This is genuinely what an inclusive church looks like.
“Welcome shouldn’t be confused with endorsement”.
I’d add “of sin” to the end of that statement.
That’s exactly the attitude we should have as a church to all sin and a position that would be very useful in this situation but also in respect to the current controversies in the Church of England.
True. Thank you. The Church of England’s long capture by the smug Left-y lanyard class is one of the reasons for its irrelevance. I agree. I’d love to see the hierarchy pick up your point and call out the Left with equal pearl-clutching fervour.
Surely there is a difference between holding varied opinions on what is right and wrong, on matters on which mainstream churches are divided, and embracing an ideology promoting violence against groups of unarmed people and which major churches in Britain are broadly united in opposing?
The point I’m making is simple. We need to welcome people as they are but we need to call people to repent and follow Christ. It doesn’t matter about what churches say, what counts is what God has clearly said both about xenophobic attitudes and about sexual ethics. All people should be welcomed but all sin needs to be challenged instead of endorsed. What Rick has said is bang on. A truly inclusive church welcomes all but calls them to follow Christ. If you’re only challenging sin you don’t like on one side of the political spectrum you’re not genuinely… Read more »
Exactly, while people have pointed out that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, sinners and people the religious establishment didn’t much like, our own Anglican religious establishment seem to have overlooked that one of his disciples was a zealot ….
Quelle horreur!!! Can you imagine what the Bishop of Southwark would have made of Simon the Zealot, and more interestingly perhaps, vice versa?
God’s reaction to the xenophobic attitudes of the Israelites was deep anger that they did not go far enough. At least, that’s what the Bible seems to me to say, clearly.
But the get-out clause is to consider that the Israelites might have misunderstood what they were being called to do, and it is that misunderstanding that is recorded in scripture. We have to understand it through the lens of the New Testament, the teaching of the Church, as well as using our God-given reasoning. That might just lead us to a different place.
That depends on which parts you read, and read in the wake of Jesus own teaching. To be fair, there are also parts of the prophets writings which make it very clear that God loves all people, regardless of nation and wants them to know him. Trouble is, they’re a little too easily overshadowed by the ‘hip and thigh’ bloodlust of the earlier Hebrew Testament
Why do you feel the need to add ‘of sin’? I used to preach pretty fiery sermons of condemnation. But it came to me, one day when I was preparing a sermon, that it is not my job to convince people of their sin. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. My job, when the Holy Spirit has convinced people of their sin, is to extend God’s forgiveness (as and when appropriate), and help in any way I can. Labelling other peoples conduct as ‘sin’ can be quite satisfying, if only because it takes our eyes off our own… Read more »
To broaden the matter out from just saying we don’t like the far right to say we welcome and call all people everywhere to follow Jesus Christ irrespective of what the particular sin they struggle with is. Xenophobic attitudes, sexual immorality, greed, drunkenness and covetousness, emnity and hatred all need to be challenged holistically irrespective of what side of the political spectrum we find them on. A faithful preacher should exhort people to repentance and call people to live holy lives that glorify the Lord Jesus. A good and faithful preacher will encourage us to love and good works. Why?… Read more »
The question is whose sins, and what you mean by sin.
It’s a matter of great grief to me that people appear to have forgotten the primer on Christian life embodied in the stories and sayings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. They sounded a loud caution on being too ready to loudly hold people in contempt without examining the comfort you find in your own sins. One of which would be holding other people in contempt…
My present conclusion about preaching a salvation model that centres individual sin is that it misses the point. It must be a real burden on the soul of a minister or preacher to be charged with preaching a gospel of grace when they are clearly not converted by what they are charged to say. At the end of the day grace and salvation is not a political project. No one has a monopoly on salvation, and we are foolish to pretend otherwise. My question would be why so many people on this forum reflexively refer to “left” and “right” as… Read more »
The extension of that surely is we shouldn’t be eager to focus on the sin of the far right if we’re not willing to address sin holistically and deal with sin wherever we find it. Otherwise it’s hard to escape the conclusion that we’re engaging in hypocrisy and special pleading. Two things which humans are rather good at if not challenged. For the record I think the gospel is amazing in that it cannot be truly described to be left or right. It calls all people everywhere to godliness. On many issues I find the gospel takes me to a… Read more »
I do not think it is so easy to be confident we can reliably speak for God on every matter, given that even the holiest and/or wisest Christians of the past sometimes interpreted Scripture in ways which would today, at least in UK mainstream churches, be regarded as wrong. On xenophobia, for instance, just plucking biblical passages out of context could lead to endorsing this – and indeed just a few centuries ago, across Europe it might have often been seen as part of Christian duty. On some aspects of sexual ethics, there is broad consensus now, while others continue… Read more »
Whether there is a broad consensus on far-right attitudes depends on what is meant by that historically-loaded phrase, Savie. Of course there is a broad consensus that Nazi attitudes are entirely wrong. But an article you linked to in a recent post suggested that ‘far-right’ should be used to describe Reform voters, basically as a means of de-legitimizing their views. They currently comprise 24% of the population, rising to 28% when Restore is added and around 40% when considering the more conservative elements of the Conservative Party. And obviously there is no broad consensus that excludes 40% of the population.
Christians have had a large amount of agreement throughout history on both matters. Let me ask you the question a different way. Let’s say there was a substantial number of people in agreement with xenophobic attitudes in the church. Would that change the truth on the matter? No. Of course it doesn’t. Just because an ideology has entered the church to the point of people claiming that there isn’t “broad agreement” doesn’t mean it’s true or right. That remains the case irrespective of whether we’re discussing xenophobic attitudes or claiming the sexual sin is okay or even something to be… Read more »
But how do you arrive at ‘the truth of the matter’, when both sides are supported in scripture? David is right, we often cannot be sure what God’s view of an issue is.
And we are all works in progress. God’s view of the next issue you should tackle may well be different from your pastor’s view, or your neighbour’s.
There seems to be a strange assumption that the Bible absolutely cannot be clear about anything among theological liberals. I reject the premise that the Scriptures are not and cannot be clear in their essentials. Indeed the Protestant Reformers including the Anglican ones believed that Scripture was clear in it’s essentials. You see that throughout the 39 Articles of Religion. I believe that too. If we claim that the Bible isn’t clear it’s down to a number of factors. One of those can be wanting to justify our sin. This is particularly likely when Christians throughout the ages have been… Read more »
I wouldn’t classify myself as a theological liberal, although possibly you would – particularly if you only knew my views on one or two matters.. And I did not say that the Bible cannot be clear about anything. But the example you gave was of xenophobia. And while parts of the Bible are xenophobic in the extreme – I’ve even heard discrimination against black people argued from scripture – other parts of the Bible are definite about God’s love for, and wish to redeem, all peoples. And in some areas where the Bible is clear – e.g. Jesus’ incarnation and… Read more »
You seem to think that just because someone thinks something that that makes it equally valid to what God’s spoken. No, it doesn’t and we can offer clear reasons from the Scriptures as to why some of the takes in your first paragraph are completely wrong particularly when looking holistically at the Scriptures and reading things correctly in their textual context. Failing that I’m very very happy to leave the final judgment to the Lord after faithfully endeavouring to listen to what He’s said. I don’t share the pessimistic outlook you seem to have in respect to God’s ability to… Read more »
Gareth, you have utterly misunderstood me. I do not consider ‘what someone thinks’ equally valid as what God has spoken. Nor do I doubt God’s ability to speak clearly to us, when God wishes to – I’ve sometimes experienced it myself. Would you care, instead of casting aspersions on my faith and character, to explain why you disagree with what I wrote about starkly contrasting biblical attitudes to foreigners?
