Visiting Newport Cathedral on 31 October Wendy observed this "Amazing poster on entry to the Cathedral".
8th November 2019
"From the Venerable Cherry Vann Dear Electors,
A lot has happened since we last met on 17th September 2019 and I am looking forward to moving in to Bishopstow at the beginning of December and beginning a new ministry among you in the new year.
As a way of thanking you for the part you played in the three day marathon that was the Electoral College, Wendy and I would like to invite you and some of the diocesan officers to Bishopstow for drinks and nibbles on Thursday 19th December, 5.00 – 7.00pm. Please come for all or for part of those two hours, as you are able. It would be lovely to see you for a more relaxed and informal conversation for however long you can come.
In the meantime, be assured of my prayers for you and for the Diocese of Monmouth and please do pray for Wendy and I as we prepare to leave Manchester and move to a new life and ministry in the Church in Wales.
I very much look forward to seeing you again
Prayers and good wishes
Cherry"
It is not clear from Cherry's letter what part of her episcopal ministry Wendy will be sharing in but this must be another first for the Church in Wales which, in the words of the bishop of Llandaff, has "unhealthy preoccupations with gender and sexuality".
The Church in Wales press office and the Diocese of Monmouth declined to comment on whether the cohabiting bishop-elect is in a partnered same-sex relationship but nevertheless the appointment is a slap in the face for the Governing Body after they rejected a bid by the bench of bishops to ditch traditional teaching on marriage and allow same-sex marriage in Church.
It is also a snub to the Anglican Communion position that marriage is intended to be a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is not inviting same-sex spouses to the 2020 Lambeth Conference of bishops.
More welcome in the divided diocese of Monmouth would have been a spiritually uplifting appointment, not another nod to inclusivity, a euphemism if ever there was one, and further division.
Morning. Thank you for posting this. What an uplifting letter to read. A simple invitation to share in hospitality from a Bishop who hasn't yet started in her new Diocese. And how lovely that she just mentions Wendy without any fuss. I hope the Monmouth electors are heartened by this and that they accept the couples invitation; I know I would were I invited. Let's prat for their move to the Diocese as the bishop-elect humbly requests.
ReplyDeleteWho is Wendy? I thought they appointed Cherry.
ReplyDeletePostie
'do pray for ... I': at the risk of appearing petty, can anyone imagine any of the Welsh male bishops of the 1960s writing this? Such illiteracy in a letter from a professional is not good.
ReplyDeleteRob
You do appear petty. But you are quite right - I can't imagine any of the male bishops of the 1960s sending out a letter of this kind: opening up their home and offering hospitality. Too much pomposity back in the day! Thankfully were no longer in the 60s and Cherry and Wendy are doing a kind thing. Let's pray that they event goes well and that those who attended enjoy it enormously.
ReplyDeleteJust because your imagination is so limited doesn't mean it didn't occur. Your dismissive, arrogant and flawed 'omnipotence' suggests to me that you weren't even born in the 1960s.
DeleteI'm well old enough to remember the Welsh Anglican bishops of the '60s, and a certain pomposity was by no means unknown in some quarters.
DeleteBut it wasn't universal: Eryl Stephen Thomas, for instance - despite his flaws which led to his resignation and his capacity, in some contexts, for considerable episcopal arrogance - was on a personal level one of the least 'pompous' bishops you could hope to meet. As witnessed by his easy capacity to relate to ordinary folk when he visited his parishes and his exceptional interest in, and ability to relate to, his young ordinands and junior clergy.
Though he could indeed be ferocious with - and about - more senior clergy who, at least in his view, 'thought more highly of themselves than they ought to think'!
Eryl was a terrific Dean during his time in Llandaff and his stern reputation was sometimes observed by the junior Cathedral clergy. He would often show up unannounced to Cathedral evensong on his days off just to check the minor Canons and curates were there, unlike today's idle dud in the Deanery who's absent almost as much as the oily amphibian Mr Toad.
DeleteAll that being said, Eryl also had a tremendous sense of humour. I can clearly recall one occasion in particular, during a Parish social evening in the then Llandaff Technical College, various sketches and skits being put on as the evening's entertainment. A member of the congregation had dressed up appropriately and took off Eryl to a tee. The audience was in raucous uproar at the sight and 'nerve' of the one on stage and absolutely no-one was laughing louder than Eryl himself, sat in the place of honour in the centre of the front row.
