it could hardly be more up to date. I haven’t the time to go into details now. The former mandatory capital sentence for murder of a policeman has been updated to the equivalent in modern terms, and is now ordinarily a whole life sentence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/2/contents
Thanks. I see it only is in effect where the offence was committed after the 2026 sentencing act came into force. I can see that retrospective changes for sentences for murder or manslughter of police may be a difficulty. That is a general legal restriction, thankfully. But the early release conditions can surely be changed, in the same way as they have been changed recently. Maybe a minister can stand up and explain to the public why they are unable to do anything, and see the reaction. I admire Burnham for calling out this nonsense and telling the ministers to… Read more »
I fear that the behaviour you suggest leads to things like populism, and leaders like Boris Johnson (or Donald Trump) who promise anything to anyone in order to get into power, and are then incompetent at everything except staying in power and abusing it. Representative democracy isn’t about doing everything people want all the time: it’s at least partly about having policies that cohere and that work together; it’s about making difficult decisions where there is no right answer; it’s about responding to events (“events dear boy”); it’s about protecting the weak and vulnerable and funding the things that need… Read more »
No need to be condescending. I am aware of everything you say. But when it goes wrong, and the establishment loses the confidence of the people? Read again what the leading police officers say. Read again what Rowley says. And read again what Stephen Parson says. The reasons given for such obstructions include issues of ecclesiastical law, administrative blockages or theological objections. For whatever reason, the Church of England at the highest level has appeared to be applying the reverse gear. Instead of a smooth sense of progress in the carrying out of safeguarding work, there is the loud sound of jarring… Read more »
The powers existed before this latest Act. In my neck of the woods (ancient city where the very first Assize courts came into being and still a pillar of the legal Western Circuit) a double whole-life sentence was passed for a double murder very recently. I’m afraid such happenings in the provinces don’t always make the main news. Today I have read of another whole-life sentence passed in London. Of course there have been other earlier similar sentences. For manslaughter the starting point has always been a life sentence with the judge effectively fixing the number of years to be… Read more »
Mob rule indeed. Nearly a million signatories to a petition to ‘stop the early release from jail of PC Andrew Harper’s killers’. A petition supported by police leaders, and PC Harper’s family- very understandably. Laws passed by Parliament and interpreted not by the courts but the executive … ‘advised’ by the mob and their ‘advisors’ in ‘the media’. Cool heads are required. Justice and mercy for IIP prisoners, and work to address recidivism should be higher priorities, way above ‘exporting’ prisoners to anywhere but near home. It was good to hear +Treweek speaking truth to power.
Yes, as the police leaders said, it simply brings the justice system into contempt, and undermines the moral of police officers.
This is the unintended consequence of doing nothing.
The trouble is, all they’ll actually be doing is devising ‘objective criteria’ to identify specific groups eligible for release, and trying to tailor those criteria to exclude as accurately as possible people they don’t want released, while releasing enough people to free up the space needed. In other words, it’s the pretence of following process.
Worth remembering that a minister does not need to change the law to keep a prisoner in prison for the length of sentence originally ordered by a judge while following standard policies for early release for good behaviour and so on.
Quite.
Plus the pretence undermines public confidence.
Churchill’s actions were in 1911 and, ostensibly, relied upon a magistrate’s proclamation under the Riot Act of 1704 (repealed 1967) requiring the crowd to disperse. They didn’t and Churchill ordered in the military. There has been a raft of public order and emergency powers legislation since then and the 1911 events, controversial as they were, can’t possibly figure in the current discussion.
There are many variations of the saying ‘Hard cases are apt to introduce bad law’ . The current early release plan is trying to deal with a slow brewing emergency and stopping the overstretched prison system breaking down totally- least bad alternative? It is being piggy backed onto a totally overstretched probation service, and picking two particular ‘villains ’ out because people know about them only highlights the nature of the pickle the justice system has been allowed to get into by a succession of governments. Cherry picking laws to change feels like the Dear Donald playbook to me. The… Read more »
Susanna, I think you have pressed the wrong ‘reply’ button! I wrote solely concerning Nigel’s comment about Churchill and the military in Liverpool. I’m not publicly expressing a view about the current release debate. I agree that prison reform is needed.
I am also not supporting Churchills actions! It was indeed a different world.