Interestingly, you are coming to a very similar conclusion to Colin, whose recent thought-provoking piece included this –
‘the root of all the current problems of the Church of England … is a fundamental lack of confidence about truth.‘
I know that you and Colin are approaching things from very different perspectives, but that leads me to wonder whether the shared observation is quite profound.
For me to act in line with what – after a great deal of Bible-reading, study and prayerful reflection – I have come to believe is God’s will, rather than abandon this to obey what someone else thinks God says, is not in my view hypocritical. If I encourage people not to engage in certain activities which most leaders of my church and I believe to be destructive of them and others, it is hopefully not because I am not aware I am a fellow-sinner but rather because I reckon it is worthwhile to join in attempts to prevent serious… Read more »
The problem with this is if we continue treating truth in a post modern manner we end up in contradictory messes. For example – you think that we should welcome but not affirm the far right political views of those who might attend our churches and seek to encourage people to rethink their views and repent of them. Others might suggest that we should welcome all but not affirm the decisions that people make in respect to other areas of sin. Without appealing to an objective source of morality ultimately this is mind dependent and it becomes a matter of… Read more »
Not sure the injection of ‘Post-Modern’ as a bogeyman takes us very far. Although it didn’t survive the winnowing of retirement downsizing, I used to have a Doctrine Report by the CofE from the best part of a century ago (1938?) which cautioned against that very reading of Scripture which you’re now setting forward, Gareth. Thus unease about your hermeneutic has deeper roots than the last 30 years…..
“I do not think it is so easy to be confident we can reliably speak for God on every matter, given that even the holiest and/or wisest Christians of the past sometimes interpreted Scripture in ways which would today, etc.” What you write I simply do not understand as how “holy or wise” saints–and so registered as such in the Calendar of Saints to be held in honor, commemorated and asked for prayers for the Church–were so thought of. Their lives, witness, congruence with catholic faith and teaching, was not a matter of something to be narrowed into correct interpretation of… Read more »
In response to the statement that ‘what counts is what God has clearly said both about xenophobic attitudes and about sexual ethics… all sin needs to be challenged instead of endorsed,’ I tried to point out that, if even the holiest and wisest Christians of the past were not infallible in knowing God’s view on every ethical matter, it was highly unlikely that anyone in today’s world could do so either. If you think I am wrong on this, Anglican Priest, please would you say a bit more on why?
It’s perhaps important to be clear about whether you are suggesting that no-one can know God’s view on [(a) EVERY or (b) ANY] ethical matter. (a) is reasonable since new situations will arise, some requiring very fine judgment, (b) is at variance with almost the whole bible, the ten commandments being a clear instance. Even (a) is questionable given Jesus’ promise that the spirit will lead us into all truth – though that may apply to the church’s settled view on something rather than the individuals within it. If you simply mean (a), then I can’t see why you have… Read more »
That’s a false dichotomy. All scripture is subject to interpretation, including the 10 Commandments. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ seems clear enough – but in what circumstances may a soldier, or a state executioner be licensed to kill? Who has authority to do so – the state, yes, but which persons or bodies of the state? Does the commandment cover animals? ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’ seems straightforward – but in what ways exactly do we honour them? Must we honour the father who raped us or the mother who abandoned us? ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ – does that… Read more »
The late Martyn Lloyd-Jones might have done so! He was always saying, in discussions at the Westminster Fellowship, ‘Let us define our terms’.
But Jesus does not need to ask me, ‘Do you believe in me?’ He knows that I not only believe in him, I love him and have dedicated my life to him and his service.
Sure, but in many cases texts have clear meanings. Words can’t be interpreted in any way people want. There are clear bounds. If I say the sky is blue it can’t be reasonably argued that I said it was pink. I’d argue that in some cases we’re not even interpreting the text but choosing to dismiss it out of hand. That’s why when you keep saying the Bible can be interpreted any way we like I keep coming back to – no, it really can’t beyond a limited number of ambiguities and even then we know that God ultimately knows… Read more »
I have never said the Bible can be interpreted any way we like.The Bible must be read with faith, with intelligence, with all the spiritual and intellectual tools at our disposal; with honesty, humility, reliance on the Holy Spirit; with questions, with wonder, and with the expectancy that now and then it will sock us between the eyes or knock us off balance. All I have been arguing is that none of us can make the assumption that Bible texts which have a clear and plain meaning to us have an equally clear and plain meaning to all right-minded people… Read more »
Janet, while you give a good description of the disposition of the individual, what of the ecclesial context within which we, as Anglicans, receive Scripture? The Bible must also be heard in conversation with tradition and within the fellowship of the Church. I should also add ‘with reason’, despite this being prone to being mistaken for self-sufficient rationalism.
I say this, not to get at you, but because so much recent discourse on TA has been from the perspective of sola scriptura Evangelicalism and therefore hard to engage with.
It’s worth pointing out despite being one of these pesky sola scriptura evangelicals you refer to that evangelicals are not opposed to considering the received tradition of the church or reason when considering Scripture.
The rub is that we see Scripture as the ultimate authority as it is God’s revealed word to us.
We then reason on the basis of the Scriptures and we consider church tradition and history in light of the Scriptures.
We don’t place reason or tradition above the Scriptures in authority but we do consider them in seeking understanding.
I’m confused. You begin by claiming you’re sola scriptura, but then you appear to qualify that claim. If you mean Scripture has final doctrinal authority, then fine. But if you mean tradition and reason (in the Hooker sense) are to be consulted only after you have independently decided what Scripture says, then that would have seemed odd to the English Reformers. Most Evangelicals I knew back in the day would ‘discern within the Church’: Scripture as normative but understood within the life of the Church. But today some head straight ‘to the bar of Scripture’, as if it were a… Read more »
If by infallibility you mean Scripture unfailingly reveals Christ and teaches all things necessary for salvation, then that is fully consonant with Anglican tradition. However – while you may believe that the entire Canon is free from error – this not required by our formularies. Friends from my Low Church days – card-carrying Evangelicals to a man – saw Scripture as given to us for interpretation within the Church’s living tradition, not as a self-interpreting set of propositions.
You’ve identified something very perceptive. There’s very little difference between sola scriptura as rightly understood and prima scriptura. Remember sola scriptura doesn’t mean we can’t consider church tradition or that we don’t reason. What it does mean is when church tradition conflicts with Scripture then Scripture is the only infallible authority we’ve got. Of course that makes sense considering the context during the Protestant Reformation. I think I’d only ask when you say Scripture is given for interpretation within the living tradition of the church is that a roundabout way of saying the church has authority over the Scriptures? If… Read more »
…but it could be argued – correctly – that’s it’s clearly blue from where you are, but viewed from a different location it might be grey, indigo or a glorious variety of what Pratchett once described as surgical appliance pink. And there’s a large body of evidence in studies of language that we don’t even have common colour references across cultures (eg see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/priceless/202410/partitioning-the-rainbow-the-influence-of-culture-on-color). There is an engaging ‘plain man’s’ ‘facts is facts’ approach here Gareth, with which I sympathise – it’s comforting, for one thing (although the harsh words about Wealth delivered unambiguously by the Lord always seem to… Read more »
My point however is about the intention of words, if I say the sky is blue, I obviously don’t intend for those words to be taken as if I’m saying that the sky is pink.
It wouldn’t be respecting the plain intention of what I’m saying to say that I said otherwise.
Otherwise words don’t have any meaning at all and I can simply say that anything means anything else.