Quite apart from the fact that nowadays the Cathedral congregation in its entirety could all fit in the Lady Chapel, the current dud would be more likely to write a nasty letter, label the performer as a subversive and ban them from the Cathedral services.
How the times have changed but it is regress not progress.
@ Lux et Veritas:
DeleteMy recollections of Eryl entirely coincide with your own. When his demise came I felt impelled to write to him to say, regardless of the circumstances of his fall, how much positive influence he'd had on me and how much I'd valued his pastoral care. I still recall his humorous - if somewhat pert! - response. All the more striking, given the immediate tragedy of his circumstances.
Wrong again! I attended several at Llys Esgob, Llandaff.Glyn Simon, Eryl Thomas and John Poole Hughes could not fairly be described as stuffy or pompous. They were at least theologically orthodox and grammatically correct.
ReplyDeleteRob
She pushes the 'inclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ' only as a defence of her own unorthodox sexual relationship. She has taken a hostage and there is nothing anyone can do about it. LW
ReplyDeletePP. How welcoming are we? I hope we are, or we fail in our calling as the people of God.
ReplyDeleteIt comes to such a level that fault has to be found in such a welcoming gesture by our new Bishop elect and her partner. I do hope our Bishop elect and her partner are made welcome as the move amongst us.
They both if you bother to check have amazing gifts as leaders,pastoral theological, teachers and musicians, that have been so welcomed in Manchester, the farewell gestures of parishes, say it all. Both holding key positions in the Church community.
Enough of this unhealthy bile,such as brought down many a good leader, we are better than this as a diocese, if we call ourselves "Christians who are we to cast stones?
Give this fantastic fresh dynamic appointment the chance to settle. Otherwise we risk schism and for what, point scoring, bitterness and hurt.
There have been to my better knowledg, two other same sex attracted residents in Bishopstow, and in Llys Esgob and that on one occasion brought the CiW into disrepute and resignation.Then of course there have been cathedral Deans' and Priests' who have equally soiled their ministry in the past,
Current same sex male, priestly parsonages as inferred in this blog on many occasions, are established, accepted, welcomed and working.
So without stone throwing, give Cherry and Wendy the same respect as there same sex colleagues in both the diocese and province.
Yes, the Lord tells us to not throw stones,but we are instructed to rebuke false teachers (Titus 1). Rebuke them AB, Rebuke them in hopes that they will turn from their ways.
ReplyDeleteWill Cherry and Wendy be invited to the Lambeth Conference? I must drop Welby the Oil Executive a line to ask for his clarification!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Some may call it bare-faced hypocrisy. Others may say it was a necessity at a time of fear, misunderstanding and persecution."
DeleteOthers may say it was because of a clear acknowledgement of sin - priests knowing that they were sinful and weak but keeping quiet about it. Why? To protect themselves from shame and to protect their congregations from thinking sin is OK.
He is unable to deny this allegation now - the first I have ever heard of it, I must say.
ReplyDeleteRob
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeletePP. Thank you Evans the Song for your agreement and additional comments. Yes, dioceses would have found it difficult if it were not for its gay male clergy. Today much more able to be themselves.
ReplyDeleteLesbian women, (personally I find the term "gay" as male and lesbian female) in the current age, should equally feel secure too.
We have several openly and agreeable examples in parishes of same sex couples, who do Stirling work and acceptance is good. Then we have transgender/transsexuals clergy and the acceptance still has questioning doubt.But never less there, inclusive church manship.
Inclusive Church has become the norm in most denominations, be it for good or ill, the jury is still out, time will tell.
Monmouth has been through some turbulence of late, a new Bishop is welcome with fresh perspective and ideals. She come with serious skills and competence, that has been honed at the parish coalface.
Does it really matter that the Bishop elect is female? Is a lesbian (practising - none of our business), Has a long term relationship with a, clergy women partner? I so hope not.
As I have said before, give this fresh new episcopal oversight a fighting chance. Welcome, listen, learn and then pass judgement on actions, not on current hearsay, bias, suspicion or preferences. Whatever happens Cherry Vann is our new +Monmouth, time will tell and judge her ministry accordingly.
And simply dismiss morality; it's much simpler.
DeleteBob
But are folk dismissing morality?
ReplyDelete1. The two ladies appear to be in an exclusive and, we presume, legally-endorsed relationship.
2. We have no idea AFAIK of their domestic arrangements - for all we know they may have separate bedrooms and be entirely celibate.