Apparently repurposing female prisons would take months, if not years. What is the greater shambles – successive governments or church governance? What is the common denominator? Lack of foresight, common sense and leadership? Constraint by fear? Experience purely within politics/trade unions? [I heard someone talk who installs cell fire alarms in prisons – they cost a great deal because they have to distinguish between paper burning and joss sticks burning. Obvious solution. But this simply is an example of the high cost and delays in building new prisons. For every new prison, an existing prison would be depurposed and the… Read more »
Except that the decision to release large number of prisoners ahead of the usual 2/3 of sentence (with good behaviour) is a POLITICAL one, not a judicial one.
And the decision regarding which categories of offenders this should or should apply to is equally a political one, with judgements made about public safety, and public confidence in the system.
It would seem to me absolutely appropriate, indeed cardinal, that politicians should not implement such a scheme in a way that transparently appals the electorate.
If they really don’t have the power to do so, they shouldn’t be releasing anyone early.
Does this help? The Sentencing Act 2026. I haven’t had time to investigate when its different provisions come into force.
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/adviceguide/the-sentencing-act/
Great, helps enormously. i note there is a great deal of ‘we do not know’ and it seems a great deal for the executive to decide. Also i see Whole life orders for murder of police, prison or probation officer The Act introduces a requirement for judges to use a Whole Life Order (WLO) as the starting point when sentencing the murder of a police, prison, or probation officer or someone who previously worked in one of these roles. so the idea that some kinds of offences are treated differently is established, and all that needs to happen is to expand this clause… Read more »
As previously noted, doing something requires a change in statute law. That takes time, and wider debate and scrutiny. We very definitely don’t want to allow the executive to “just change the law” whenever they find it inconvenient.
Yes we do. It happens all the time. The problem is that we are in recess. The problem should have been foreseen months ago.
Establishing a CoE independent safeguarding body should take – 2 months maximum?
Getting rid of the obstructors should take – 1 day maximum?
That extends the earlier idea that an executive should not be allowed to make popular decisions, to them not being allowed to make convenient decisions either. Which leaves them free to make any decision they like, so long as it’s unpopular and inconvenient.
Of course different offences are treated differently and always have been. There are sentencing guidelines which can’t be changed, or sidelined, at personal whim. Here is just one set, for the Crown Court (there are sets for other courts) in England and Wales. I haven’t checked for Scotland.
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/
i just read, regarding Simon Levy:
Rowley said he did not understand why the Prison Service released Simon Levy after he sexually assaulted one of its staff members in jail. The Prison Service should not have released somebody who’s indecently assaulting its staff.
We are suffering from both long term cultural and long term funding issues. Just like the church administration.
Exactly right. I didn’t really want to focus on this particular case, just the general issue that UK society is often in a state of stasis, just like the religious bodies. i seem to be reading this morning that Angela Rayner is tightening up lots of zero hours legislation and applying common sense – not common enough. Zero hours should not mean that you don;t know day to day whether you will work that day or not, and it should not mean you go to work and are then sent home with no pay. All the obvious actors are complaining.… Read more »
As to abusive theologies and love – I’m not an animist and I find it difficult to follow a Jesus whose nature is determined more by my intuition and poetic sensibility than by the Biblical text. I do believe in the autonomy of the individual. I don’t like the current Middle East war but I do believe in the ‘Just War’ tradition and I honour Ukrainian resistance to Russia. I don’t think that animism and the desire to free oneself from Bibliolatry are such a certain cure for abusiveness as is being suggested
It’s nonsense to suggest that taking the revealed word of God seriously is idolatry.
No, it’s loving God, loving what He has said and aiming to live by it.
If we depart from this then something else has to take its place.
Animism, personal experience, secular culture, looking for teachings to affirm our desires (2 Timothy 4:3) and so on.
We’re definitely living in these times.
Moving away from the authority of scripture is what leads us to odd alternatives.
Personal experience as an ultimate norm for claimed theological truth-seeking is self-idolatry.
No, personal experience will ultimately be the only criterion! (1 Cor. 13.12) But until then I believe the Anglican way of ‘theological truth-seeking’ to be a combination of scripture, tradition and reason, the latter of which at least is a form of personal experience. We may debate how these are to be combined, but some here seem to claim the former as the only criterion. Leaving aside the question of hermeneutics, is this Anglican?