We understand that when you write ‘the sky is blue’, you don’t mean that it’s pink. But we don’t know what shade of blue you mean, unless you gives it the actual number on the colour chart; even then, how you perceive blue may be different to how I see it. One of us may be colour blind, or scotopic, or have been taught a different word to describe it. Words do have a meaning – and a power – but they can be slippery all the same. Words are symbols we use to communicate, and depend on our agreeing… Read more »
I agree with spending time looking at the genre, culture and so on. That’s why I hold to a historical grammatical hermeneutic. We need to understand what God’s word meant to it’s original hearers in order to apply it to us in ours. On many of the present controversies in the CofE I don’t see much evidence that we’re doing that. If we’re going to encourage those with xenophobic views to repent, we need to holistically deal with sin. You told me earlier that you don’t think it’s the job of the preacher to do that. So the question for… Read more »
I don’t think a standard like you are proposing “were not infallible in knowing God’s view on every ethical matter” would make much sense to saints down the ages. It involves proving a negative. It also assume saints majored in knowledge of God on ethical matters. Did Saint John Cassian, e.g., worry about knowing God’s will on ethical matters? Not as I take it you mean, because the scriptures did not function for him under the same epistemic a priori of modernity. They would have found debates, based upon citing verses, on sexuality something like looking through the wrong end… Read more »
I am not claiming this is a deficiency in the saintly, whom I look up to as fellow-humans who can point the rest of us towards what it might mean to live God-centred and Spirit-infused lives (and after they have died, extending love and prayers to those of us still on our earthly pilgrimage). To me, not being intellectually infallible in interpreting Scripture on matters on which sizeable sections of the church (including scholars) have different views is simply a facet of being human, rather than being all-knowing in the way the Father is. I am questioning, instead, the notion… Read more »
Thank you. All I was trying to say is that we live in a time where scripture is being asked to carry all kinds of burdens its inspired purpose did not anticipate. Even the Articles of Religion simply assume a view about Holy Scripture and do not set out to answer the kinds of questions your comment presupposes. They tell us the number of books; they speak of the relation between Church and Scripture (a link now severed), in which “the Church hath not authority to interpret scripture in such wise that one portion be repugnant to another.” Cranmer’s collect… Read more »
Well yes, we’ve got the Scriptures which pretty much every Christian regarded as being clear on this historically. You didn’t answer my question though, if far right churchgoers were a “sizeable” portion of churchgoers would you say that this was “widely contested”? I suspect you wouldn’t and that’s where I find it a bit hypocritical. The number of people doesn’t make something more correct in God’s sight (ad populum fallacy) or even an argument based on authority like how many bishops agree with me (ad vericundiam fallacy). Either we encourage all Christians to listen to God and repent or we… Read more »
When I referred to ‘embracing an ideology… which major churches in Britain are broadly united in opposing,’ I meant that this opposition is reflected in the official position of such churches, even if not all churchgoers agree. This reflects much work over the years in collectively discerning where Scripture, alongside tradition, reason and experience, lead. The outcome might seem obvious but it was not: I am old enough to remember when the South African government was backed by a Dutch Reformed Church leadership which genuinely believed that both apartheid and obedience to the regime were in accord with God’s will,… Read more »
I guess I’m saying the method leaves a lot to be desired. As the church we’re here to follow Christ, not simply to follow what church leaders tell us. That’s why I’m saying we need to ground our positions theologically and Scripturally. Without this it’s just secular argumentation without any objective authority. The church should live and breathe the gospel of Christ and reason on the gospel of Christ. It shouldn’t function as a secular NGO. If we reason based on the gospel of Christ we need to consider what it says about sin holistically instead of solely dealing with… Read more »
I think we’re all saying that we need to ground our positions theologically and scripturally. Certainly I am. The problem arises when we are so certain that our understanding of scripture is right, that we won’t listen to those with differing views, or accord them basic respect. For instance, you have accused Savi of avoidance and of wanting to be selective. You know nothing of Savi’s inner motives. God knows her heart: you don’t. When you insult Savi, or Allan, or me, you aren’t acting in love, as Jesus told us to do. Play the ball, not the man (or… Read more »
There is a big difference between making a theological argument and questioning someone’s motives. You don’t always seem to be aware of that distinction.
“This reflects much work over the years in collectively discerning where Scripture, alongside tradition, reason and experience, lead.” What I find curious in this statement is the assumption of “much work” producing a new understanding as if a hermeneutic of “hard effort” is the arbiter of something decisive. I’d say that the contributions of Augustine, Aquinas, and countless saints down the ages make our “much work over the years” look frankly amateurish. At issue isn’t the calculation of expenditure of labor but how such labor operates within a “rule of faith” and the habits of prayer and dedicated study of… Read more »
I’m not in the habit of wasting time on people who don’t have an interest in listening to me. Perhaps you’ve got more chance of being heard.
Naughtius Maximus
20 days ago
I suppose over the last 60 years or so we have mostly become people who think that Christianity means we should somehow all be “of the Left”. I am one of them, or have become one of them, through listening to the teaching of others, and my own reading of the Bible; being most infulenced by the words of Jesus that we have in the Gospels. Yet it is not a view held by all. The late Sir Roger Scruton and the currently alive and well Lord Biggar to name two. Now we have “Tommy Robinson” and Daniel Thomas, who… Read more »
Martin Hughes
20 days ago
I don’t see the New Testament story as telling us that God intervened (if that word is allowed) without waiting for the world to be ready but that he intervened in the fullness of time, just when the interaction between Judaism and paganism had reached a reached a point where both sides had very crucial choices to make
Kyle Johansen
20 days ago
I think there does need to be a challenge to Rick Hill of: Do you believe the Islamic rape gangs (and cover-up) happened? Because if you think the answer to that is ‘yes’ then you do not need to posit possible heresies as explanations for why the white working-class wouldn’t be the biggest fans of the multi-cultural regime that spent decades denying it existed. (The magistrate that denied Danny Tommo bail is part of an explicitly-Pakistani group that refers to the ‘so-called grooming gangs’ just a couple of years ago.) If one accepts that it did happen and that the… Read more »
I do not believe there were ‘Islamic’ rape gangs – but Muslim men are just as capable of sexual violence and cover-ups as all other men and patterns of abuse can vary across different sections of the population. Given the dismal track record of numerous churches, Kyle, I daresay you and I could be accused of being accomplices to “Christian grooming gangs’ and we and our families could be verbally attacked, even terrorised as a result, but I think this would be unhelpful – and since I take seriously Jesus’ teaching about treating others as we would wish to be… Read more »
“Kyle, I daresay you and I could be accused of being accomplices to “Christian grooming gangs’ “ Anybody could accuse anybody of anything. Are *you* accusing me of being an accomplice to ‘Christian grooming gangs’? As this all a load of whataboutery. Similar to when Axel R went to that dance class so your precious HNH decided to make up a story of a Muslim woman being attacked in order to ‘both sides’ it and to rile people up. Do you accept an evil was done, or don’t you? You can say that they deserved it because some people of… Read more »
In case I did not make it clear enough, I believe people who commit or cover up rape or sexual exploitation (or any other act of violent crime) are guilty of it – but not everyone who happens to share their religion, ethnicity or some other characteristic. And I believe that survivors of every class, background and community deserve support and have worked for many years to increase its availability.