3. Whether we like it or not, morality is not static: when I was in Africa we had to think through issues surrounding polygamy, while of course many great OT (male) characters had many wives. There is also the issue that few people got "legally" married in Britain until recent times.
4. Whether she was the best candidate for bringing the Diocese together is a question others will have to answer - but, from reading this blog over the last few months, it seems as if no candidate would have come up to some peoples' scrutiny.
As others have said (and I'm not going to be under her jurisdiction as I'm not CinW), she has been elected and she seems to have something good to offer the Church. So she ought to be given a chance.
Where does 'ought' feature in your ethical system? And what, in that system of yours, gives it a categorical imperative?
DeleteRob
AB has made public a private correspondence between Cherry, Wendy and those they wish to invite to their new home in the Diocese of Monmouth. As I wrote the other day - it's refreshing to see that they don't intend to operate on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis. This is so important as a previously (gay) Bishop of Monmouth gave gay ordinands a difficult time if they lived honestly and openly because he himself was old school and preferred to live under a cloak of assumed celibacy. It's good that the days of duplicity are behind us. I for one that Cherry for the transparency represented in her kind letter.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary Unknown, I simply referred to what the bishop-elect made public in her letter to electors which was not marked private or confidential.
DeleteWhat people do in private is between them and God. What is done or implied in public draws in others which makes them either complicit in their approval or tacitly so in their silence.
A 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy may attract charges of hypocrisy with accusations of throwing the first stone but such a policy has the virtue of leaving judgement where it truly belongs.
My objection to the bishop-elect's self proclaimed 'shared' ministry is that it regularises by default a policy of the bench of bishops that was rejected by the Governing Body of the Church in Wales.
There is another verse in the Bible that is more apt in this situation: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" That must be avoided with or without the manoeuvrings of the bishops.
The interesting thing about the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is that people are very quick to pick up on the words, "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone." These words are used as a way of shutting up those who dare to point out moral inconsistencies. Yet Jesus' final words are to the woman herself. "Go and sin no more." The sinless One actually points out that she is a sinner, and that she should desist from it.
DeleteToday (13 November), the Anglican Church is remembering Charles Simeon. In his Parish in Cambridge he was loathed at first for his boldness in calling people to repentance. In the uber-liberal Church in Wales, we are led to believe that there is no uch thing as sin any more. The Guardians of Faith and morals have abandoned their posts and make a mockery of "the Faith which once and for all delivered to the saints".
I suspect the saints of Wales must be weeping bucket loads of tears when they read on this page the wholesale desertion of Christian principles in favour of a gospel that is devoid of power. No wonder that the figures for the Church in Wales show that we are on the road to oblivion! Instead of sound Christian teaching, the people of Wales have been fed neo-Pelagianism, with a good shovelful of humanism thrown in. But as St Paul reminds us, "You will reap whatsoever you sow."
Seymour
Okay, we have heard the polygamist patriarchs argument, the hypocrite argument, the changeable morality argument, and the keeping up with the times argument. I am waiting for the shellfish argument to appear. All fail close scrutiny, and those arguments wind up weakening any conclusions based upon scripture, and once that happens, why should people believe anything that is written in the Bible?
ReplyDeletePP. O dear if the Bible in particularly the OT, was taken literally we would have such a huge body of laws, food rules, complex rituals, even a vengeful God, etc, etc. The NT, has its own flaws, as many noted theologians have argued, Bultmann, Schliermacher, Barth and others are strong examples. But, the beauty of there arguments, do not takeaway their joy in knowing a personal Christ.
ReplyDeleteTheologians have long accepted and understood that scripture is interpretive. Biblical, exegesis apologetics give credence to such arguments. If not, society would be extremely difficult to navigate.
Two former Bishop in Wales, one still a noted and respected theologian, give credence to the falibility of the Bible.This may for some be heresy, but for others a desire to see the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of man.
Morality is an ethical understanding of how we operate in our social norms, Kant and his contemporaries lead in this expression. Being morally right is frequently being able to be ethically wrong.
I for one welcome this refreshing appointment and look forward to what the elected bishop and her partner can bring to the Church. If there recent work is anything to go by, we are in a safe pair of hands.
But one thing I don't value or want to know is the details of my priest's or bishop's personal life. This idle gossip has brought down, broken and crushed clergy. Do we relish doing this, I so hope not. Living 24/7 in the clerical goldfish bowl is not for the faint hearted. Women and Men alike in this role need our respect and prayer. So welcome Cherry and Wendy as the move amongst us. Respectfully +PP.