I suppose the obvious question is whether an idea of three sources of authority is Anglican? Hooker didn’t think so. And can anyone show that this idea took hold and was a point of reference–let alone an Anglican “distinctive”–prior to the mid 20th century (and if then)? I’d love to see evidence that anyone cited it as probative in theological discourse and debate. Where? By whom?
Threefold authority? Let’s see… Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith… (Hebrews 12.2) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5.19) And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him;… Read more »
All fine but not a three-legged stool, to which the language “scripture, reason, tradition” typically refers in modern usage.
And ‘reason’ in the time of Hooker sits far closer on the spectrum of natural law (God’s outfitting of creatures such that they can understand his Word) than individual endowment.
Perhaps I don’t understand your use of the language in: “the Anglican way of ‘theological truth-seeking’ to be a combination of scripture, tradition and reason” and the passages you cite.
And why would this be called “the Anglican way”?
I understand the Trinity to be the model for ‘three-fold authority’. Three is the minimum for a creative dialectical relationship. There is only one God of course, but unless we are God then one won’t do. Two is binary, and the medium of the devil, as can be seen by looking around the world and indeed inside ourselves. Thus three is the minimum, and thanks be to God for revealing this to us. Not of course that this necessarily answers your question, but FWIW I got the language of “scripture, reason, tradition” from my training as an Anglican priest (yes I… Read more »
“I understand the Trinity to be the model for ‘three-fold authority.”
That is great. But it is not Hooker’s argument, nor the logic behind scripture, reason, tradition in either historical or modern parlance.
Is the Father scripture, Son reason, Holy Spirit tradition? Or move them around as you wish.
I will move on from here. Blessings.
“Is the Father scripture, Son reason, Holy Spirit tradition? Or move them around as you wish.” Er, no. My point was that three is the minimum for a creative dialectical relationship, with the Trinity as the model for that. But once again the starting question is avoided, which was: in what way is it Anglican to claim scripture as the only resource for ‘theological truth-seeking’ (not my phrase btw). But yes, happy to move on also. Blessings on your day.
Both Henry McAdoo and Michael Ramsey wrote on Anglican theological method. McAdoo co- chaired the initial A R.C.I.C. Michael Ramsey in retirement spent a memorable 10 days with us at Lincoln Theological College around Easter 1980 discussing Anglican theology. Has ” the Anglican way” nothing to commend it?
If you tell me what it is, I can respond. My point here is only to put Hooker in context and to note that until the 20th century, no one appealed to a “three-legged stool” as some specific Anglican touchstone.
I believe in Catholic ecumenism and wish it well. Whether ARCIC is presently useful in promoting that is another question.
A 1966 meeting with Pope Paul VI isn’t today’s reality.
Read McAdoo?
Fascinating ecumenist. Your comments prompted me to do a review. Perhaps others here at TA may be interested. His obituary notes that he was a “convinced advocate for the ordination of women” and “Again and again, he used a much-loved phrase, ‘moral-ascetic theology’. This was the heart of Harry McAdoo’s theology, in which discipleship and prayer lived side by side, and tradition developed, interpreted by scripture and reason. His lifelong discipleship leaves many legacies.” https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/obituary-the-most-rev-henry-mcadoo-1190797.html The first phases of ARCIC overlapped with my time as a student at a fully integrated ecumenical divinity school ( Anglican, Roman Catholic, United Church).… Read more »
Thanks Ruairidh. Ken Stevenson taught us Liturgy at Lincoln.Their joint work sits on my shelves. Also a copy of McA’s contribution (translated for me as my German was basic) of his piece on Anglican theology in a book published in Freiburg. Despite being an Archbishop he could always find time to correspond with theological students.
Re your last sentence, one of the things I have been reminded of in this brief exchange is that in addition to skills and expertise the valuing of relationships is an important charism for those doing the heady work of ecumenical dialogue or intra-Anglican dialogue–something I sometimes find difficult to hang onto in our polarising times. Just by the bye I have ordered up from our div school library, The Mystery of The Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition by McAdoo and Stevenson, along with Anglican Heritage: Theology and Spirituality and Anglican Tradition and the Ordination of Women. Thanks for this… Read more »
So, what is his “Anglican Way” as you see it? I can then respond to your question here. “The Spirit of Anglicanism” is about 60 years old and I read it some time back. It was a historical survey of 17th century anglican thought (vis a vis chiefly puritanism if memory serves). What did you find useful for our present time?