Nobody has said that “everyone who happens to share their religion, ethnicity or some other characteristic” is guilty of anything. And this is a tactic that people have been using for decades to allow the Islamic rape gangs to act by squealing “racism” whenever it was mentioned. I repeat again. The church should have defended those girls from their position of power. They have no right to judge the white working-class having – without repentance – utterly failed to do that. And it is simply the injustice of false weights to say that Christians are to blame for everything bad… Read more »
You say ‘I believe people who commit or cover up rape or sexual exploitation (or any other act of violent crime) are guilty of it’
Do you accept that the majority of people who claim to be victims of the ‘so-called grooming gangs’ or the ‘grooming gang moral panic’ or the ‘Islamist ray guns’ (working class people don’t enunciate their consonants properly, how uproarious!), or whatever your preferred nomenclature is, were victims of rape?
Are *you* accusing me of being an accomplice to ‘Christian grooming gangs’?
Presuming you are Christian and male, Kyle, I’ll say that any Christian male NOT fighting sexual violence by ALL males is, by default, an “accomplice to ‘Christian grooming gangs'”: happy now?
Not sure about your last ALL. It imples that ALL males commit sexual violence.
I also question Kyle’s remarks on Starmer et al. I think there is one of the ten commandments which deals with false accusations.
Intemperate incorrect statements reduce the effectiveness of your overall message, parts of which may be valid. I didn’t read Kyle’s message carefully, I couldn’t get beyond these initial impressions.
A certain blindness going on. Let’s start with some facts. Actual prosecutions. Known reviews. Forthcoming reviews.
Read the Jay Report before you accuse anybody of making false accusations. “Kay Kelly, who has worked for the Bradford project for 12 years, looks back to her first years with Streets and Lanes: ‘The reality wasn’t recognised. These young people weren’t seen as victims. They were very much seen as perpetrators themselves and treated as adult prostitutes. Of course they weren’t, because they were all under the legal age for consent’.” “e. A list of stereotypical behaviours previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution. These included:… Read more »
The problem is that J C Fisher is not remotely interested in reality. He has a fixed word view which he changes the facts to fit in with. It’s all very well him going on about not looking the other way, but that’s exactly what he is doing. I entirely endorse your views about the CofE’s behaviour towards the white working class. To be brutally frank, the CofE has spent a huge amount of time investigating why wealthy, well educated children voluntarily turned up each week to be hit by a posh nutter in a garden shed, while doing precisely… Read more »
“Th etrope that all child rapes are carried out by muslim gangs is of course complete garbage.” Did anybody ever say that? Do you accept that: Starter was DPP from 2008-2013 and bears responsibility for the policies of the CPS during that time (maybe allowing some time for taking stock of the situation and getting his feet under the table) That until 2013 the DPP was still permitting those under him to refuse to prosecute the grooming gangs because of the lie that “Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation” – only in 2013 finally changing the policy (proving… Read more »
I broke down that statement in italics into three claims. Which of the three claims do you disagree with?
Savi Hensman
19 days ago
Theo Hobson’s piece is informative and thought-provoking. I agree with Rick Hill up to a certain point but think more needs to be done to flag up the dangers of far-right thought and action and offer alternatives, especially for those who feel alienated. I reckon over-emphasis, in some churches, on ‘conversion’ to Christianity, rather than whether the version adopted makes people more loving or less, is a problem. As for Mark Clavier’s reflection, I have serious reservations. While it is important not to get over-bothered by minor disagreements or irritations, the idea that people should stop making a fuss if,… Read more »
Simon Bravery
19 days ago
Interesting that Mr Hill is from Northern Ireland and particularly well qualified to speak on the intersection between religion and national identity.
Individual identity on the left, national identity on the right. Both forcefully trying to lay hold of the Kingdom of God. But blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth – that’s subversive theology.
Worth catching SecDefence/War Pete Hegseth’s latest “no beardos, no weirdos” brief to assembled US Top Brass, which also included new Office of Religious Affairs which is explicitly Christian & will report “straight to the top”.
Wonder what legendary ‘fighting padre’ Kenneth Mathews, DSC, OBE, would have made of that nonsense. Like all Royal Navy chaplains he had no rank (unlike other services & US Chaplains), and was famous for refusing to hold compulsory church parade & getting more attendees as a result!
JC Fisher
18 days ago
“On loving the Church we’ve been given” Oh, you asked on the PERFECT day! I love dogs, and at my parish, for St Francis Day, we blessed dozens. “What has the Church I actually belong to, as she actually is, called from me this week, and did I give it?” Did I give enough? Well, no. But the blessings of “God spelled backwards” gave me another wonderful opportunity to share my love of my local church (and TEC more broadly) with a secular, mostly anti-Christian community. I keep plugging away…and I honestly believe it’s made a difference (my explicitly Jesus-following… Read more »
Mark Clavier’s piece has so many quotable lines that I almost don’t know where to start, but I was especially struck by this one:
‘The Christian life is lived in the particular. We don’t get to love humanity or the Church in the abstract, nor are we asked to be faithful to the Church of our own imagining. We’re given these people, this place, this moment—and asked to love them all.’
Many thanks to Mark for another thoughtful offering.
Anglican in Exile
17 days ago
I do think we have to be very very careful about the use of the word “inclusive” in the church today. It’s so easy to fall into the trap of cult like bait and switch behaviour – where what appears to be an open loving and welcoming community actually has a whole host of expectations, controls and regulations that aren’t really apparent until long after you’ve been love bombed in. There are so many different and contradictory self styled gatekeepers of ‘truth’ in the Anglican Church today it’s confusing and potentially dangerous for a newcomer to navigate. Added into this… Read more »
I checked back in briefly after a break .. safeguarding still failing the victims and Much Ado about Bishops for either maintaining the deplorable safeguarding status quo, or being minced in the weaponisation of it by the staunch maintainers. But then I saw Theo Hobson’s and Rick Hill’s posts . Anglican in Exile I so agree with your comments about ‘cult like bait and switch’ behaviour, and the effect of the sums of money being used to buy influence from both politicians and church leaders. I had read the FT article about James Orr previously, and have been very surprised… Read more »
What is being alleged that there is for an archdeacon to follow up?
John Davies
22 hours ago
By the time the argument gets to the bottom of the page it seems to be getting both rather personal and off the original track. (I appreciate Janet Fife’s stand, by the way.) Can I remind you of something the late Tony Campolo said? That if we are truly following Jesus then we are going to have elements of both ‘right wing’ thinking and ‘left wing thinking’ in our mental and theological make up. That’s as true of political and Christian thinking as it is of our genetic and gender orientated makeup. No one side of the argument can have… Read more »
Rick Hill has hit the nail on the head.
This is genuinely what an inclusive church looks like.
“Welcome shouldn’t be confused with endorsement”.
I’d add “of sin” to the end of that statement.
That’s exactly the attitude we should have as a church to all sin and a position that would be very useful in this situation but also in respect to the current controversies in the Church of England.
True. Thank you. The Church of England’s long capture by the smug Left-y lanyard class is one of the reasons for its irrelevance. I agree. I’d love to see the hierarchy pick up your point and call out the Left with equal pearl-clutching fervour.
Surely there is a difference between holding varied opinions on what is right and wrong, on matters on which mainstream churches are divided, and embracing an ideology promoting violence against groups of unarmed people and which major churches in Britain are broadly united in opposing?
The point I’m making is simple. We need to welcome people as they are but we need to call people to repent and follow Christ. It doesn’t matter about what churches say, what counts is what God has clearly said both about xenophobic attitudes and about sexual ethics. All people should be welcomed but all sin needs to be challenged instead of endorsed. What Rick has said is bang on. A truly inclusive church welcomes all but calls them to follow Christ. If you’re only challenging sin you don’t like on one side of the political spectrum you’re not genuinely… Read more »
“It doesn’t matter about what churches say, what counts is what God has clearly said both about xenophobic attitudes and about sexual ethics.”