'Being morally right is frequently being able to be morally wrong': Explain! You have also failed to explain what makes a thing a duty: why is it an 'ought'.
DeleteBob
Respectfully PP, if you don't know the difference between 'there' and their, then please just shut up until you do.
DeleteIt seems to me that two different principles come into play in the context of matters discussed on this thread. One, attributed to the first queen Elizabeth, is expressed by her supposed unwillingness to 'make windows into men's souls'. That was in the context of churchmen's devotion or otherwise to reformation principles, but it strikes me as no less apt in situations such as this.
DeleteThe other is the necessity - on simple grounds of integrity - for those 'who confess and call themselves Christians' to seek to live their lives in accordance with the Church's stated teachings.
That seems to me to be the 'solid ground' starting point in any consideration of these issues.
No John.
DeleteThe Church's `teachings' are being varied to suit societal norms.
I will stick to the teachings of the Messiah thank you all the same and bugger the Church!
On the wider matter of the Church's teachings 'being varied to suit societal norms' I agree with you entirely.
DeleteBut I was commenting rather on how 'inquisitorial' Christians ought to be in surveying their fellow-Christians. I can think, for instance, of two unmarried elderly women in an Anglican congregation in Monmouth diocese fifty years ago who'd lived together for many years. Some of their fellow congregants entertained a shrewd idea - in their own eyes at least! - about the nature of their relationship. But in the nature of the case the 'shrewd idea' was merely conjectural.
That, rather than the issue of Anglicanism's loss of grip on principle, was the context of my comment.
It is true that same sex couples have always existed, and largely tolerated, as long as it was discreet, which implies that it is not ideal and not the normal. The difference now is that we are saying it is normal and equivalent to m/f relationships, and if we don't approve we are bigots, not inclusive, and not showing enough love.
ReplyDeleteThis is all profoundly wrong and an immense distortion of the God given disposition of male and female. It is a product of Western liberalism on which the tide is already starting to turn.
LW
It seems to me that often the problem here (on this blog) is that many who post feel the need to prove that others are always wrong. That's a shame. A blog like this has a huge capacity for humane, dialogical conversation in which none of us need to pretend that we are totally right. Wouldn't that be a gift to the world at this time? Too often angry conversation creates angry minds and angry hearts and, eventually, angry behavior. All too often I detect anger on this blog and it saddens me. Not one of us is totally right or totally wrong, are we?
ReplyDeleteIf you want a straight answer (you probably don't), the responses you deplore are often driven by a determination to 'guard the deposit' of faith. As Newman rightly maintained, liberalism simply refuses to accept the contents of revelation. It insists on its own, sometimes unregenerate, ideas.
DeleteRob
I freely accept that there are liberals who have sat very lightly to traditional doctrine or who appear to have abandoned any reasonable approach to Scripture. However there are other folk who believe that even supposedly “changeless” doctrine has in fact evolved throughout the life of the Church; and/or who take Scripture very seriously but wish to challenge some of the ways we have read it in the past. I feel that it is unreasonable to simply characterise these as “liberals” and thus easily dismiss them. There is also a very real question as to what the “deposit of faith” actually is: although hopefully all Christians will agree to the fundamental story of Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection there will still be significant differences between the beliefs of those from the Catholic tradition and Conservative Evangelicals, both who would stand themselves squarely in the line of “the faith once delivered to the saints”.
DeleteYou might start with the creed.
DeleteRob
And I agree, that's a very good place to start. But:
Delete- Which Creed? You will know better than I that there are at least three to choose from.
- When do those Creeds date from? As we know them today, they don't go back to anything like apostolic times.
- We can say the Creed while understand what we're saying in very different ways. I've preached my way through the Apostles' Creed and "unpacking" it becomes quite interesting and, at times, challenging.
- We both know that there are Christians - possibly many Christians - who say parts of the Creeds with their fingers crossed because they don't believe them and/or don't understand them.
Forgive me, you describe yourself as a Baptist, although the tenor of your views suggests you are veering towards Unitarianism.
DeleteRob
There are indeed many Creeds from which to choose.
DeleteTry starting with 'Credo in unum Deum'.
The 'liberals' with their often inane comments, superficial understanding of scripture and liturgy are usually accompanied by an equally inane and superficial grasp of basic English grammar accompanied by poor spelling.
