Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

i'm inspired to quote my vicar with regards to the parlous state of anglican church politics atm...justabout, MP et al...your views?

63 replies

Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 14:30

His latest editorial in our church magazine is worth, I beleive quoting in full (I've missed out identifying bits for me not him!). I think that although it is long it is worth quoting as I agree so utterly wholeheartedly with it, and would be interested in your take:

"In our quiet corner of --- we rarely experience the ructions that seem to be churning the national life of our church. We say our prayers, gather for worship, pay attention to one another and seek to do service in our local community. Not very dramatic: not, apparently, terribly engaged with the big issues. But, of course, we do think about them. I, for one, certainly have views. I will not be accepting the Pope's kind offer to go and be part of a sub denomination within the Catholic corral, I will not be seeking alternative Episcopal oversight from the Bishop of New Jersey if the Synod of the Church of England is stupid enough to prevaricate further over women bishops, and I will not be seeking to take legal possession of our church building so I can exercise an aggressive brand of evangelical self-righteousness.

No. Instead, I will invite the parish to Christmas services, encourage more of us to find time for stillness and relection, go on reminding people that God is close to them and loves them...think about whether the church hall is up to the job we want to do with our buildings and hope at the end of it all that the church hasn't blown my pension on a shopping centre in Reykjavik. IN so doing I don't think that I'm being an ostrich. I'm not running away from important issues. I think I'm just getting better at identifying what the important issues are. I'm pretty sure these days that it really doesn't matter whether my vicar is gay or straight: whether my Bishop is Brian or Margaret; whether I think the first chpaters of the gospel of Luke might have been added into the text later than the rest of it.

It does I think matter very much whether or not my vicar is bothered about the people he or she is called to serve. By which, I would generally mean, the poorest in our society, the alienated, Persecuted and marginalised. I do think it matters if my male or female bishop is boring, selfserving or forgetting to be Christ-like. I do think it matters if we forget who Jesus was and what he did. I do think it matters if what we do in the church puts people off or treats them as if they were stupid.

Are the Anglo-Catholic boys club brigade hurt? Well, off you go to papa then. Are the evangelicals cross because we don't use the bible like a rule-book? Well feel free to be cross: it seems to be what you do best. Are the liberals chewing the carpet because the church is so paralysed with fear and anxiety? And, let's face it, we liberals ARE exasperated. Well we should get a sense of perspective and start to play the long game God does.

As another year turns, three cheers for those bits of the church that just get on with it. The big issues that really matter are the homeless down on -- Rd, the trapped old ladies in their flats on -- Street , the children who go home to loveless, cold homes and the struggling families flattened by mortgage payments and uncertain job prospects. Too many of those engaged in 'church-wars' have forgotten who and what they are in the church for. We need to remember. Once we come back to the way Jesus did things then we will have remembered what it means to the the church for England and will be much more likely to be a positive force in the world."

OP posts:
fatsatsuma · 17/01/2010 16:23

I know that most people reading this thread will disagree with me, but I think your vicar is saying "The Church of England would be a much better place without everyone who doesn't agree with me".

We may disagree about what Jesus' priorities were - but one thing the NT is FULL of is the need for Christians to begin by loving each other.

Liberal is rather a misnomer when the views expressed are so intolerant of people who think differently.

pofarced · 17/01/2010 16:32

'We may disagree about what Jesus's priorities were'
Arf. He is pretty clear actually.

fatsatsuma · 17/01/2010 16:36

Well, I think that too, pofarced, but you must know that it's something over which Christians differ.

What about my point about the need for Christians to show genuine, humble, Christ-like love for each other?

pofarced · 17/01/2010 16:48

Whether Christians argue about Christ's priorities is a very different thing. Christians take their direction from a number of things - church doctrine, obscure, badly translated passages of Leviticus, from Paul and from John. Christ's teachings himself, as we know them, are pretty clear though on Christ's own priorities, though they often get lost in the cacophony of vested interests.

morningpaper · 17/01/2010 16:49

ooh fun will come back to this later

morningpaper · 17/01/2010 16:56

Soph, your vicar sounds scary great!