And what if what God has said is not all that clear?
Exactly, while people have pointed out that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, sinners and people the religious establishment didn’t much like, our own Anglican religious establishment seem to have overlooked that one of his disciples was a zealot ….
Quelle horreur!!! Can you imagine what the Bishop of Southwark would have made of Simon the Zealot, and more interestingly perhaps, vice versa?
Good point!
God’s reaction to the xenophobic attitudes of the Israelites was deep anger that they did not go far enough. At least, that’s what the Bible seems to me to say, clearly.
But the get-out clause is to consider that the Israelites might have misunderstood what they were being called to do, and it is that misunderstanding that is recorded in scripture. We have to understand it through the lens of the New Testament, the teaching of the Church, as well as using our God-given reasoning. That might just lead us to a different place.
That depends on which parts you read, and read in the wake of Jesus own teaching. To be fair, there are also parts of the prophets writings which make it very clear that God loves all people, regardless of nation and wants them to know him. Trouble is, they’re a little too easily overshadowed by the ‘hip and thigh’ bloodlust of the earlier Hebrew Testament
Why do you feel the need to add ‘of sin’? I used to preach pretty fiery sermons of condemnation. But it came to me, one day when I was preparing a sermon, that it is not my job to convince people of their sin. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. My job, when the Holy Spirit has convinced people of their sin, is to extend God’s forgiveness (as and when appropriate), and help in any way I can. Labelling other peoples conduct as ‘sin’ can be quite satisfying, if only because it takes our eyes off our own… Read more »
To broaden the matter out from just saying we don’t like the far right to say we welcome and call all people everywhere to follow Jesus Christ irrespective of what the particular sin they struggle with is. Xenophobic attitudes, sexual immorality, greed, drunkenness and covetousness, emnity and hatred all need to be challenged holistically irrespective of what side of the political spectrum we find them on. A faithful preacher should exhort people to repentance and call people to live holy lives that glorify the Lord Jesus. A good and faithful preacher will encourage us to love and good works. Why?… Read more »
But at this point, isn’t it the DEFINING of “sexual immorality” that literally creates the “side[s] of the political spectrum”!
To wit: can I bring my endorsement of (ecclesial) marriage equality to your side of “challenging sexual immorality”, Gareth?
*sigh* – three fingers pointing back atchya.
If everything is sin, then there is no sin.
The question is whose sins, and what you mean by sin.
It’s a matter of great grief to me that people appear to have forgotten the primer on Christian life embodied in the stories and sayings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. They sounded a loud caution on being too ready to loudly hold people in contempt without examining the comfort you find in your own sins. One of which would be holding other people in contempt…
I’m fully in agreement that we should all examine ourselves.
That’s why I think it’s potentially hypocritical to call out the far right without having a holistic attitude against all sin.
The risk is we’re only interested in the sins of those on a particular side of the political spectrum.
My present conclusion about preaching a salvation model that centres individual sin is that it misses the point. It must be a real burden on the soul of a minister or preacher to be charged with preaching a gospel of grace when they are clearly not converted by what they are charged to say. At the end of the day grace and salvation is not a political project. No one has a monopoly on salvation, and we are foolish to pretend otherwise. My question would be why so many people on this forum reflexively refer to “left” and “right” as… Read more »
The extension of that surely is we shouldn’t be eager to focus on the sin of the far right if we’re not willing to address sin holistically and deal with sin wherever we find it. Otherwise it’s hard to escape the conclusion that we’re engaging in hypocrisy and special pleading. Two things which humans are rather good at if not challenged. For the record I think the gospel is amazing in that it cannot be truly described to be left or right. It calls all people everywhere to godliness. On many issues I find the gospel takes me to a… Read more »
I do not think it is so easy to be confident we can reliably speak for God on every matter, given that even the holiest and/or wisest Christians of the past sometimes interpreted Scripture in ways which would today, at least in UK mainstream churches, be regarded as wrong. On xenophobia, for instance, just plucking biblical passages out of context could lead to endorsing this – and indeed just a few centuries ago, across Europe it might have often been seen as part of Christian duty. On some aspects of sexual ethics, there is broad consensus now, while others continue… Read more »
Whether there is a broad consensus on far-right attitudes depends on what is meant by that historically-loaded phrase, Savie. Of course there is a broad consensus that Nazi attitudes are entirely wrong. But an article you linked to in a recent post suggested that ‘far-right’ should be used to describe Reform voters, basically as a means of de-legitimizing their views. They currently comprise 24% of the population, rising to 28% when Restore is added and around 40% when considering the more conservative elements of the Conservative Party. And obviously there is no broad consensus that excludes 40% of the population.
Christians have had a large amount of agreement throughout history on both matters. Let me ask you the question a different way. Let’s say there was a substantial number of people in agreement with xenophobic attitudes in the church. Would that change the truth on the matter? No. Of course it doesn’t. Just because an ideology has entered the church to the point of people claiming that there isn’t “broad agreement” doesn’t mean it’s true or right. That remains the case irrespective of whether we’re discussing xenophobic attitudes or claiming the sexual sin is okay or even something to be… Read more »
But how do you arrive at ‘the truth of the matter’, when both sides are supported in scripture? David is right, we often cannot be sure what God’s view of an issue is.
And we are all works in progress. God’s view of the next issue you should tackle may well be different from your pastor’s view, or your neighbour’s.
There seems to be a strange assumption that the Bible absolutely cannot be clear about anything among theological liberals. I reject the premise that the Scriptures are not and cannot be clear in their essentials. Indeed the Protestant Reformers including the Anglican ones believed that Scripture was clear in it’s essentials. You see that throughout the 39 Articles of Religion. I believe that too. If we claim that the Bible isn’t clear it’s down to a number of factors. One of those can be wanting to justify our sin. This is particularly likely when Christians throughout the ages have been… Read more »
I wouldn’t classify myself as a theological liberal, although possibly you would – particularly if you only knew my views on one or two matters.. And I did not say that the Bible cannot be clear about anything. But the example you gave was of xenophobia. And while parts of the Bible are xenophobic in the extreme – I’ve even heard discrimination against black people argued from scripture – other parts of the Bible are definite about God’s love for, and wish to redeem, all peoples. And in some areas where the Bible is clear – e.g. Jesus’ incarnation and… Read more »
You seem to think that just because someone thinks something that that makes it equally valid to what God’s spoken. No, it doesn’t and we can offer clear reasons from the Scriptures as to why some of the takes in your first paragraph are completely wrong particularly when looking holistically at the Scriptures and reading things correctly in their textual context. Failing that I’m very very happy to leave the final judgment to the Lord after faithfully endeavouring to listen to what He’s said. I don’t share the pessimistic outlook you seem to have in respect to God’s ability to… Read more »
Gareth, you have utterly misunderstood me. I do not consider ‘what someone thinks’ equally valid as what God has spoken. Nor do I doubt God’s ability to speak clearly to us, when God wishes to – I’ve sometimes experienced it myself. Would you care, instead of casting aspersions on my faith and character, to explain why you disagree with what I wrote about starkly contrasting biblical attitudes to foreigners?
Interestingly, you are coming to a very similar conclusion to Colin, whose recent thought-provoking piece included this –
‘the root of all the current problems of the Church of England … is a fundamental lack of confidence about truth.‘
I know that you and Colin are approaching things from very different perspectives, but that leads me to wonder whether the shared observation is quite profound.