Not only do the two go hand in hand but so often they seem also to be accompanied by woolly thinking, re-writings of basic facts, scrapping of long-held but tried and tested traditions and the arrogance of "I know better because things have moved on, society has changed and if Christ were here today he would agree with me so I will ignore you and concentrate on all those who have been excluded, marginalised and ignored in the past by the misogynist homophobic hypocritical sexist patriarchal boys' club of yesteryear".
Nothing of the sort, I assure you! I am a thoroughgoing Trinitarian.
Delete(On a historical point, it's interesting to note that the "Old Dissenters" from which stem the Congregationalists and Baptists, have always shied away from the use of creeds. I think the original reason was two-fold: to avoid what they saw as "thoughtless repetition" of their beliefs, but also to allow for dynamic understandings to pervade rather than a leaden orthodoxy. In fact this was a Big Mistake, as many Baptists, together with some Nonconformists from other denominations, did become Unitarian in the eighteenth century. Some stayed that way while others later returned to Trinitarian orthodoxy (small "o"!) Today most Baptist would place themselves at some point within the Evangelical envelope, and many Baptist churches will adhere to and publish a Statement of Faith, often that of the Evangelical Alliance. However they still rarely use creeds in their worship - which, to me, is a shame).
PS My post above was a reply to Rob, not to Ruth.
DeleteThank you. We'll make an orthodox Anglcan of you yet. Will you allow me to suggest that you read Newman's Parochial and Plain sermons?
DeleteRob
I won't promise - but thanks for the suggestion! As it happens I was brought up Low Church Anglican, go to our Parish Church on our Sundays off, and am definitely more liturgical than your average Baptist with responsive Psalms and Prayers, for example.
DeleteBetter and better.
DeleteRob
But I do hold to Believers' Baptism on confession of faith, not infant baptism and Baptismal Regeneration ... And my position on Eucharist is more than mere Memorialism, but definitely not Real Presence.
DeleteIt does seem to me that everything can be blamed on this site on
ReplyDelete1, Women clergy (herein usually described as "the coven",
2. Liberals
3. LGBT advocates
4. Muslims.
and it is such fun watching several of you do it! Though the constantly rude epithets and name-calling make me question the Christianity of those who use them.
Servus Dei.
This inclusive 'gospel' portrayed in the above is NOT of Jesus Christ who taught that not one jot or tittle of the law who pass away and instructed the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". Furthermore, his chosen apostles taught through inspiration of the Spirit that those things implied in this flyer as being acceptable are in fact quite the opposite.
ReplyDeleteAs you said AB, this 'gospel' is no gospel at all and such error is declared 'accursed' by St Paul in Galatians even if an Angel themselves came and declared it.
Jesus' Gospel was not clearly not inclusive in all respects but inclusive in invitation. St Peter said,'Repent and believe the Gospel' plus many, many other scripture references that expose the error of this caricature of the unchanging Gospel.
Wepre: Interesting debate. Time will tell how life in the province changes with a 3rd lady Bishop. In the interim at least the new elect, is showing hospitality to those whom she will work with, rely on and lead.
ReplyDeleteHaving heard her preach on several occasions her style refreshingly thought provoking.
The Manchester Diocese give Cherry a formal farewell/thank you evensong at Manchester Cathedral on the 17th November. It is obvious she is a highly regarded and respected cleric. Hopefully her consecration and enthronement will be announced soon and be a warm welcome to her new role.
Our friends Rob delights in absolutes and ideals, but selectively recruiting Newman to endorse his rather rigid take on doctrine and ethics will not do.
ReplyDeleteAs the recently retired Roman Catholic Professor of the History of Christianity at Cambridge has said in his new book on Newman, "In influential sections of the Church today, probably more in America than here, there is a tendency to claim Newman as an icon of militant orthodoxy, a patron and exemplar of doctrinal clarity and purity. While the young Tractarian Newman might well have had to plead guilty to a charge of ungenerous intolerance of doctrinal error, as a Roman Catholic his letters of counsel to waverers in the faith are invariably gentle and kindly, he believed passionately in the crucial importance of 'generous and open discussion', and was convinced that doctrinal disagreement was a normal route to the discernment of truth."
He later adds "Newman was a passionate believer in the objectivity of Christian truth and the obligation of the Catholic Church to declare and interpret it. But the implications of all that in Newman’s thought are very far from straightforward. An ardent believer in dogma, he was equally ardently opposed to dogmatism."