I think there is inspiration on both sides from previous ecumenical encounters.
“In his greetings, the Pope shared his joy to receive the Archbishop [ Sarah Mullally] during the Easter season, recalling the historic encounter between Pope St. Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, which took place 60 years ago.”
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-04/pope-leo-xiv-audience-archbishop-sarah-mullally.html
” ‘There is a strong sense that this moment in the extraordinary setting of the Sistine Chapel offers a kind of healing of history,’ Anglican Rev. James Hawkey, canon theologian of Westminster Abbey, told Reuters.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/rome-vatican-leo-king-charles-9.6949755
Between 1966 and today lies, of course, women’s ordination. That would change the direction of travel of Michael Ramsey’s efforts and Pope Paul VI’s receptivity. Ramsey was friend of E.C. Hosykns, trained at Cuddesdon, anglo-catholic, appreciated Barth and was critical of Honest to God. He saw no objection to women’s ordination but was concerned about the ecumenical knock-on. An interesting time. It would be difficult to know how he’d view the state of affairs in the present CofE as well as his ecumenical hopes of sixty-years past.
Indeed. Hooker on ‘reason’ doesn’t work through the lens of the Enlightenment. To him reason is divine gift, connecting us to the right ordering of things. Rather than isolated logical thinking, it is seeing that which is ‘fitting’ in the world.
Nicely put.
Your comment calls to mind for me David Bentley Hart’s essay, Remarks Made To Jean- Luc Marion regarding Revelation and Givenness, in his collection titled, Theological Territories. Hopefully not a spoiler he moves there to conclude: ” Thought must respond to the event of surprise as to an irresistible vocation to understand, because the irrepressible desire of the natural will seeks to ascend to the course of the phenomena and reach that which in the ordo cognoscendi is most ultimate precisely because in the ordo essendi it is that which is most original. In that most extraordinary event of all,… Read more »
Which is pretty close to what we mean by ‘natural law’ – the way God made the world – teleologically – so that our bodies and ‘life ways’ have a telos or purpose behind them which reason can observe and affirm. Marriage, for example, which is the union of one man and one woman for life for the procreation and nurture of children and for the couple’s mutual support. Human law is meant to be in harmony with natural law, ‘the executor of God’s will in the world’. ‘reason’ in historical Anglican theology has to mean lot more than Aristotle’s… Read more »
BTW, Hooker’s statue stands on Exeter’s cathedral green. It is fenced around – a metaphor on the current direction of theological training/formation in the C of E?
If I remember Hooker correctly he posits a threefold basis for authority — but doesn’t consider them as of equal authority. Scripture is paramount, followed by what reason can deduce from scripture. The tradition of the Church is ranked third. The image of a balanced stool is, as you suggest, very likely considerably more recent, though still perhaps of some merit.
The other problem with appeal to this as an “Anglican Way” of some kind is, who makes this appeal in actual historical anglicanism after Hooker? Which divines, preachers, theologians, authors, laity? And where exactly? Perhaps if it might be said to “have merit” at least we could concede that is not an historical point of reference in Anglican thought, and is therefore both recent and not particularly “Anglican.” The “Wesley quadrilateral” is similarly question-begging as a piece of modernity vis-a-vis Wesley’s own writings. That’s why appeal to it within Methodism has only exposed divisions and institutional break-up. (I see the… Read more »
Isn’t it just an Anglicization of the three sources of authority within Catholicism – scripture, tradition and the magisterium.
Being protestant, Anglicanism doesn’t recognise the magisterium, which is led by the spirit and uses reason to interpret scripture and tradition And so instead it recognizes the guidance of the spirit, reason and experience directly.
