Category Archives: ang communion

The Minster Model (March Synchroblog)

Posted on by

Before there were parishes in England, there were Minsters. ‘Minster’ is simply another word for monastery, or monastic community. However, these Minsters were not enclosed orders, they were instead the central social and economic hub for a network of communities. The Minster church was a place for pursuing worship, prayer, study and formation in discipleship. There was room for specialisation in ministries given the concentration of resources, and these served as a resource for the surrounding communities known as parochiae – what became the parishes. The Minster model was fundamentally missional in orientation and concerned with evangelising and nurturing those local communities.

The parish model succeeded the Minsters principally because the Minsters were successful in that evangelisation. The local communities, converted to the gospel, raised sufficient resource to employ their own local minister – often with the support of a wealthy local landlord who saw the establishment of a church on his land as a feather in his cap – and so, over time, was born the classic pattern of the English parson – the George Herbert model. In this context the work of the church was primarily one of pastoral care and maintenance, with the local minister being a more or less capable jack of all trades, providing for the sacramental and pastoral needs of the local community.

There are several pressures acting upon the church today which, to my mind, make the restoration of the Minster model the way forward for the church.

Amongst those pressures are:
– the contraction of clergy numbers over time. The broader pattern is familiar, but I was surprised to discover recently that the local pattern is more alarming than I had realised – the Colchester area (ie North Essex) is facing a decline in stipendiary clergy of two posts per year for the foreseeable future;
– the need for, and embrace of, the ministry of all the baptised, in this diocese called ‘Ministry as Partnership’, which has allowed a great many gifts to be explored and expressed in the life of the church;
– an acknowledgement of the collapse in Christian belief amongst the wider population, and therefore the necessity to shift to a more missional model of church.
We are now in a situation where the evangelistic success of the Minsters of England, a thousand years ago, has been destroyed. The population of England has just enough exposure and inherited acceptance of Christianity to inoculate it from genuine commitment and discipleship. In this context the inherited pattern of Christian life – local parishes and the George Herbert model of ministry – are incapable of being obedient to our Lord’s command to ‘go out and make disciples of all nations’.

~~~

Other people writing on related themes this month:

Phil Wyman at Phil Wyman’s Square No More

Beth at Until Translucent

Adam Gonnerman at Igneous Quill

Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground

Jonathan Brink at JonathanBrink.com

Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes

Brian Riley at at Charis Shalom

Cobus van Wyngaard at My Contemplations

Mike Bursell at Mike’s Musings

David Fisher at Cosmic Collisions

Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church

Erin Word at Decompressing Faith

Sonja Andrews at Calacirian

Very sharp

Posted on by

Mad Priest on good form

An open evangelical is a Christian who, literally, “opens” the Bible, reads it and believes every word it says.

A conservative evangelical doesn’t need to “open” the Bible. He has already decided what the Bible says – “It says what it has always said.”

I’ve managed to get out of bed today, which is progress, though I’m still distinctly under-the-weather. I hope in particular to be well on Saturday morning as I have a major parish event to handle. In the meantime I’m catching up on some blog reading/ newspaper reading, and this issue with Elaine Storkey I find fascinating. What I said to Tim in a comment is relevant here – it’s not that I want to kick the conservatives out or break communion with them, it’s more the other way around. In some small way I think that making my understanding of authority explicit clarifies this underlying issue.

Three schematics for the place of Scripture

Posted on by

This is following up on one of Tim’s comments. Tim was arguing that someone like Cranmer wouldn’t have understood the role of Scripture in the way that I do, and I’m wanting to get a handle on how they would have done, so because I think this way, here’s another triangle:

This one still has Christ as the highest authority, and under that Scripture, then tradition and reason etc. The latter lead into the former, but it is the former which must be accepted in order to gain access to Christ. (As I understand the RC position, the blue area is higher than the green, but still with Christ at the top).

This is different to my triangle:
…because with my triangle it is possible to gain access to Christ independently of Scripture (eg through the church community).