He further adds "For Newman, dogmatic formulations represent a tragic diminishment, true as far as they went but always the reduction of ineffable mysteries to the 'technicality and formalism' of formulae too small to contain them. Dogmatic declarations give rise to the 'mischievous fanaticism' of those who imagine 'that they can explain the sublime doctrines and exuberant promises of the Gospel, before they have yet learned to know themselves and to discern the holiness of God...'"
I won't bore you further, you can read Duffy's book for yourself. My humble submission is simply that, if we are recruiting someone to endorse our particular stance, we need to make sure we are doing it in a way that is faithful to the overall tenor of their thought. Otherwise, we are simply falling into the fundamentalist trap of cherry picking the parts of a text (scriptural or otherwise), ignoring the wider context, and deploying it to score easy points. Newman believed truth emerged only after debate and disagreement, from a process that involved the whole Church. That strikes me as being at some distance from what is being represented as Newman's thought elsewhere in this post.
Where? How? Vague unsubstantiated criticisms. You don't wriggle out of your theological liberalism, which Newman abhorred, in that way. Be specific, man!
DeleteRob
To suggest that Cardinal Newman was weak on doctrine is ludicrous, ignorant or deceitful.
Delete'Firmly I believe and truly
God is three And God is one
And I next acknowledge duly
Manhood taken by the Son.' Remember?
Newman after all, defended papal infallibility (within limits) and the Assumption of the BVM. Where's the indefiniteness in that?
Rob is correct, as anyone who has read Newman's writings knows, that he loathed liberalism because liberals refuse to accept divine revelation but insist on following the spirit of the age - rather like today.
That does not mean he was hard on those struggling to understand Christian truth.
To attempt to turn him into a wishy washy liberal is a travesty and thoroughly dishonest.
Horatio
As I suggested originally, Rob, read the book and you will see very clearly Where? and How? These are blog comments with a word limit, not a dissertation.
DeleteBut in answer to you request for me to be specific, your citing of Newman's Parochial and Plain Sermons (mentioned in a comment below) rather proves the point. Newman was far more dogmatically rigid as an Anglican than he was as a Roman Catholic. The Parochial and Plain Sermons are, obviously, from his time as an Anglican. Context is important here because, as an Anglican, Newman was responding to the post-Enlightenment liberal and Erastian culture of the Church of England. As a Roman Catholic, he was responding to the unaccountable power-grabbing tendencies of the Curia of Pius IX. If we read texts without their surrounding context, we too easily fall into the trap of mindless fundamentalism.
Thank you, yet the P&P sermons were reaffirmed by the great man in his RC days.
DeleteSo far I have only read reviews of Duffy's book. You must have seen some of the criticisms of it in the Tablet (letters page etc). It is self evident that even the creeds, although true as far as they go, still leave much mystery about the godhead. Yet they do truly, by the agreement of the whole Church, exclude certain false ways of believing and express the Church's mind on the revelation given to it. I suspect that Professor Duffy, as a liberal, claims too much. His book is simply the latest in a long, long list of books about Newman. It would be interesting to learn what he considers he has added to Fr Ian Kerr's magisterial biography. He, after all, is the world expert on Newman.
Newman certainly opposed the position held by Manning and the ultramontanes
and he was charitable in dealing with perplexed religious enquirers. But a liberal? Never, never, never! It is dishonest for anyone (and as an Anglican I am not committed to the infallibilty of professors) to claim that Newman did not possess firm beliefs, which he ulheld valiantly.
Rob
Rob, I think it is you who needs to be specific in your response to Athelstan Riley who makes some concise points that you try to brush off with emotional bluster because you do not like what you are hearing. If you could also do that within the framework of theological reflection rather than 'this is what I think...' that would be great. LS.
ReplyDeleteI repeat: recommending Newman's Parochial and Plain sermons, which I did, and stating that Newman criticised theological liberals for refusing to accept Christian revelation, which you can check for its validity in the biographies and his own works, hardly counts as misrepresentations or emotional bluster.Rather, I am promoting hs thoughts, unlike you. I have been factual, not personal.
DeleteRob
P.S. Have you ever opened a Newman volume, apart from the Apologia?