I suppose it could be. It is another question whether that was Hooker’s position in the 16th century, and he was the one who spoke of the matter under discussion. If Hooker wanted to speak of the Holy Spirit, he could have done that. Or he could have used your present formulation, “the guidance of the spirit, reason and experience directly.” That is yet a further refraction. Now ‘reason’ is sitting between low-c spirit and experience. I don’t think this is what he had in mind. AS above is closer to Hooker, when he writes, “to him reason is divine… Read more »
Might I add. In the context of the last decades of the 16th century–the period of Lawes’ composition–the major threats to Elizabethan settlement were as much puritan as ‘papist.’ (THe term ‘recusant could be made to work for both groups). I think your point is solid insofar as it goes (I believe I have written something similar; creational capacity, divine endowment in receiving the Word of God, instead of the magisterium/Trent). But attention would need to be given to the choice of this word, in opposition to Puritan challenges as well. (Hooker’s Temple debates with Travers, etc). Puritans had a… Read more »
In a sense any church any time will be led by scripture, tradition, the Holy Spirit, reason and experience – because it’s hard to think of any other sources of inspiration. Reason might be viewed less or more broadly, as guiding rigorous interpretation of scripture, or discerning the pattern of things in life, or rationally reflecting on how our experience connects with God’s word. Experience is perhaps the most subjective element and yet has some warrant (‘taste and see that the Lord is good’). Operationally, reflecting on it is essential: if I try something and it fails, do I keep… Read more »
I take it we have left Hooker and moved into questions of general hermeneutics. Here a generalized “led by” occupies the space of Hooker’s late 16th century articulations in defense of the Elizabethan settlement, vis-a-vis puritans and papists. The Church of England, and settlement itself, would likely be unrecognizable on those terms.
Hooker had many important nuances.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/14-june/features/features/richard-hooker-and-puritans-of-sundry-things-in-the-light-of-reason
I saw the Barton piece when it came out and I think it is fine so far as it goes, though I think there are two anachronisms. “Reason” for Hooker. One would need to bring control by asking just how the term functioned at Hooker’s time. “Biblical criticism.” Anyone familiar with the rise of those methods from the late 18th century to today, would not lump Hooker within its orbit. Indeed, the idea that a text declares its sense apart from the search for an historical “author” (which he does grant of Hooker: God is author, the text itself is… Read more »
Indeed. I like John Barton’s take on things. Notice part of his conclusion. “Hooker is diminished if we read him merely as a polemicist, defending the political and religious settlement of Elizabeth I.” I think one can distinguish between Hooker the man and Hooker as later polemical application. Since this thread is many ways a reprise of previous threads, I am attaching a link to an item pertaining to Diarmaid MacCulloch I linked here on this go around back in May 2023. . “MacCulloch left the two Societies (the ELS and the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland)… Read more »
Hooker’s use of scripture, tradition and reason had nothing to do with ‘theological truth seeking’ but rather was used to justify the Anglican episcopal structure of the church. Arguably using reason today the structure would be considered too hierarchical and top heavy to be sustainable, but at present tradition wins the day.
Aren’t Saint Paul’s writings derived from his personal experience?
Who says the Bible is “the revealed word of God”?
Quite.
The Quran is a lot more plausible. It actually proclaims that it is the revealed word of God.
I’d recommend the following to you which does a pretty good job of the question: https://learn.ligonier.org/guides/the-word-of-god Jesus Himself tells us that the Scriptures are the unbreakable Word of God (10:32). That’s before we look to the Apostle Paul. However if we need any help from Peter to establish the writings of Paul we can look to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16). If we doubt the Spirit in the writings of the Apostle Peter we can look back to Jesus’ words where He tells us that the Holy Spirit will teach and guide the Apostles (John 14:25-26, John 16:12-14). I’m… Read more »
I think if you read Hooker, nowhere does he say that our own personal insights are more valuable than scripture.
You may have difficulty finding anybody on TA who thinks that way.
I’m responding to Martin’s original claim that taking God’s word seriously was a form of idolatry, and providing an answer to Nigel’s question.
As far as I understand it Hooker regarded Scripture as the primary authority. No issues there from a happy Protestant like me.
i am confused. Martn Hughes said no such thing, as far as i can see, although he can surely defend himself.
Indeed, Martin seems to be saying the opposite.
I find it difficult to follow a Jesus whose nature is determined more by my intuition and poetic sensibility than by the Biblical text.
I’d start at the top and read his mention of the nonsensical “Bibliolatry” again.
That’s all I was commenting on plus replying to the other Nigel.
I said nothing about Hooker.
Taking Scripture seriously isn’t idolatry. It’s loving God and what He’s spoken.
Have a good weekend!