In my post on conscience I was arguing (in effect) that the first position was the equivalent of fundamentalism. That was question-begging, because another diagram will express how I see fundamentalism(!):

In other words, for me, by definition fundamentalism isn’t in touch with the living Christ (the yellow cross). I think that the first triangle above – call it the ‘Reformed’ model – can and does provide access to the living Christ. What I wonder is whether it’s possible to preserve a communion between those who accept the two different triangles. Because they are really quite different theologically. I may go into that in greater detail later on; for now, I’ll let the question stand.

A point of clarification on conscience

Posted on by

Tim said in a comment “both sides in the current dispute claim to be [following their conscience], and yet you seem to be saying that somehow the ‘conservative’ side isn’t doing it right – or, they’re drawing the wrong conclusion from what they’re hearing. I’m just not sure on what basis you make that judgement, Sam – because make no mistake, it is a judgement.”

I think I need to expand on this, because I don’t want to argue that holding the conservative position is necessarily against conscience – I don’t believe that it is – I just think that one form of the conservative stance (possibly the dominant and most vocal one) seems unsupportable (that is, those who use this argument are precisely ‘not doing it right’).

I think there is a difference between these two positions (both forms of the conservative perspective):
1) the expression of homosexual desire is sinful; it is destructive of the soul and pernicious; and Scripture and tradition have unanimously taught us this from the beginning;
and
2) the expression of homosexual desire is contrary to Scripture, and therefore it is sinful, destructive of the soul and pernicious.

The first recognises some reality beyond itself, to which Scripture is a revelatory witness, and therefore implicitly recognises that IF it could be established that the expression of homosexual desire (in the context of permanent life-long union etc) were not sinful, destructive, pernicious etc THEN we would need to reinterpret Scripture. This I think is a position which is tenable and responsible and ‘on the same playing field’ as those who precisely want to argue that such a re-interpretation is right and of God. The community both for and against the change can thereby discuss what is right and true about Scripture and the expression of homosexuality and seek an understanding of God’s will. This, I think, is the position that Rowan is defending.

The second, however, does not recognise anything outside of “Scripture”; which then becomes reified and absolutised. There is no place from which it is possible to argue that – for example – Scripture is silent on the specific subject being argued about (which is a view I am sympathetic towards). It’s not possible to interpret Scripture creatively or in a new way. I see this approach as a) a breach with traditional forms of interpretation in and of itself and b) highly prone to subordination to political objectives. This seems to me to be the position adopted by a great many people in the debate, and I don’t recognise it as defensibly Anglican. (It may be defensibly Christian, but of a non-Anglican sort).

As I see it, the more thoughtful and reflective conservatives are arguing option 1), and Rowan in particular is arguing it from a position (assuming he hasn’t changed his mind) which doesn’t agree with option 1) but is ‘in the same ballpark’. That is, Rowan personally believes that our view of Scripture needs to change and develop, but that this change needs to be done in the right way – and he’s now embedded in an argument for that right way being established (and he sees the establishment of that right way as being more important than the public acceptance of LGBT ministry). I’m sure that what Rowan would like to see is a) an establishment of the Windsor Covenant, followed by b) an endorsement by that covenanted community – at some point down the line – of the acceptability of LGBT relationships etc.

My problem is with the advocates of option 2) which have, from my perspective, an anachronistic, Modernist and idolatrous understanding of Scripture, ie I think they’re fundamentalists. That’s why my longer post was about ‘The authority of Scripture’ as such – it’s independent of what position is held on the current dispute. It’s possible to hold both a conservative position and to hold that view of Scripture. It’s also possible – of course – that I’ve got it wrong. But that’s why the blog is so useful – I can rely on people pointing out errors of fact and logic in my position!!

A bit more about Scripture

Posted on by

Following on from that long post, I think part of the reason why I relate to Scripture as I do can be explained autobiographically. That is, I came to faith after being immersed in the critical study of Scripture. There never was a time for me – at least after attaining ‘the age of discretion’ – when I have seen Scripture as being absolute or without error. The critical study of Scripture actually allowed me to move through it and see what it was about. Consequently I don’t have anything at stake in whether the Bible contains errors or not; I’ve always understood that there are such errors, but that doesn’t make any difference to faith in the living Christ.