Exactly: 'I repeat' - it's just like watching someone speaking English to order a meal at a restaurant whilst on holiday. On not being understood the persons response is to shout louder and then louder in the mistaken belief that the fault lies with the waiter/waitress, not their inept ability to communicate effectively. You have added nothing to your own argument, nor have you addressed any of the points raised by Athelstan Riley. P.S. Have you ever heard of 'theology'?LS
ReplyDeleteAnd you remind me of the trade union rep. who abuses his intellect to justify an outrageous pay claim. You argue in a circle. It is tedious.
Delete1552
Failed again to respond to the content of my posts, but, as with most who have weak arguments, resorts to an ad hominem content. Must do better, boy!
ReplyDeleteRob
I know nothing of Newman's writings. However Anonymous above wrote, "liberals refuse to accept divine revelation but insist on following the spirit of the age". While that might be true of some, is far too broad a brush-stroke - just as much as someone who might calls all Evangelicals narrow-minded literalistic fundamentalists. My experience with quite a number of so-called "progressive Christians" has been that they most certainly do regard Scripture as divinely inspired and take it very seriously, however they are grappling to relate it to the modern context. Yes, they do run the risk of becoming wedded to the spirit of the age. But they may also offer us the chance to hear God speaking through Scripture in ways we might never have imagined. There is a difference between "holding fast to the traditions of the faith" and "closing one's ears and mind to what might be saying anew".
ReplyDeletePP. I have to agree with the last comments. We have however moved a little off topic. Like it or not, call it "the spirit of the age" but women in ministry, same sex marriage etc are becoming the norm in the wider Church. Some may agree for the better but, others for the detriment. Whatever the view, theological or societal debate will continue. What can be done? Theologically the richness of academic debate will continue. Societally, the Church could be deemed as catching up with the spirit of the age, but at great cost to its internal fabric for some and refreshing reviving to others.
ReplyDeleteThe "living" Word is a vital tool in seeking God's will.
Only then do we as St Paul guides "renew our mind" in doing so, we find fresh insight in our walk with God,together as a Church.
In book of Revelation are not the 7 churches of Asia Minor told to "Listen to what the Spirit says to the Churches". The bottom line is, are we listening!
There are plenty who claim to be speaking by "the Spirit", and telling us that we should listen; indeed, that we should hang on their every word PP. 1 John 4: 1 gives us very sound advice: Test the spirits to see if they are of God.
DeleteThe author of the letter to the Hebrews asserts: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. How can the Spirit take what is of Christ and, in 2000 years, turn it on its head? Jesus taught that marriage is between a man and a woman for life. Using your argument, and Baptist Trainfan's above, the Jesus that the Church is dealing with today is somewhat schizophrenic. In reality, the only schizophrenia the Church is dealing with today is those who wish to make black white and white black. The Spirit of God has got nothing to do with that, I assure you. The Spirit will continually remind us of the teaching of Jesus, whether people hear or refuse to hear, for they are indeed "a stubborn and a rebellious house".
Seymour
The REAL question is whether one is listening to the word of God and responding to the Holy Ghost or if, as I believe is often the case, one is listening to false prophets peddling permissiveness as a means of justifying their own lifestyle choices.
DeleteThe problem though is not with the teaching of Jesus, which of course stands firm. It lies with our application of that teaching, which is something we need to do afresh in every context. After all, Jesus didn't boot out the OT Law; but he did ask people to think it through in radically new ways which the Pharisees (and probably others) surely regarded as dangerously liberal.
ReplyDeletePP. Totally agree Baptist Trainfan. Never more have we needed the gifts of the Spirit in our actions, understanding and decernment of how we use God's Word in a modern age.
ReplyDeleteDiscernment.
DeleteFor a Bible spouter you seem remarkably unfamiliar with a dictionary!
PP Unfortunately Gabriel I am dislexic so it goes with the territory. So sorry if my dis-ability fails to live up to your exacting standards to post.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you're not dyslexic!
DeleteThat would be a real problem.
Dyslexic here too; it's a curse. I can often kick myself when it is pointed out to me. That said, I managed to get a PhD :-) (from Oxford, no less). But I am with PP - it's a cruse and one is often poorly judged for it.
DeletePP Thank you. I too have a Doctorate in Economics (DSc). It is a curse but we rise above it. But when so called Christian persons call you out, it hurts. But achievements above expectations help one rise above it.
DeletePP. How funny Laughing Gas. Such a low blow.
ReplyDeletePilgrim progress. Oxford does not confer Phd's
ReplyDelete