All Christians take scripture seriously. Some go way beyond that and turn the Bible into an object for belief and veneration in itself, rather than for what and whom it points to, and in doing so demands of scripture a level of reliability for which it was never designed or intended. That is Bibliolatry. That’s why we get churches advertising themselves as “Bible Believing” rather than “Christ Believing”.
This is an attempt to detach God from the words He’s revealed to us.
Loving God means we love what He’s spoken.
Therefore this concept “Bibliolatry” isn’t actually a real thing with real basis.
It’s an attempt by theological liberals to imply that listening humbly to the Scriptures is wrong in order to elevate human experience and human desires above it.
Of course it isn’t. God the Holy Spirit breathes these words out for our instruction.
The only idolatry is elevating oneself above the revealed word of God, and that ends up with functional atheism in religious garb.
You too! A bit less boiling hot. There may be confusion – Colin’s article sometimes does not make it clear whether he is paraphrasing Adrian’s views or presenting his own. Colin is certainly not in full agreement with Adrian. Now, Martin says: I don’t think …. the desire to free oneself from Bibliolatry are such a certain cure for abusiveness as is being suggested First, this is not a rejection, per se, of Bibliolatry. Indeed Martin seems to be rejecting Colin’s rejection of Bibliolatry (to be verified!). Also, Biblioilatry is not the same, at all, as taking Scirpture seriously. We… Read more »
Gareth, does taking scripture seriously mean taking every individual statement in scripture equally seriously? I mean, the measurements of the ‘sea’ in Solomon’s Temple make it clear that the author was not familiar with the number pi. The Torah declares some foods clean and some not so, but according to Mark, Jesus declared all foods clean. Matthew’s Jesus says anyone who relaxes a single commandment of the law and teaches others to do so is guilty – this is the same Jesus who declares all foods clean. And of course, Paul relaxes a lot of commands of the Law. The… Read more »
Saying that Christians read the Old Testament in the light of Christ and the apostles isn’t anything particularly radical. It’s good covenant theology and we read Scripture holistically. Note, that isn’t the same thing as suggesting we give human experience or human desires priority over the Scriptures which is in effect what many here suggest to do at least practically. The Bible is the revealed word of God, it doesn’t simply contain it. The whole Scriptures are breathed out by the Holy Spirit. That’s probably where we part ways. Also pointing out things like the dimensions of the temple rounding… Read more »
I notice you don’t address the specific issues I raise.
The sea in the temple is described as being round, not as being a perfect circle. And while a circle of diameter 10 would have a circumference of 10pi or 31.4, rather than the 30 quoted in the text, an ellipse with a major diameter of 10 and a minor diameter of 9.1, say, would have a diameter of 30. The 10 and 30 values for diameter and circumference could have been measurements, which would directly show that the sea was not perfectly circular. Or the 30 might have been calculated from the ten on the assumption that the sea… Read more »
The point about pi raises more questions! Pi is a transcendental number, so the only way of representing it perfectly is as an infinitely long decimal, which would have taken up an infinite amount of space and wouldn’t have meant anything until the decimal system was actually invented about two millennia later. Fractions were in use back then, but pi is also irrational. So it would have been best represented by a bound such as the that due to Archimedes 3+[10/71->1/7]. But anyone who wrote that the circumference of a diameter 10 sea was somewhere between 31 + 29/71 and… Read more »
I questioned, no more or less than questioned, whether Thatcher-style detachment from Biblical authority has the morally liberating and improving effect that he seems to claim
Have you actually read this Scripture you revere so highly? All of it?
Thanks, I neither said nor meant anything against taking scriptural authority seriously
John Wenham’s ‘Christ and the Bible’ is a classic statement of the Anglican doctrine incorporated in the 39 Articles.
Happy clappies
Who never read any of it apart from the bits they like.
I’m afraid that term is insulting and I ask you to resist and desist. Again.
My favourite book of the Hebrew Bible is Ecclesiastes, I’ve struggled on and off throughout my life with a rather melancholic temperament, and I don’t really enjoy clapping along to worship songs. So I’m not a happy clappie. Am I a real evangelical?
Jesus says the Bible – or at least the Jewish Scriptures- is the Word of God. Too many texts to cite here. You can find an apt summary in John Wenham’s ‘Christ and the Bible’. It hasn’t been refuted.
Cite a few of them please.
A failing parish system must seem like an abusive theology to those vicars trying desperately to sustain it.