For me to act in line with what – after a great deal of Bible-reading, study and prayerful reflection – I have come to believe is God’s will, rather than abandon this to obey what someone else thinks God says, is not in my view hypocritical. If I encourage people not to engage in certain activities which most leaders of my church and I believe to be destructive of them and others, it is hopefully not because I am not aware I am a fellow-sinner but rather because I reckon it is worthwhile to join in attempts to prevent serious… Read more »
The problem with this is if we continue treating truth in a post modern manner we end up in contradictory messes. For example – you think that we should welcome but not affirm the far right political views of those who might attend our churches and seek to encourage people to rethink their views and repent of them. Others might suggest that we should welcome all but not affirm the decisions that people make in respect to other areas of sin. Without appealing to an objective source of morality ultimately this is mind dependent and it becomes a matter of… Read more »
Not sure the injection of ‘Post-Modern’ as a bogeyman takes us very far. Although it didn’t survive the winnowing of retirement downsizing, I used to have a Doctrine Report by the CofE from the best part of a century ago (1938?) which cautioned against that very reading of Scripture which you’re now setting forward, Gareth. Thus unease about your hermeneutic has deeper roots than the last 30 years…..
“I do not think it is so easy to be confident we can reliably speak for God on every matter, given that even the holiest and/or wisest Christians of the past sometimes interpreted Scripture in ways which would today, etc.” What you write I simply do not understand as how “holy or wise” saints–and so registered as such in the Calendar of Saints to be held in honor, commemorated and asked for prayers for the Church–were so thought of. Their lives, witness, congruence with catholic faith and teaching, was not a matter of something to be narrowed into correct interpretation of… Read more »
In response to the statement that ‘what counts is what God has clearly said both about xenophobic attitudes and about sexual ethics… all sin needs to be challenged instead of endorsed,’ I tried to point out that, if even the holiest and wisest Christians of the past were not infallible in knowing God’s view on every ethical matter, it was highly unlikely that anyone in today’s world could do so either. If you think I am wrong on this, Anglican Priest, please would you say a bit more on why?
It’s perhaps important to be clear about whether you are suggesting that no-one can know God’s view on [(a) EVERY or (b) ANY] ethical matter. (a) is reasonable since new situations will arise, some requiring very fine judgment, (b) is at variance with almost the whole bible, the ten commandments being a clear instance. Even (a) is questionable given Jesus’ promise that the spirit will lead us into all truth – though that may apply to the church’s settled view on something rather than the individuals within it. If you simply mean (a), then I can’t see why you have… Read more »
That’s a false dichotomy. All scripture is subject to interpretation, including the 10 Commandments. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ seems clear enough – but in what circumstances may a soldier, or a state executioner be licensed to kill? Who has authority to do so – the state, yes, but which persons or bodies of the state? Does the commandment cover animals? ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’ seems straightforward – but in what ways exactly do we honour them? Must we honour the father who raped us or the mother who abandoned us? ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ – does that… Read more »
And I imagine that when Jesus says “Do you believe in me, Janet?”, you will say ‘Well, that all depends on what you mean by believe’.
The late Martyn Lloyd-Jones might have done so! He was always saying, in discussions at the Westminster Fellowship, ‘Let us define our terms’.
But Jesus does not need to ask me, ‘Do you believe in me?’ He knows that I not only believe in him, I love him and have dedicated my life to him and his service.
Sure, but in many cases texts have clear meanings. Words can’t be interpreted in any way people want. There are clear bounds. If I say the sky is blue it can’t be reasonably argued that I said it was pink. I’d argue that in some cases we’re not even interpreting the text but choosing to dismiss it out of hand. That’s why when you keep saying the Bible can be interpreted any way we like I keep coming back to – no, it really can’t beyond a limited number of ambiguities and even then we know that God ultimately knows… Read more »
I have never said the Bible can be interpreted any way we like.The Bible must be read with faith, with intelligence, with all the spiritual and intellectual tools at our disposal; with honesty, humility, reliance on the Holy Spirit; with questions, with wonder, and with the expectancy that now and then it will sock us between the eyes or knock us off balance. All I have been arguing is that none of us can make the assumption that Bible texts which have a clear and plain meaning to us have an equally clear and plain meaning to all right-minded people… Read more »
Janet, while you give a good description of the disposition of the individual, what of the ecclesial context within which we, as Anglicans, receive Scripture? The Bible must also be heard in conversation with tradition and within the fellowship of the Church. I should also add ‘with reason’, despite this being prone to being mistaken for self-sufficient rationalism.
I say this, not to get at you, but because so much recent discourse on TA has been from the perspective of sola scriptura Evangelicalism and therefore hard to engage with.
It’s worth pointing out despite being one of these pesky sola scriptura evangelicals you refer to that evangelicals are not opposed to considering the received tradition of the church or reason when considering Scripture.
The rub is that we see Scripture as the ultimate authority as it is God’s revealed word to us.
We then reason on the basis of the Scriptures and we consider church tradition and history in light of the Scriptures.
We don’t place reason or tradition above the Scriptures in authority but we do consider them in seeking understanding.
I’m confused. You begin by claiming you’re sola scriptura, but then you appear to qualify that claim. If you mean Scripture has final doctrinal authority, then fine. But if you mean tradition and reason (in the Hooker sense) are to be consulted only after you have independently decided what Scripture says, then that would have seemed odd to the English Reformers. Most Evangelicals I knew back in the day would ‘discern within the Church’: Scripture as normative but understood within the life of the Church. But today some head straight ‘to the bar of Scripture’, as if it were a… Read more »
I’m not qualifying it at all.
I’m clarifying what sola scriptura actually means.
Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible authority not that it is the only authority that can be considered.
If any other authority comes into conflict with Scripture, Scripture wins as it is the only infallible authority.
If by infallibility you mean Scripture unfailingly reveals Christ and teaches all things necessary for salvation, then that is fully consonant with Anglican tradition. However – while you may believe that the entire Canon is free from error – this not required by our formularies. Friends from my Low Church days – card-carrying Evangelicals to a man – saw Scripture as given to us for interpretation within the Church’s living tradition, not as a self-interpreting set of propositions.
You’ve identified something very perceptive. There’s very little difference between sola scriptura as rightly understood and prima scriptura. Remember sola scriptura doesn’t mean we can’t consider church tradition or that we don’t reason. What it does mean is when church tradition conflicts with Scripture then Scripture is the only infallible authority we’ve got. Of course that makes sense considering the context during the Protestant Reformation. I think I’d only ask when you say Scripture is given for interpretation within the living tradition of the church is that a roundabout way of saying the church has authority over the Scriptures? If… Read more »
Yes, Allan, good point.
…but it could be argued – correctly – that’s it’s clearly blue from where you are, but viewed from a different location it might be grey, indigo or a glorious variety of what Pratchett once described as surgical appliance pink. And there’s a large body of evidence in studies of language that we don’t even have common colour references across cultures (eg see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/priceless/202410/partitioning-the-rainbow-the-influence-of-culture-on-color). There is an engaging ‘plain man’s’ ‘facts is facts’ approach here Gareth, with which I sympathise – it’s comforting, for one thing (although the harsh words about Wealth delivered unambiguously by the Lord always seem to… Read more »
That’s beautiful.
My point however is about the intention of words, if I say the sky is blue, I obviously don’t intend for those words to be taken as if I’m saying that the sky is pink.
It wouldn’t be respecting the plain intention of what I’m saying to say that I said otherwise.
Otherwise words don’t have any meaning at all and I can simply say that anything means anything else.
That’s obviously nonsense.
Texts do have hermeneutical boundaries.