I've just read this excellent book: Last Rites: The end of the church of england which I think explains a lot about the politics behind the current situation that the church finds itself in. E.g. we can't tell the evangelicals to feck off ACTUALLY because it will bankrupt the church (they hold the largest parishes) - the book suggests dissolving the CofE structure and dis-establishing the church and allowing each parish to pay for its own vicar/staff and get on with what it wants... it's rather persuasive! But I don't think it will be taken up immediately - I think we will be bankrupted first, in time, TBH....

ANYWAY his points about focusing on the importance of the gospel message is, I think, quite right indeed.

MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 17:44

Yes I do, pofaced.

pofarced · 17/01/2010 17:58

Then you'll understand the difference between church doctrine and christ's teachings.

MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 18:03

Jesus' teachings were both simple (love one another) and very complex. You can't distill it all down into one required action.

Jesus' sacrifice released us from some of the rituals in Leviticus (many of the rules were to keep Jews racially pure, but that was not relevent in NT times - the Christian faith was for everyone and Jesus mixed with everyone), but he taught us that the Law was permanent (Matt 6). He said that we did have to follow the Law, but even more so than the Pharisees - we had to follow it in our hearts rather than just by action. Basically, it's complicated.

I would love someone to define how you 'love' someone. It doesn't mean being all tolerant. Sometimes it means encouraging them to change and transform their lives. Taking up your cross and following Jesus does not mean simply carrying on as before.

BTW, there seems to be some confusion between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The CofE is historically evangelical, and the evangelical churchmanship was considered superior by the reformers (re Hooker). As has been mentioned, it is also the churchmanship of many of the larger churches - one of the reasons being that it is based on solid, biblical teaching. Fundamentalism is usually bible literalism,(often the 1611 Authorised Bible, but that is relatively rare for a church to take this stance, although you might get individual church members who are like this. They don't represent an ordinary parish church.

However, there is room for all churchmanships and I feel that every church should reflect the three-legged stool. Being just one thing is missing out on the fullness of faith, and it is totally wrong to trash anyone else's faith by accusing them of hatred. You may feel that they are in error, but as Christians we are called to encourage one another, not to condemn.

Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 18:09

how are christ's teachings complex? his teachings meaning the things that he actually said and did.

difficult, yes.

complex, no.

OP posts:
MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 18:17

How do you explain Matt 5:17-20?

Or much of Romans, for that matter?

It is easy to say, love one another and then not to really dig into what the bible tells us, but unless you understand what this means, then it is meaningless.

If Jesus' teachings were so simple, Paul wouldn't have had to explain them in his Epistles (or at least, the Epistles would not have made the NT Canon).

We would not need learned preachers expound upon them in sermons. We would not need Christian bookshops full of commentaries.

Jesus said, "let the little children come to me..." - but children are expected to grow up and mature in their beliefs and their understanding of the scriptures.

MrsCadwallader · 17/01/2010 18:22

My reading of the above article is that the writer is saying to the liberals, as much as to the fundamentalists and conservatives, 'get over it' and begin living a Christian life as God intended it.

("And, let's face it, we liberals ARE exasperated. Well we should get a sense of perspective and start to play the long game God does.")

This, to my mind, does mean tolerance of other people's views, even though we may disagree with them with every fibre of our being. Never mind the person's views - love the person! When it boils down to it, the disagreements within the Anglican communion are not simply about bickering and digging in our heels, but about a slow, painstaking search for the 'right' way, whatever that may be. I make no claim to know what the 'right' way is, but I do quite strongly feel that the 'wrong' way is one that leaves great chunks of our Anglican family feeling lost and disenfranchised.