I don’t think we should water down the serious term ‘abuse’ to include people in a challenging work environment. Nor feign sympathy for those whose work is a struggle when your actual point is (I suspect) to claim that you know the solution to the problem.
Being set up to fail is a form of abuse – but seems many parish priests seem to accept a priest centric model of church which has no theological basis in the NT.
The Tiller report, A Strategy for the Church’s Ministry, found in 1984 that the C of E’s model of ministry was no longer sustainable. I heard John Tiller speak a decade or so later and he pointed out that nothing had yet been done, and that the pressures of trying to maintain an unsustainable model of ministry was resulting in physical, mental, or moral breakdown in many clergy. Another 30 years on and still nothing has been done, the situation just keeps getting worse.
The CofE needs to confess that ministry properly covering the whole of England is no longer feasible. Will this confession ever happen? Sadly, probably not.
You may be right. But more time would be freed up for ministry if we ditched a lot of the admin and management.
I agree, Janet. I’m sure you will remember all that talk of “Simplification” years ago.
The mantra used to be that the laity should do more, enabled and supported by the clergy. The problem is that the laity is not always available in sufficient numbers.
Many churches do not have two churchwardens. Some have no churchwarden. Many do.not have treasurers. In such parishes, the clergy are doing more, not less.
Indeed.The lack of people to take on key roles is, I suspect, one of the things that keeps many clergy awake at night. It’s something that ‘Save the Parish’ has failed to recognise – their campaign has its focus on the lack of funding at local level, but the shrinking volunteer base may be the thing that undermines the viability of many parishes.
So agree, Fr Dexter. When I do inspections in my deanery on behalf of the Archdeacon, in the smaller rural churches, I meet churchwardens who have been doing it for years because there isn’t anyone else. Their sense of loyalty stops them from retiring, but many of them no longer have the energy or enthusiasm for other than the status quo. I remember a previous archdeacon saying to me: ‘what would happen if we all walked away from these burdensome ancient buildings and worshipped in the Youth Club building?’
I would prefer church members to be evangelists rather than conservationists!
I don;t know the details, but I have attended concerts at St Mary’s Perivale.
https://www.st-marys-perivale.org.uk/
i don;t know if church ervices are ever held there any more, but it seems to be still set up as a church, with an altar and crosses etc.
It seems an entirely appropriate use of the space. Prayer can take many forms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoxxpGFP8-s
St Mary’s Perivale was declared redundant in 1972 when the parish was dissolved. The building owned by a charity and used as a concert venue etc.
Yes, I read that. But anybody entering it would think it was an active church, and certainly it is a place which could be used for prayer (if a musician is not rehearsing, or even if they are).
So I would say it is legally redundant, but spiritually alive!
I recently visited a rural church in another part of the country. The parish has no PCC, no wardens, and almost no congregation. The incumbent focusses time and attention on more promising parts of the benefice. It’s a beautiful church, but I wonder how long it can stay open in such circumstances. And I wonder how many other rural parishes are close to such a state of affairs.
The Anglican Position as cited by Richard Hooker of Scripture , Tradition and Reason is mentioned. It is interesting that my Church the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches of the East also have similar 3 legged stools of Authority. In the Roman Catholic Church it is Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, whereas in Orthodoxy it is Scripture, Tradition and the Councils of the Church. We certainly do not downplay the place of Reason in the Roman Catholic Church, but we believe it has to be subordinate to the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, as Reason as… Read more »
Thank you Jonathan for this interesting comment. I hadn’t before heard of ‘Faith without Reason’ as a descriptor for fundamentalism but I’m glad I have! (I take it this is distinct from what might be termed faith beyond reason, as per, for example, Isaiah 55.8 and 1 Corinthians 1.25)
Many of these discussions illustrate the intractable divisions in the CofE. Much of it traceable back to the Reformation. And following from that whacky American religious movements?
The word ‘Fundamentalism’ seems to be ascribed to many groups in the UK and outside who are not fundamentalists. I would not say Charismatic Evangelicals and fundamentalists. I would not say Southern Baptists are fundamentalists.
Indeed, I see fundamentalism, in the US, as much of a political than religious persuasion.