The key question is what Tim articulated: “how do we decide whether the voice in our heads telling us to do something which is against scripture comes from God or not?” Ultimately I don’t think there is a finite answer to that question; we have to follow our conscience – a conscience which is educated and informed by Scripture, Tradition and Prayer – but still conscience all the same. And that means, we follow our conscience whether we are accepting ‘Scripture’ or rejecting it – in other words, even for those who are explicitly being obedient to Scripture, they are in practice following the higher authority of their own conscience.

There are some very knotty roots in play here. One of which is the doctrine of utter depravity, because if you accept that then any reliance on conscience becomes objectionable. Yet that has all sorts of other frankly appalling consequences so I don’t propose to spend much more time exploring that strand.

The other one, though, is the search for certainty – very much the Modern predilection and neurosis – and this is driven, at least in part, by the seeking for security in salvation. But I don’t think that this form of certainty is available to us. Not simply because we walk by faith and not by sight but because we live by grace and not works, and whatever we do can be redeemed.

In other words, God allows us to get it wrong. And if we get it wrong but we are acting in good faith and humility and actively seeking the will of God then I have no doubt that over time God will reveal to us that we have got it wrong – and that, in fact, perhaps the ‘getting of it wrong’ is precisely what God was seeking (paradoxically) in that by growing through that struggle and finally discerning that truth then we will have reached a better place than we would have done without going wrong in the first place! Some things we need to learn for ourselves, even at the cost of making a mistake.

Which is why I am more and more of the opinion that, with respect to the current arguments, I should speak a little less and listen and trust a little more. When I read someone like Christopher, for example, I’m aware of a seeking after God. Those who reject TEC’s changes as ‘abomination’ or whatever are really saying ‘we don’t trust you to be honestly seeking God, and even if you were, we don’t trust God to be active in your life to lead you to the truth’. That seems faithless to me, let alone what it indicates about fellowship.

For who is harmed even if we assume – for the time being – that this will be a mistake? (ie accepting ministries from LGBT clerics). Why can’t we trust that God is in charge and active in this process – and trust and believe that even if we disagree with what is being done? It’s as if the objectors think that we mortals have the capacity to silence the stones!

I think I’m just becoming sensitised to the political use of the language of ‘Scripture’, and I don’t like it very much.

They will know we are Christians…

Posted on by

Let me begin by telling a little story.

Back in the dark days of 1995 (for more detail see here) I started to attend a church on Sunday in a serious fashion – for the first time. I had attended a few times mid-week, when I could be safely unknown and anonymous, but attending on Sunday had that combination of desire and fear that all wallflowers are familiar with.

Anyhow, first Sunday there – attended the service – wander through to the teas’n’coffees – take up traditional wallflower position. And one man came across to say hello. Very warm, very open, very affirming. I’ve often thought that if that one man hadn’t been so good to me I wouldn’t have continued to attend the church, I wouldn’t have continued to explore my vocation in such a positive and enthusiastic way. He was a real man of God for me and a great help. Of course I got to know him a bit better while I was at the church, though I haven’t spoken to him for rather a long time. He’s a busy man, you see (the church is on display in the lower picture there).

Now – why am I telling you all this? Because some of the nutters are now having a real go at him. Which tells me all I need to know.

+John Chelmsford on Bishops

Posted on by

“The Bishop, within the bounds of what is properly lawful, sets the conditions for ordination and for the pastoral oversight of clergy and all who hold his licence. No one, under their oath of obligation, can turn round and say that they are not willing to accept the rule the Bishop makes and expect, nevertheless, to proceed to ordination.”

(via Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream)

For background on why +John is saying this, go here. In essence, an ordinand refused to share communion with Bishop John, and so Bishop John is not prepared for him to be ordained in his Diocese. Which seems fair enough to me.