"Liberal" Christians may very well be impatient and exasperated at the lack of progress, but that doesn't mean we should rush forwards and leave half of our family behind. It's hardly a loving way to behave, is it?

Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 18:34

I could add my interpretation of the passage you've cited mdmeblueberry but i doubt that would be useful.

to my mind, christ's message is pretty useless to anyone that wants power. love and loving is free.

as soon as power and authority come into play, matters by necessity must be complicated. there must be 'leaders' that 'truly' understand scripture who must be followed.

take the simple: love. and corrupt and complicate it in order to ensure that there is a hierarchical structure, to ensure that power is not distributed.

OP posts:
MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 18:36

As the body of Christ, parts of our body are hurting. When one part hurts, we all hurt. The answer is not to chop it off. If you understand catholicism, then you will understand how painful it is for that side of the church to change their view of church authority. The bishop and the traditions of the apostolic succession are important to them. If they are hurting, we all should grieve with them.

We need to take the time to understand the views of others and work together. The strength of Anglicanism is that we can truthfully minister to every single member of our parishes, because of our three-legged stool. To do away with this would weaken the richness of our faith.

I love that in my deanery, we have three evangelical parishes, a liberal-catholic, an anglo-catholic (FIF, no less), an Anglical/Methodist ecumenical partnership, and 4 more that I'm not quite sure about. There is a church for everyone, and we all get on! The anglo-catholics will send their young people to the evangelical church for confirmation (complete with dunking in the tank if they are reaffirming baptism vows), and vice versa. We don't hate each other! We share a common goal of transforming our community and reaching out to the weak and hungry.

MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 18:40

If that was what Jesus meant, there would have been no need for the early church to install a three-fold order of ministry. We could all simply go it alone, loving one another, without any tools. It's not the picture of the Christian life that I have.

Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 18:43

i doubt that jesus intended a church in the way that it evolved no.

OP posts:
MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 19:15

I think Jesus would be very happy if he came to our town.

morningpaper · 17/01/2010 19:30

He's be pretty fucked off if he went to Haiti next though, I suspect

MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 19:36

Haiti is opportunity.

Our intercessor this morning prayed that Haiti would recover from the Earthquake as a better place. I think that is possible.

Given that an earthquake is 'an act of God', it is how we react to it that is important.

I know that many, diverse, Christian organisations (Oxfam, Cafod, Tearfund and others) have mobilised.

Were you thinking of a different angle, MP?

Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 19:43

the earthquake is NOT an 'act of god'!

god is love

the earthquake is an act of love. god loves enough to let all his creation go: us, nature everything. s/he doesn't control any of it.

this allows love into the frame.

an all controlling god wouldn't give us the option of loving each other and god and all creation.

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 19:44

argh sorry...type...the earthquake is an act of nature!!!

OP posts:
morningpaper · 17/01/2010 19:44

Yes how we react to it

I doubt Jesus would be too impressed with any christian that had a nice cosy house while half the world is starving

Heathcliffscathy · 17/01/2010 19:46

mp...i don't think he would be condemnatory either altho i get that he is an incarnation of god that was righteously angry at the injustice of the world!

god isn't contemptuous of us wanting safety and comfort. rather wishes that we could feel safe enough and loved enough to take the risk of giving our all...which not many of us are able to stretch to.

OP posts:
morningpaper · 17/01/2010 19:49

You see I just disagree

I think while any christian has more cushions/cars/clothes than they need while ignoring the plight of others' suffering then we are in DEEP SHIT WITH THE ALMIGHTY

MmeBlueberry · 17/01/2010 19:53

On the contrary, Jesus was very happy with rich people. He needed rich people and used them (as hosts, for example, in his role as itinerant preacher).

There is nothing wrong with being rich - we are simply living out the riches of God's blessings. Obviously, it is wrong to love and worship money. But if God has blessed us in this way (with brains and braun) then he has equipped us for good works.