We understand that when you write ‘the sky is blue’, you don’t mean that it’s pink. But we don’t know what shade of blue you mean, unless you gives it the actual number on the colour chart; even then, how you perceive blue may be different to how I see it. One of us may be colour blind, or scotopic, or have been taught a different word to describe it. Words do have a meaning – and a power – but they can be slippery all the same. Words are symbols we use to communicate, and depend on our agreeing… Read more »
I agree with spending time looking at the genre, culture and so on. That’s why I hold to a historical grammatical hermeneutic. We need to understand what God’s word meant to it’s original hearers in order to apply it to us in ours. On many of the present controversies in the CofE I don’t see much evidence that we’re doing that. If we’re going to encourage those with xenophobic views to repent, we need to holistically deal with sin. You told me earlier that you don’t think it’s the job of the preacher to do that. So the question for… Read more »
I don’t think a standard like you are proposing “were not infallible in knowing God’s view on every ethical matter” would make much sense to saints down the ages. It involves proving a negative. It also assume saints majored in knowledge of God on ethical matters. Did Saint John Cassian, e.g., worry about knowing God’s will on ethical matters? Not as I take it you mean, because the scriptures did not function for him under the same epistemic a priori of modernity. They would have found debates, based upon citing verses, on sexuality something like looking through the wrong end… Read more »
I am not claiming this is a deficiency in the saintly, whom I look up to as fellow-humans who can point the rest of us towards what it might mean to live God-centred and Spirit-infused lives (and after they have died, extending love and prayers to those of us still on our earthly pilgrimage). To me, not being intellectually infallible in interpreting Scripture on matters on which sizeable sections of the church (including scholars) have different views is simply a facet of being human, rather than being all-knowing in the way the Father is. I am questioning, instead, the notion… Read more »
Thank you. All I was trying to say is that we live in a time where scripture is being asked to carry all kinds of burdens its inspired purpose did not anticipate. Even the Articles of Religion simply assume a view about Holy Scripture and do not set out to answer the kinds of questions your comment presupposes. They tell us the number of books; they speak of the relation between Church and Scripture (a link now severed), in which “the Church hath not authority to interpret scripture in such wise that one portion be repugnant to another.” Cranmer’s collect… Read more »
Well yes, we’ve got the Scriptures which pretty much every Christian regarded as being clear on this historically. You didn’t answer my question though, if far right churchgoers were a “sizeable” portion of churchgoers would you say that this was “widely contested”? I suspect you wouldn’t and that’s where I find it a bit hypocritical. The number of people doesn’t make something more correct in God’s sight (ad populum fallacy) or even an argument based on authority like how many bishops agree with me (ad vericundiam fallacy). Either we encourage all Christians to listen to God and repent or we… Read more »
When I referred to ‘embracing an ideology… which major churches in Britain are broadly united in opposing,’ I meant that this opposition is reflected in the official position of such churches, even if not all churchgoers agree. This reflects much work over the years in collectively discerning where Scripture, alongside tradition, reason and experience, lead. The outcome might seem obvious but it was not: I am old enough to remember when the South African government was backed by a Dutch Reformed Church leadership which genuinely believed that both apartheid and obedience to the regime were in accord with God’s will,… Read more »
I guess I’m saying the method leaves a lot to be desired. As the church we’re here to follow Christ, not simply to follow what church leaders tell us. That’s why I’m saying we need to ground our positions theologically and Scripturally. Without this it’s just secular argumentation without any objective authority. The church should live and breathe the gospel of Christ and reason on the gospel of Christ. It shouldn’t function as a secular NGO. If we reason based on the gospel of Christ we need to consider what it says about sin holistically instead of solely dealing with… Read more »
I think we’re all saying that we need to ground our positions theologically and scripturally. Certainly I am. The problem arises when we are so certain that our understanding of scripture is right, that we won’t listen to those with differing views, or accord them basic respect. For instance, you have accused Savi of avoidance and of wanting to be selective. You know nothing of Savi’s inner motives. God knows her heart: you don’t. When you insult Savi, or Allan, or me, you aren’t acting in love, as Jesus told us to do. Play the ball, not the man (or… Read more »
I don’t intend to insult but I haven’t seen a theological justification for Savi’s argument.
I’ve seen most churches agree on X at an institutional level so we should do Y.
What we should do is listen to Christ and the apostles and we’ve got Scripture to help us do that.
That is playing the ball.
There is a big difference between making a theological argument and questioning someone’s motives. You don’t always seem to be aware of that distinction.
“This reflects much work over the years in collectively discerning where Scripture, alongside tradition, reason and experience, lead.” What I find curious in this statement is the assumption of “much work” producing a new understanding as if a hermeneutic of “hard effort” is the arbiter of something decisive. I’d say that the contributions of Augustine, Aquinas, and countless saints down the ages make our “much work over the years” look frankly amateurish. At issue isn’t the calculation of expenditure of labor but how such labor operates within a “rule of faith” and the habits of prayer and dedicated study of… Read more »
Perhaps worth you passing that advice on to the Bishops of Southwark, Kieran.
I’m not in the habit of wasting time on people who don’t have an interest in listening to me. Perhaps you’ve got more chance of being heard.
I suppose over the last 60 years or so we have mostly become people who think that Christianity means we should somehow all be “of the Left”. I am one of them, or have become one of them, through listening to the teaching of others, and my own reading of the Bible; being most infulenced by the words of Jesus that we have in the Gospels. Yet it is not a view held by all. The late Sir Roger Scruton and the currently alive and well Lord Biggar to name two. Now we have “Tommy Robinson” and Daniel Thomas, who… Read more »
I don’t see the New Testament story as telling us that God intervened (if that word is allowed) without waiting for the world to be ready but that he intervened in the fullness of time, just when the interaction between Judaism and paganism had reached a reached a point where both sides had very crucial choices to make
I think there does need to be a challenge to Rick Hill of: Do you believe the Islamic rape gangs (and cover-up) happened? Because if you think the answer to that is ‘yes’ then you do not need to posit possible heresies as explanations for why the white working-class wouldn’t be the biggest fans of the multi-cultural regime that spent decades denying it existed. (The magistrate that denied Danny Tommo bail is part of an explicitly-Pakistani group that refers to the ‘so-called grooming gangs’ just a couple of years ago.) If one accepts that it did happen and that the… Read more »
I do not believe there were ‘Islamic’ rape gangs – but Muslim men are just as capable of sexual violence and cover-ups as all other men and patterns of abuse can vary across different sections of the population. Given the dismal track record of numerous churches, Kyle, I daresay you and I could be accused of being accomplices to “Christian grooming gangs’ and we and our families could be verbally attacked, even terrorised as a result, but I think this would be unhelpful – and since I take seriously Jesus’ teaching about treating others as we would wish to be… Read more »
“Kyle, I daresay you and I could be accused of being accomplices to “Christian grooming gangs’ “ Anybody could accuse anybody of anything. Are *you* accusing me of being an accomplice to ‘Christian grooming gangs’? As this all a load of whataboutery. Similar to when Axel R went to that dance class so your precious HNH decided to make up a story of a Muslim woman being attacked in order to ‘both sides’ it and to rile people up. Do you accept an evil was done, or don’t you? You can say that they deserved it because some people of… Read more »
In case I did not make it clear enough, I believe people who commit or cover up rape or sexual exploitation (or any other act of violent crime) are guilty of it – but not everyone who happens to share their religion, ethnicity or some other characteristic. And I believe that survivors of every class, background and community deserve support and have worked for many years to increase its availability.