It of course originally had a very specific meaning, about 125 years ago, when a series of tracts called “The Fundamentals” and supporting conservative theology were published in the USA. These were to counter to rise of more liberal views. One could therefore suggest that Fundamentalism has always been in a defensive position. As far as I know “The Fundamentals” did not say anything about politics; what however I do remember is the rise of the “Religious Right” in the 1970s with the aim of mobilising Evangelicals to oust Jimmy Carter in favour of Ronald Reagan.
Indeed. A bit of googling demonstrated my so superficial reading of events. This article maybe explains or describes some aspects
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jacc.13533
That’s a fascinating read, thanks.
You may find these articles interesting,
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sweeney-vallier-integralism-liberalism-dorothy-day
https://theconversation.com/what-is-catholic-integralism-234894
Here you might scroll down to popular meanings coined by journalists and sociologists, and the problems with that:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/what-is-fundamentalism-and-who-is-a-fundamentalist/
Thanks, very interesting, particuarly the last link.
I only brought up this question because Jonathan used the term, I think in very different way.
Some (but I don;t think Jonathan) use the term in a perjorative way, similar to ‘happy clappy’.
I have always noted that St Augustine (who is, I assume, revered by evangelicals) is not a fundamentalist, at least concerning scripture. See Augustine on science.
His advice on Scripture would be quite useful to plenty of commentators here. ‘A distinction has been made between the books written after the apostles and the authentic canon of the Old and New Testament. Sacred Scripture … is placed high on a throne where it receives the submission of all pious and faithful intelligence. There, if one finds something absurd, it is not permissible to say “The author of this book has strayed from the truth” but rather “This manuscript is false” or “The translator has made an error” or finally that “You do not grasp what is said”… Read more »
Right.
While there is no single view, my guess would be that TA contributors typically view an inerrantist approach to scripture as being ‘fundamentalist’.
In fact the articles listed suggest a far narrower definition, namely reading scripture without regard for genre and historical context. Those who reject inerrancy as ‘fundamentalist’ might reflect that the catholic church’s view of scripture is inerrantist – so in rejecting it they are out of step with the global church.
I can’t speak for the Roman Catholic Church but I do think that the concept of inerrancy has changed with modern forensic technologies, and I suspect there is therefore a difference between a traditional Catholic understanding and some ‘modern’ fundamentalist approaches
Yes, they believe the Bible is free from error regarding the truth that God wanted put into writing for the sake of salvation, as detailed by Providentissimus Dei (1893) and Dei Verbum from Vatican II. They are happy to use historical-critical methods including redaction criticism, literary criticism, sociological, anthropological and psychological approaches to try to best understand what the text is saying, as laid out by Joseph Ratzinger in the linked 1993 document https://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm Notice the challenging introduction ‘The study of the Bible is … the soul of theology, as the Second Vatican Council says … This study is never finished; each… Read more »
I tend to agree with your remarks. FWIW I deal with the topic–including an evaluation of Vatican 2 era docs and Ratzinger’s own stated approval of ‘canonical interpretation’– at some length in Convergences: Canon and Catholicity (BUP, 2020).
Fantastic, I will read it.
I’d welcome your response as well.
i assume by ‘he’ you mean St Augustine? i am aware of his writings to jerome. But he also talked about science. Here we go: https://www.theichthus.com/blog/2010/09/augustine-on-faith-and-science How do we reconcile these? Maybe because of your last bullet – they don’t understand scripture rightly. The classic (and tedious) example of Genesis, it is not meant to be a scientific description, but an understanding of God and God’s relationship with creation and ourselves. The problem is when fundamentalists take it to be literal scientific truth, and they bring the gospel into disrepute. Disrepute is too week a term here. So one can… Read more »
My quote above is from Augustine. Also choosing not to view the creation account in Genesis in literal terms is very different to choosing to ignore the plain reading of the text on other matters where the text is not expressed in figurative terms. I only propose reading the text in accordance with it’s intended genre. That’s why I don’t view Christ’s parables as agricultural advice. Given that most Protestant theology leans heavily into Augustinian thought (Luther was an Augustinian monk and Calvin leaned into his thinking considerably) I heavily doubt that Augustine would say ignore the Bible’s moral and… Read more »
Thank you. It is very clarifying. I think that there is a lot more agreement than some may think. Some use certain words and have a very fragile understanding of them.
ps. I also do not see Jesus’ parables as being business or accounting advice!