Nobody has said that “everyone who happens to share their religion, ethnicity or some other characteristic” is guilty of anything. And this is a tactic that people have been using for decades to allow the Islamic rape gangs to act by squealing “racism” whenever it was mentioned. I repeat again. The church should have defended those girls from their position of power. They have no right to judge the white working-class having – without repentance – utterly failed to do that. And it is simply the injustice of false weights to say that Christians are to blame for everything bad… Read more »
Actually, let me make a shorter post.
You say ‘I believe people who commit or cover up rape or sexual exploitation (or any other act of violent crime) are guilty of it’
Do you accept that the majority of people who claim to be victims of the ‘so-called grooming gangs’ or the ‘grooming gang moral panic’ or the ‘Islamist ray guns’ (working class people don’t enunciate their consonants properly, how uproarious!), or whatever your preferred nomenclature is, were victims of rape?
Are *you* accusing me of being an accomplice to ‘Christian grooming gangs’?
Presuming you are Christian and male, Kyle, I’ll say that any Christian male NOT fighting sexual violence by ALL males is, by default, an “accomplice to ‘Christian grooming gangs'”: happy now?
Not sure about your last ALL. It imples that ALL males commit sexual violence.
I also question Kyle’s remarks on Starmer et al. I think there is one of the ten commandments which deals with false accusations.
Intemperate incorrect statements reduce the effectiveness of your overall message, parts of which may be valid. I didn’t read Kyle’s message carefully, I couldn’t get beyond these initial impressions.
A certain blindness going on. Let’s start with some facts. Actual prosecutions. Known reviews. Forthcoming reviews.
No, not what I said. “Not fighting” is to be a default accomplice (or “accomplice after the fact” if you prefer).
To the point: FIGHT SEXUAL VIOLENCE! Don’t look the other way!
Read the Jay Report before you accuse anybody of making false accusations. “Kay Kelly, who has worked for the Bradford project for 12 years, looks back to her first years with Streets and Lanes: ‘The reality wasn’t recognised. These young people weren’t seen as victims. They were very much seen as perpetrators themselves and treated as adult prostitutes. Of course they weren’t, because they were all under the legal age for consent’.” “e. A list of stereotypical behaviours previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution. These included:… Read more »
The problem is that J C Fisher is not remotely interested in reality. He has a fixed word view which he changes the facts to fit in with. It’s all very well him going on about not looking the other way, but that’s exactly what he is doing. I entirely endorse your views about the CofE’s behaviour towards the white working class. To be brutally frank, the CofE has spent a huge amount of time investigating why wealthy, well educated children voluntarily turned up each week to be hit by a posh nutter in a garden shed, while doing precisely… Read more »
You were specific and said:
when Starmer refused to prosecute the girls’ rapists because he labelled the girls a bunch of child prostitutes was that right or was that wrong?
Can I please see your reference for that accusation? Apart from tabloid editorials?
I have no doubt there were many mistakes, and the situation was used by racists, but you accused Starmer and you need to justify that.
Th etrope that all child rapes are carried out by muslim gangs is of course complete garbage.
“Th etrope that all child rapes are carried out by muslim gangs is of course complete garbage.” Did anybody ever say that? Do you accept that: Starter was DPP from 2008-2013 and bears responsibility for the policies of the CPS during that time (maybe allowing some time for taking stock of the situation and getting his feet under the table) That until 2013 the DPP was still permitting those under him to refuse to prosecute the grooming gangs because of the lie that “Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation” – only in 2013 finally changing the policy (proving… Read more »
I have read your extracts from your sources carefully, and nowhere do they support the statement above which I put in italics.
J’accuse.
I broke down that statement in italics into three claims. Which of the three claims do you disagree with?
Theo Hobson’s piece is informative and thought-provoking. I agree with Rick Hill up to a certain point but think more needs to be done to flag up the dangers of far-right thought and action and offer alternatives, especially for those who feel alienated. I reckon over-emphasis, in some churches, on ‘conversion’ to Christianity, rather than whether the version adopted makes people more loving or less, is a problem. As for Mark Clavier’s reflection, I have serious reservations. While it is important not to get over-bothered by minor disagreements or irritations, the idea that people should stop making a fuss if,… Read more »
Interesting that Mr Hill is from Northern Ireland and particularly well qualified to speak on the intersection between religion and national identity.
Individual identity on the left, national identity on the right. Both forcefully trying to lay hold of the Kingdom of God. But blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth – that’s subversive theology.
One French translation uses the word “debonair” for “meek.”. I understand the Koine Greek word is quite tricky to translate.
I cannot sing the words to the carol ‘meek and mild’. Jesus himself was never meek in that sense.
Blessed are the chic.
Worth catching SecDefence/War Pete Hegseth’s latest “no beardos, no weirdos” brief to assembled US Top Brass, which also included new Office of Religious Affairs which is explicitly Christian & will report “straight to the top”.
Wonder what legendary ‘fighting padre’ Kenneth Mathews, DSC, OBE, would have made of that nonsense. Like all Royal Navy chaplains he had no rank (unlike other services & US Chaplains), and was famous for refusing to hold compulsory church parade & getting more attendees as a result!
“On loving the Church we’ve been given” Oh, you asked on the PERFECT day! I love dogs, and at my parish, for St Francis Day, we blessed dozens. “What has the Church I actually belong to, as she actually is, called from me this week, and did I give it?” Did I give enough? Well, no. But the blessings of “God spelled backwards” gave me another wonderful opportunity to share my love of my local church (and TEC more broadly) with a secular, mostly anti-Christian community. I keep plugging away…and I honestly believe it’s made a difference (my explicitly Jesus-following… Read more »
Wishing once again for a like button, JC!
Mark Clavier’s piece has so many quotable lines that I almost don’t know where to start, but I was especially struck by this one:
‘The Christian life is lived in the particular. We don’t get to love humanity or the Church in the abstract, nor are we asked to be faithful to the Church of our own imagining. We’re given these people, this place, this moment—and asked to love them all.’
Many thanks to Mark for another thoughtful offering.
I do think we have to be very very careful about the use of the word “inclusive” in the church today. It’s so easy to fall into the trap of cult like bait and switch behaviour – where what appears to be an open loving and welcoming community actually has a whole host of expectations, controls and regulations that aren’t really apparent until long after you’ve been love bombed in. There are so many different and contradictory self styled gatekeepers of ‘truth’ in the Anglican Church today it’s confusing and potentially dangerous for a newcomer to navigate. Added into this… Read more »
I checked back in briefly after a break .. safeguarding still failing the victims and Much Ado about Bishops for either maintaining the deplorable safeguarding status quo, or being minced in the weaponisation of it by the staunch maintainers. But then I saw Theo Hobson’s and Rick Hill’s posts . Anglican in Exile I so agree with your comments about ‘cult like bait and switch’ behaviour, and the effect of the sums of money being used to buy influence from both politicians and church leaders. I had read the FT article about James Orr previously, and have been very surprised… Read more »
Oh boy, just when I thought life could not get stranger I followed up your ref to Rev Helen Orr & her better known husband James.
‘Maybe the new bishop of Brixworth feels he has had a narrow escape from needing to follow this up?’
Err…why?
Presumably because the new Bishop of Brixworth was, until recently, the Archdeacon of Cambridge.
What is being alleged that there is for an archdeacon to follow up?
By the time the argument gets to the bottom of the page it seems to be getting both rather personal and off the original track. (I appreciate Janet Fife’s stand, by the way.) Can I remind you of something the late Tony Campolo said? That if we are truly following Jesus then we are going to have elements of both ‘right wing’ thinking and ‘left wing thinking’ in our mental and theological make up. That’s as true of political and Christian thinking as it is of our genetic and gender orientated makeup. No one side of the argument can have… Read more »